Title:  The Hunger Games
Genre:  Dystopian/Science-fiction
MPAA Rating:  PG-13 for intense violent thematic material and disturbing images - all involving teens

My rating:  A+ 

Synopsis (from imdb.com):  In a dystopian future, the totalitarian nation of Panem is divided between 12 districts and the Capitol. Each year two young representatives from each district are selected by lottery to participate in The Hunger Games. Part entertainment, part brutal retribution for a past rebellion, the televised games are broadcast throughout Panem. The 24 participants are forced to eliminate their competitors while the citizens of Panem are required to watch. When 16-year-old Katniss's young sister, Prim, is selected as District 12's female representative, Katniss volunteers to take her place. She and her male counterpart Peeta, are pitted against bigger, stronger representatives who have trained for this their whole lives.

 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Thrilling, intelligent, and exceptionally filmed, I was completely impressed with The Hunger Games.  Having fallen in love with the book series, I was a little worried about whether I was going to be disappointed or happy when leaving the theater, but this movie was incredible, beginning to end.

First, the casting was perfect.  Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Elizabeth Banks-- they all did an amazing job bringing their characters to life.  I still can't believe how many people thought Jennifer Lawrence shouldn't play Katniss because she was too curvy.  Who cares if she has hips if she can act?  I'd much rather have a curvy actress than some skinny girl who can barely change the tone of her voice, let alone act.  *cough* Kristen Stewart *cough*.  Hutcherson, as Peeta Mellark, also did a great job at portraying his character's openness and quiet strength.

The filmography was brilliantly done.  They decided to go with the shaky, handheld camera for many of the more intense and violent moments in the film, which added to the realism.  The filmmakers worked hard to achieve realism and believability during the film, and I think they were successful.  The sets and the costumes were neither too simple nor too ridiculous (except the Capitol citizens, but their clothing was supposed to be ridiculous).  I also loved the use of color throughout the film.  In District Twelve, everything is gray or tinged with gray, and the images are sharp and stark.  But as soon as Peeta & Katniss board the Capitol train, the color' s become vivid but overwhelmingly so, like it's oppressive.  When they finally enter the arena for the Games, the colors are lush, but everything seems to sharpen again.

The violence that was to be expected in a story about kids killing each other in a gladiator-like event is there but a little subdued.  The books were written for a younger audience after all, and they didn't want to alienate a large part of their audience.  It still doesn't mean that it wasn't intense, especially when you remember that you're not watching two adults fighting, but two kids.  It was especially hard to watch whenever it was a 12-year-old, because they're so little and young.

There were changes between the book and the movie of course, which I will discuss further in an upcoming Book Vs. Movie entry.  What I will say is that the changes weren't huge or plot-changing.  There was only one that really irked me, but I think it's because they're going to address it in the second movie.  So I'm definitely not disappointed with this adaptation.

Even if I'd never read the books, I would have enjoyed this movie.  It had all the right components for a great movie-- action, adventure, romance, interesting plots and subplots.  And because I didn't see it on opening weekend, I got to watch it without a lot of screaming tween fan-girls.  Major bonus.  A+

The Hunger Games trilogy

Series:  The Hunger Games
Author:  Suzanne Collins
Titles:  The Hunger Games (1), Catching Fire (2), Mockingjay (3)
Format:  Hardcover
Genre:  Dystopian/Science fiction

Rating:  A+++++

Background information (from Wikipedia):  The Hunger Games trilogy takes place in an unidentified future time period after the destruction of the current nations of North America, in a nation known as "Panem". Panem consists of a rich Capitol, located in what used to be Rocky Mountains, and twelve (formerly thirteen) surrounding, poorer districts which are under the hegemony of the Capitol. As punishment for a previous rebellion against the Capitol wherein twelve of the districts were defeated and the thirteenth destroyed, every year one boy and one girl from each of the remaining twelve districts, between the ages of twelve and eighteen, are selected by lottery and forced to participate in the "Hunger Games". The Games are a televised event where the participants, called "tributes", must fight to the death in a dangerous outdoor arena until only one remains. The winning tribute and his/her corresponding district is then rewarded handsomely with food and plenty, seeing as the lower districts are starving.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

 It is going to be so hard to write this review without giving anything away, but I will try.

First, let me start off by saying I LOVED THESE BOOKS!  Passionate, well-written, and thrilling, this trilogy had me hooked from the beginning.  As soon as I started reading it, I couldn't put it down.  I read The Hunger Games over a weekend.  Originally I had avoided the series simply because of the hype, but with the movie gaining even more attention, and my commitment to Read It 1st, I thought I'd give the books a try.  And now I'm so glad I did. 

The books tell the story of Katniss Everdeen, a 16-year-old girl from District Twelve who's chosen to be the female tribute during the 74th Hunger Games.  She's determined, somewhat hard, but also frightened and confused, emotional and loving.  Her inner monologues further develop her character and the reader's connection with her.  Her pain and turmoil are believable and real.  Collins did an amazing job with her character development throughout the series.

The descriptions of the Games themselves are harrowing and lifelike.  The suspense and tension kept me reading.  Warning- there's a lot of violence, and if reading about kids killing each other, sometimes brutally, upsets you... do NOT read these books.  Besides the violence, character development, and suspense, the books also contain romance.  In this case it's a love triangle.  Katniss is torn between her best friend Gale, a hardened coal miner who wishes to defy the Capitol but must support his widowed mother and his younger siblings, and the baker's son Peeta, a strong and artistic baker with a heart of gold who is chosen to be the male tribute for District 12.  Personally, I'm Team Peeta all the way, and in the end, Katniss picks... Well, you'll just have to read to find out.

It's so hard to really do justice to these books without including spoilers, so even though this review is kind of lame, please know that the books are definitely not.  If you love action, adventure, romance, suspense, science-fiction, dystopian literature, or David-versus-Goliath stories, you should absolutely read these books.  A+

The Superhero Years

It seems that our society has become obsessed with superheroes.  Of course, this isn't a new phenomenon, but for some time, their popularity had dwindled.

Now it seems Hollywood is bent on a "revival".  Thor, Captain America, Batman, Iron Man, Spiderman, Superman-- all the old favorites are getting a facelift and a franchise.  And some are even joining forces for the highly-anticipated movie, The Avengers.

But why now?  Perhaps it's simply because Hollywood has run out of ideas, a very plausible theory.  But I think it has more to do with the current state of affairs.  When Superman, Captain America, and Batman were introduced, World War II was just starting and America was still recovering from the depression.  Iron Man, Spiderman, and Thor were products of the 1960s, when the country was involved in both the Cold War and the Vietnam War.  Now, America is struggling financially and fighting terrorism in the Middle East.  What better time to re-introduce America to their heroes?  Superheroes are born out of necessity; when America needs them, they appear, ready to save the day.  And so, Hollywood has been hard at work.

The two most recent Superhero movies I've watched are Thor and Captain America.  I personally enjoyed Captain America more.  For one thing, I think Chris Evans is a much better actor than Chris Hemsworth, and for another, the dialogue was pretty awful at points in Thor. Both movies were enjoyable though.  Their plots, special effects, and supporting cast all work together to make fun, action-packed movies where good triumphs over evil.  I'm definitely looking forward to when these two heroes meet up in The Avengers this summer.
Thor:  B
Captain America:  A-

Title:  Inception
Format:  Drive-In
Date Seen:  August 7, 2010
Category:  Sci-Fi/Action/Thriller/Mind-bending
Rating:  A

A really good mind-bending movie that leaves you wanting to see it again in order to understand it better.

Description (from fandango.com):  Visionary filmmaker Christopher Nolan writes and directs this psychological sci-fi action film about a thief who possesses the power to enter into the dreams of others. Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) doesn't steal things, he steals ideas. By projecting himself deep into the subconscious of his targets, he can glean information that even the best computer hackers can't get to. In the world of corporate espionage, Cobb is the ultimate weapon. But even weapons have their weakness, and when Cobb loses everything, he's forced to embark on one final mission in a desperate quest for redemption. This time, Cobb won't be harvesting an idea, but sowing one. Should he and his team of specialists succeed, they will have discovered a new frontier in the art of psychic espionage. They've planned everything to perfection, and they have all the tools to get the job done. Their mission is complicated, however, by the sudden appearance of a malevolent foe that seems to know exactly what they're up to, and precisely how to stop them.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Wow.  This movie definitely challenges your brain.  I watched this movie at the drive-in with my family, and we spent the entire trip home discussing (read: arguing about) the different scenes and sci-fi elements.  Luckily, we all agreed on one thing-- we all liked the movie.  It had a stellar cast, original idea (at least to me), great special effects, and a fast pace that never lagged.

Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Cillian Murphy... the entire cast was amazing.  And the dialogue was great.  Probably the best scene was with Ellen Page as Ariadne and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Arthur.  The two of them are within a dream, and the people within it, the "mental projections," are getting suspicious of them, so Arthur has to think of something to diffuse their suspicion.

Arthur:  Quick, give me a kiss!

Ariadne: (kisses him, then looks around) They're still looking at us.

Arthur:  Yeah, it was worth a shot.

I loved the whole concept of the movie too.  The idea that you can go into someone's dreams to find things someone's hiding, or to plant an idea in their mind, just seems so cool.  A movie that takes place almost entirely within someone's subconscious can go in so many different directions, because there are fewer limits on the dream world.  So the effects, the action, the plot can be extreme without seeming impossible, because after all, none of this is happening in the "real" world.

Perhaps the most frustrating part of this movie is the ending, which I won't give away.  But I personally found it frustrating.  Other people might like it.  And of course, I really want to see this movie again to try to understand some parts that confused me.  I'd also see it again because, despite the ending, I loved it.  A

Title:  2012
Format:  Netflix
Category:  Disaster/Action Adventure/Thriller/Apocalypse
Rating:  B

Description (from fandango.com):  Disaster movie maven Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, Day After Tomorrow) crafts this apocalyptic sci-fi thriller following the prophecy stated by the ancient Mayan calendar, which says that the world will come to an end on December 21, 2012. When a global cataclysm thrusts the world into chaos, divorced writer and father Jackson Curtis (John Cusack) joins the race to ensure that humankind is not completely wiped out. Chiwetel Ejiofor, Danny Glover, Amanda Peet, Thandie Newton, and Oliver Platt round out the cast of this end-of-the-world thriller.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

2012 wasn't meant to be a comedy, yet I couldn't stop laughing.   This over-the-top movie attempts to make you stretch your imagination and believe the impossible.  But it just goes too far.  And I'm sorry to all the Woody Harrelson fans out there, but this movie lost all credibility as soon as I saw him.  Yet, despite its ridiculousness, I found 2012 entertaining.  Not thrilling or edge-of-your-seat exciting, but definitely entertaining.

I think the movie was just too ridiculous to be a great film.  I'm just supposed to believe that John Cusack is such an amazing driver that as California collapses into the Pacific Ocean, he's able to escape in a limo with considerably minimal damage to the vehicle and its passengers when you take into account all the chaos around him.  And then, a plastic surgeon who's had a couple of flying lessons in a single-engine plane can pilot a dual-engine plane and fly a relatively smooth course through falling buildings.  And of course, there's my favorite impossible and ridiculous moment of the whole film.  Crazier than the "Ark" concept and the whole "crust-displacement" theory.  Supposedly you can outrun a super-volcano in a clunky, old motor home!  Despite being a speed-challenged vehicle due to its anti-streamlined design, it can magically find the horsepower to outstrip a super-volcano of epic proportions!  Apparently all I need to survive the end of the world is a limo, a plane, and a motor home.  And let's not forget the compassionate Tibetan monk and/or one billion Euros.  They come in pretty handy too.

Am I having fun picking on this movie?  Absolutely!

Of course, as in all disaster movies, there are lots and lots of character deaths.  Some make you feel sad, some mad, and a couple you're even okay with.  Like the jerky Russian guy.  You're not too upset with his death.  In dying, he kind of redeems himself.  Other characters just get killed because their storyline isn't interesting anymore.  The character I felt the worst for was the plastic surgeon.  He flies them out of California, helps pilot the jet that gets them all to China, and really loves his girlfriend and her kids.  But he got in the way of the romantic subplot, so after surviving California's collapse, a super-volcano, and a trek through snowy China in nothing but his sweats, he dies a stupid, pointless death.  It's like, "You're a great character, but if you live, John Cusack will never get back together with his wife, so... bye-bye!"

Finally, what is it with Roland Emmerich and disaster movies?  I actually feel a little sad for him.  He's covered aliens, global warming, and now the End of the World.  What's left... swine flu?  Everything else has been done, unless he decides to remake his own favorite films (Poseidon Adventure, Towering Inferno, Earthquake... are we seeing a pattern here?).  And I can't help but wonder if he got his start with Steven Spielberg.  Both of them love to hate the government.  In all three of Emmerich's disaster flicks, it's the little guy (usually a scientist) who's the hero, and the government is the big bad wolf, either trying to cover something up or refusing to listen to reason.  It's the Spielberg formula!

So after reading this review, it would be easy to think that I totally disliked 2012.  But I didn't.  The special effects were well done, the dialogue wasn't horrid, and the kids were really sweet.  I watched from start to finish, never turned it off or fast-forwarded, and actually found plenty to enjoy in this movie.  Probably for different reasons than what the director intended/wanted, but with this movie, you should be happy people watched/liked it at all.  B

Title:  Avalanche: Nature Unleashed: Buried Alive!
Format:  Netflix
Category:  Action adventure/Disaster
Rating:  D

B-movie!  So bad, on so many levels.

Description (from Barnes & Noble):  The disaster film "Avalanche: Nature Unleashed" concerns a pair of brothers who make their living giving snowmobile rides to tourists in the Ural Mountains. One day a massive avalanche strikes the mountainside, leaving a village at the bottom of the mountain covered in snow. The brothers must stay out of the way of the falling snow, while simultaneously attempting to save as many people as they can.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I watched this last night, and within the first 60 seconds, I knew I was watching a B-movie.

1. The movie has a three-part title.  Why not just skip two of those very unnecessary titles?  Wouldn't Avalanche or Buried Alive! have been enough?  
2. The sound quality was horrible.  The background noise, explosions, and music were incredibly loud, and the dialogue was barely audible.  Not that it was good enough to hear.  
3. And that's my third point- whoever wrote the script for this movie should be fired.  It didn't matter that they had two (and only two) really good actors.  Not even they could save the movie from complete cheesiness.  They tried, but that dialogue was so badly written, they shouldn't even have bothered.  My guess is, they did this movie for the money.
4. The special effects and scenery are so cheap and fake.  But I can forgive them for this.  They didn't really have a big enough budget for high-end technology.
5. The entire cast was made up of Brits trying to sound American, and none of them are Hugh Laurie.  So all of their lines sounded so forced because they were trying to not sound British.  And they failed.  Especially when they got emotional or yelled.  And then the accent came back full-force.
6. With the exception of Adam Croasdell and Andrew Lee Potts, everyone's acting stunk.  They were either completely wooden or ridiculously over-the-top.
7. The ending is absolutely anti-climactic and ridiculous.  When it ended, I just couldn't believe it.  I thought there had to be something else, because the movie ends so lamely.

This movie was so bad, I couldn't help laughing (while cringing).  And it's only because it made me laugh that I gave it a D, rather than an F.  D

Recharging a Classic: Take 2

Title: Sherlock Holmes
Format: Movie theater
Date Seen: Sometime in January
Category: Mystery/Action adventure/Thriller/Adaptation
Rating: A+

Like Star Trek, this movie worried me, as I love the old Basil Rathbone movies and the Jeremy Brett TV series. But this interpretation of Holmes differed so much from the originals that there was no means of comparison. This movie stands completely on its own.

Description (from Barnes & Noble): Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famous super-sleuth, Sherlock Holmes, gets an update with this adaptation of Lionel Wigram's comic book series by writer/director Guy Ritchie starring Robert Downey Jr. as the titular detective, with Jude Law stepping into the shoes of his sidekick, Dr. Watson. Heading up the rest of the cast are Mark Strong as the film's villain, Blackwood, and Rachel McAdams portraying the love interest, Irene Adler.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

After leaving the movie theater, my brother, sister, and I were so excited about this film that we could not wait to tell our dad about it. He's the main Sherlock Holmes fan in the family, and thanks to his love of the series and resulting franchise, the rest of us are now hooked too.

The number one reason this movie is amazing is the cast. Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Mark Strong, Rachel McAdams-- all of them gave spectacular performances. Mark Strong is the epitome of evil. All other movie villains should take notes from him, not just for his portrayal of Lord Blackwood, but also for his roles as Nick in Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day and as Septimus in Stardust. He plays his roles so well, it's no surprise that he's currently Hollywood's first choice for the bad-guy roles. Jude Law and Rachel McAdams are consistently good actors, and in this movie, they are both excellent. Jude Law's portrayal of a Dr. Watson who is neither an idiot or an oaf is such a breath of fresh air. I love Nigel Bruce's bumbling, but Law's witty and heroic role was a much-needed change. My only complaint about Rachel McAdams, a.k.a Irene Adler, is that she wasn't in the movie enough. I hope that in the sequel (scheduled for release in 2011) she will have a much bigger part.

And then of course, there's Robert Downey Jr. in the starring role. He's the antithesis of Basil Rathbone with just a hint of Jeremy Brett. Coarse, quick-tempered, sharp-tongued, and at the same time, a dependent puppy dog who would do anything not to lose his faithful sidekick. This version of Holmes isn't refined, polite, upper class. Robert Downey Jr. plays him perfectly too. I feel that his acting now, as well as his looks, are so much improved since he grew up and got off the drugs.

The movie was so exciting, and kept me on the edge of my seat. The final revelation or should I say how-he-did-it scene that is quintessential to any Sherlock Holmes adaptation was just perfect. And because this adaptation was so very different from the originals, I never felt compelled to compare it with them. I just loved it! When the sequel comes out, I will be there opening night. A+

50 Word Review 25

Title: Die Hard 2: Die Harder
Category: Action/Thriller
Medium: Netflix
Rating: D

The first movie was a lot of swearing and relatively little violence. The sequel has slightly less swearing and a lot more violence. I think I prefer the first to this one. Many of the fighting scenes were too hard to watch. There was just too much gore for me. D

50 Word Review 22

Title: Die Hard
Category: Action/Thriller
Medium: Netflix
Rating: B+

Really good movie, but I wish Bruce Willis didn't say the F-word so much. I probably would have preferred watching this on TV, where they mute or change the swear words. The rest of the movie is awesome. Suspenseful, lots of action, and great actors like Willis, and Alan Rickman. B+

50 Word Review 19

Title: Reign of Fire
Category: Science fiction/Action
Medium: Netflix
Rating: B+

Good movie for the most part. Matthew McConaughey annoyed me though. Gerard Butler should have had a bigger part. Christian Bale was excellent. The special effects, especially the dragons, were well done. Loved the Star Wars tribute. Would have given it an A, but McC's performance marred the overall experience. B+

50 Word Review 12

Title: Extremely Dangerous
Category: Miniseries/Action drama
Medium: Netflix
Rating: C-/D+

I wish they'd given this a rating, because I would have avoided it had I known how much rated-R level violence and smut was going to be in this. The plot was exciting, but sometimes confusing. The secondary characters were stereotyped and stiff, but Sean Bean was, as always, awesome. C-/D+

50 Word Review 8

Title: Air Force One
Category: Action adventure
Medium: DVD
Rating: A

I can't believe I didn't watch this sooner. The movie was so exciting and emotional; I couldn't look away. Plus, Harrison Ford and Gary Oldman are just awesome! There were a couple of spots that were a little too intense and bloody for me, but overall I loved this movie. A