The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2

After three book and four films, we finally bid adieu to everyone’s favorite bow-wielding heroine, Katniss Everdeen. I will spare you the book versus movie comparison, but will say that it has quite a bit in common with other recent epic finale attempts; fantastic action, satisfying resolution, but a bit long-winded and melodramatic on the back end.

When the first Hunger Games came out in 2012, it became the next “Harry Potter” in terms of low risk, bankable box office success, and sparked an industry frenzy of imitators; “The Lightning Thief”, “Divergent”, “Maze Runner”, “Ender’s Game”, “the Giver”, and the upcoming “the Fifth Wave”. There is something about the young adult sci-fi dystopian future that is like catnip for the target demographic, which by my calculation, is just about everyone. Don’t lie, you know you love these movies.

The film picks up where Mockingjay Part 1 leaves off, in the middle of a revolutionary war with the wealthy being overthrown by the proletariat. Propaganda, terrorism, and class wars make for an almost uncanny commentary on our current political climate. Suzanne Collins, you visionary, you. Katniss and her band of elite friends and warriors must infiltrate the capitol to remove the evil President Snow from power to finally end the war and return power to the people.

This is where the film finds its rhythm and success. The elaborate traps that the game makers litter throughout the city make for a dangerous maze with deadly consequences and heightened tension, because as we all know, all bets are off when it comes to a finale. Any of the characters are fair game to be killed off, and (spoiler alert), many are.

The second act falters greatly, however. After the climax, there is the obligatory wrapping up of the story which goes on for so long, I thought Peter Jackson might have been involved in the film. At well over two hours, it seems as if the two Mockingjay films were dragged out just so they could double the profits. Smart move for the studio, but not so great for the paying audience. It would have made a fantastic single movie, but there’s just too much excess fat in a five hour finale that honestly should have been trimmed.

Jennifer Lawrence has evolved beyond this character, but she was locked in from the start and is certainly getting paid well for this franchise. She is keeping herself busy with next month’s Oscar-bait biopic, “Joy”, and projects with Steven Spielberg and Darren Aronofsky on the horizon as well as another “X-Men” film and a curious science fiction story called “Passengers” with Chris Pratt.

Francis Lawrence (no relation) is a fantastic director with a bright future in the action genre. The man behind “Constantine”, “I am Legend”, and the final three “Hunger Games” films is in strong command of his work. His action scenes are thrilling and suspenseful, and there is a dark, edginess to his craft. There is a scene in the sewers below the capitol that is eerily reminiscent of the “Aliens” films. Claustrophobic, dark, perfectly timed sound effects and red herring moments that make you jump. This is the Francis Lawrence I want to see more of in the future.

Philip Seymour Hoffman’s last film role is unremarkable as Plutarch Heavensbee, the former game maker-turned rebellion leader, but his presence is noticed. It’s always difficult seeing an actor on-screen after their death, and like Robin Williams’ “Boulevard”, there is a heartfelt feeling that he will be missed.

“Mockingjay Part 2” was precisely what I was expecting, but the first half impressed me and the second disappointed. It’s time to move on to the next franchise du jour. What will it be? Blood Red Road? Delirium? Legend? Pure? Only time will tell, but there is limitless material out there, and with it we might see the next Jennifer Lawrence. Parting is such sweet sorrow, Katniss. 7/10.

Spectre

Daniel Craig is back for the fourth and perhaps final time as the iconic lothario James Bond; the British spy with an insatiable appetite for women and a knack for finding, avoiding, and making danger look just plain cool.

The latest entry into the pantheon of the genre finds James dealing with the aftermath of “Skyfall” and the death of his beloved mentor, M. The trademark opening sequence is breathtaking as a helicopter does barrel rolls over a crowd of onlookers in Mexico City on the Day of the Dead. The film continues its epic 148 minute journey, introducing us to new villains, new women, new gadgets, and a hip, new twenty-first century nod to the changing spy game and the challenges and fears that come with it.

Everyone who follows the cinematic universe has stumbled upon James Bond once or twice (or twenty-four times) and after the masterful “Skyfall” in 2012, there has been a resurgence in the quality of the films as well as a shift back to basics where Bond is less of a ladies’ man who gets cool gadgets and fights baddies to more of a tough guy who fights complex networks of villains and just happens to be good with the ladies. It’s subtle, but it’s appropriate for the evolution of the franchise.

In an homage to what might be Craig’s swan song, “Spectre” takes on a much more classic approach to the story. It’s eerily nostalgic of the Sean Connery Bond; the one who made the character so compelling way back in the 1960’s. What keeps us coming back for more each and every time? I’m glad you asked. The spy fantasy is nothing new. Excitement is a natural yearning, and what better fantasy than being a smart, attractive, physically imposing man who carries a license to kill, escapes every hostile situation, and gets literally every woman he wants. The formula doesn’t get much more perfect than that. Why do women love James Bond? I haven’t figured that one out yet, but my theory is the whole international man of mystery thing. Tame the wild beast, travel to exotic locales with the coolest guy in the room. That sort of thing.

Craig walks through the role, perhaps fatigued by the demands of playing such an important character in film. There is already speculation as to the identity of his successor, with most odds makers putting Idris Elba, Damien Lewis, and Tom Hardy at the top of the list. For my money, I’d like to see a fresh direction and see a younger actor play the role. Someone like Jamie Bell. Not necessarily a prequel because the franchise isn’t entirely chronological, but a fresh set of stories to accompany a fresh actor (perhaps a throwback and a 1960’s or 1970’s setting?)

Two time Oscar winner Christoph Waltz plays the villain, Oberhauser (is that his real name?), who has a past link to Bond as well as the previous villains from “Casino Royale”, “Quantum of Solace”, and “Skyfall”. He walks through the role without any real emotion, and I was honestly expecting quite a bit more as his persona just oozes Bond villain. The connections are a nice bow on the quadrilogy and suggest that the next film may be a step in a new direction with some new blood at the helm and in the role. I think it’s a good choice.

Sam Mendes (“American Beauty”, “Road to Perdition”, “Jarhead”, “Skyfall”) is one of my favorite directors, and I imagine he couldn’t pass on the experience to be a part of the Bond legacy. Although he’s rumored to be attached to the twenty-fifth installment, I imagine he will move on to something different. And I can’t wait.

Dave Bautista brings some muscle to the film as Hinx, the henchman. It’s been awhile since we’ve had a good henchman, and it is another nod to the classic approach to this film. My only complaint is with his limited screen time and his lackluster exit.

Everything about this film screams classic Bond, and that is what makes it work. It isn’t nearly as well done as “Skyfall”, but it is absolutely on par with what should be the audience expectations. Perhaps “Skyfall” should have been the fourth installment, sending Craig out with an award-worthy bang, but I paid to see James Bond drive a cool car, fight some quirky bad guys, and bed some beautiful women. Job well done, James. 8/10.

Our Brand is Crisis

Timely and ambitious, “Our Brand is Crisis” is a satirical reflection of our current American political climate set to a backdrop of a South American country in distress and a pair of rival strategists jockeying their candidates in a critical presidential election.

Sandra Bullock is “Calamity” Jane Bodine, a brilliant semi-retired political strategist whose flexible moral compass led her down the path of self-destruction years prior. Tasked with bringing a Bolivian candidate out of the cellar in just eighty days using media, a smear campaign, and some of Jane’s own political tricks, it is a whirlwind of polling, running ads, and pandering to the people.

Billy Bob Thornton is Pat Candy, Jane’s longtime rival who is a globetrotter for the highest bidder. Orchestrating elections without a second thought of consequence or conscience. The two of them are birds of a feather yet they stick out in a sea of South Americans as elitist and disconnected.

Written by Rachel Boynton originally as a documentary in 2005, and adapted by Peter Straughan, the notion is nothing revelatory. It’s an underdog story on the campaign trail, exposing just how depraved and competitive the behind-the-scenes folks truly are. The focus is on the people and not the election, but in this case, glossing over the plight of the Bolivians in greater detail was a mistake. This film would have worked much better for something less serious. Maybe a city council race in Seattle, or the gubernatorial race in Wyoming. An unstable South American country just didn’t really jive with the tone of the characters and what I think was the statement of the film.

The witty repartee between Bullock and Mackie, and Bullock and Thornton throw around clever quotes, political anecdotes, and idealistic rhetoric with lightning speed. The problem is that these characters are more clueless and simple than they let on. And uninteresting. The fact is that “Our Brand is Crisis” has a bit of an identity crisis itself. It wants to be politically relevant, and insightful. It also wants to develop strong characters who establish lasting relationships. But it also wants to tackle some real significant global issues, and use humor to make those issues less painful. It’s too much and not enough.

There is an uncomfortable tension between Bullock’s Jane and Thornton’s Pat that I couldn’t tell whether it was sexual attraction or sexual harassment throughout, and that doesn’t bode well for any film. Sandra Bullock is her typical loud-mouthed character evolving through the interaction with the less fortunate, but in this case, the changes are just too massive for her character to achieve realistically. Thornton is just plain slimy, so kudos for his performance, but his character took things a bit too far.

I can appreciate a good political satire, but there is nothing compelling or original in this story. Perhaps most importantly, there is no appeal for any of the candidates. No mention of any issues or past political miscues with the exception of one that is honestly, pretty irrelevant. A film this deeply rooted in the inner-workings of the corrupt political machine needs to provide some direction to the audience. I wasn’t rooting for any of the candidates because I didn’t know what they stood for, or whether they were decent men or not. I wasn’t rooting for or against Jane because although I recognize her character is riddled with regret, I didn’t have a good feel for where her heart truly lies; remorse, atonement, or resignation. That would make an interesting character study.

The film is harshly bleak and cynical, and that is coming from a cynic. I didn’t enjoy this nearly as much as I was hoping, and whatever message was intended didn’t come through very clearly. 5/10.

Bridge of Spies

Based on a true story. Inspired by true events. It seems that everything these days is a reimagining of historical events. Isn’t every piece of writing inspired by true events to some degree? Maybe not The Avengers, but you know what I mean. This time of year, we are bombarded with biopics and slightly embellished stories of valor and heroism. Some stories are truly worth the yarn spun, and others simply aren’t. “Bridge of Spies” falls in line with the latter.

1957, Brooklyn. As the Cold War is escalating, family man insurance lawyer James Donovan (Tom Hanks) is tapped by the US Government to defend a Soviet spy in court, and finds himself entangled with the CIA in East Berlin negotiating with the Soviets and Germans in a game of cloak and mouse and cat and dagger. You know what I mean.

Directed by Steven Spielberg should be enough of a reason to see this film. Throw in written by the Coen brothers and starring Tom Hanks, and it should have been a home run. Unfortunately, the film relies too heavily on Atticus Finch syndrome (trademark pending) and patriotism. The story is unremarkable and even less suspenseful that it certainly should be, and there are only so many times we can be expected to watch a good man defying the odds and risking his reputation and safety to simply do the right thing. Sorry Steven. With a variety of projects on his plate (“Ready Player One” and “The Circle” should be exceptional fun) he has ample opportunity to move on. After all, he’s Steven freaking Spielberg.

Tom Hanks breezes through this performance with his fluttering eyelids and boyish grin interspersed between important speeches. I still think his best performances didn’t earn him Oscars (“Captain Phillips”, “Saving Private Ryan”, “Road to Perdition”) and this one will go down with a potential nomination, but shouldn’t secure any hardware. Of course, some people are raving, but his portrayal of James Donovan is less Gregory Peck and more… well-aged Tom Hanks on autopilot.

The Coen Brothers are a perennial favorite of mine, and they have turned their attention toward screenwriting in lieu of directing. They tend to alternate between quirky comedies and Oscar bait, and their upcoming “Hail Caesar” will certainly be quirky. Their fatal flaw in writing this story lies in their inability to capture the suspense and tension between the US and USSR. Come on guys, we are on the brink of Armageddon and you choose this story to be about moral character? Amp up the suspense a bit, even if it’s just for one scene. There was none to be found. Opportunities aplenty, but missed at every turn. I will commend them on weaving a complex game of espionage and elucidating things nicely at the end for the mainstream audience. Don’t worry, you don’t need a history lesson before watching the film. This marks two non-fiction screenplay bombs in a row for them (remember last year’s “Unbroken”?)

Mark Ryland is the lone performance that stands out, and it might win him a Best Supporting Actor nomination. A longtime stage thespian, he plays the Soviet, Rudolph Abel with a subtlety worthy of mention. Few words spoken, but he still says so much through his expressionless façade. He can be seen re-teaming with Spielberg in the upcoming “BFG”.

The Cold War was a scary time. Or so I’ve heard. There are admirable men and women whose actions prevented us (America) from facing catastrophe and their stories are things of legend worthy of public celebration. I just wish this film was a bit more intense.

“Bridge of Spies” isn’t what I would consider a bad movie by any means, it is just disappointing, long, and boring. Don’t expect anything beyond average. 6/10.

The Martian

There is something inspiring about seeing the words “Ridley Scott” over a backdrop of stars. He is unquestionably the master of the genre (Alien, Blade Runner, Prometheus), and for a change, he shirks aliens and dystopian futures for something a bit more realistic and a bit more heartwarming; Robinson Crusoe in space. This is a fantastic film based on a brilliant book.

Based on the best-selling novel of the same name, “The Martian” finds astronaut Mark Watney stranded and alone on Mars after a storm scrubs his crew’s mission and they blast off, thinking him dead. A botanist and mechanical engineer by trade, he finds himself needing to solve problem after problem with only science, humor, and perseverance to keep him going. The clock is ticking as his basic needs necessitate creative feats of ingenuity on his part, while the entire human race roots for him back home.

There are two major deviations from the novel; one that was a savvy move by the screenwriter that I totally respect, and one that didn’t sit well with me but is entirely understandable from the cinematic angle. Drew Goddard (“World War Z”, “Cabin in the Woods”, “Cloverfield”) is one of the hottest screenwriters around and his upcoming “Robopocalypse” (Steven Spielberg) and “Sinister Six” (Marvel super villains) certainly won’t disappoint either. Of course, his source material on this one was pretty much written for a film. Author Andy Weir is a self-proclaimed science geek, and his novel was lauded for its feasibility, so there really wasn’t much that needed to change in the first place.

Matt Damon does his best Tom Hanks from “Castaway” impression, but the weight loss is clearly done with special effects in lieu of a six month filming hiatus. Soliloquies, video diaries, and a wry wit brings the much needed levity to the otherwise dire and tenuous situation of surviving indefinitely, which is amplified by an ominous soundtrack (when the 70’s pop music isn’t playing). A performance devoid of live character interactions is a difficult challenge, and the gravity of the situation is bleak if not completely hopeless, yet Damon conveys the emotion adeptly.

The rest of the cast is astutely inserted to raise the stakes and change perspective, so we truly feel the weight of the rescue effort, even in scenes of Mark Watney isolation on a beautiful cinematic landscape. Jeff Daniels plays the terse NASA administrator with nary a smile or smirk the entire film, and it anchors the pragmatic angle perfectly. Kristin Wiig is the potty-mouthed public relations director, Annie Montrose, who I was honestly expecting a more lewd and crass performance by based on her character in the novel. Chiwetel Ejiofor is Vincent Kapoor, the mission controller who is the emotional center of the Earth setting, and Donald Glover, Benedict Wong, and Mackenzie Davis are the lead specialists working around the clock to make everything come together just right. The crewmembers on the ship back to Earth in the third setting are Jessica Chastain, Michael Pena, Kate Mara, Sebastian Stan, and Aksel Hennie, and their performances are honestly just filler.

The marketing effort is brilliant for this film. Permeating social media and creating viral videos is a true indication that film as a whole is moving into a more progressive media direction. It might be a sign of things to come, or it might just be Ridley Scott’s genius at play.

Triumph of resolve and the human condition is what makes “The Martian” work. Rallying behind a man at impossible odds and doing anything fathomable to survive is really what being human is at its core, isn’t it? The climax had some Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich flair, but what do you expect from what is essentially an Oscar-caliber blockbuster (a rarity in cinema).

This immediately tops my list of best films of the year, but it is just the first week of October, so although it will decimate the box office for the next few weeks, I don’t see it winning any coveted gold statues. Of course, that doesn’t take away anything from the sheer brilliance and enjoyment factor. At a lengthy 2 hours and 20 minutes, it’s a bit drawn out, but it’s certainly worth it in the end. This is a different kind of science fiction, a pleasant surprise from the master of the genre, and it is well worth the price of admission. 9/10.

The Intern

Experience never gets old, but formulaic dramedies do. Nancy Meyers (Father of the Bride, Something’s Gotta Give, The Holiday), one of the most darling writer/directors of unorthodox (old people) romantic comedies today, draws from so many stereotypes that it’s difficult to keep up at times. Of course, that’s the draw, isn’t it? Stereotypes are transparent and relatable. She creates two main characters with polar opposite personalities, yet they somehow need each other and learn valuable life lessons in the process. It’s cathartic therapy for the cinematic mind.

Seventy year old Ben Whitaker (Robert De Niro) finds himself bored with retirement, so he applies for an internship at About the Fit, an Internet retailer run by the onerous and often intolerable Jules Ostin (Anne Hathaway). Just ask her staff of over two hundred, they are all frightened by her tactics. To call her a fickle micro-manager would be an understatement. Ben begins to ingratiate himself to the company, particularly Jules, and a sort of father figure relationship blossoms. Meanwhile, the cliché world of an ultra-successful Internet Start-up Company swirls around Jules and leads us to a crossroads of old school versus progressive, and could you guess which one will win?

Finding itself somewhere between a lowbrow romantic comedy and “As Good as it Gets”, “The Intern” never gains traction in any particular area of the genre. Or any genre for that matter. To me it simply maintained status quo from start to finish. A drama trying to be funny, relying on two outstanding actors to keep it alive.

Robert De Niro does a fantastic job in a truly understated role as Ben. I was hoping for some depth to his character (Jack Nicholson would have been nice) but it never materialized. There was nothing wrong with his performance, but he just sort of coasted through the whole film with his two looks; “I am concerned” and “I understand, I’m older and wiser than you, but I don’t want to make you feel badly”. There was even a moment of opportunity for a big breakout speech that could have made the film (two actually), but it was truncated by the supposedly more desirable bonding scenes that are a signet of any unlikely pairing film. I was rooting for De Niro to knock this one out of the park, but he safely opted for a base hit instead. Ben is a severely likable man, almost too likable to be taken seriously. A great character needs a flaw, and there just isn’t one to endear or connect him to the audience. It’s a lost opportunity, and I blame Nancy Meyers, not Bobby D.

Anne Hathaway is the real centerpiece of the film. Her acting leaves nothing to be desired, but the character is just too predictable. Strong and vulnerable, vicious and kind, brazen and self-conscious. You get the point. Hathaway has the look of a younger Julia Roberts, a perfect actress for romantic comedies in today’s day and age, but she just hasn’t found the right material yet.
Supporting players Anders Holm and Adam Devine made me feel like I was watching an episode of “Workaholics” and I never really bought Holm’s character as Hathaway’s husband in the least. That was an area that could have used some serious second guessing by the casting director, despite how much I typically like Holm and find his humor entertaining.

Essentially, this is what I would call a nice try. Good enough for low expectations, with nothing surprising or fresh. The actors are top notch, but the story leaves you wanting a bit more. That said, this is a romantic comedy at its core, but it’s missing the romance. Therefore, it is missing a crucial ingredient in what could have made it a successful film. 6/10.