Hello, everyone. Hope you’re having a good Thanksgiving. Or, if it’s not your kind of holiday to celebrate, hope you’re having a good Thursday.
There’s so much buildup to the release of the trailer for “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” that’s it’s gotten pretty crazy. People are actually falling for the fake trailer that’s out there. It’s impressive, but IT’S NOT REAL.
While we (continue) wait anxiously, AMC Theatres’ John Campea posted a funny picture on his Facebook page. Let that tide you over until the real one comes out on Friday.
Another new feature in Cinema Corner 2.0 is our wrap-up file of all the movie-related events from the day.
Think the Drudge Report meets Hollywood. We’ll list here some of the stuff we’ve posted from earlier in the day along with other items we think you should check out. Each day, we hope to provide you with a roundup of sorts of the things we believe you’ll enjoy and want to read about.
Before the original “Hunger Games” movie arrived in theaters, I had read the first novel upon which the film was based.
I liked the book overall but I have never been a big fan of stories written in the first person point of view. I actually thought the first film benefitted greatly by having scenes where Katniss was not present. What President Snow and others were thinking was very revealing to the overall story.
When the second film arrived, I had not read the next novel, but I went into the theater a little underwhelmed by the fact Katniss and Peeta were returning to the arena of the games. Could the author not come up with something more creative than a replay of the first story? It turned out that I was pleasantly surprised. The second film is almost as good as the first, and in some ways even surpasses it.
And now we have the third, “Mockingjay.” This one is based on the first half of the third novel, with the other half arriving in the summer of 2015.
My immediate reaction to the third film can be summed up in two sentences. First, this film drops you right into the story with not one moment of reflection of what has already passed. I would not recommend this film to anyone who has not seen the first two. Personally, I wish I had gone back and watched the others one more time before going to see this one.
My second immediate reaction is that the film takes some time, a full 40 minutes, before there is anything on the screen that is actually moving and emotional. There is a lot of talk, which can be slightly confusing; there is a journey to District 12 that is very uneventful and then more discussions. Again, I found none of this compelling.
There is a reunion of most of the characters from the previous films. Gale (Liam Hemsworth) finally gets to do something. Peeta is seen mostly in a broadcast from the Capital. President Snow is as smarmy as ever. Haymitch is now sober (a point the other characters keep repeating.)
Julianne Moore is the president of the rebels in District 13, a brilliant actress who I hope has a juicier role in the next film. Mahershala Ali’s new character of Boggs is an interesting addition.
Overall, the characters are all here to affect the life of Katniss. If you enjoyed them before, you should expect much of the same.
Then finally, as the second third of the movie begins, there is a very powerful scene in a refugee hospital. Some of this has been playing in the trailer for months, but it still works remarkably well. All that happens in that outing lifts the film to a height it has not achieved prior to these moments. However, I did find myself wondering why President Snow had security cameras in this district but not in District 12, the home of Katniss.
Following the scene at the hospital and the events that came next, the film has some good moments and others that slow things down considerably. The overall film is a mixed bag of highs and lows, with the low points more numerous, but the high points – like the climax – almost rescue the film completely.
This is the weakest of the three “Hunger Games” films, but there is still enough to recommend it slightly. Besides, one probably needs to see the film to understand the finale, and that alone is reason enough to view this one.
I certainly hope that “Mockingjay Part 2” is closer to the first two films than this recent chapter. And ultimately may the series be greater as a whole than this third chapter is alone.
For quite a few film fans, at least those who are not snobs that refuse to see films with special effects, all of us have watched Daniel Radcliffe grow up in films, physically and professionally through the eight “Harry Potter” films.
I, like many others, love those films and applaud Radcliffe’s performances. In fact, it is our affection for those films that shoves us toward the hope that his career will continue to be as successful as the early years. May he follow the example of Harrison Ford rather than that of Mark Hamill.
Excluding Potter, Radcliffe has done several films in recent years. He did “December Boys” between the fifth and sixth Potter films – “Order of Phoenix” and “Half-Blood Prince” for you diehard fans. “December Boys” is not a great film, but it has strong moments.
The year after the last Potter film, he did “The Woman in Black,” a fun horror movie which is appropriate for anyone 10 or older. Then came “Kill Your Darlings” that again had moments, but ultimately failed overall (Dane DeHaan had the stronger performance over Radcliffe). Though based on a true story, “Darlings” was all a bit too strange. Radcliffe has also done the British series, “A Young Doctor’s Notebook,” but I cannot comment on that because I have yet to see it.
And then comes “What If.” I wanted to like it, I truly did. The trailer had some good moments (most of which are the best moments in the film). The cast, including Radcliffe, seemed witty in the bits and pieces previewed for audiences. It is the between stuff that was bothersome.
First, I never really cared if the two leads ended up together. In fact, it might have been a better film if it concluded differently. There was also very little witty dialogue that we have come to expect in romantic comedies. Where were the one-liners for the audience to quote to their other half?
Third, the two leads really did not gel. I have tried to imagine this film with two leads other than Radcliffe and Zoe Kazan. She had more good moments than Radcliffe did, but neither truly set the screen on fire. I never believed that either was truly in love.
And then back to the between stuff. Several of the characters have interesting jobs, yet in the moments when they are working, it seems to bring the film to a sudden halt. There is an old criticism of films that they often do not depict characters as having real jobs. There will be a quick reference to one’s employment but the audience never actually sees them participating in their career.
In “What If,” the characters have jobs, and yet when they were working, I found myself wishing the film was about that occupation instead of it being yet another romantic comedy with very little passion.
I have written this before, the best romantic comedy of the 21st century thus far is “500 Days of Summer.” No film comes close to that masterpiece. Every time I enter a theater to see a rom-com, I hope to make a discovery as brilliant and perfect as “500 Days.” Every line in that film was sharper and truer than anything in “What If.”
The next set of reviews we’ll be publishing are some of the ones Roger Thomas has done exclusively for The Stanly News & Press. Roger has written movie reviews for The Stanly News & Press and other outlets for years, long before starting this blog. So we decided it would be good to give readers a sample of his previous work, in addition to posts of reviews of current films. Other reviews will run daily.
Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins
First and foremost, I am a big fan of Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy. I wanted the “Fellowship of the Ring” to win Best Picture in 2001 (which it did not). I listed “The Two Towers” as the fourth best film of 2002 when I compiled my Top Ten List. And I thought “Return of the King,” which was not as strong as “Fellowship,” deserved all the praise the Academy gave it (11 Oscars tying the record of “Ben Hur” and “Titanic”) and was the best film of 2003. So, I have admired and respected each of Jackson’s previous sojourns to Middle Earth.
That being said, I like “The Hobbit.” In fact, I have now seen it twice, once alone and once with my children, and I actually liked it more the second time. However, I do not feel that it is equal to Jackson’s previous trilogy. In fact, as I have begun pondering my Top Ten List for 2012 (which hopefully will appear in the SNAP soon) I do not believe “The Hobbit” will make the cut. It is a good film but not a great one.
Here is what I like about “Hobbit.” First, the production is once again inspired and nearly perfect. The art direction and cinematography are sights to behold. Bilbo’s house, of which we see much more in this film than in previous ones, is a set worthy of a Oscar. And the beautiful New Zealand landscapes are an advertisement for tourists. I want to walk where the dwarves and hobbit run. I am especially partial to the real natural shots as opposed to those that are clearly CGI or constructed sets.
And once again Jackson has filled Middle Earth with great costumes, make-up and visual effects. It is fun to see Gollum on screen again. The musical themes, though all are familiar from previous films, continue to set the right tones and moods. There is a new song, “Over The Misty Mountains Cold,” and it is very likely to get an Oscar nomination and it may win. (“Return of the King” won Best Song becoming the fourth Best Picture in history to also win Song. “Going My Way,” “Gigi,” and “Titanic” were the other three. Since King’s win, “Slumdog Millionaire” also won song so now there are five.) “Hobbit” has a much greater chance of winning Song than Picture.
So with these positive traits, what is wrong with “The Hobbit?” First, this story seems much lighter than the one of “Lord of the Rings.” The reason for this is simple. Tolkien’s source material is the same way. “The Hobbit” is a fun fairy tale. “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy is an epic. Bilbo helping the dwarves reclaim their home is a noble quest, but we know that all Middle Earth is not at risk. After all, it survives 60 more years for the events of the Rings trilogy to occur. Besides, no one in the film even suggests that Middle Earth is at risk. Gandalf refers to the whole thing as an adventure. And that is the tone and weight of the film. Yes, characters are put at risk, but there are no deaths. “Fellowship” had two grand and dramatic deaths (albeit one character returns from the dead) that gave the story a certain gravitas.
A second weakness also harkens back to Tolkien’s original material. There are many wonderful quotable lines in the “Rings” trilogy and Jackson was wise to include many of these in his films. My personal favorite is Gandalf’s response to Frodo saying, “I wish the ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.” The old wizard replies, “So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.” Words for all to live by. There is nothing in “Hobbit” that comes close to those powerful words.
Third, I do not believe that the characters are allowed to develop in this film. I may be biased after many viewings of the first trilogy. And I will admit, during my second viewing I began to distinguish the dwarves one from another. But the members of the “Fellowship” seemed far more defined by the end of the first film than these characters are before the end credits roll.
But with all this criticism, I am still optimistic. I will anxiously await the next film and hope it will strengthen the first. And I conclude with this thought. I found the last five minutes of this first chapter, the verbal exchange between a dwarf and a hobbit and all that follows it including the final shot, to be the best moments of the film. So, there is a good chance that greater things are yet to come for “The Hobbit.”
Cinema Corner 