The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - The Imax Experience (11/22/13)

Let me start off by saying that I was not thoroughly impressed with either of my viewings of the first Hunger Games film. The consistent shaky-cam really got to me, the pacing was poor at times, and certain elements cut out from the book turned me off a bit. But I read and enjoyed the book. It didn't wow me in the way that it did many of my peers, but I found it to be an entertaining read.

The same goes for Catching Fire, the second Hunger Games book. I consumed it in less than a day, enjoyed it, and moved on. So when I was told that not only were they exponentially increasing the budget for the film adaptation of Catching Fire, but also bringing the Imax cameras into the picture, I wasn't entirely sure what to expect. I mean, just the idea of getting another glimpse into the fascinating world of Imax footage was enough for me to preorder a ticket, so clearly I was sold. And my expectations got even higher as I saw how excited my peers were for the movie, and suddenly I realized that I too was incredibly to see how this movie unfolded.

And it was great. Easily one of the most satisfying pictures I've seen all year, and one of the most thrilling theater experiences I've had the pleasure of seeing in a really long time.

Catching Fire, for those who don't know, essentially revolves around the uprising that was hinted at during a few scenes of The Hunger Games, inspired by the relationship between Katniss, our main heroine, and a young girl, Rue. It details the struggle that the government, situated in the conveniently named Capital, has try to contain the unrest brewing in the poverty stricken outlying states. They try their best to use the popularity of Katniss and her partner Peeta to help calm things down, but it fails outright and they pretty much throw in the towel, tossing all of the prior victors of the Hunger Games into the arena in order to get rid of them and squash any sense of hope the people had of taking back their freedom.

The film runs almost two and a half hours, slightly longer than it's predecessor, with almost an hour set in the arena of the actual Hunger Games. Astonishingly, the pacing problems I had with the first film were essentially eliminated. There was not a single point during Catching Fire where I caught myself looking at my watch, wondering when the credits would roll. Instead, there is this constant pulsating feel of energy, generating momentum and keeping us all engaged. When the credits rolled on The Hunger Games, I honestly could have cared less if they made another one. When the credits rolled for Catching Fire, I desperately wanted to see what happened next, and clearly so did the rest of the audience. We all clapped in immense satisfaction.

Performances were top notch, with a cast of supporting characters that brought an unlikely sense of lightheartedness to the film - especially Jena Malone's bitterly sarcastic character, who brings a wealth of comedy to a couple scenes that prove to be extremely memorable. Phillip Seymour Hoffman brought all of the weight of an oscar winning actor to his role of Pluttarch Heavensbee, balancing gracefully a character brimming with intelligence as well as an embracing sense of destruction, dancing delightfully with Donald Sutherland's cold, unpleasant presence as President Snow. I even enjoyed seeing Elizabeth Banks return as Effie, a character who seemed entirely obnoxious and over the top in the first film, regardless of how she was portrayed in the source novel. In this movie, her over the top outfits and makeup make her seem more human than she appeared in The Hunger Games, and her character followed suit, showing off a significant amount of emotion that I wasn't totally sure she was capable of prior. Other memorable performances were given by Amanda Plumber, Jefferey Wright, Sam Clafin, Lenny Kravitz, and Woody Harrelson in their respective roles, and of course, both Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson played well together on the screen, as I'm sure you could have guessed.

Ultimately, I feel that this movie is twice the film the The Hunger Games was, with powerful performance, more coordinated action sequences, and far more interesting characters thrown in to the mix. It also serves as what I believe is a more faithful adaptation of the source material, leaving out far less than The Hunger Games did. My congratulations go out to Francis Lawrence and his entire cast and crew, as they have probably made the most entertaining blockbuster to come out this year, topping the likes of Star Trek, Iron Man 3, and  Thor 2, something that I do not say lightly.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is a movie that I heartily recommend, as one of the year's biggest and best action blockbusters.

Tech Talk:
Approximately 50 minutes of the film was shot using Imax cameras on 15 perf 70mm film, giving an aspect ratio of 1.44:1, lasting from when Katniss enters the arena for the 75th Hunger Games, to about 5 minutes before credits roll. This sequence provides for one of the most exhilarating uses of Imax yet, ditching the constant switching of aspect ratios as seen in The Dark Knight Rises and Star Trek Into Darkness for a more continuous, and ultimately more satisfying Imax experience. Digital Imax theaters will see a slightly less open 1.90:1 aspect ratio when this switch occurs, however this does not diminish the effect of the Imax sequence. Therefore, because of this elongated sequence, I ask, no, I beg of you to see the movie in Imax in order to experience the film the way it was intended to be seen.

Thor 2: The Dark World: The Imax Experience (11/9/13)

Tonight my peers and I trucked out to the local Imax theater for a screening of the new superhero epic, which happened to be a continuation of my least favorite character birthed from the Phase One Marvel films, Thor. And let me tell you, low expectations be damned, I had a blast.

The worst part about Thor's entry film into the cinematic canon was that it seemed to struggle with it's identity at times. At certain points, it wanted to tackle an overbearing government, a quest for identity, a romantic comedy aspect, and a fantasy-bathed action film. To this reviewer, it never really seemed to do any one of those things quite right, coming off as a little too light on any one of them. If I am to credit Thor for anything significant other than justifying Thor's presence in The Avengers, it is to introduce us to a brilliant Tom Hiddleston as Thor's adopted brother Loki. At the end of the day, I look back on it as a decently entertaining film, but hardly memorable.

Thor 2 ditches the government presence and the identity crisis for a far more focused adventure, this time centered around an ancient matter thought to be settled five thousand years ago concerning the Asgardians and the Dark Elves over some silly magical power of insane destruction known as the Aether. Hidden away by Thor's Grandfather, it was thought to have been buried forever.

Until goddamn Padme finds it. Then all hell breaks loose, and lots and lots of explosions and people being thrown left and right ensues. Buildings fall down too. Oh, and I guess there's some plot thrown in there about racing through a bunch of portals and killing the head of the Dark Elves, but let's be honest, chances are you didn't plan on going to see Thor 2 for it's deep, intricate plot.

What you did come to see however, is there in spades. Action is at the forefront, embracing the light sci-fi elements briefly seen in the first film. At some points, you might have a hard time deciding whether you bought a ticket for the right movie, confusing it for something out of a Star Wars film, but you needn't worry. If anything, this makes the film seem more endearing, making it's influences clear from the get go, and doing them right.

Also, one last point. This film is hysterical. In order to preserve the quality of the humor, I won't spoil it, but damn. It was funny as hell.

Thor 2 seems to hit all the right points at all the right times, finding a balance between the comedy seen in the first film, and an action more on a level borrowed from last year's The Avengers. It truly feels like they gave an old dog new tricks, dumping everything that slowed the first film down for a more streamlined, epic experience more on a level of Star Wars, or even Lord of the Rings, something that even The Avengers couldn't do for me.

The only teensy-weensy problem I had with the film was a minor issue in pacing. It felt about twenty minutes too long, and at one point, towards the beginning of the third act, I started to get a little bored. But that's it. That's honestly the only major flaw I took away from this masterful exercise in action-adventure film making.

Thor: The Dark World earns my wholehearted recommendation, and as it stands, my vote for the top superhero flick of the year. This movie was one hell of a ride, and I thoroughly enjoyed it through and through.


Technical Talk:
Thor was shot using anamorphic lenses, and in keeping with the visual style of the first film, Thor 2 was also shot using anamorphic lenses, albeit from a digital source, shot using Arri Alexa cameras. Because of this, due to the shorter depth of field due to the lenses used, the 3D conversion is essentially lifeless, adding no enhancement to the Imax screening I viewed. It is in this reviewer's opinion that the 3D version should be skipped at all costs, as it merely detracts from the experience rather than enhances it.

R.E.D. 2 - Critical Analysis 7/19/13

I'll admit before going knee deep into this one, that I don't really remember the first R.E.D.(Retired Extremely Dangerous for those unaware) outside of a few memorable scenes that I won't recount to you. I just know that I laughed quite a bit, and enjoyed the film overall.

It's sequel, released today, on Friday, July 19th, feels very much in the same vein as the first film. So, if you found entertainment from the first film, you will no doubt you will find something in it's sequel.

Red 2(for my own ease, I will drop the periods and capital letters) is essentially a tale whose own overblown ridiculousness is held tight by the credibility of its ensemble cast. It's absurdness is held back only by the entertaining screen interactions between it's obviously aged cast, which consists of returning players Bruce Willis, Mary Louise Parker, Helen Mirren, John Malkovich, and that Russian guy who really only shows up for like five minutes, who didn't really feel important enough to recall his name, and newcomers Anthony Hopkins, Catherine Zeta-Jones, as well as Byung-Hunn Lee. They tend to cris-cross one another in such a rapid manner that you don't really have enough time to realize any one of them is ever really off the screen at any given moment.

The plot of Red 2 isn't even really what's important, regarding the digging up of some silly weapon of mass destruction hidden in Russia during the height of the Cold War. What's really important is that it upsets the Americans(Bruce, Mary, and John), the British(Mirren and eventually Hopkins), the Russians(Zeta-Jones) into a chase that ties in both Interpol agents and a contract killer from Hong Kong(Lee). That's all you really need to know to draw yourself into this film from a plot perspective.

If you're not already sold on said plot summary and cast list, and didn't already enjoy the original film adaptation of Red, then I fear there isn't much for you in Red 2. I really don't have much more to say, other than I laughed a lot, and I never really got bored throughout the film's running time.

Pacific Rim - Critical Analysis 7/15/13

Today I did something I rarely do. I messaged my cousin on facebook, asked him to go see a movie with me, and hours later, I sat down in the local Imax here in Rochester for a screening of Pacific Rim. What makes this a rare occasion is the fact that I had almost no desire to see this movie. The trailers were bland and made it look like it was going to be another Transformers-esque type of romp with a heavy anime influence from classics like Gundam and Neon Genesis Evangelion, and none of those three pieces really stirred me to leave my house and return to the local Digital Imax. What drove me there was the idea that a mildly interesting original science fiction film was coming to the theaters that wasn't a sequel, or had a big name star driving it. It was like a blockbuster full of people I wouldn't have even thought about being in a sci-fi disastery movie like this. And also, reddit freaking rammed this movie down my throat, and I felt I had to see this movie just to understand the ridiculous gushing it had provoked.

So I trucked out on my trusty ten-speed and arrived for the 1:15 showing of Pacific Rim expecting to be disappointed, or even just mildly amused by the box-office disappointment of the summer that was hyped by so many, and seemingly marketed so poorly.

My opinion? It was surprisingly awesome.

Now, before you greet me with skepticism, I didn't think it was great because it had a incredibly deep story, or heavily relied on an important moral element or anything. Hell, I may not even remember the plot in a month, or recall the joy I had seeing it in the Imax. But that's not a reason to disregard this film. You need to give it a chance based on my one realization: this is the most entertaining sci-fi flavored blockbuster I've seen since I first saw Independence Day as a youngster in 1997(I was two!) It is pure escapism, a movie so fantastical that it couldn't possibly work if you sat down and thought about it. This is the quintessential "check your brain at the door" film, and if you are capable of doing so, you will find everything your heart desires in Pacific Rim. If you can't, then you should probably stray away, this isn't necessarily a thinking man's movie. But I digress. Onto the actual movie:

Pacific Rim tells the story of a war that starts after a hole is torn open deep beneath the Pacific Ocean, connecting two universes together: our own, and that of the kaiji, a race of well, giant monsters. These monsters are hell bent on annihilating our race in order to take what they want and leave. In order to combat them, we constructed giant robotic suits that are designed to be run by two people, conjoined through a neural link to one another. These suits engage the kaiji and kill them, using any means necessary. The story focuses on a younger pilot, who must take up arms after a tragic accident to help the human race take down the kaiji for good. That's about as deep as I can go without giving up most of the important plot points, and since I think this movie was so gosh darn good, I would like to keep the spectacle element of the film as tightly restrained as possible.

The film is essentially a long string of special effects sequences with little bits of vague character development in between. The special effects, to this reviewer's eyes seemed quite competent, with nothing looking very dated. The overwhelming use of CGI during scenes involving destruction seemed very well animated, and very life like. The acting, while not the most exciting performances of the year, is very competent, if not intentionally campy at times. The three leads of the film, Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, and Rinko Kikuchi, all lead with confidence and add a level of credibility to a movie that could easily falter under the fantastical elements of itself.

The last thing I have to say is this: this movie was the first movie I've been to in a long time that truly made me feel like a kid again. There were no bad guys who tore down our heroes, or had overly complex plans. There was no twist that ruined the film. It was a big action spectacle on the same level as older films such as Independence Day and Armageddon. It was just plain, simple fun. I wholeheartedly recommend you go out and see this one before it leaves the theaters. It may not the the world's most original movie, but it is easily my top blockbuster of the summer so far. 

Cleopatra - A Look Into the Past

It's no secret that I'm a huge fan of the epics of yesteryear, the Ben-Hurs, the Lawrences of Arabia. Heck, I even fall head over heels for stuff like The Ten Commandments. Anything shot on larger format films, like 35mm Vistavision, or 70mm Todd-AO and Super Panavision makes we swoon, and instantly draws me inwards as if I'm a small child in a toy store. So it came as no surprise that when I found a copy of the restored 50th Anniversary release of Cleopatra, and it mentioned that it was photographed in Todd-AO, I had to have it. It didn't occur to me that there would be any obvious issues with the film, as I was blinded by the idea of a Blu Ray mastered from 70mm film, my favorite.
To start things off, this film sits at an extravagant 248 minutes, counting the Overture, Entr'Act, and Exit music. Now, I know this may be the hyperkinetic modern film fan speaking from within me, but this just felt so overly long and drawn out. I'm not sure what you could cut out, but the film really needed to be a half hour, or maybe even an hour shorter. I almost felt bored at times during some of the extended dramatic scenes, as they just stretched along for ages it felt like, and just kept going and going. Perhaps I'm nitpicking, but it took me four sittings to complete Cleopatra, mostly because of my own time constraints, but also because it was so tiring to sit through such an extended film.
But the length is not the least of the film's worries. What helps to drag this film down is a lack of serious dramatic power. Over the length of the four film, we focus on two romances, one between Julius Caesar and Cleopatra, and one between Marc Antony and Cleopatra, and neither of them really feel like realistic, grounded relationships that I'm supposed to care about. Especially with Julius Caesar's bit in the film, I felt like their relationship was rather forced, and was really, really shallow. I felt like both of these men fell in love with Cleopatra's beauty, and they only hung around as long as they could be captivated with sex and good looks, both leaving when they had exhausted their fill. I just didn't care about the love either of them claimed to feel for Cleopatra, it just felt insincere and unbelievable. It really takes a strike at the quality of the film.
My last real criticism of the film is that the climactic battle between Antony and Octavius didn't feel climactic. The entire sequence just felt lifeless, with Burton's acting sort of dragging the battle along, all the while I really never felt like anyone was in danger throughout the entire sequence. I just didn't feel sold on the massive sea battles. It should have been more exciting like Ben-Hur, but it felt mostly like an extended game of battleship. It just wasn't a very pretty site for this viewer's eyes.
In the film's defense, the sets are lavish, the general photography is lush and beautiful, and most large scale scenes, with huge crowds and massive sets seem to work really, really well. Parts of this film are totally on the same level as that of Ben-Hur and The Ten Commandments, but that's just it. Only parts of the film are good as this, and with a large portion of the film feeling rushed and less than cohesive as an experience, I would not recommend this to anyone but the most diehard 70mm film lovers in 2013. It's big, but very uneven, and at times, simply exhaustive. If I was to give this a number rating, for those who appreciate such a method, I would probably give it a solid 6. Not bad, but it could certainly have something more to it.
I really, really wanted to like Cleopatra more than I did. I went in with extremely high expectations, and unfortunately came out a little scorned. Elizabeth Taylor's beauty couldn't save this movie, and neither could it's extreme 40 million plus dollar budget. It's just a big, bloated, expensive mess. Case closed. 

The Lone Ranger - Critical Review 7/5/13

To start things off right, I'm going to come clean. I've never seen any classic Lone Ranger stuff. I didn't know anything about The Reids or Tonto before I walked into the theater, so I'm not a preexisting fan of any of this stuff.
What I can say was that I was familiar with Gore Verbinski's work on the Pirates of the Carribbean trilogy, and a moderate fan of Johnny Depp. Throwing these two into a western essentially meant to me that this was to be an all over the place film with lots of fun action sequences and hopefully some chemistry between the leads. And that's just what I learned from the trailer.
After taking my sister to see the film with me, I can only say this. If you liked Curse of the Black Pearl and At World's End, the first and third Pirates of the Carribbean movie, you will love this movie. Stop reading right now, and head to the theater - this film borrows a lot, stylistically and plot structure wise from those two movies if I was to make a comparison. For those who aren't sold, read ahead.
The Lone Ranger tells the story of John Reid, a straight man of the law, who witnesses his brother's death and teams up with a Comanche Native American to find the outlaw who did said murder, and details their lengthy journey to the end of the story. At the basic core, that is essentially all there is to the movie, no more, no less. It's not very exciting, and it doesn't reinvent the wheel, but it's a perfect fit for a lazy summer blockbuster, and that's what I could tell this aimed to be from the very first scene.
Instead of providing us with deep investments into the characters, we get brief glimpses into each character, which is enough for the plot, but not really enough to make us care. They supplement said development with lots of well choreographed action, such as shootouts in a burning barn, train raids, and a massive action set piece set around a bridge and dueling trains, which makes for fun entertaining segments, but ultimately nothing you will remember six months from now. The action isn't bad, it just isn't going to top other 2013 blockbusters such as Star Trek Into Darkness, or even certain sequences in the dreadful Man of Steel.
What does work well however, is the on screen interactions between our main duo of characters. Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer have such natural friendly chemistry that builds throughout the film, that I can't wait to see where they head off to next as a team. They're funny, and play off so well against each other, that it felt very reminiscent of some of the character interactions in the Curse of the Black Pearl, and gave the film an almost childish sense of humor that, for some reason, really clicked with me. One prominent scene even stars.....horse droppings, and I, as an 18 year, even managed to let out a chuckle. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast seems rather forgettable. Helena Bohnam Carter was given fairly high billing, and she's hardly in the movie for more than 6 or 7 minutes, which seems almost like a waste of potential. Add to that a cast of characters such as "the bad guy gangster who play the same role in Batman Begins" and "the ugly gang of outlaws who managed to escape from the Flying Dutchman's ship" and you pretty sum up the entire movie. Oh yeah, and there's some lady and her son who sort of become cheap plot direction characters, but seeing as I almost forgot to mention them, they can't have left much of an impact on me.
So, what we have here is a string of well directed action sequences, held afloat by good lead chemistry, and a cast of forgettable supporting characters. But you know what, unlike how I felt after leaving Man of Steel, I actually wanted to see more. I felt good walking out of the Lone Ranger. I felt really good.

My Rating: Better than Cowboys and Aliens, but not quite True Grit (2010)