Movie Review

[Amelia]

it shoots chewed up gum......harder to remove.

[Dregs]

So I saw Anonymous on the weekend. Mostly I really, really enjoyed it. Good story, good pacing, beautiful atmosphere. But there's a small part of me that hates these sorts of films. I think because I know there's a subset of the population who will think the events in this film are true, because they saw it in a film, and not because they've even bothered to look at wikipedia at the very least.

4 stars. Go see it, because you are a rational human being who is suspicious of any "fact" portrayed by cinema.

[Anita Blake]

The Hunger Games


OK. So, I read the book, and I loved it. I was skeptical about the movie. And I feel that I was right.

Now, it's not that the movie doesn't follow the book closely enough. In fact, I think it's rather the opposite. It follows it too closely, takes not enough liberties with showing us more of the world, and more of the characters. It's shoddily directed, poorly shot, and badly paced. It is a 2 and a half hour barrage of shaky-cam, close-ups, and utterly fails to engage the viewer.

The production design is fantastic... I think. I don't know, I was never really given an opportunity to sit back and look at anything for more than a couple of seconds. The characters? Not totally sure what half of them look like because they were shot from weird angles, with a camera that never held still long enough to get a clear image. Why the hell the character of Cato (villain) was cast to look almost completely identical to the character of Peeta (hero) is beyond me. Typically, when casting, you want people to remember certain characters. But when you put Peeta and Cato on the screen at the same time, I was honestly not sure which was which.

In terms of telling the story, which is not that complex a tale, the movie fails on so many levels. The audience is not really given anything to draw upon. The movie takes the events that happen in the book and puts them faithfully on the screen in order. It does so with a slavish devotion to not screwing up the events, but in the process, eliminates almost all of the feeling behind the events, and any kind of understanding or knowledge that can be taken from those events. Even the Katniss's final act of rebellion and defiance is filmed with a kind of perfunctory journalism that leaves the viewer feeling confused, hollow, and empty. There's nothing to hold on to in this movie, from knowing that Katniss cries for Rue because she reminds her of Prim, to Katniss deviously playing up the love affair for the cameras. I get it - we ARE the cameras, and we can't therefore be allowed to see how she is manipulating the audience, but come on, give us something!

There might be fine performances in this film, but again, shoddy camera and editing work have robbed the actors and the audience both of them. Characters are given introductions that border on the non-existent, and if you haven't read the book, you're pretty much lost (verified by my boyfriend who has not read the books, and was like "what the hell was that all about?" and "what's with all the districts? Was district 11 the black district? was that what I'm supposed to get out of this?" And "who was that guy? Why was he even in the movie?")

The few wide shots in the film give you such relief that you almost immediately forget what's happening in the very instant that things become clear.

I don't know, it's just such a disappointingly literal adaptation of the book that it's hard to stop finding it's flaws. The few scenes that did work were when the movie does deviate ever so slightly from the book, when we see Seneca Crane and President Snow talking, when we see Crane and the other game-makers controlling the world of the Hunger Games, when we see the live consequences of Katniss's compassion and love. Those are the scenes that start drawing a picture for us of the world we're in, and ultimately, that is the story of the Hunger Games books, not so much "let's watch Katniss try not to die" but "this world is so messed up, and surely some wrench can be thrown in the works to make it better".


I found it a hugely disappointing film. It just had very little soul, and in terms of a movie, it was just poorly directed overall. 3/10

[sir archely]

As per usual, I'll just say +1 to anita's review and let her do all of the perfect explaining of how I felt about a movie.

My impression wasn't quite so negative. There were definitely parts that resonated with me and were nice to see on screen (such as the district 12 salute after she volunteers, or them riding in the chariot on fire) but even then, someone who hasn't read the books might not even get what was going on there. I saw it with my wife, who hasn't read the books, and the salute didn't really mean anything for her, it was just a gesture of respect. I found that the moments in the film that really stood out for me stood out precisely because I had already read the books, and knew more of the backstory. There were also some things that just didn't work the way they were presented on screen. When Katniss is up in the tree, the "professional killer" kids are absolutely idiots about killing her. I get that Peeta is trying to save her life by buying time, but seriously, who shoots a bow straight up? Walk away from the tree even 15 feet and you're fine.

BY FAR the best part of the movie was that Lenny Kravitz played Cinna. That is some genius casting work right there.

[AquaFizz]

Lenny/Cinna was amazing. You're right. While I always pictured Cinna as African American, I don't remember exactly how I thought he looked. They announced Kravitz at about the time I started reading the second and third books (waaaay after I read the first one, obviously) and from then on, any mention of Cinna just immediately conjured Lenny. He nailed it, too. It was beautiful. HE was beautiful. I thought Woody was great, too. And I really liked seeing the part where he's talking to sponsors. I also really liked the end with the berries and Seneca. I don't remember ever finding out exactly how he died (though I could be wrong), and I thought that was most excellent.

As for non-readers... Well, yeah. But I always feel like if you're going to see a movie based on a book and you HAVEN'T read the book, then you deserve to be lost. Lazy Head. Two old men were in the theater with us and one of them hadn't read it. Afterwards, when we were leaving, he said he still really enjoyed it. I think the two big things that are hard to understand without the book are 1) Kat & Gale's relationship and 2) The Salute. But, for Kat and Gale, even though I loveloveLOVE their relationship, I can understand that getting downplayed a little bit this movie...there was more important stuff to focus on. The second movie will be a much better time to peak into their relationship. However, I also feel like I don't think Hunger Games is REALLY about the relationships. Hunger Games is a seriously wicked social commentary. I feel like by getting caught up in the lack of Galeness, we're turning Hunger Games into Twilight...and I die a little inside. (Though, for the record, I like Gale best.) As for the salute, I think of it like in a romantic movie when I a guy whispers something in her ear and you just see her smile. You don't have to know the words to understand there is significance there.

As for the shaky cam: I have a fucking headache. But here's my reasoning for that choice: You see shaky cam a lot in horror movies and Hunger Games is pretty scary. Not in the "Don't go up the stairs" kind of way but in a, "Jesus, please don't let this happen" way.

But, honestly, I realize I'm severely bias. I've been waiting years for this movie. It's impossible for me to not love it.

[Arawis]

The few wide shots in the film give you such relief that you almost immediately forget what's happening in the very instant that things become clear.

Anita, I agree with literally EVERYTHING you just said, but especially this. It was unbelievably refreshing when we got a 0.5 second wide shot.

BY FAR the best part of the movie was that Lenny Kravitz played Cinna. That is some genius casting work right there.

When I was reading, I had actually pictured Cinna as being more Eastern-looking, like Turkish. But I also thought Lenny was a fantastic choice!

As for non-readers... Well, yeah. But I always feel like if you're going to see a movie based on a book and you HAVEN'T read the book, then you deserve to be lost. Lazy Head.

I disagree, mainly because I consider books and movies to be two very different forms of art and therefore don't think that one should rely on the other. People often say that film is the universal language because movies are supposed to be able to convey events, thoughts, and emotions through visuals alone. If you need to read a book in order to understand a movie, then the movie has not done it's job properly. I would say the same if I read a book that you couldn't understand without watching its companion movie. Though, obviously, books will always be superior to their movie adaptations

However, I do know that some people enjoyed it without reading the books, which I can understand if you go in with no expectations and just want something to entertain your eyes for a couple of hours, ala Michael Bay It doesn't surprise me, considering our culture and the number of terrible movies that somehow become popular and make ungodly amounts of money.

(Though, for the record, I like Gale best.)

WHAT?!?! It has become clear to me that we are not the same person, after all

As for the shaky cam: I have a fucking headache. But here's my reasoning for that choice: You see shaky cam a lot in horror movies and Hunger Games is pretty scary. Not in the "Don't go up the stairs" kind of way but in a, "Jesus, please don't let this happen" way.

This is true, but they used the shaky cam at all times, not just during suspenseful scenes. Do we need shaky cam while walking through the village and going about your normal routine? I would think not.

[Eyreplenh]

So, Running Man has been mentioned, but what about Battle Royale? I didn't mention it before because I thought it was too obvious and probably out-debated, but then I say the New York Times write about Battle Royale last week and it made me think that maybe that film is not as canonized in the americas as it is over here. Bottom line, what would you "in the see" recommend; another run of Battle Royale or a trip to the big screen for this?

[Arawis]

I've never seen Battle Royale, though I've heard other people make the comparison... But I wouldn't suggest a trip to the big screen for this

[Eyreplenh]

But I wouldn't suggest a trip to the big screen for this

Thanks for the heads up

I saw a movie about vampires the other day, a german one: Wir sind die nacht (We are the night). I found it quite worth my while. A very unique film for about 3/4, then it takes some more well trodden paths after that.

It's about a "mature" vampire woman, who's searching for her lost love. When she catches the eye of someone that might be the one, she gives them the gift. At the point where we enter the film she's travelling with two other girls, but neither of them turned out to be the one. Vastly rich (and of course, immortal) the ladies enjoy the berlin night stage in full amounts, all the while searching, ever searching. Enter Lena, a young girl barely getting by, picking pockets and whatnot, that goes out one night only to be contacted and eventually bitten, by the vampires.

What I found kind of appealing, was how the movie dealt with some issues that has always bothered me in the bloodsucking realm. Like how to adapt to the new life, how to deal with immortality and so on. In one rather painful scene, we witness one of the vampires as she sits next to her "baby girl" -now an ancient woman waiting to draw her last breath.

Darker, grittier and better than your average glittering kind of vampire. In some ways it reminded me of the brilliant Let the right one in.

Oh, and all the male vampires are gone. Hunted by mankind and then killed off by the female vampires for causing too much trouble/drawing to much attention, the eldest vampire gives an estimate of about a 100 females left, scattered around the world.

Bonus feature: best paper cut in (my) movie history.

[Anita Blake]

The Cabin In the Woods

OK, OK. Here's the thing. I really don't want to tell you anything about this movie. But I it's the horror movie to end horror movies. It's clever satire, commentary on the genre, the ability to follow the "rules" of the teen slasher pic utterly while deconstructing those rules - total genius. All I can say is that the trailer did not do this movie justice, and did not give away the core of it at all. I saw the trailer and thought I knew what I'd be seeing in the film, and was pleasantly surprised to find out that The Cabin in the Woods is one of the best written horror movies I've ever seen. It's smart, funny, and perfect for our times. Plus, bonus points to Producer & co-writer Joss Whedon for casting a bunch of fan faves. Great to See Amy Acker & Tom Lenk (Angel & Buffy cast members), fantastic to see Fran Kranz (Dollhouse) again. It felt like a really interesting blend of Buffy/Angel and Dollhouse, which is apt, I suppose. I'll also mention that Director / Co-writer Drew Goddard was a writer on Buffy and Angel, which also brings that kind of familiar feeling to it.

Also worth noting is that this film was completed 2 years ago, but got shelved due to financial difficulties at the studio. It was only recently purchased by Alliance Atlantis, and finally got it's release. I have to say.... i don't want to give any spoilers, which is why I'm talking about all these rather distanced concepts and events with the movie, because even to give a really proper review of it would be to spoil the twist that it has. And it's not so much a twist ending as it is a twist concept, a genre-blending script that in my mind, is precisely what the horror genre needed.

Anyway, from the opening title sequence, which, to me, from a technical standpoint, brilliantly sets up the viewer for the weirdness they will encounter in the film in one genius edit, to the end - I loved it. I loved every minute. 100% fun, thrilling goodness. If you like horror movies even just a little bit, if you wonder what can you really do that's different and interesting with the teen slasher film - this is for you.

Added bonus: NIN track on the end credits. Sorry, that's just an automatic win.

9.5 out of 10.

[Mike]

A near perfect from the Blakester?!

Normally I would stay away from a movie in this genre, especially when named liked that. I'm almost tempted now

I had to google NIN track. For all other idiots like me, here's your salvation: http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayli...metal-20120416

[Anita Blake]

haha! score! now I get to drag my Joss Whedon-hating boyfriend to see this movie tonight. I'm playing it cool. I told him he probably won't like it, but he has to see it so we can talk about it. He wasn't impressed. But I'm beginning to think my insistence is impressing him. He seems less resistant to the idea now.

And after reading the handful of negative reviews, I'm willing to conceded that the end, did, in fact, lose a bit of steam. perhaps it's not perfect, but it is damn enjoyable!

[dark fuschia]

What? He hates Joss Whedon? Well now, that is strange. I didn't know anyone could hate Joss Whedon.

[Anita Blake]

it's true! it's probably his biggest flaw. For the first couple years, it was probably the only thing we actually fought about. He hates Buffy with a passion (!!!!!), though he said he could tolerate Angel a little. But even he could admit that Cabin in the Woods was a pretty good movie.

[SonoftheSands]

The Avengers. Uproariously funny, although the action was somewhat bland. Witty, wonderful dialog, and plenty of heroes and villains getting the stuffing beaten out of them. Loved almost every minute of it.