Skyfall

Starring Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, and Judi Dench
Directed by Sam Mendes
Year: 2012
IMDB / Wikipedia / Official Song

During the summer months you may have the opportunity to see a movie in the park. If it’s as good as this one, I suggest you do not pass up on the opportunity. 

Whenever James Bond returns to the big screen we are witnessing both a cinematic landmark as well as a bit of a resurrection. The epitome of the static character has found a new dimension with Craig that hasn’t been seen since George Lazenby‘s turn as the British super-spy and I am in the vocal minority of people who is glad to see its return. An emotional Bond, with flaws and the ability to be hurt or even killed, is infinitely more interesting from a character development standpoint and makes for a better film. However, with top-shelf writers and Sam Mendes at the helm, the world of a new, raw, and gritty Bond can mesh seamlessly with the archetype that has been developed over the last 50 years.

And with a new Bond we get a new breed of villain that still casts the traditional large shadow, but is also more devious and has more than just a single motive. With Skyfall, Bardem fills the role with the first Bond villain that is truly terrifying and a bit twisted to boot. His character is to the Bond universe as Heath Ledger‘s Joker was to the Batman universe and that was to push the protagonist to his mental limits, testing boundaries, and even dredging up the past to make a point. Bardem’s role raises him to the upper-eschelon of Bond villains but he is not the …

Most Valuable Actor: which goes to Judi Dench as M. Before she took the role during the Pierce Brosnan era, M was much like Charlie on Charlie’s Angels–appearing at the beginning to give Bond his assignment and at the end telling him good job right before the credits rolled. Dench made M something more and that is a major reason the character had a much larger role in this film. Only a terrific actor can shift a paradigm like this in a franchise that seems afraid of change.

Trailer:

Argo

Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, and Alan Arkin
Directed by Affleck
Year: 2012
IMDB / Wikipedia

Every now and then, I will find it necessary to break protocol to tend to my extremely large Netflix queue. This is one of those times.

Those who know me and have read this blog know I’m not a fan of Ben Affleck. This saddens my wife because she enjoys his work (a bit too much, but that’s another post) so when she got this from Netflix I shocked her by saying I wanted to watch it with her. Despite myself, I broke down Affleck’s career and I find myself liking his work more than I’m willing to admit. After seeing this film, I feel two things: he got robbed of a Best Director Oscar nomination (and probable win) and Affleck is probably better behind the camera than in front of it. That last one’s not a dig, it’s the truth.

The movie tells the true story of how a CIA operative helped free six American Foreign Services worked trapped at the Canadian diplomat’s house in Iran in 1980. The mission hinged on building a cover for the operative and the six Americans behind a fake movie location scouting mission. The story could have been cut-and-dry showing only the plan and its details, but Affleck did a good job on his end showing the complex emotional and political strife happening on both sides of the issue and the underlying cause of it all. Though some details were embellished for the sake of drama, the movie is a cohesive drama that delivers in both action, suspense, thrills and, most importantly, reality.

Most Valuable Actor: Alan Arkin makes any movie he is in better. He has a way to play a role that seems larger than life but does not pull focus from the film itself. Playing the role of aging Hollywood producer Lester Siegel, he plays the “juice” behind the fake movie to make it all seem plausible. If you watch this film and don’t believe he was the best part, you can Argo-fuck yourself.

Trailer:

The Campaign

Starring Will Ferrell, Zach Galifianakis, and Jason Sudekis
Directed by Jay Roach
Year: 2012
IMDB / Wikipedia

Every now and then, I will find it necessary to break protocol to tend to my extremely large Netflix queue. This is one of those times.

Politics can be hilarious without even trying. I have witnessed many elections turn into a comedy of errors for one or both major candidates and it always provides a sense of delight. With this opportunity, Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis had an opportunity to do a movie that took a good shot at politics portraying two very flawed candidates trying to be the lesser of the two evils. Unfortunately, in the search for humor a really stupid, unfunny movie broke out leaving me with out a clear winner.

The opportunity that was squandered was the angle of corporations buying elections for favorable candidates (something made legal under the Citizens United ruling) but it was reduced to a squabble between two morons with a lot of cussing, sex jokes, and pratfalls to bring it down even lower. Some might say I was asking too much from a Will Ferrell vehicle, but I held out hope. What was disappointing was that the rest of the cast kept trying to make this movie something more but the two leading men kept dragging it down, something I never thought I would say about two very funny guys. Perhaps they were trying too hard to appeal to a wide demographic and failed (and in that case this is a closet-comedic genius project) but on a basic level it fell flat. Don’t waste your time,

Most Valuable Actor: Though a bit player in this farce, Karen Maruyama, the Asian housekeeper for Galifianakis’ racist old southern father (Brian Cox) provides the only deserved laughs in the entire film as she is forced to use a haughty black-southern accent to remind the father of “the good old days.” Her 90 seconds of screen time make the movie almost worth it. Almost.

Trailer:

That’s My Boy

Starring Adam Sandler, Andy Samberg, and Leighton Meester
Directed by: Sean Anders
Year: 2012
IMDB / Wikipedia

Every now and then, I will find it necessary to break protocol to tend to my extremely large Netflix queue. This is one of those times.

Before I begin I will say this: the movie is as stupid, juvenile, and awful as you think it is. There’s no way around that. Even someone who has never seen a movie could tell this from the poster. This will not be up for any Oscars (though I see some Razzies in its future) but the filmmakers know this. This is meant to be stupid and funny, and on that level it works really well.

The story centers on Donny (Sandler), a man who came into inexplicable fame after he impregnated his math teacher (Eva Amurri Martino) and rode it several years longer than he should have and finds himself owing the IRS. To help pay off his debt, he hatches a scheme to sell the television rights of a reunion between his estranged son, Han Solo/Todd (Samberg) and the still-incarcerated mother (matured into the sultry Susan Sarandon who, incidentally, is Eva Amurri Martino’s real-life mother). The only problem is that it falls on the same weekend as Todd’s wedding. Oh, and his son hates him. The blunt insertion of Donny back into his son’s life threatens the peaceful and lucrative future he has mapped out for himself.

The story’s ride is a raunchy one with Donny as the foul-mouthed catalyst leading the other characters into blue stories of the past, into situations that lent everyone to awkward situations, and created a film that was funny despite itself. But that’s what I expected. I have seem some bad movies trying to be something they weren’t but this film is so self-conscious at how ludicrous it is that it made it funnier than it would have been otherwise. The comedy, which wasn’t as over-the-top as some of Sandler’s albums of the late-90s, still was able to give some worthwhile laughs that didn’t make this film feel like a waste of time.

Oh, and the cameos. I cannot write about this film and not mention the cameos made by a plethora of notable faces, including Jets’ head coach Rex Ryan, sports personality Dan Patrick (with The Dannettes in tow, of course), rapper Vanilla Ice, child TV star Todd Bridges, FOX Sports yammering breast-receptacle Erin Andrews, and a smattering of other actors that make regular appearances in Happy Madison films. It is truly a group effort as every character had an important part to play to make it funny. Not the best or widely accepted comedy out there, but for those out there, like me, who was happy to see Sandler re-join the ranks of the gross-out R-rated comedies this is definitely worth the watch.

Most Valuable Actor: Sandler is the only one who could have played Donny, the living caricature of every New England douchebag who feels they are the center of the universe who should have been killed years ago but, inexplicably, is always the most popular person in the room no matter where they go. The character treads the line of being exhaustingly over-the-top while being very real as well, which definitely helps the film from being a complete waste.

Trailer:

Red-Band Trailer:

The Words

Starring Bradley Cooper, Zoe Saldana, and Jeremy Irons
Directed by Brian Klugman and Lee Sternthal
Year: 2012
IMDB / Wikipedia

Every now and then, I will find it necessary to break protocol to tend to my extremely large Netflix queue. This is one of those times.

Every once in a while I find myself watching something, reading something, listening to something, and am become immediately inspired to write. Like, something about watching or experiencing someone else’s creative process is inspiring, but not for the way you may think. No, I’m a very arrogant bastard when it comes to several things, especially writing (don’t judge me solely on my blogs) so when I see someone else creating something, especially writing, I get inspired because I figure I can do it better than that person.

The Words is a movie about someone who circumvents the creative process to find his hit. The tale is of a struggling writer, Rory (Cooper) who finds an old manuscript in a vintage portfolio he purchased in Paris. He is so enthralled with it he decides to pass it off as his own and gain the critical acclaim that comes along with it. However, it also comes with the price of his dignity and his ethics as an artist, especially when the story’s true author (Irons) comes to pay him a visit.

I find myself in a love/hate relationship with films like this because I want so badly to hate it. The story is intriguing but the plot outline is almost too simplistic and too perfect to be believable. However, despite that, it comes off as heart-wrenchingly genuine as films come. The three-act structure of the film and the device used to frame the story (Cooper’s story is actually from a book titled The Words written by a character played by Dennis Quaid and is read aloud to an audience).

But what kills me is the ending of the story because, though it is as a true-to-life ending as you will ever find in cinema, it is wholly unfulfilling and creates more questions than it answers. After the film was over, my wife and I spent almost 30 minutes going over what happened in the last 10 minutes of the film and how the story actually played out. Good stories should make people talk, think, and even debate but when it leaves you incredulous it becomes bothersome. But, there again, even this could not bring me to dislike this movie.

For being an almost direct-to-DVD release, it was well crafted and evoked memories of 2000’s Wonder Boys, another film about writers and their strife that, on the surface seem indulgent and masturbatory, but can make for a good story. Now, I’m going to go dust off my old writing machine (thankfully, not a Smith-Corona) and settle in to follow the inspiration this film has set before me.

Most Valuable Actor: In a film with such great actors even in small roles it is hard to pick one, unless it’s Jeremy Irons’ portrayal of The Old Man, a character that is so rich and vibrant in his dialogue, his word choice, and his story that he runs away with the film. His is the most enduring character though not the most realistic.

Trailer:

Chronicle

Starring Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell, and Michael B. Jordan
Directed by Josh Trank
Year: 2012
IMDB / Wikipedia

Every now and then, I will find it necessary to break protocol to tend to my extremely large Netflix queue. This is one of those times.

I watched this almost a week ago and, though a good movie, it left me conflicted. Was this movie as good as I believed it was? Did it have a sleeper effect on me where I discovered something more while I dwelt on it? Was it really a good science-fiction effort or was I duped by a lot of flash?

Rarely, will I admit to being duped, and I’m not going to do it here. This film is a solid effort about three Seattle teens who find a mysterious object buried in the woods near a rave and they begin to develop telekinetic powers that grow as they learn how to control them. However, like with most stories that involve power that is bestowed upon a common person, the conflict comes in the balance between good and evil. The same holds here as the plot develops and climaxes in the classical way.

The thing that compelled me was how this generation would look at this conflict and how would it play out. There was little talk about responsibility, only about having fun. There wasn’t much discussion about consequences, only about what they could get for themselves. Looking at the generation portrayed in this film, I have a hard time believing that these three weren’t going out and using it to attract girls and get money. For that, I find it unrealistic.

However, what I did like was how the plot unrolled itself in a very organic way and how these characters were deeply flawed and vulnerable. When a film like this takes the time to weave the intricacies of parental abuse, humiliation, and the ongoing struggle that is being a teenager in America, it allows the genre to take some strange detours that make it a more realistic and more fulfilling experience.

One of the things I find to be disappointing is the whole “found footage” perspective as it wears really thin as the film progresses. I found it hard to suspend belief that a camera would be present in some of these situation and the perspectives were unrealistic. The filmmakers tried to explain it away by allowing Alex (DeHaan) to show how he can make his own camera and every other camera float in a jib-type way to gain more perspective than a simple first-person perspective shot. In theory, it would have worked, but then there’s the entire movie ending that would be pretty much impossible to explain away using this thinking. It detracted from the satisfying (but predictable) ending, but not enough to let it lose flavor.

Most Valuable Actor: To take on the central character of Alex, Dane DeHaan had to go to some dark places that rarely get spotlighted in major Hollywood releases, but ring very true on many levels. The internal conflict between what he knows to be right and his want to rectify the troubles in his life create for a complex character that is probably better than this movie deserved.

Trailer:

The Five-Year Engagement

Starring Jason Segel, Emily Blunt, and Chris Pratt
Directed by Nicholas Stoller
Year: 2012
IMDB / Wikipedia

Every now and then, I will find it necessary to break protocol to tend to my extremely large Netflix queue. This is one of those times. 

I want to start off being very blunt: this movie is exactly what you think it will be. It’s formulaic, it’s trite, it borrows plot devices, dialogue, and entire scenes from other romantic comedies and uses them to cobble together a movie where you know the ending just as the opening credits are rolling. Of course, if you want to take a very Shakespearean look at it, there can be no comedy without an ending that promises a blissful future. Sorry for the mild spoiler but, seriously, if you couldn’t see the ending of this movie coming a mile off you have bigger issues to work through than being butthurt at me.

The story is about Tom (Segel) and Violet (Blunt), two people who seem very much in love with one another, and what happens after Tom proposes to Violet. Multiple events and situations test their relationship early and often and play out in very honest ways. The two end up resenting one another for multiple reasons, and conclude they are very different people who may not be right for one another after all. But however will this film find it’s satisfying resolution?

Though I kid a bit about how formulaic this film is, I have to admit that it is also very amusing and immensely entertaining. I guess just because something has been done before doesn’t mean it’s bad. The dialogue between the two lovers, though at times labored, is pretty spot-on, and tries to take some chances not often seen in a film like this. The casting is a tad unrealistic because it perpetuates the idea that an insanely beautiful woman would ever be interested in a schlubby-looking guy no matter how good his personality is, but the two make it work somehow and I tip my cap once again.

My wife enjoyed the film and that’s definitely a positive thing. The film was funny, warm, and almost too familiar in its delivery, but it still managed to satisfy and not make me regret the two hours spent watching. Anymore, that’s an achievement for a romantic comedy.

Most Valuable Actor: This is a tough one, but I think the nod has to go to Chris Pratt who plays Tom’s best friend Alex who meets and couples with Violet’s sister Suzie (played by Alison Brie and the worst British accent I’ve ever heard). He is the comic relief but also the voice of simple reason throughout the film. His message is one that’s sound and true: relationships are only as hard as you make them and you need to be true to yourself. Add some swear words in there and it could almost be direct dialogue from the film.

Trailer:

Prometheus

Starring Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, and Idris Elba
Directed by Ridley Scott
Year: 2012
IMDB / Wikipedia

Every now and then, I will find it necessary to break protocol to tend to my extremely large Netflix queue. This is one of those times. 

This movie had been rumored to be “in development” for about the past decade. But, much like James Cameron’s Avatar, Ridley Scott was waiting for movie technology to catch up and a script to be penned before he put this grand-scale science-fiction epic to celluloid. I was interested to see how this would pan out, a film that was a pseudo-prequel of the classic movie Alien, that was to explore much more.

In less than 100 years, scientists find pictographs all over Earth with similar symbols they determine is a star map pointing toward an extra-terrestrial visitor thousands of years ago. This theory evolves into the search for mankind’s beginnings as a journey is undertaken to visit the alien world to find some answers. What they find is much more than the scientists or the ship’s crew were expecting.

I hate to cut it short but I don’t want to spoil anything because the film is too interesting as it unfolds. There are elements that crossover to the Alien series, including the Weyland Corporation’s involvement and an android crew-person (Fassbender) that isn’t all that he seems.

But the central theme of the movie is asking the question, “If you could know the meaning or secret of life, would you want to know?” and the myriad of answers that follow. There are some who want to believe, some that are secure in their faith, and others that don’t care either way because that question is not a driving force in their lives. So, as much as this film wants to be a true horror prequel to one of the greatest films of all time, at its core is a very fascinating science-fiction angle that takes over and make the movie so much more than it would have been in another director’s hands.

Sure, this film has some scary parts and it does lead itself into the next films, but there are some incongruousness in the plot that leaves more questions than answers. I’m sure Ridley Scott did that on purpose to make the viewer try and answer those questions, but it’s very distracting. A huge question I had at the end is so big that to ask it here would be a very deep spoiler. This is a film that should be discussed, studied, and watched repeatedly to find the subtle meanings beneath the surface to find out if it is just a good movie or something much more.

Most Valuable Actor: Michael Fassbender as the android David plays a very peculiar part in that he sets the stage for Ian Holm’s and Lance Hendriksen’s characters in the next two films in the series. Treated as the outcast, it is shown that David may have his own agenda or simply an insatiable curiosity with his mortal counterparts that precipitate many of the conflicts in the film. Fassbender’s ability to play the role very small and simple gives it such depth and a subtle creepiness that it would be hard for anyone to match; only imitate. If he doesn’t get an Oscar nod for his performance this year I will be very surprised and saddened.

Trailer:

The American Pie Quadrilogy

American Pie
Year: 1999
Directed by: Paul Weitz and Chris Weitz
IMDB / Wikipedia / Trailer

American Pie 2
Year: 2001
Directed by: J.B. Rogers
IMDB / Wikipedia / Trailer

American Wedding
Year: 2003
Directed by: Jesse Dylan
IMDB / Wikipedia / Trailer

American Reunion
Year: 2012
Directed by: Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg
IMDB / Wikipedia / Trailer

Starring:
Jason Biggs
Chris Klein
Thomas Ian Nicholas
Seann William Scott
Tara Reid
Alyson Hannigan
Mena Suvari
Eddie Kaye Thomas
Shannon Elizabeth
Natasha Lyonne
Jennifer Coolidge
Eugene Levy

There was something about the first movie that made everyone my age stand up and take notice. Well, everyone stood up and took notice, but it struck home for me and my friends who were all about the same age. Like the principle characters in the movie, we were all in the Class of 1999, male, and seeking a willing female participant with whom to have sex. There was nothing regal or noble about our cause just as it was in the first movie. We thought we were God’s gift to women but we kept missing the bigger picture when it came to sex. Sex was only one piece of the puzzle and, to get to the point, some work needs to be put in and you have to give something of yourself up to her.

Some of us never learned that.

But, as as my friends and I aged, and more and more of these American Pie movies made their way into theaters, we felt almost obligated to see them because these characters almost became reflections of ourselves. We wanted to see if our lives were going as Hollywood said they would go. The first movie told us that we would discover ourselves and lose apart of ourselves on the way to emotional maturity. The second film reminded us that people change as we all go out and discover the world outside of our parents’ roofs. The third film told us that, though it may be joked as such, marriage is not the end of anything but the beginning of something new. All of these were lessons that, despite the movies, all taken in stride and in our own pace. As much as I liked the movies I knew that real life didn’t always work out as well.

But there was something that nagged me about the first three films: for as much “growing” and self-discovery that these characters were supposed to be doing they seemed to be trapped as static characters. I know it’s a lot to expect movies like this to show real progression and maturity, and I’m definitely not one to call someone out on making the same mistakes over and over, but it left the movies feeling a bit more hollow. The group of friends were always looking to get drunk, have sex, and just chill with one another. For three movies this was the theme and, though the stories were pretty good (not so much on AP2) the theme was getting old.

I didn’t have high expectations for American Reunion so much so that I skipped seeing it in the theater altogether. But I felt that this film, if any of them, could bring the validation to the series that was to be expected and it did not disappoint. Without giving too much away the fact that so often these characters were living in the past was brought up time and again and how that does not make a fulfilling life. Whether you have been to your high school reunion or not you probably know of at least one person who is still stuck in the past trying to recapture the feeling they had when they were 17 or 18. I knew so many of these types of people that I purposely avoided going to my reunion a couple of years ago. These are the people who still hang out with the same people every weekend, having the same party, drinking the same beer, and having the same conversations they did when they were a decade ago. It’s sad, but this movie addressed it and it was a bold gambit.

One of the perks of these films is watching someone else’s mix-ups and reminding yourself that, no matter what you did in high school, nothing you did was ever that bad or embarrassing. These movies were as much about reaffirming your sanity as it was about sex jokes and crude humor. It was like looking at the past and feeling better about yourself. However, the time for these movies has come and gone and its target audience is (hopefully) at the age where we can cherish the past while looking forward to the future.

As conflicted as my thoughts and feelings are on these films I really do love them. They’re funny, they’re mildly disturbing, and they’re memorable–as memorable as many of my high school exploits (of which there were very few)–and that’s why there will always be a spot on my DVD rack for them. Because we all knew a shy guy with good intentions, the jock with the heart of gold, the normal-seeming guy with the inexplicably hit girlfriend, the quiet intellectual, the prissy choir girl, the band geek, the mousy loner, and the loud-mouth windbag; and whomever you identified with in the films it will stand that you identified with someone and that’s what makes these movies stand apart from every other coming-of-age comedy ever.

Hopefully this will be the last installment as I am not looking forward to American Mid-Life Crisis, American Prostate Exam, American Retirement, and American Funeral.

Most Valuable Actor: Seann William Scott as Steve Stifler (a.k.a. The Stifmeister). Without him these movies would have been fine and pretty funny, but with him they became outrageous riot fests that had me trying to catch my breath time and again. I’m not going to say that any actor could have pulled off the cocky jock persona, but Scott took it to another level with his subtle physical humor and his way to deliver the absolutely filthy dialogue. His character was a bit contrived in American Wedding but he was able to pull it off with his ability to become his character.

The Hunger Games

Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, and Woody Harrelson
Directed by Gary Ross
Year: 2012
IMDB / Wikipedia

Every now and then, I will find it necessary to break protocol to tend to my extremely large Netflix queue. This is one of those times. 

There’s the old standard that Literature teachers the world-over use in their classes: the book is always better than the movie. Being someone old enough to have made a good amount of mistakes it is hard for me to speak in such absolutes; I find it trite and, most of the time, easy to debunk. However, sometimes you do find the exception that proves the rule but, for the most part, the statements are usually weak and conflict becomes inevitable because it is a completely subjective view of the piece.

When the film was announced I sought out a synopsis of Suzanne Collins‘ novel and was immediately intrigued. I enjoy stories about a future too horrible to be true but, for the sake of the plot, are. I find they make the best character studies and the best ones are usually so disturbing because they are so plausible. Before the film was released I sought out and read the book and absolutely loved it. The characters were warm and well-defined, the plot was as disturbing as it was intriguing, and the tension was palpable and kept me turning the page. I also found myself thinking that the events lent themselves to be filmed rather easily and that this could be the rare exception that proves the rule: the movie that is as good as the book.

Sadly, I don’t know exactly what I just watched. It looked like The Hunger Games, the story was similar, the characters had the same names, and some of the events were the same, but that was on my screen wasn’t the story I fell in love with. Who were those people? They weren’t the well-rounded, flawed characters I admired and followed into the arena, the story was a whisper of what it had been in the book, and the resolution felt like an inevitability instead of something the characters earned.

One of the major obstacles of adapting a book into a film is the voice of the narrator, which in the book was Katniss (Lawrence), and her perspective on volunteering as a tribute of her district in the Panem‘s Hunger Games that pits 24 young people from the twelve district in the nation to fight to the death. The winner is an instant celebrity, the district is treated better, and it is all for entertainment. Think of it like The Running Man only with children. Katniss’ voice lends so much to the world, not only in her perception of it, but how the people and events are drawn. Without that voice and passion everything becomes two-dimensional and worthless. The bonds and the perceptions are broken and the tension is given to the events and not the psychological damage they cause. And all of this could have been remedied with a simple voice-over narration added into a film that was already well over 2-hours in length.

But the most insulting part was the manufactured conflict that replaced the well-structured events in the book. The filmmakers seemed to pick and choose what they wanted to include and it seemed that the trivial stuff made it while, the details that made the world so realistic and that much more frightening was left by the wayside. There was too much focus on the violence and not enough on the human factor. I imagine this was done to make the events more matter-of-fact but, coupled with the crappy cinematography, it was left in a jumbled mess that left you wondering what was happening and not why it was happening.

Lastly, and this is sad to say, the casting was a joke. Katniss is supposed to be a strong-fierce woman who, at the end, is supposed to become a convincing actress as she plays up her relationship with Peeta. Instead of obtaining an actress that could do this, they found Jennifer Lawrence who grumbles her way through the movie like it is the sequel to Winter’s Bone and is immensely unlikable. The reason for her attitude is explained in the books and becomes part of why she is a sympathetic character, but the movie withholds it and makes her seem like a brooding bitch. Peeta is supposed to be a warrior in the guise of a nice person but Josh Hutcherson turns him into a shallow boy-band wannabe without any real honor or believable emotion. Some might say that the characters are truly too complex for any young actor to undertake, but after hearing about how much the fillmmakers agonized over the casting, to see this product makes me wonder if they truly agonized enough.

Despite my education and credentials, I am not a fast reader. Saying that, it took me slightly longer to read the book than it did to watch the film. So, if you have a few hours some afternoon skip over this vastly disappointing movie and curl up with the book, which is available for purchase pretty much anywhere.

Most Valuable Actor: Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy, the District 12’s mentor and sole surviving Hunger Games champion, was the best part of this film despite the fact half of his role and impact on the story was left elsewhere. He was the only person on screen that did not physically appear to be struggling to keep in character and his portrayal was as close to the source as it could have been. Now, I want everyone to look at what Woody is doing and try to do it as well as him so Catching Fire isn’t a similar clusterfuck.

Trailer: