The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 (2014)

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 is the third movie in a franchise of movies based of off Suzanne Collins’ trilogy of the same name, but even though it is the third film in a “trilogy” it won’t be the last movie in this series. On the contrary, there will be a fourth film, the second movie based on the way-too-short-to-be-two-films-book Mockinjay, in which the Hunger Games saga finally reaches its conclusion. Lionsgate will not be the first studio to turn their YA adult novel-based franchise finale into a two-parter (that honor belongs to Harry Potter) and I’m sure it won’t be the last, but it should be.

I understand the appeal to the studio, why not make the last movie into two movies and make twice as much money? Of course, they don’t want to just appear to be sellouts, so they argue that it’s all in the interest of being as faithful as possible to the book; in the case of Harry Potter the last book is so huge, they just claimed they wanted to get it all on film, and maybe that was the case, but this just simply isn’t true with Mockingjay, which isn’t a long book by any stretch of the imagination. I can’t speak for Twilight, as I haven’t watched or read those, but I imagine it didn’t need a two-part finale either.

Now, some might not be bothered by this, the more of their favorite franchise the better, right? Here’s my problem with it, this technique completely wrecks the flow of the story and robs the series of momentum. Nowhere is this more apparent than with Mockingjay part 1. The Hunger Games series made a strong, bold start, but I wasn’t a huge fan of the first one; the camera work was shaky and awful and the effects looked cheap, but I could see there was promise. Then the franchise really hit a home run with Catching Fire; the cinematography was on point this time and the dark tone really set up the next movie well, only for all of its momentum to be wasted on a film where nothing happens.

Those of you have seen the film may think this is a harsh assessment, but really think about it, what truly happens in this film? Is any real progress made? Does Katniss develop at all? Does anyone really develop? The answer is not enough for this to feel like a complete movie and once again we’re left with half a story and a cliffhanger that wasn’t originally written as one. It’s not as bad as the ending of The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug (you’re really going to end before the dragon finally does something? Really?) it still leaves the audience feeling underwhelmed.

The real shame here is that the movie is actually pretty well done, and in terms of an adaptation it betters the book in every way, much the same way the previous two movies have; as such, those who have read the books will probably enjoy this one a lot more than those who haven’t. This exposes another problem with the two-part finale strategy; it leaves those who haven’t read the novels out to dry. How many people who haven’t read the books, but have enjoyed the first two films came out excited to watch the third movie, only to find that it’s mainly all set up for the next movie? For those who don’t know what happens in the finale that’s highly disappointing and it’s probably the reason for the overall lower enthusiasm for this film compared to the first two movies.

The good news is that there is another movie coming next year, and at the very least it seems fully “set up” now to be a good one. Let’s just hope that this finale actually delivers on its promise and feels like a complete story, because I’m growing tired of all of these extra parts in what used to be trilogies, and I don’t think I’m the only one.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 6.5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951265/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Dumb and Dumber To (2014)

There’s a new craze in Hollywood, spawning sequels, prequels and reboots like mad; it targets the young and old alike and it’s any Hollywood executive’s best friend, and that friend is a little thing called nostalgia. Nostalgia can be a great thing, when in its proper place, like watching an old Disney movie or reminiscing over family photos, but it has now become a tool for movie studios; one they use to trick people into seeing movies they normally wouldn’t watch (prime example: Ninja Turtles). While not all of this is bad (nostalgia is a great feeling after all, even if it’s being exploited) it seems apparent that it won’t be long before this fad is driven into the ground like sparkly vampires and other past trends. From this craze has come the latest in nostalgia trips, the Dumb and Dumber sequel, exactly two decades after the original.

The thing about this sequel is that it’s actually not half bad. It’s definitely not as fresh as the original, but the directors’ decision to keep close to the original spirit of the first film works for them more than against. One key difference is that Harry and Lloyd seem a lot meaner than I remember (and I just recently re-watched the original), sometimes this comes off as pretty harsh (especially some of the tricks they play on the poor blind kid), but I will admit that I personally enjoyed the morbid humor. However, some of the off color humor is a little too crude (at one point Harry and Lloyd yell at a poor young doctor to “show us your tits!”) I personally thought some of this humor crossed the line of likability and the characters walk a fine line throughout the film as well.

Of course, all of the dumb humor that people loved in the original is back in full force, and there is more than a few solid laughs in this film, most of them coming from Jim Carrey. Jeff Daniels does a decent job of reassuming his old role, but it’s Jim Carrey who really shines here; you can tell he’s positively hamming it up, and as an old fan it was nice to see him in a familiar role again (there’s that nostalgia working again).

The plot isn’t nearly as simple as the first movie, but it’s certainly not hard to follow and just as with the original it’s more about the relationship between Harry and Lloyd than anything. If you thought these two had learned from the last movie to think of anyone other than themselves, you’d be wrong; they’re just as selfish if not more so. Harry tries to track down his daughter he’s never met so he can swindle her out of a kidney; and Lloyd only agrees to go because once again he has an alarmingly creepy fantasy, this time involving Harry’s daughter.

For Dumb and Dumber fans, this sequel is definitely not a travesty (in my own humble opinion), rather it’s a solid tribute and when it’s bringing the laughs you manage to forget what horrible people Harry and Lloyd actually are. I wouldn’t recommend this movie to everyone, there’s quite a bit of awfully crude humor and if that’s not your style Dumb and Dumber To is not something you’re going to enjoy. However, if crude humor and dumb jokes are heavily amusing to you (as they are to me) this movie has plenty of laughs. Then again, that could just be the nostalgia talking, but for just this once, I’ll play along.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 7.5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2096672/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Interstellar (2014)

Interstellar may be the hardest movie of the year to review, and not for any one tangible reason. It’s hard to explain unless you’ve seen it, but there’s something about this epic tale; is it perfect? Not by a long shot, and I don’t think I would call it a masterpiece, but one can’t deny that it is one of the most epic cinematic journeys in years. The sheer effort that goes into this movie is astounding, and regardless of who says what about this film, you should definitely see this one in theaters, however, don’t expect the flawless work of art that many may have expected from Christopher Nolan’s latest non-Batman film; what you can expect, is a long, entertaining journey across the universe and back, one quite unlike anything you’ve ever seen.

At its core, Interstellar is really a very simple movie; humanity is dying and we have to find a way to save Earth… or leave it. Of course, Alfred… er, Michael Caine insists that the only way to save humankind is to find a new home, and of course Matthew McConaughey is the only man fit to do the job; that job being leaving Earth behind and finding a new planet for humanity to flee to. This sets up a rather heartbreaking scene where McConaughey is forced to leave his family behind, possibly forever; it’s moments like these where Interstellar is strong. The acting is superb (McConaughey’s drawl can be distracting sometimes, but it really fits the character in this movie I think) and the effects are all breathtaking, it’s in other areas where Interstellar falls short.

As this film is all about the existence of humanity, there is a lot of philosophical logic being thrown around at certain points; this is where things start to get ridiculous at times. The film seems to be grasping at something over its head, at one point Anne Hathaway talks about love as a quantifiable force (with a totally straight face) attempting to make a point about love perhaps being another dimension or part of evolution or something ridiculous; keep in mind this woman is a serious scientist (and I don’t think they brought any space weed so we can rule that out), or so we thought, so this all seems a bit ridiculous, especially because the film seems to validate that theory near the end.

While there’s certainly some shaky science in this film, there’s plenty of interesting theories being thrown around. At one point (probably one of the best moments of the film) the team lands on a planet near a black hole, which throws off time on the planet, meaning that every hour they stay there is seven years on Earth. There are several other breathtaking moments on the journey, like traveling through wormhole, or encountering waves taller than skyscrapers, and this is definitely the main attraction in this movie.

Towards the end of the film things really gets crazy and there’s a moment where you have to decide whether or not you’re going to accept the film’s logic as it leaves all realms of scientific reality. I don’t want to spoil it, but you will either hate it or love it, or perhaps you just won’t know what to think (like myself), however, I can’t deny the journey to get there is well worth it.

At its core, Interstellar is about humanity and when it focuses on this it strives; there’s some really great moments (like McConaughey telling his daughter that he can’t “be your ghost right now”) and we see both the good and bad that survival mode can bring out in humanity. Unfortunately, when the film reaches for broader, less concrete ideas, it can’t quite adequately explain or sell the idea, and it comes across as half-baked, at least it did for me. That doesn’t take away from epic journey that this film is, but it does prevent it from being the masterpiece that I was expecting.

 Even though it wasn’t another 2001: A Space Odyssey, it still manages to be highly entertaining and I was on the edge of my seat for most of the film, and while it may sound like I’m being mostly negative about it, that’s more of a reflection on how hyped up the film was; it’s still a terrific movie and I highly recommend it. Regardless, go see this film (and see it in actual film because that’s how Nolan would want it) because you may never see another spectacle like this for some time.

One last note: I liked certain parts of the score, but someone needs to tell Hans Zimmer that sometimes less is more. The music blared on for most of the movie, and there were times when I couldn’t even hear the lines because the score was so loud. I get it, this part’s supposed to be exciting and have suspenseful music and all that, but I’d really like to hear what the actors are saying too.

An additional final note: I don’t understand how any planet near a black hole is considered inhabitable; honestly, I’d rather die on Earth.

I promise this is the last last note: There's a lot of talk about gravity in this movie (talk that doesn't make any sense of course) maybe this film should have been titled Gravity instead.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 8.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692/?ref_=nv_sr_1

John Wick (2014) Or, a defense of action films

I have to admit, when it comes to action films, I used to be a bit of a sucker. Anytime a movie came out, if it had a high body count, multiple massive explosions, and a plethora of bullets, I was definitely down; I mean, I was a fan of Transformers for crying out loud. As time went on, however, I began to see that these movies had no substance, and as someone who loved films and dreamed of writing them, I believed that I had to grow past my inclination to turn my brain off and enjoy these completely meaningless action flicks. Thus began my indie phase, where I strived to watch only meaningful movies, mostly ones that the average movie audience would never have heard of, possibly something by Jim Jarmusch or maybe Terrence Malick. The action movie was dead to me, and as Hollywood had seemingly become intent on churning and re-churning out crap such as G.I. Joe, I saw no reason to return to them.

Now, every now and then (especially with friends) I would cave and watch something purely about action, and of course I would act like I hated it, because it has no substance right? Fast Five is a ridiculous movie, do you really expect me to believe that two cars can drag a giant safe through a city like that? And please don’t even get me started on anything from Michael Bay. Of course, some action movies are just plain bad (the Bay-produced TMNT anyone?) but others (like the Fast and Furious franchise) were starting to get real acclaim, and I felt like that went against everything I had held dear as cinephile, a real, quality cinephile, or so I thought.

Then came a movie called the Raid. It remains one of the best action movies I’ve ever seen. What happens in it? One guy kicks entire building’s worth of ass. Not exactly full of substance; they attempt to add a whole he has a wife and kids thing, but it’s pretty forgettable. So why does this movie work? Why does the Fast and Furious franchise work? (I’ll admit, I’m pretty obsessed with Fast and Furious, always have been even when I tried to resist the urge, now I embrace it).

Let’s move on to John Wick. Keanu Reeve’s latest flick is another action movie that sets itself apart from the Michael Bay extravaganza that are most major Hollywood action films today and along with films like Fast Five, the Raid, Snowpiercer and others it has taught me to love action again. John Wick’s storyline isn’t complicated; a mobster’s dumb, spoiled brat of a son steals Wick’s car and brutally kills his puppy (his puppy damn him, and it was a last gift from his dead wife) so of course, John Wick (being an ex-hit man, the best one ever, by the way) decides to kill all of them. What this movie lacks for in substance, it more than makes up for in style. To focus on the script, plot and dialogue in a movie like this would be a mistake, that’s not what it’s made for. John Wick revels in the action and the choreography of that action. Wick looks extremely impressive when taking out baddies, and that’s mostly what this briskly-paced film is, John Wick taking out baddies, and you know what, that’s ok.

Unlike other Hollywood action films, which weigh the film down with infuriatingly irrelevant subplots, annoying sidekicks, and underwhelming final showdowns, John Wick and other movies like it have avoided these stereotypes and just dedicated the entire runtime to kicking ass. Of course it isn’t realistic (I’m pretty sure Wick should have been dead at least three separate times) but if it’s done just right, it’s awfully fun, like the equivalent of a thrill ride at an amusement park.

That’s what movies like the Fast and the Furious have done for the action movie genre, they’ve made it fun again. This franchise know it isn’t realistic in the slightest and it pushes the bar of realism with glee, just look at the latest trailer where Dom and the gang drop out of a plane in cars with parachutes, I’m sorry that’s just plain awesome, it is and there’s nothing wrong with admitting that. Honestly, some of the stunts they come up with in John Wick are just as creative as a great line in an indie film (and secretly more entertaining, don’t tell anyone I said that though).

In the end, that’s the ultimate conclusion I’ve had, and why I’ve fallen for action films all over again. Because there’s nothing wrong with simply enjoying a movie for the ride, and with films like John Wick, it’s all about the ride; so just sit back and enjoy a movie for two hours, I promise it won’t kill too many brain cells.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 8

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2911666/?ref_=nv_sr_1

The Equalizer (2014)

The Equalizer is yet another in a recent line of films where Denzel Washington embodies the saintly bad ass; other films such as The Book of Eli, Man on Fire, and Safe House, to name a few, have all starred the reliable action star in similar roles, but none of them have quite worshipped Denzel’s prowess the way this film does. Although all of those films mentioned previously are mostly about style over substance, The Equalizer embraces its style to a fault, to the point where all substance is completely overshadowed.

From the beginning, we can tell that Denzel’s character is a man that can do no wrong. He helps the overweight kid at his job lose weight and get fit for a security guard test, he’s beloved by all his co-workers and he reads books for crying out loud (of course it’s because his wife died, the wife always has to be dead doesn’t she?); but what we quickly find out is that not only can Denzel do no wrong, apparently he can just do whatever he wants, because he’s Denzel.

Several times Denzel encounters what seem to be insurmountable odds, and he just simply sets his watch (he times everything he does, from washing the dishes to killing several people at a time) and deals with them rather matter-of-factly. At first, I personally was content to go along with this, but I have my limits and I think I reached my limit right around the Denzel-walks-away-from-explosion-in-extreme-slow-motion scene, where any human in their right mind would quickly run to a safe distance (or at least set a decent timer), but not Denzel, he’s content to just slowly walk through the plumes of flame and smoke… and be totally fine.

What’s frustrating is that Denzel’s character initially seems to be rather unique and interesting; he’s a former secret agent or something like that, who has noticeable OCD. He’s constantly adjusting things on the table and making sure the binding of his book is lined up to the edge and stuff like that, and his obsessive timing could also be interesting, but in the last half of the film he turns into some saint who for unknown reasons must take it upon himself to kill all of the Russian mafia because they totally beat up this girl (prostitute) that he talked to occasionally at a diner. If this seems like shaky motivation for Denzel to release the beast (after mentioning that he promised his dying wife that he would never kill again) then I would have to agree with you. This weakness in the movie plagues the story, and serves to make the ending all the more ridiculous.

(SPOILERS) This is a movie with an end so ridiculous I just have to mention it. After taking out the main baddie sent to stop him here in America, Denzel is left bleeding and bruised (I had hope that maybe he would die a hero’s death, but alas not in this movie, Denzel is too good to die) one might think the movie would stop here, but of course it doesn’t. Realizing that simply killing the guys who work for the mafia isn’t good enough, Denzel decides he must “cut off the head of the snake.” That’s right, Denzel travels all the way to Moscow, tracks down the head of the RUSSIAN MAFIA, and then kills him using simple electronic household appliances (his use of gardening tools as weapons earlier in the film is impressive as well). He then walks out of this house (passing several corpses on the way, more of Denzel’s handiwork) and just flies back to America, his mission now complete. Now as ridiculous as this whole ending is, its made all the more ridiculous by the way the film acts as if the conflict is just suddenly resolved now. I can’t imagine Denzel just killed every Russian in Russia (although in this movie universe I’m sure he’s capable of it) so logic follows that someone will succeed the now deceases head of the Russian mafia, and I’m sure whoever that is will be looking for revenge. Then again, maybe they’re saving that for the sequel. (END SPOILERS)

The Equalizer could easily have been a passable action movie, or even a good one, something along the lines of Safe House or one of Denzel’s earlier efforts, but the movie is so obsessed with style and portraying Denzel as the ultimate bad ass with a conscience that it just becomes distracting. When the credits finally hit the screen (this movie is about twenty minutes too long) I was bewildered by what I’d just seen and not in a good way.  A tip for the next director who takes on a Denzel movie, give him at least one real fault, it makes the character a thousand times more interesting.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 6.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0455944/

Boyhood (2014)

If you’ve been paying close attention to any of the numerous independent films released this year, chances are you’ve heard a lot about Boyhood, the remarkable 12-year project from Richard Linklater. However, if you’re not one to follow the indie scene, you may not have heard of this generation-defining film, or what makes it so unique.

On its surface, Boyhood sounds like a normal, maybe even boring motion picture about a boy growing up, but if that’s all you know of Boyhood, you’re missing out. The remarkable thing about Boyhood isn’t necessarily the script, or the directing, or the acting (although all of these elements of the film are impressively on point) what sets this film apart is how incredibly long it took just to film this movie. Instead of hiring several different actors to play the main character (Mason, who makes for a uniquely interesting protagonist) Richard Linklater made this film over 12 years, with the same actors as they actually aged over that time period. Thus, even though Boyhood is scripted, watching the film is almost like watching an actual boy progress through his childhood. I can’t stress enough how much of a difference this makes in the movie; the characters feel like real people and we really feel as if we are watching these people grow and not just as actors playing fictional parts, but it feels real. Honestly, I could write a whole essay about just how unique this aspect of the film is alone, but I’ll just leave it at this: it makes for a ground-breaking experience.

As for the story itself, it’s actually very engaging; young Mason goes through a lot of experiences that many of us have shared and some that maybe a lot of us haven’t, but through it all I felt as though Boyhood is the kind of film that all of us can relate to, and not just boys. This is really the story of growing up, and since all of us can appreciate that on one level or another, it’s the perfect film to watch and reminisce on your own life; I know I found myself getting excited when I recognize a few toys in the background that I’d owned myself as a child (anyone remember Gameboys?). In one scene Mason and his father (a virtually perfect performance by Ethan Hawke here) have a conversation over a campfire about whether there’ll be a Star Wars movie, (this of course was filmed long before anyone knew Disney would milk the franchise to the bitter end) it’s a simple scene but it made me laugh and reflect on similar conversations I’d had with my own father. That’s what Boyhood is all about.

Another thing I like about Boyhood is its objectivity; this isn’t a Disney film where the parents are/were perfect (dead) role models, but it isn’t a Steven Spielbierg movie either where the kids rule and the parents are just dumb bumbling idiots. There’s a delicate balance here as there is in real life and the film never offers an opinion on who’s right and who’s wrong. Several times Mason’s mother (his father and mother are separated so he lives with his mother) makes some questionable decisions, but the film never judges her, nor does it shy away from showing her imperfection. The same goes for the father, his relationship with the kids is just as flawed even though it’s drastically different.

When the film finally reaches the end, we the audience feel like we’ve been through a real journey, but it’s not really over; because really, Mason’s life is just beginning as he leaves boyhood and enters manhood. The way the film ends perfectly reflects that (I don’t want to give away any spoilers on this one) it feels like the end of an era, but also the beginning of a new one, and I couldn’t imagine a better way for this film to end.

Boyhood is a long film (almost 3 hours), and I could go on for pages and pages, but I’ll keep it short because this is a film that you should experience for yourself. I urge you if you see one film this year, make it Boyhood (but also go see Guardians of the Galaxy because that one’s just too much fun) I promise you it’s an experience you’ll never forget, just like your own childhood.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 9.75

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1065073/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Into the Storm (2014)

“Sir, I’ve studied storms all my life and this is the biggest storm that has ever been!” Yes, this is an actual, serious line from Into the Storm… No, I don’t really know what to think of it either. Is it hilarious? I certainly think so. Is it so stupid it makes your head hurt from how hard your eyes just rolled? Absolutely it is. Is it awesome? I’m not sure how to answer that one, but one thing I do know is that from this one quotation, you can infer everything you need to know about this motion picture, for better or worse.

Into the Storm is yet another cheaply-made horror/action flick, this time from our friends over at New Line Cinema and Warner Brothers, and yet another in a long line of misguided found-footage films. Why this movie was turned into a found-footage project is beyond me as it seems like even the director and/or cinematographer aren’t really thrilled about the idea themselves. Although the film starts out like many other found-footage films (some annoying character you don’t care about is doing some really “amateur” filming on their home digital cam of other characters you don’t care about) it quickly departs from this, but more on that later.

Into the Storm is a very simple movie; if you love the idea of seeing a relatively small town getting torn to shreds then this movie was made for you. However, if the idea of seeing the world’s largest (fake) storm on screen doesn’t excite you, you’re most likely better off skipping this one altogether.

On a positive note, the tornadoes are pretty impressive and the action is appropriately intense for any action junkies looking to get their fix, however, there’s no real substance to this story no matter how hard the movie tries to make us care. Honestly, I think this is partially to blame on the over-abundance of characters in the movie, there’s simply too many people to keep track off in this one, and not enough reason to want to (and not nearly enough people die in the storm either).

The premise to this film is as simple as it gets and the characters are just so utterly forgettable (Lori from Walking Dead is in this, for some reason) that I’m just going to focus on the bafflingly inconstant camera work in this one. From the very beginning we’re introduced to this movie as a found-footage style picture, and of course all of the normal inconsistencies that typically plague this genre follow (why is there professional lighting in the living room? How are we getting cinema-grade quality from a Panasonic handheld? Who films people talking about such boring stuff? Etc.) but Into the Storm goes a step further once the storm hits. It seems as if the filmmakers are barely even trying to suspend disbelief on this one (cameras still work after being drowned in water? Ok then) several times there are shots and angles that range from impractical to impossible; in one instance, both a camera man and his camera are sucked into a fiery tornado and we see all of this footage. How? Was it found later in a grassy field? Was he live-streaming from his camera? (I don’t think so and it was never mentioned if he was) Perhaps the storm nicely returned it later. This isn’t the only instance of something like this happening, but it’s probably the most noticeable one. At a certain point, I just had to stop pretending this was any sort of “found-footage” and chalk it up as the film’s “style” just to prevent myself from being so distracted by the implausibility of it all.

Once the giant storm itself hits, that’s when things really get crazy (and people still manage to keep a firm grip on their cameras). This twister is unlike anything you’ve ever seen (because it’s like the biggest thing ever, remember?) it looks like at least a dozen large tornadoes put together, probably more and it certainly seems menacing in nature. So where do our brave heroes hide from the most biggest storm there ever was? (Minor Spoilers) A storm drain. That’s right the biggest storm of the century (which by the way tore apart the entire school and storm shelter) couldn’t even take out a simple storm drain (End of Minor Spoilers).

Of course, once it’s all over everyone learns a valuable lesson (even the school jock who appears at the beginning and then at the end and leaves us wondering why he even appeared at all) which is that family is important and storms are super dangerous, but awesome.

One final note: this storm hits the entire town completely unawares (they’re having a high school graduation when it hits for crying out loud) and my one question is this: how in the world does the “biggest storm that has ever been” just drop out of the sky without one single meteorologist even issuing so much as a tornado warning? The film attempts to explain this away by implying that the storm is just really tricky, but I have to believe in this day and age the town would at least be expecting more than a little rain. Then again, perhaps I’m just thinking this over too much, obviously more than the filmmakers ever did.

-Ryan Maples

Rating: 4.5

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2106361/?ref_=nv_sr_1