"Mockingjay", the third film in the Hunger Games franchise, opens in wide release today. I attended a preview last night so I could give my readers the low down. Here's the skinny.
"Mockingjay" basically picks up where "Catching Fire" left off. But be aware or beware, this is a much different film from the first two. "The Hunger Games" was a violent, surrealistic romp much in the same vein as Koushun Takami's "Battle Royal". I will assume you are familiar with "The Hunger Games" basics. A randomly chosen group of teenagers are made to fight to the death in a virtual environment called "the arena". Every move is broadcast live to the "City". It's citizens gleefully watch the unfolding drama of sympathetic participants locked in a life and death struggle. Sounds like must see TV. "The Hunger Games" had tons of action with the teens doing it: survivalist style. "Catching Fire" was basically a reboot of the first movie, with a deeper plot and a promise of revolution to come.
Now we have "Mockingjay pt.1" which completely down shifts from it's predecessors. Gone is the arena, the action, the fighting, the struggle, and in it's place we have action at a snails pace! Brooding expressions punctuated by crying fits! The acting of Jennifer Lawrence is top notch but wasted much of the time. The best part of the movie is the actors. Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Elizabeth Banks reprise their previous roles with Phillip Seymore Hoffman in his final screen appearance.
The setting is an underground city, so most of the film is in darkness: Literally. There is some tension and political intrigue which is basically nothing more than window dressing for pt.2. And that is a huge part of the problem with this film. It's a two hour set up for a movie we have to wait until next year to see. I feel like I'm being held hostage in an underground city!
A recent development in Hollywood is to take a successful film series and split the finale into two parts. The main driver is to boost profits. I find this very distasteful. It was done with the last films of both the Twilight and Harry Potter film series. They even took "The Hobbit", which is a short easy read for teenagers, and turned it into a trilogy! This is great if the plot line supports it and the direction is snappy and crisp. Instead what we often get is a film with the right cast, the right setting, everything is ready, and nothing really happens. Or you get long drawn out scenes with characters launching into speeches which end up playing like a Shakespearean soliloquy. You know, boring.
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay pt.1 GRADE C +
Bargain Matinee or wait until DVD/Netflix .
Perhaps the most anticipated film of the year, "Interstellar", opens in wide release this Friday, November 7th. I attended a preview last night so I could review the film in a timely manner.
Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece, "2001 a Space Odyssey" was released in April of 1968. Now considered one of the very best science fiction films ever made, it gave audiences a lot to think about. I won't go into the plot of the film because most people have seen it and it defies any description less than a paragraph. When first released, the film was either loved or hated by the critics. Negative comments usually complained about the film length and as such became tedious and boring. These are the same people who don't read books, just magazines with lot's of pictures. But with time it took it's rightful place in the pantheon of the best movies ever made, of ANY genre. The release of "2001" became the bellwether moment that it really was. A watershed by which all space oriented films would be judged from that time forward. So the question begs; How does "Interstellar" stack up?
Close but no cigar.
Don't get me wrong. "Interstellar" is a superlative film based on it's own merits. While flawed, it's scenes of space travel, flying through a worm hole, a black hole, and the like takes this film to the outer reaches of human imagination. Also known as the "Twilight Zone".
"Interstellar" is divided into sections much like many of Kubrick's films are. The first part begins on an Earth that is in ecological collapse. What could make our planet inhospitable for humans? Mammoth dust storms, crop failures that increase every year, and magnetic anomalies that cause electronics to malfunction. Basically it's bad and getting worse by the day. If humanity is to survive it has to escape.
The first warning I need to give is about the length of the film, 2 hours 49 minutes! No matter how you slice it, that's one long movie. If a film is as engaging as "Avatar" or "The Godfather" then three hours passes by quickly. The flaws I point out may seem rather nit picky but they effect the final cut and can't be ignored. The first hour of the film is grounded solidly on planet Earth. This is for character development but it also has a tendency to bog down the pacing. This is a space movie and I don't want to be down on the farm.
Matthew McConaughey plays Coop, a father and farmer who was a test pilot before the world started falling apart. Matthew has become one hot commodity lately and he is great as Coop. His daughter is Murphy, played by Mackenzie Foy, with skill that belies her age: 13. The relationship between father and daughter is one of the driving themes in this movie. Mackenzie Foy is a gem of a young actress and is a real discovery. I predict she will receive an Oscar nomination come years end. The movie boasts big stars in little parts. Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine, Matt Damon, Casey Afflek. Ellen Burstyn, and William Devane all pop in and then pop out. John Lithgow as Coop's father, and Jessica Chastain, ("The Hurt Locker") as a grown up Murphy are integral to the film.
The film really blasts off with the space scenes. The only problem here is that we are presented with what I would call Sci-fi cliches. When they get to the space ship and you see the crew you just KNOW who will be killed off first. Like the throwaway officers in "Star Trek". There is always one cynic cracking wise and in this case it's a robot called TARS. TARS gives us some much needed comedic relief. His voice eerily sounds like HAL. Reflections of control panels on the helmet shields are a direct rip off from Kubrick. No worries, reflections would be normal, so for me it was like a comfortable familiarity. All I am saying is that visually "Interstellar" is fantastic, but not completely unique.
"Interstellar" is a story about humanity disguised as a space movie. Director Christopher Nolan, "Memento", "Inception", and the "Dark Night" trilogy, makes films that are extremely interesting and creative, with very little heart. This isn't just me. One critic noted that the most heart warming scene in a previous film of his was with Bruce Wayne and his butler, Alfred. Nolan is a cerebral film maker who has stated his goal is to make films that just don't make people think, but make them think WHILE they are viewing the film. Certainly he achieves this but we may not be thinking what he wants us to. The final act, no spoiler, is more mysterious and crosses the event horizon between possibility and the unbelievable. The Epilogue seems like a tacked on Hollywood ending than authentic to the story itself.
There is nothing wrong with "Interstellar" that a good film editor couldn't fix. A tighter film is a better film in my estimation. I still LOVED this movie and I will see it again sometime next week.
I grade "Interstellar" out at A-.
Probably a good date movie unless your date hates science fiction.
.jpg)