The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part II

My parents took me to see Mockingjay tonight. This is the fourth installment in the Hunger Games series, making the second half of the third book into a movie, a tradition I really am not sure I like. I didn't think it worked for Harry Potter where it got us one really boring 7th movie followed by all the action in the 8th. However, I think it worked for the Hunger Games. If you read the books, you know that much of the revolution was not in the books because it all followed first person from Katniss' thoughts. In a movie about a revolution, that really wouldn't work, and splitting the third book into two movies allowed them to insert a revolution that made things work.

While the previous movie focused on efforts to get Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) away from the capital, this movie focused on the revolution against the capital. Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) expresses a surprising amount of independence for a female main character, and heads out with a small group to kill Snow (Donald Sutherland). So that's what the movie is supposed to be about, but in the end we're left hanging as Snow convinces Katniss that someone else was responsible for her sister's death and needs to die more than he does. I'm not entirely convinced on his explanation, but I think it's supposed to be true.

Also, I must confess that I was always on Team Gale (Liam Hemsworth). I knew, after reading the books, that Peeta ends up with Katniss, and they are as happy as people can be after going through what they went through, but it still hurt to see Katniss turn away Gale at the end so coldly. It's not like he killed her sister.

The movie gave me a bit of a fright when the mutts came after them in the sewers but that scene was over soon enough. It made me cry when Katniss threw a temper tantrum over her dead sister. It made me smile when Finnick got married. What it didn't do was make me laugh. It's a little darker than the previous three movies in the series.

Overall I give it an A.

Peanuts

My husband and I went to see the Peanuts movie tonight. He has a lot of nostalgia about it, but I really don't. I watched one of the movies as a kid, but not the regular cartoon, and I wasn't really into it. The Peanuts movie had stuff for both of us, and was really good. 

For me, I saw a lot of myself in the Charlie Brown character - always trying to do good things and always having them turned on their heads. And no, I can't fly a kite. I found the movie touching and funny in about the right combinations. Lucy reminded me of many of the kids I grew up with, except that I was fortunate enough that by high school most of them had forgotten about me. She gives Charlie perfect advice, and then tells him he'll never be good enough to follow it, insulting him the whole time. 

My husband complained that the movie was a little too long. It came in at only 88 minutes, so I'm not sure how much shorter they could have made it and still called it a full length movie. I admit that it did feel like more than 88 minutes to me, too. I estimated 100 minutes after looking at my watch, but that must have included the time for the new Ice Age short at the beginning. 

Speaking of the Ice Age short, can I tell you how fed up I am with Ice Age shorts? How much attention can people give to a rat that wants an acorn? It's old and tired. I hated it the first time I saw it and nothing has changed that opinion. It also put me into a bad mood as the movie I actually wanted to see began and almost ruined the whole thing. Fortunately the first of many scenes that reminded me of my life (Charlie Brown knocking over a fence when everyone is trying to see the new girl) came quickly and I was able to refocus on the present movie. 

For a 50 year old cartoon, these characters really pinpoint childhood still. I guess the more things change the more they stay the same. Nothing seemed out of place either for life growing up or for the show. 

Overall I give it a B+

Star Wars : A New Hope

Here we have the story of Luke Skywalker as he meets Obi Wan Kenobi and Leia as well as C3PO and R2D2, and becomes a Jedi - the last of the Jedi. They have an adventure on the Death Star before escaping to the rebel hideout, a feat which is a lot less impressive when you realize they were allowed to escape so they could be followed, as evidenced by a conversation in which one character says to Vader "I'm taking a huge risk here. You'd better be right." And then the Death Star appears right at the rebel base. So basically the first 3/4ths of the movie they didn't do anything really impressive. They just shot at guards who weren't shooting to kill, and Obi Wan committed suicide by Vader.

After Obi Wan's suicide, I think the movie really ignores a vital fact, which is that it is disturbing as hell to suddenly have voices in your head. I mean, as a schizophrenic, I would know. And the very first thing I thought when Obi Wan says "use the force, Luke," to this guy who could hardly fight a droid a minute ago was "HOLY SHIT THERE ARE VOICES IN HIS HEAD AND NOW HE'S GOING TO FREAK OUT!!!!" because in any realistic universe, that's exactly what would have happened in this moment.

So I guess we assume that being a jedi is going to protect Luke's mind from the voice of his dead friend. Or something. And Luke puts his targeting gear away and fires using the force for the first time to destroy the Death Star. This is the first time in the movie something happened that wasn't what the bad guys wanted or expected.

The graphics were amazing for 1977 and still stand up to be considered good today. When you look at the opening scene you are immediately wowed by the size of the ships, and the power obviously belonging to the empire. The Stormtroopers were impressive, and Vader's imposing size and presence on the screen lets you know immediately that this is the bad guy. Although he's only on the screen for 17 minutes, he stays with you throughout the movie. This is how you create a bad guy.

Overall I'll give it a A-, and I look forward to seeing the rest of the series before episode 7 comes out next month.

Pan

Pan was one of those movies. You know the ones? The ones that are so bad they are almost good? Yeah, that was Pan. Unfortunately, I don't see it becoming a cult classic like so many other movies that fit in that category. Still, I got at least some enjoyment out of the movie, and great enjoyment out of mocking it later. 

Several things combine to make this a bad movie. First, the actor playing Hook (Garrett Hedlund) was terrible. He screamed all his lines, and completely over-acted the entire thing. He had some terrible lines, such as his introduction in the movie, "I don't care about you and I don't have your back." But even when the writing is not to blame, he just can't act naturally. I felt like I was watching a middle school performance or something. 

Also, Captain James Hook is supposed to be the very essence of a pirate. Exactly what you think of when you think "pirate." So why did this movie disguise him as a cowboy? 

Then there was the fact that the whole story made no sense. I mean, there's a prophesy that a flying kid is going to come and lead the rebellion against Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman), so when Blackbeard has a flying kid unconscious in a territory he rules with an iron fist, instead of putting a bullet to his brain, he nourishes him back to health, and then tells him the prophesy, setting in motion the rebellion. 

This continues from beginning to end, when Peter (Levi Miller) rescues all the lost boys and returns them to an orphanage, and then re-kidnaps them in the middle of the night. Why return them to the orphanage at all? Why not just take them to Lost Boy land straight from the mines? 

Where they really lost me, however, was when the ship landed in neverland. The movie takes place in the 1940s in war-torn England. However, when they get to Neverland, everyone sings Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit in a kind of dirgey voice. The newly arrived boys from 1945 know the words and are able to sing along. I don't mind some slight anachronisms, but this was just too much for me. 

All told, this movie was bad. It was terrible. It was so bad it was almost good, but it fell short of that, too. C-. 

Avengers: Age of Ultron

I rewatched this movie tonight after having seen it opening night in the theaters. I think it got better for a second viewing. This movie started out with an action scene, and almost didn't let down for the rest of the movie. There were a few moments to catch your breath, but then you were almost immediately thrown into another action scene. It was exciting and exhilarating. It had just enough funny moments to keep you on your toes, and I cried when Quicksilver died.

If I had one complaint about this movie it is that the team didn't really work together as a team. They were still a group of individuals and you see them fighting each other more than anything else culminating in the scene where Thor ensures the creation of Vision. There's no communication there. No team. It's frankly amazing they get anything done. I'm hopeful that future incarnations of the Avengers will fix this problem by not having Tony and Thor as a part of the team, and also through the training they seem to have instituted at the end of this movie. However, Civil War is supposed to have a feeling of friend turning against friend, and I don't think we're going to get that because I don't get the feeling that these characters are friends. I get the feeling that they work together for necessity's sake. When Cap and Iron Man fight, I'm not going to take it as good friends fighting each other because they show no evidence of that friendship in this movie, starting from Cap's comment, "language" to Tony.

Another thing was that Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch were included and brought back to HQ and made a part of these discussions. They just finished torturing the team, and although vague mention is made of Hawkeye not trusting them, the rest of the team just continues on as though they were supposed to be there. And by the end of the movie Hawkeye is giving Scarlet Witch a lecture on how if she walks out the door to fight, she's an Avenger. In the end they leave her protecting the doomsday switch. That's a lot of trust for someone who was just engaged in torturing you and fighting for your enemies.

These did not really detract from the fact that Marvel has turned out another spectacular movie, and one which is in the running for my favorite film of the year. I give it an A.

Shawshank Redemption

I started watching this movie because it was IMDB's top movie of their top 250 movies. I have decided to watch them all, as best as I am able. As the top movie of all time, I had built up a lot of hopes around this movie. I was not disappointed. The movie starts watching Andy (Tim Robbins) take the blame for a crime he didn't commit. He then moves to prison where he eventually makes friends with both the criminals and the wardens as he steals money for them.

The piece clearly follows the friendship of Andy and Red (Morgan Freeman) as they go from prison to freedom, and remain the best of friends. It was beautifully done, and I deeply cared for both characters before the movie was over. One of the best scenes was when they murdered the man who knew that Andy had not committed the crime. You could see how dishonest the judicial system really is in just that one moment.

One thing that bothered me was why the law would not follow through and look into the city on the postcard that Red got, though. That was their best lead, and they acted as if it did not exist.

The movie also provided a look at institutionalization, a psychiatric condition that exists in prisons and mental institutes. Two of the characters, Red and the librarian have this condition. The librarian kills himself, but we see hope that Red will overcome it in the end. It was also interesting because it took place from the 1940s to 1960s, and there was an interracial cast of characters, and the two men who become closest of friends are interracial. This was an interesting choice, and I wonder if it was done on purpose in 1994 when the movie was made to make a point about the time it was about, or whether in the 90s they just didn't think about that much anymore.

Overall, I give the movie an A.

American Ultra

My husband likes spy movies, so he wanted to see this. I thought the premise sounded interesting until about 30 seconds into the movie. When he sold me on the movie, he didn't mention that the main characters were stoners. I knew from the moment I saw them pass the bong that this was not going to be a good movie. Nonetheless, I was surprised at just how bad it got.

I think you were supposed to be stoned while watching this movie, in order to not notice that the scenes didn't flow, and there was no logical progression from one thought to the next. I mean, really you end up with the guy you thought was the head of the CIA being murdered in the woods by the real head of the CIA, a character you haven't seen at all yet. It's ridiculous.

At some point you realize that Phoebe (Kristen Stewart) is former CIA herself, and quit her entire real life to be with this stoner guy she's supposed to be handling. Then she becomes a stoner herself, and falls in love with him. Even though she's lying to him not only about who she is but about who he is. But then you have to realize the whole Hawaii trip is her fault.

She knew he couldn't leave the town without violent panic attacks but she took him to the airport to go to Hawaii and then got mad at him because he couldn't leave. But she was the only one who knew why he couldn't leave! Also, the CIA is trying to kill him for trying to leave town, so clearly his handler should know that he's not allowed to leave town, and maybe, just maybe, she would try to encourage him not to leave town instead of trying to encourage him to leave town.

Overall, I give the movie an F for not thinking itself through and not having a plausible plot.