Showing posts with label Elizabeth Banks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elizabeth Banks. Show all posts

Saturday, November 23, 2013

Movie Review: Catching Fire

First let's clear up one thing:  I did not cry during this film.  Okay, I didn't cry a lot.  Okay fine, I at least didn't cry quite as much as the young woman behind me, who from the sound of things was in tears from beginning to end.  I'm not sure even she understood why she was having this reaction, but I can say that I don't blame her a bit.

That's just the kind of movie Catching Fire is--it takes your emotions and tugs them up through your throat, wraps them around your neck, and then asks you to try and breathe through the choke-hold.  This review is itself being delayed for several hours after my initial viewing because I needed that time to process everything I thought about during and after this film, and to figure out how to best put it into words.

With a new director at the helm, Catching Fire could easily have felt choppy or jarringly desperate to stand out from its predecessor (think Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban), but it just didn't.  Francis Lawrence understands the importance of maintaining and escalating the unique tone of the first movie, and his vision is executed beautifully onscreen without feeling like too sharp a departure from the universe established for us in The Hunger Games.  Improvements were made in the few places they were needed, and while a few tidbits from the book were omitted, the film was admirably and almost completely true to its source material.  The few instances where creative license is taken with scenes or characters feel organic and fit smoothly into the existing plot, and I find myself hard-pressed to think of one that ought to have been changed.

If memory serves I said this about the first film, but it feels doubly true now:  looking at the directors, the screenwriters, the performers, I can't find a weak link in the bunch.  It's almost as though they've all conspired to turn in some of the best work of their careers in the name of making this movie a success.  I fully expected Jennifer Lawrence to be brilliant, as she so reliably is.  What I didn't expect was for Jena Malone and Sam Claflin to so skillfully embody their fan-favorite characters.  What I didn't expect was for Phillip Seymour-Hoffman to portray an intriguing new gamemaker with a cleverness I haven't seen since Alan Rickman humanized Severus Snape on the big screen.  I didn't expect (though I hoped) that Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth would overcome the heartthrob status assigned to them and bring better performances than anticipated, showing that though neither of them will ever outshine J-Law, they are at least entitled to play on the same field.  Further praise goes deservedly to Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, and Donald Sutherland for preventing their characters from becoming caricatures, and for bringing some of the most punch-in-the-gut emotional moments of the film.


When I initially read the book series back in late 2010, devouring all three within a week's time, I viewed Catching Fire as a hinge, a bridge between the initial horrors of The Hunger Games and the roaring conclusion of Mockingjay.  Seeing the film, however, helped me appreciate the tight narrative it is in its own right.  Catching Fire provides the most character development of the three novels, and the film fully rises to that task.  One can seen the tone, as well as Katniss herself, travel from fear to anger to violence, inciting the revolution that will make or break the districts of Panem.  Francis Lawrence has depicted it just about flawlessly, and the intensity of the film's proverbial call to action makes the audience want to join the rebellion themselves, or at the very least set some shit on fire.

As with many great films, there are a number of little things that really enhance the experience, making the film stand out not just as good, but great.  Catching Fire incorporates the musical score from the previous film, using familiar refrains as callbacks to critical events which unfolded in The Hunger Games.  It is also careful to re-establish certain visual elements as important, so that we feel re-immersed in Katniss' world rather than like we're being introduced to something brand new.  The pacing is fairly remarkable as well-- this film approaches the 2.5 hour mark, and yet it feels smooth and free of those restless moments in which most viewers might feel tempted to check the time.

It is also worth noting just how well this film serves as the middle piece of the puzzle:  it hearkens back to The Hunger Games without tediously recapping, and it foreshadows what is to come without forgetting itself as a standalone plot.  The final scenes do feel ever so slightly rushed (one of my few complaints about the film) but in them we get a very clear preview of what to expect in Mockingjay, which rumor has it will be split into two parts.  Questions of staggering significance lay on the table unanswered, and Katniss herself is in a state of visible turmoil, both anxious and afraid but also enraged and thirsting for revenge.  Moviegoers will leave the theater feeling similarly, and eagerly awaiting the final installment.

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Movie Review: Our Idiot Brother



First off, this movie officially wins the award for casting.  There are so many hilarious, hugely underrated people in this film, and the ensemble is what carries an at-times flat plot.  Paul Rudd leads the way as Ned, the idiot brother to whom the title refers, and Zooey Deschanel, Emily Mortimer, and Elizabeth Banks play his neurotic and self-involved sisters, each of whom has her own drama to deal with.  Rashida Jones and Adam Scott make distractingly impressive appearances as Deschanel and Banks' romantic interests, respectively.  Seriously, if the film had focused on those two couples and had Rudd's character as a background player, it would have been an equally good (perhaps even better) film.

I think what I struggled with was the fact that the film does focus so much on Ned, who becomes a bit wearing and repetitive as you watch.  His character doesn't really change or transition, the point of the story is that he more or less stays the same while everyone else kind of comes to realize how much they like him the way he is.  And maybe that's a bit more true to life, but the lack of character development is a little frustrating.

Add to that the fact that a few smaller things are neglected in favor of focusing on Ned.  The first of these is the character of Ned's mother, who despite the drama fest of the three sisters, is the most depressing character in the film.  She just seems sad most of the time, and there are several shots of her drinking alone, though nothing about her or her state of mind is ever referenced.  I'm going to hope this is something that simply got trimmed down during edits and not blatant neglect on the part of the writers.  Additionally, as I've alluded, I was far more interested in the many subplots than in what was actually going on with Ned, to the point where I was anxiously awaiting the moments when they would return to them.  Both Deschanel and Banks' stories felt like they had more aborted conclusions than they deserved, and in favor of an ending for Ned that was somewhat anti-climactic. 

I guess I liked this film less than I thought, at least from a craft standpoint.  It really is very funny, and Ned is interesting to watch before the other stories pick up momentum, and even then it could certainly be worse.  This is a fun movie that will leave you wanting more, and if you're a person who is content with filling in the blanks in your head, then it should be perfectly enjoyable.