The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - 10 stars out of 10

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - 10 stars out of 10

When a blockbuster is a enormous as “The Hunger Games,” it is easy to lose the momentum once the hype dies down and the expectation has been set for the sequel.  Amazingly, “Catching Fire” manages to thrust the film series back into the spotlight and is arguably better than the first.  Generally, the first film in a series is slower as we have to be drawn into the setting, introduced to the characters, and have to develop attachments/rejections of the heroes/villains.  The second film is always different because we can get right into the story and the action without explanation, but often times the writers run out of creative ideas by the end.  You would think this to be the case of “Catching Fire” as it’s the same story with a new twist, but this series is two stories in one.  The first is the obvious Hunger Games in which representatives from each District fight to the death, etc. etc. etc., but more importantly is the overarching story of rebellion against the Capitol.  The key to this film is that they use these Hunger Games to further that theme that runs through the entire series: Katniss as a symbol of hope.  The preparation and execution of these Hunger Games allows the writers to show the frustrations of the Districts (victory tour), the displeasure of the Capitol citizens (pregnancy revelation on tv), the tributes’ acknowledgement of the greater cause (Finnick), and the ability to fight back (shooting the dome’s force field).  After such an amazing cliffhanger ending, we can only dream of what will happen next (unless, of course, you read the books like any normal person).  All of this comes together by excellent writing and acting.  It is all in the details, like making us aware of the force field with a small event so that we understand the big events to follow, or subtly creating connections between characters who normally wouldn’t interact.  The clock concept for the arena and all of the special effects that create the hazards each hour?  Amazing.  This “world” is so well designed that it gives the writers endless possibilities within it.  The acting really draws out your emotions by creating connections with the characters.  The scene with Cinna is devastating, not to mention what the tributes must endure.  Jennifer Lawrence is amazing again as she creates a blend of emotions and heroics.  Phillip Seymour Hoffman is thrown into the mix and, along with all of the other supporting roles, creates quality acting throughout every minute of the film.  And it all comes together without excessive violence (in a movie about violence) so that it will not scar the young kids who are not old enough but will sneak into the theater anyways.  With a sequel this good, you can only imagine what the finale will be like.

Ernest & Célestine - 6 stars out of 10

Ernest & Célestine - 6 stars out of 10

“Ernest & Célestine” is a straightforward story about a mouse who befriends a bear, but the animation is so good that it doesn’t need anything more than that.  Even though I generally prefer to watch films in their original language, this film has an English dub that is worth checking out.  It uses big names like Forrest Whitaker as Ernest, Paul Giamatti as Rat Judge, and William H. Macy as Head Dentist, though Whitaker doesn’t sound like himself (which works well for the character) and the other two are in so little of the film that you barely notice them.  Still, Mackenzie Foy’s voice is so perfect for Célestine that it’s worth watching in English.  The mouths don’t line up perfectly with the dialogue but you can barely even tell due to the choppy animation style.  Visually, the film perfectly mimics the illustration of the original children’s stories.  Probably the best part of the entire story is the animation sequence at the end where we see the pictures being drawn.  I have seen this gimmick used many times, but never effectively as this.  I wouldn’t say that there is anything particularly special about “Ernest & Célestine” that would make me say that it deserved its Oscar nomination, but it’s entertaining, kid-friendly, and a good watch.

Pocahontas (1995) - 7 stars out of 10

Pocahontas (1995) - 7 stars out of 10

I have just as much fun ripping into “Pocahontas” as the next guy.  It is laughable to think that Disney put their A-team on this most-epic-Disney-movie-that-will-change-animation-forever and assigned their B-team to “The Lion King,” which would go on to become one of Disney’s masterpieces.  However, when viewing “Pocahontas” from outside of that perspective, there are actually a lot of quality things going on here.  It is different than most Disney animated features and I believe that’s what really attracted me to it this time.  The story is a far cry from the Disney princess films.  Pocahontas looks so different than any other Disney character, and it is the perfect contrast to the typical Disney-looking Englishmen as these two worlds collide.  The ending of the story breaks the mold of predictable happily-ever-afters but the writers still leave a smile on our faces with an iconic moment.  I won’t spoil it, but this sad circumstance transforms into an uplifting connection between the characters through the overwhelming crescendo of the musical theme.  The premise of the wind then brings the story fully circle in what is one of the most chilling Disney moments.  The film is a visual delight, from the incredible “Colors of the Wind” sequence to the animation of Pocahontas’ long, black hair.  Something that I appreciated more this time around was the music.  While I still believe that “You’ve Got a Friend in Me” was robbed for the Best Original Song Oscar, when you pair together “Colors of the Wind” with its overwhelming visual beauty, I know appreciate it much more.  I enjoyed most of the music, particularly “Just Around the Riverbend” and “The Virginia Company,” but couldn’t get into the bad-guy song “Savages” the same way that I can get into “Be Prepared.”  The film also makes good use of comical Disney animals, particularly the raccoon Meeko.  He makes a good sidekick for Pocahontas, stirring up trouble but never getting in the way of the story.  Unfortunately, I also have some issues with this film.  First, it is historically inaccurate.  While I understand that most renditions of this tale create a love story between John Smith and Pocahontas, it is fictional (and would be creepy if Pocahontas was portrayed as the 10-year-old that she actually was).  Second, Governor Ratcliff looks like a volcano.  I don’t really understand how a character can resemble a volcano but he does, and it is confusing why everybody looks normal except for him.  Third, I don’t care for Grandmother Willow.  I like the idea of Pocahontas physically communicating with nature and it creates a tangible way to show that she is sharing this world with John Smith, but a talking tree is not Disney’s best idea.  Finally, the voice acting is very hit or miss.  Irene Bedard does a masterful job of voicing Pocahontas and I really enjoyed Christian Bale as Thomas, but this felt like a very lazy performance by Mel Gibson (John Smith).  While the script sets these characters up to fall in love, it almost feels like Gibson delivers his lines without emotion in spite of it.  Finally, the language barrier between the Englishmen and the natives is very confusing, even for an adult.  I realize that you cannot use subtitles in a film with an audience ranging from toddlers to adults but this definitely could have been handled better.  In “Brother Bear,” the use of camera angles and stark contrasts between English and the bear language make it very apparent that people cannot understand the bear.  But when you rapidly transition from Pocahontas speaking to him in her native tongue, him speaking to her in English, her learning a few words and communicating with those words, but then he uses new phrases that she obviously has not learned yet but seems to understand but maybe doesn’t… it just doesn’t work.  The film is only 75 minutes long and a few extra minutes to show the development of their ability to communicate would have gone a long way.  When I set out to revisit “Pocahontas,” I thought that it would be the same old "Poke-a-Hiney" that I used to make fun of with my brother.  While it cannot compare to Disney’s greatest films, there are enough interesting and unique aspects that have left me with a positive impression and a desire to revisit it again in the future.

The Brady Bunch Movie - 7 stars out of 10

The Brady Bunch Movie - 7 stars out of 10

“The Brady Movie” takes a simple idea and executes it to perfection.  Whoever decided to put the epitome of 70’s family-friendly culture into modern Los Angeles is a genius.  The costumes, cheesy morals, and exaggeration of the character stereotypes bring the Bradys back to life.  The thing that entertained me the most is the soundtrack.  Every cheesy 70’s moment becomes appropriate through the jazzy Brady background music that we are so accustomed to from the original tv show.  The film was well cast, particularly Christine Taylor as Marcia (she may have played the role better than the original), Gary Cole as Mike, Shelley Long whose voice is perfect for Carol, Paul Sutera as Peter, and while Olivia Hack wasn’t an identical match for Cindy, she interpreted the role perfectly.  I think that it was really “swell” of the producers to bring back most of the cast in cameos, most notably Ann B. Davis who saves the day (just like she always did as Alice in the original series).  The use of Davy Jones  and the Monkees was hilarious and this film forms a very clever clash of cultures.  “The Brady Bunch Movie” is silly but serves as a perfect tongue-in-cheek tribute to the 70’s sitcoms that we all know and love.

Anatomy of a Murder - 9 stars out of 10

Anatomy of a Murder - 9 stars out of 10

"Twelve people go off into a room: twelve different minds, twelve different hearts, from twelve different walks of life; twelve sets of eyes, ears, shapes, and sizes. And these twelve people are asked to judge another human being as different from them as they are from each other. And in their judgment, they must become of one mind - unanimous. It's one of the miracles of Man's disorganized soul that they can do it, and in most instances, do it right well. God bless juries."
“Anatomy of a Murder” is the classic courtroom drama, pushing the boundaries of censorship in the 50’s through its graphic discussion of rape and sex.  Its script that is so honest and detailed in its descriptions that it might still make you blush today.  While the film is not family friendly, the dialogue is subtle enough that it does not distract from the amazing story that is told.  It is important to note that the film has been well received by both film critics and members of the legal field.  It realistically brings the courtroom to life and exposes the trickery that sometimes results in a man walking free as the jury (and consequently, the audience) can never be sure of this man’s guilt.  The story is very strong but the biggest take away from this film is the opportunity to watch Jimmy Stewart and George C. Scott act together.  Their strong acting performances leave you wanting to hear more and wondering who will get the last word.  The questioning of the witnesses borders on interrogation and the constant objections from either side prevent the judge from keeping the room under control.  There is real acting finesse in this film and it feels like watching real life.  We even get to enjoy Duke Ellington, composer of the film score, trading lines with Stewart.  I feel that this film is important to the jazz world as it preserves Duke’s legacy as a representative of great jazz musicians from the 50’s.  “A Few Good Men” will always be my favorite court film and “12 Angry Men” comes above all trial films, even though we don’t see any of the trial; regardless, there are few greater compliments that I could give to a film than to mention it in the same sentence as the aforementioned masterpieces.  “Anatomy of a Murder” is just one that you have to see.

Coneheads - 4 stars out of 10

Coneheads - 4 stars out of 10

“Coneheads” is exactly what you expect it to be.  While it isn’t the highest quality film, it is perfect for a few braindead Sunday afternoon laughs.  The best part of the film is the endless string of comedian cameos: David Spade, Chris Farley, Sinbad, Michael Richards, Adam Sandler, Jason Alexander, Drew Carey, Ellen, Dave Thomas, John Lovitz, and more!  Even the fact that nobody ever questions the shape of these aliens’ heads is a hilarious social commentary on how political correctness has taken over the world.  While it is good for a few laughs, “Coneheads” is still dumb.  The acting is about as good as you would expect from robotic-speaking aliens and there isn’t really any character development.  The story takes an interesting turn as we actually get to see the planet of Remulak, but it’s all very predictable.  I probably wouldn’t watch “Coneheads” again, but it was worth seeing once.

Bull Durham - 6 stars out of 10

Bull Durham - 6 stars out of 10

Many have called “Bull Durham” the best sports movie ever but that’s a load of… “bull.”  I look at true sports stories like “Miracle” and “The Blind Side,” or fictional sports stories like “Hoosiers” and “Rocky,” and I wonder how anybody can be impressed with this film.  It was a good movie, but was a big disappointment since I was expecting “the best sports movie ever.”  Now that I have been clear on my stance in the contention for being “the best sports movie ever,” there are a lot of great things to be said about this film.  First, the film offers a lot of insight into the psyche of a baseball pitcher.  Kevin Costner is the perfect strategist as he teaches a hotheaded pitcher not to over think his pitches.  He was cast for his athleticism and actually hit two home runs with the cameras rolling.  He played this role to perfection, but the love story and Susan Sarandon’s character just got in the way.  I suppose that there has to be some x-factor to create competition between the players (other than their egos), but there is so much sex that it became unappealing.  If I was expecting a romantic comedy, it would have been one thing.  But when you are expecting “the best sports movie ever,” it seems like there should be more sports.  Next, this young Tim Robbins was very memorable.  I never realized that he was so tall, but his 6’5 stature played well with his lightning-fast-but-erratic-pitching-accuracy.  I also think it is cool that the writer was a minor league baseball player and brought his own experiences into this screenplay.  The realism is there – it is just unfortunate that so much of this film took place off of the field and in the bedroom.  I would definitely recommend “Bull Durham” to any sports fan, as long as they are prepared for the sexual content and are not expecting “the best sports movie ever.”