Catching Fire! Burns up the silver screen.

      Opening today in wide release is "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" the much anticipated sequel to 2012's blockbuster smash "The Hunger Games".  It basically picks up where the original film left off.  In case you haven't seen it yet I will give you a quick run down of the basic premise.  The setting is in the future, and the world is one of disparity and oppression.  The country of Panem is divided into 12 districts which are ruled by the dictatorial President Snow.  An annual lottery or "reaping" is held in each district to chose one male and female between the ages of 12 and 18 to compete in "The Hunger Games".  These Tributes as they are called, are placed into an arena, and compelled to fight to the death until one survivor emerges.  The survivors are known as Victors.                                                  Now, if one looks back at the pantheon of science fiction plots there really is nothing all that new about this story line.  An original "Star Trek" episode, the Japanese film "Battle Royale", and even "Gladiator" is very similar. But it is the writing, acting, and execution of plot that has "Catching Fire" garnering some of the best reviews this year.  It has already been announced the third installment of Collins hunger games trilogy, "Mockingjay",  will be spit in two with part one premiering in November 2014 and part two in November 2015.   

       So now on to the movie.  The problem most sequels have is the difficulty in building upon what was established in the first picture.  Not so with "Catching Fire".  This may be due to the fact these films are adapted from a trilogy of extremely successful young adult novels. How successful you might wonder?  NPR ranked the "The Hunger Games" books second only to the "Harry Potter" series. In addition the film series is placed on the same shelf as the Lord of the Rings, Twilight, and Harry Potter.  Does the praise get any higher?  I think not.                                                           I attended a special double feature screening of "The Hunger Games" and "Catching Fire" last night.  This gave me a unique opportunity to view and compare the movies side by side.  I found the story of "Catching Fire" much deeper and layered than the original.  I liked the direction and cinematography better in the first.  I think that seeing "The Hunger Games" for the first time was a journey into the unknown.  I had no idea what it was going to be about so it was all new to me.  With "Catching Fire", there is less mystery because we already have some idea of what Panem is like.  BUT, the plot goes much deeper.  Jennifer Lawrence, fresh off her Oscar win last spring, is back again as Katniss Everdeen.  Her acting is astounding.  In both films she creates a continuity for her character that shows a growth arc.  The emotions she feels can be seen in her eyes.  A lot of the time she is on screen she has no dialogue but carries the load with her facial features. One scene in particular resonated with me and revealed her acting talent.  In the scene she is saying good bye to someone and hugging them.  For a brief moment I could swear I saw her shaking. WOW! Then it stopped so I thought maybe I was mistaken.  But then she started doing it again!  It was as though her character was quivering with fear.  It looked so natural, I couldn't believe I was watching someone so young.  In the first film, all the Tributes are just trying to survive, and hopefully win.  In this second film the social structure is starting to crumble.  This is the 75th annual Hunger Games or the third quarter quell which occurs every 25 years. So it is decided by President Snow that the rules will be changed.  This time all the participants will be past winners.  The past winners are none to happy because having won once before should guarantee each Victor a lifetime of wealth and safety.  Social unrest, social disobedience, post traumatic stress, the morality of killing, are but a few concepts touched upon in this film.  A movie with real meaning and not just eye popping special effects is rare these days.  If you have both in the same film then you've got something very special indeed. "Hunger Games: Catching Fire" has both, deep underlying meaning, and great special effects liberally applied.

     This film is a great date movie, if you want to score points tell your date she reminds you of Katniss.  

I give this film a grade of: A-

NEBRASKA: a Star Turn for Bruce Dern!

          Being a huge Bruce Dern fan I'm delighted with the recognition he is receiving from his latest starring role in "Nebraska".  From director Alexander Payne of "Sideways, The Descendants, and About Schmidt", "Nebraska" has already earned Dern the best actor award at this years Cannes film festival.  Obviously making him a favorite, not only for the Oscar, but every other award out there.  Although "Nebraska" has yet to open in the Puget Sound region I was able to attend the first US screening of this film last week.  I am actually getting invited to a lot more screenings before the openings so I promise to do my best to get these reviews posted in a timely manner.  Read on my friends for the low down.
     "Nebraska" is a slightly off beat comedy/character study with Woody Grant (Dern) as the central character. A special note here: this film is shot in a luscious black and white.  The effect makes the landscapes barren and stark. The pacing, which is deliberate to begin with, is like watching honey rolling off flapjacks.                                                          The movie begins with Woody at home in Billings, Montana.  Putting on his winter coat and heavy boots, he shuffles out the front door and down the street. He moves with an imbalance that makes the viewer worry he might fall.  And he keeps shuffling and shuffling until finally he reaches the outskirts of town.  When a police officer stops to help the old timer we find out where Woody is headed.  From his jacket pocket he pulls out an "Official Publishers Clearing House" type letter informing him that he has won a million dollars! He just needs to get to Omaha to collect it.  Of course everyone in his family keep trying to tell him it's a scam.  That there is no million dollars, but Woody will hear none of it.  "If it wasn't true they couldn't put it in a letter" says Woody.  Finally his son David, played by Will Forte of SNL fame, agrees to drive his dad to Omaha.  And so begins a meandering road trip with father and son rolling across the flat lands of our great nation.  Of course it's what happens during the trip that really is the meat of the movie.  We all know what is going to happen when Woody tries to collect on his million dollars.    
     The surrounding characters fill in the spaces in very substantial ways. Most are in their seventies and act accordingly which means they are kind of boring.  And funny as all get out.  It is mesmerizing in it's own way. Woody's wife is the only character I had a problem with as I felt she took "cantankerous" to a new level.  Over the top and amateurish acting in my estimation.  Then ten minutes later she has one of the most astonishing scenes in the movie. All with no dialogue.  So I may be harsh. Otherwise it's ensemble acting at it's best.  Stacey Keach turns up for a few choice, dark scenes.  David's brother is played by Bob Odenkirk (Saul from Breaking Bad) who is a self absorbed news anchor on local TV.  Dern may be the center but it is Forte who holds the family together.  This is a very good movie and I recommend this bittersweet comedy which is more sweet than bitter.  Can't we all use a little more sweetness in our lives?
This would be a good date movie.
I give "Nebraska"  a grade of A-