By Brett Blake THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE Although it’s not perfect, this second installment of the HUNGER GAMES franchise bests its predecessor (which was good) in nearly every way. The scope feels much bigger, with the Districts and the Capitol (and its various denizens) being more fleshed-out, as are the actual games themselves, which are far more exciting than the “shaky cam”-tinged proceedings from the first film. Similarly, the new characters introduced are legitimately interesting and welcome additions to the story; as the primary newcomers, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jeffrey Wright, Jena Malone, and Sam Claflin do a lot with not a lot of screentime. Donald Sutherland actually gets some material to chew into this time, and he’s great, playing the character’s evil in a completely real way, which is quite effective. Jennifer Lawrence has emerged as a mega-star within the last 18 months, and it’s deserved; she’s flat-out excellent as Katniss, always grounded and totally believable in conveying what’s she’s going through, and the fact that the character herself continues to be a strong and capable (yet still flawed) young woman is laudable. What I find most interesting about this franchise is that it presents some certifiably sophisticated ideas, and yet still offers all the requisite packing and trimmings of a blockbuster. There’s quite a lot to mull over under the surface in the film (if a person chooses to do so), and the primary idea of using the system in order to weaken/beat that system is a fascinating (and even vaguely subversive) one. Additionally, this film really hammers home (in more effective fashion than the first movie) the almost grotesque decadence of the Capitol, which makes the thematic/political underpinnings all the more pronounced; it’s really kind of nightmarish, which would be a problem if the story didn’t clearly want us to be off-put by the bizarre pageantry of it all. What flaws can be found? Chiefly, it runs on a little too long; there were at least a couple of scenes that felt unnecessary, in the sense that they essentially re-state things we already know about the characters or the situation. That’s really the only issue of concern; this is a pretty terrific film, and if its “Don’t forget to come back next year!” cliffhanger-style ending is any indication, we’re just getting warmed up for the main event. We can only hope that Stanley Tucci’s teeth will make a return appearance. THE BOOK THIEF Brian Percival’s adaptation of Markus Zusak’s novel is a strong, surprisingly affecting World War II story told through the eyes of a young girl in Germany. The film opens with narration from Death himself (itself?), which is an indication right from the start that mortality is a subject that’s going to be dealt with, and even in its lightest moments, THE BOOK THIEF is ever-mindful of the human consequences of the conflict that was the Second World War. As our lead, Sophie Nélisse is remarkable. Her character is the kind that could have easily been grating or unrealistic, but Nélisse is so confident in her choices - and so natural and convincing in the way she plays the material - that she really makes the part shine. At the risk of overselling it, it’s one of the finest examples of “young person acting” that I’ve seen in recent years. This should be a star-making performance, and I expect to see big things from her in the years to come. She’s ably supported by the likes of Geoffrey Rush and Emily Watson; Rush brings an incredible amount of warmth and decency to his work, while Watson provides a stern counterweight that adds a nice bit of humor to the proceedings. The film’s technical credentials are top-notch, from the period-correct costumes, to the authentic production design, to the often-beautiful cinematography, which nicely captures the mostly-wintry settings of the story. The score from John Williams fits the movie well, and as music on its own, it’s quite lovely; there’s a contemplative, delicate quality to Williams’ music here that is refreshing in an age of droning, non-thematic scores that we find so often accompanying movies. I’ll tread lightly on this final point for fear of spoilers: many of the reviews I’ve read for this film have assigned adjectives like “saccharine” or “schmaltzy” to it, and while I would certainly agree that it’s not trying to be SCHINDLER’S LIST, and there’s nothing in here that would dissuade me from taking an intelligent child to see it, THE BOOK THIEF doesn’t sugarcoat very much, and developments in its third act have a decidedly harder edge than I was anticipating. This is a good thing, the movie is better for it, and its overall message about the value of books, language, and communication is definitely a worthy one. Anyone with an interest in the subject matter, the historical setting, or even childhood “coming of age” stories should check it out. It’s very solid work all around. 12 YEARS A SLAVE A harrowing and occasionally brutal experience, 12 YEARS A SLAVE captures the horrors of slavery in an utterly unflinching fashion. As directed by Steve McQueen, the film features two of the stand-out performances of 2013, as well as a surprisingly low-key and measured tone that makes the brutality all the more effective and pronounced. As Solomon Northup, our protagonist, Chiwetel Ejiofor gives a tremendous and moving performance. Obviously the particulars of the (true) story make him an incredibly sympathetic figure to begin with, but Ejiofor doesn’t take that for granted; he earns the audience’s sympathy through his delicate work, and the pay-off at the end of the movie is as satisfying and affecting a conclusion as I’ve seen this year. The more explosive performance of the movie belongs to Michael Fassbender, playing the slave owner to whom Northup ends up enslaved. Fassbender is utterly magnetic, and he manages to wrap the character’s deeply evil deeds inside a complex, all-too-human psyche, which grounds the evil in a realistic - rather than over-the-top or silly - way. The remainder of the roles in the cast are filled-out by an impressive roster of actors. Brad Pitt, Pauls Giamatti and Dano, Benedict Cumberbatch, and particularly Lupita Nyong’o (in a heartbreaking performance) all show up to one degree or another. Granted, some of these are glorified cameos, but they all feel of-a-piece, and they don’t distract from the issue at hand. Speaking of that issue, the film’s treatment of slavery is highly commendable. We all know that it remains the darkest section of American history, but it’s another thing to see the casual, almost perfunctory ways in which the slaves where belittled, abused, and murdered. It’s tough to watch at times, but it’s necessary to witness it. As with SCHINLDER’S LIST before it, 12 YEARS A SLAVE should (one day) be used as a teaching tool for younger generations, and in that respect, it’s an incredibly important film. All of that having been said… I don’t think the film is unassailable, or perfect, or “The Best Film of the Year!” McQueen’s direction is workmanlike, which is fine, but on a cinematic/technical level, there’s nothing truly exceptional here. It’s very good work, no question, but I think the reactions in the film criticism intelligentsia are more a reflection of the movie’s importance than its cinematic prowess. That, I suppose, is valid... to one extent or another. That’s not to downplay the movie’s merits in the slightest. It comes with my highest recommendation because it’s vitally important that people - on occasion - be confronted with some of the less-honorable parts of our country’s past, and even if its subject matter alone can’t entice you to see it, go for Ejiofor and Fassbender; their performances are as good as any you’ll see this year.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|