The Hunger Games

Rating: ****

Already breaking records and taking names, The Hunger Games, based on Suzanne Collins’ best-selling young adult novel, is playing the box office game like a career tribute, and if you’ve got that reference then you’ve probably already been to theatre and/or have your ticket to go sometime this weekend.

The Hunger Games is a literary phenomenon on par with, though not yet as successful as, Harry Potter and Twilight. Still, Hunger has captured a lot of imaginations because of its quick-witted, independent hero Katniss Everdeen, and for testing the boundaries of youth fiction by portraying, quite honestly, the brutality and savagery of the world it takes place in. The film carries over some of that, but being a Hollywood film, a lot of the raw edges of the story are smoothed out to a degree.

For the benefit of fans of all stripes, I’ve decided to split this review for those who haven’t read the book, and for those of you that have. If you haven’t read the book, I’ll tell you when to stop reading because we’ll be then getting in to spoiler territory.

In the country of Panem (AKA: future North America), the powerful and decadent Capitol subjugates the 12 districts of the nation by making them go through the yearly ritual of The Hunger Games. Two “tributes” are chosen from the 12 to 18-year-olds of each district, and they’re taken to the Capitol, turned into a combination of celebrity and Olympian, appraised for their skill and let loose in an enclosed outdoor area to battle it out till only one of them is left. The Games are an important reminder to the people who’s in charge, otherwise the tyrannical Capitol leaves itself open to another rebellion.

Our hero Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) lives in District 12 (formally West Virginia) with her widowed mother and younger sister Prim. Katniss is the bread winner, hunting in the forbidden forest with her trusty bow and arrow to put food on the table. At the annual reaping, the day when the contestants for the Games are chosen, Prim’s name is drawn, but Katniss volunteers to take her place. Also representing District 12 is Peeta (Josh Hutchison), the baker’s son. The film follows Katniss and Peeta as they’re taken to the Capitol, given prep for the Games, and eventually make their way to the arena.

Director Gary Ross builds a believable dystopia. District 12 itself kind of looks like a blend of a depression era mining town and the futuristic old west of Joss Whedon’s Firefly, while the Capitol is a bright, shiny Star Trek future where everyone dresses like it’s The Fifth Element. Ross, the director behind acclaimed, though low-key, hits like Seabiscuit and Pleasantville, also shows himself able to handle action well. The film was well-paced and although there’s an over-reliance on shaky cam, I can forgive it since it was used, for the most part, to veil the extreme imagery of child on child violence.

Lawrence takes full-advantage of the three-dimensionality of Katniss’ character, maybe one of the most complexly written in modern youth fiction. She’s able to convey all aspects of Katniss, from her strength and resourcefulness to her vulnerability and the few moments she entertains girlish notions of romance. By comparison, Hutchinson has a tough time keeping up, but in the few moments that Peeta takes the spotlight solo, like the interview scene before the Games, Hutchinson takes full advantage. Amongst the supporting cast, Elizabeth Banks is a standout as Effie Trinket the Capitol delegate helping to chaperone Katniss and Peeta, and Lenny Kravitz keeps it cool as Cinna, Katniss’ stylist and one of the few people she can truly trust in the Capitol.

Overall, The Hunger Games, as a film, provides solid adventure, interesting characters, and a couple of moral quandaries that together is well-told with both style and grace. It’s a worthy blockbuster due to the intricacy of the story and the commitment of those involved. It’s not fluffy like a certain book-turned-movie about vampires, but it’s not as a hard-boiled as a certain Japanese movie with an eerily similar plot. Best of all, the film leaves you with an eager sense of anticipation to see where the next film in the story will takes us, which is good because there are two more books to be adapted, and given the cash The Hunger Games has made so far, we should be hearing about those sooner rather than later.

This next part is for those fans that have read the book, so there will be spoilers from this point on. Read at your own risk.

Now obviously when you adapt a book into a movie, changes are inevitable. Sometimes this streamlines the plot and keeps the action moving without losing important character moments, but usually it means losing a bit a of the subtlety from the original book, a few stray details that are interesting but superfluous. Ultimately, these things only matter to the people who freak because Hagrid’s cabin is in the wrong place in the Harry Potter movies; everyone else just goes with it.

In the case of The Hunger Games, we speed through a lot of Katniss and Peeta’s adventures in the Capitol in order to economically get them from District 12 to the Games. Interesting asides like the story behind the Avoxes is lost, and the tributes’ training is little more than a montage. On the other hand characters like President Snow (Donald Sutherland) and Gamesmaster Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley) get expanded roles, which add brief but fascinating glimpses into the far reaching implications of Katniss’ defiance in the Games.

Of course, this part was problematic too because Ross throws in some allusions to the coming strife. Rue’s death in the film is followed by an all-out riot in District 11, as opposed to the more understated act of District 11 sending Katniss some bread as thanks in the book, which I liked better. Still, the film nailed Snow’s resentment towards Katniss, and the scene where he crowns her champion of the Hunger Games is fraught with tension beneath the surface. The final shot of the film is of Snow watching Katniss and Peeta’s return to District 12 with a look on his face that says, “I’ll get you next time, Katniss Everdeen! Next time!”

But Sutherland does own that part, and so does the aforementioned Banks, who brings Effie to such vivid life it’s like she jumped right off the page. Stanley Tucci also owns as Caesar Flickerman with a bright blue ponytail, and just about all the young actors that play the tributes fill their parts well. The one casting hiccup I thought was Woody Harrelson, who seemed a lot more like he was playing Woody Harrelson than he was Haymitch Abernathy. There were some scenes when Haymitch’s hauntedness and inner-turmoil shines through Harrelson’s persona, but personally I would have loved to see what original choice John C. Reilly could have done with the part.

Overall I think the richness of the text and its various themes and subtexts come out of the editing room intact. What’s lost, like Katniss’ days long search for water and Peeta’s elongated convalescence, I’m good without if only that these reinforce the main characters humility and self-doubt through her inner-monologue; in a film they wouldn’t play nearly as well. Fans of The Hunger Games can be assured that your favourite book looks good on the big screen, but if you’re miffed that Katniss’ backpack isn’t coloured bright orange like in the book, I can’t help you. But hey, may the odds be ever in your favour that the movie will tank because of the creators’ lack of attention to detail.

The Woman in Black

Rating: ***1/2

I get the feeling that Daniel Radcliffe’s first conversation with his agent after Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 wrapped went something like this:

RADCLIFFE: So I need a new part: no blockbusters, no boy and especially no wizards. What have you got?

AGENT: Well, there’s this one thing here that’s a ghost story…

RADCLIFFE: Meh.

AGENT: It’s a period piece too! It takes place at the turn of the 20^th century…

RADCLIFFE: Hm… Yeah…

AGENT: You would play a lawyer with a young son and who’s a widower.

RADCLIFFE: Wow! Can he also be emotionally disturbed?

AGENT: He can!

RADCLIFFE: Sold.

Indeed, the first time we see Radcliffe’s Arthur Kippy on screen he’s quite the mess. Losing his young wife in child-birth, he’s now left with a four-year-old son, and one last chance to prove himself before he’s fired for trauma-related gold-bricking at his law firm. He’s dispatched to a quiet sea-side village to over see the legal paperwork of an isolated estate there, and Arthur, determined not to let himself down or his boy, is going to make the best of a bad situation.

Naturally, the bad situation tends to be worse, and in the sad, unfortunate era before Google and iPhones, Arthur comes into town not knowing that there’s a curse on the very house he’s trying to put into escrow. This curse involves the spirit of a deranged woman who kills the children of the town’s people whenever she’s seen when the living are in view of the estate. The town’s people, scared beyond the capacity for rational thought, don’t tell Arthur why he has to leave, they just make it clear that he should. The kindly Mr. Daly (Ciarán Hinds) though sides with Arthur and refuses to accept all the mystical mumbo-jumbo. Guess what happens next.

The Woman in Black comes from Hammer Studios, the production company famous for the great British horror films of the 60s and 70s starring the likes of Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing and Vincent Price. Admittedly, this film is much more in the mould of those cult classics that Hammer’s initial re-entry into filmmaking, 2010’s American remake of Let the Right One In, but to a certain kind of film that aesthetic is an attractive selling point. Much of the action takes place in the haunted estate, a giant house on an island that’s routinely cut off from the mainland when the tide comes in and takes out the only road to and from.

Director James Watkins never fails to capitalize on the possibilities of isolation, and thus a lot of the film’s heavy lifting falls of Radcliffe who routinely has to act out entire scenes alone with only shadows, props, and the occasionally ghost to respond to. It’s hard not to shake the feeling that Radcliffe may be a little out of his depth on this one, but he puts up a valiant effort and pushes through the macabre to make Arthur honest and relatable. Sure, it’s initially hard to buy “Harry Potter” as a husband, father, and lawyer – it’s all a little mundane and mature – but once the haunting starts happening, you settle into a good place with the film. That and the scares. There are many good jumps in the film thanks to it’s old school approach, and some of those scares, at least in part, come from your concern for the main character.

The Woman in Black represents something old fashioned in the way to tell a horror story. Many of the frights and jumps are half psychological, and the story does such a decent job of enrapturing you that you fall for every little shadow and creak. There’s a certain charm to this, because outside of so-called “found footage” horrors, like the Paranormal Activity films, generally we, as audience members, are much too savvy to fall for such old school scares. The first two-thirds of the film are masterful, but when Arthur and Mr Daly set it to themselves to solve the problem, the script visits time-tested clichés when it comes to solving a ghost problem. The last half-hour creaks for entirely different reasons. I remained intrigued enough to see the pay off, but I’m afraid I wasn’t entirely fulfilled.

Still, I think kudos are deserved all around: director James Watkins, in only his second feature, plies his craft with tremendous skill and grace; screenwriter Jane Goldman (Kick-Ass, X-Men: First Class) builds a credibly suspenseful world and a mystery that can at times be both surprising and familiar; and Daniel Radcliffe does a satisfactory job in a more grown-up role that requires him to be mostly emotionally distraught. But the unsung hero of the film is the island setting and production design of the haunted mansion. The rest of the elements come together resulting is a satisfying, if flawed, fright flick, but that wouldn’t matter if the film’s setting didn’t scream “horror movie.” Coming out of The Woman in Black, the winter air might not be the only chill you feel.

Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightening Thief

Rating: **1/2

Everything about Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightening Thief screams mea culpa. It’s director Chris Columbus’ mea culpa to himself for passing up the Harry Potter series after launching it with the first two adaptations, and, I presume, it’s Columbus’ mea culpa to the masses after foisting I Love You, Beth Cooper on us. I kid Chris Columbus, mainly because he’s the red-headed step child of Harry Potter filmmakers having made the least inspired and textually limiting of the Harry Potter movies. Alfonso Cuarón had style while Mike Newell and David Yates had the benefit of more adult-minded material (and in the case of Yates, the added comfort of knowing how the series ends).

So with all the fortitude and impetuousness of a drunken robot yelling at security hooligans that he’s going to build his own theme park with black jack and hookers (Futurama reference), Columbus found another supernatural kid to invest in. Based on Rick Riordan’s novel of the same name, The Lightening Thief follows young Percy Jackson (played by Logan Lerman) as he learns that he’s not a struggling teen slacker with dyslexia and ADD. No sir, he’s the son of Poseidon, Greek god of the seas and earthquakes. That dyslexia he’s got, it’s just his brain hardwired to translate everything to Ancient Greek. And the ADD, why it’s his warrior instinct itching to keep him up on his feet and ready for battle.

Like any good young hero moulded in the Campbell tradition, Percy receives guidance from a wise elder, in this case embodied by his wheelchair bound teacher Dr Brunner, who, in actuality, is the centaur warrior Chiron (both played by Pierce Brosnan). No sooner does Percy discover his lineage does he have to do a runner. Zeus’ famed lightening bolt was nicked and for some reason, Percy’s the prime suspect. Hades then kidnaps Percy’s mom as leverage to get Percy to give him the bolt in exchange for his mother. So with a quest at hand, Percy gets assistance from his new allies Grover the satyr (Brandon T. Jackson) and Annabeth, the severe daughter of Athena (Alexandra Daddario). He also gets magical tools to help with his mission including a pen that turns into a sword and a pair of sneakers that are literally wing-tipped thanks to Hermes. So cue the AC/DC and let’s start on that Highway to Hell.

Now I’ve never read the Percy Jackson books, but I do know that in the original Lightening Thief the main character was 12 rather than 16. I suppose, Columbus wanted to buffer himself in some ways from Potter, and though I would never say that this a line-for-line pastiche of J.K. Rowling’s wizard world, a lot of the same story beats are here. In other words, in keeping with a lot of youth novels getting screen time in hopes of having Harry-like success, I just can’t see what makes The Lightening Thief so startlingly different that it screamed, “I must be adapted.”

Truthfully, I found the movie harmless if nothing else. It’s a satisfying adventure that hiccups over some rather obvious musical cues and some uncomfortable winks to the current world climate, especially Grover’s references to recession-induced cash saving measures. The young actors do a serviceable job to their characters, but a lot of the adult actors seemed sidelined in their parts, as if they were merely there to move the plot along. The casting also seemed a bit chaotic. Steve Coogan as Hades? Really? I take it Paul Reubens was unavailable. However putting Rosario Dawson in the part of Hades’ wife Persephone and giving her a Desperate Housewives style makeover was not necessarily a bad idea. And as I watched The Lightening Thief, an intriguing question occurred to me: who would win in a fight, Sean Bean’s Zeus from this film or Liam Neeson’s Zeus from the coming soon remake of Clash of the Titans?

But back to The Lightening Thief, which despite some serious cynical aspirations I cast, was not actually all that bad. Of course, how a group of teenagers criss-cross the United States inside 10 days is a travelogue of 24 proportions, but this is fantasy after all. I think what really holds this film back though is the filmmaker’s rather clinical vision. Of course Mount Olympus, now accessible through an elevator at the top the Empire State Building’s observation deck, is the exact same Olympus visualized by mortals for thousands of years with clouds, columns and togas. How dull. But despite that, The Lightening Thief isn’t a total time burglar. Sequel? Why not.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Rating: ****

Every time a Harry Potter movie comes out, I try and not measure it by the book and consider how it stands on its own as a work. Obviously, this is not an easy task, especially when the filmmakers continually feel compelled, out of a sense of fan loyalty, to make these films as true to the books as possibly without making it a staged reading of the novel. Half-Blood Prince gets a leg up on its predecessors because it’s the first Harry Potter movie made knowing the ending and the details on getting their laid out in the seventh and final book, which was released during the film’s pre-production. Much like how TV’s Lost found its way once the producers knew the end point, so it seems it’s true with the Potter series.

The film starts with Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) chilling out at a diner in a subway station (or tube station as they say in Britain), checking out the latest grisly news in the wizarding newspaper, The Daily Prophet. But Harry’s mind isn’t entirely on the dreary news of the day, and he flirts with the attractive waitress while there. Yes, Harry Potter flirts. Awkwardly, mind you, but it’s a flirt nonetheless. The scene sets the tone just right for Half-Blood Prince, which is two parts romantic-comedy and one part seriously dark wizard stuff.

Director David Yates, returning after Order of the Phoenix, demonstrates an enormous comfort with the material, thus allowing him to play with it to a greater degree of latitude than the films and filmmakers that came before. Again, I credit the release of the final book because being less concerned about what plot points are important allows the script to be more selective and instead of wondering what’s important later, everyone involved can focus on the one area the films have been lacking: character. Ron (Rupert Grint) gets more screentime as he becomes a Quiddich all-star and tries to balance a relationship with the overly affectionate Lavender Brown (Jessie Cave) and staying on speaking terms with Hermione (Emma Watson) despite her obvious jealousy.

Indeed, the Potter world seems to crackle with new energy. Alan Rickman returns some level of menace to Professor Snape after being relegated to a kind of comic relief part in the last couple of films. Maggie Smith balances the sentimental side of Professor McGonagall with her sterner tendencies in a couple of nice scenes. Also making the most of her limited screentime is Helena Bonham Carter, who proves that she was made for Bellatrix Lestrange, Voldemort’s right-hand henchwoman, and the one scene where she works off Rickman is just dynamite. The biggest new addition though Jim Broadbent as Horace Slughorn, the new Potions master. Broadbent wonderfully captures the avarice and regret of Slughorn making him both a funny and pitiful character.

But by far this film belongs to the kids. Tom Felton as Harry’s erstwhile school nemesis Draco Malfoy gets a chance to shine as the true foil in the film. Felton lays aside Malfoy’s traditional role as the smug and confident bully, to play up the conflict and turmoil his character endures in The Half-Blood Prince. There are scenes where he’s sitting alone in the dark that are somehow both menacing and miserable. I know in real life that Felton gets kids running away from him, which is tribute to how commanding he was when Malfoy was the Nelson Muntz of Hogwarts, but it’s good to know that when the time came, Felton was able to find the softer side of Malfoy. As for Radcliffe, I think that by the time the final credits roll on The Deathly Hallows he may have found his inner Harry. In Half-Blood Prince he’s pretty close, and the script allows him to be more proactive and more like the Harry we all know from the book.

Obviously, the technical specs on Half-Blood Prince are excellent. I’d love to see it in IMAX to get the full measure, but on the regular big screen the razzmatazz works perfectly fine, thank you. The cinematography is gorgeous, the editing is well-paced and smooth and the effects are incredibly well done. Despite a clunky beginning and end, Half-Blood Prince is the first film to really bring a Harry Potter book to full-blooded life on the big screen. Speaking of the book, a few of the changes bothered me, but not enough to stymie an overall positive movie experience. For future reference, having a continuity of filmmakers helps a lot when making a series, and more than that, knowing where you’re going before you start is the biggest help of all.