This morning I saw The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2, starring Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson.
I'm a big fan of The Hunger Games book series, and I loved the first two film adaptations, but the Mockingjay installments unfortunately leave a lot to be desired.
In this final curtain call, the boy who stole the heart of Katniss (Lawrence), Peeta (Hutcherson), has been brainwashed by the Big Bad Government and instead of wanting to live out his days with her, he wants to kill her. Of course, she still wants him and realizes that he doesn't have control of his mind.
He eventually comes back to the correct side of the war ... kinda. He has spontaneous, violent outbursts aimed at her from time to time, but for the most part behaves himself. They, along with their team of allies, set out to take back the world (and kill President Snow).
Donald Sutherland, as the hated leader, seems to be having a grand time in this one; less evil and more 'mad scientist' in spirit. It would be hard for anyone to think of him claiming victory when he's so jovial and Katniss is so serious.
So—what's wrong with the film?
#1 The pace. It's painfully slow for the first hour. I actually went and got a cup of coffee and when I came back they were still on the same scene.
#2 Wasted talent. Jennifer Lawrence is a gifted, sparkling superstar. She doesn't have much to do here except look sad. Look mad. Look tired.
#3 Anticlimactic action. Of course we know what's coming, but that's not what ruins it. The battle scenes just don't have the magic of the first two films. They're silly.
So—is there any reason to see it?
If you're a completist like me, it's your civic duty to sit through it. Also, it's Philip Seymour Hoffman's last film and just his mere presence—alive and breathing brilliance—is a gift.
~~~
Showing posts with label Philip Seymour Hoffman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Philip Seymour Hoffman. Show all posts
Saturday, December 19, 2015
Monday, December 29, 2008
Doubt
Yesterday I saw Doubt, starring Meryl Streep and Phillip Seymour Hoffman.
It's a drama (with a hint of comedy) about a Catholic school in the Bronx, in 1964. Sister Aloysius (Streep) is the stereotypical "mean nun" who administers wicked punishments to the children and is quick to judge her colleagues. Father Flynn (Hoffman) is a kind, warm-spirited priest who pays special attention to Donald (Joseph Foster), who is the first black student admitted to the school.
After witnessing a few normal situations at the school (kids misbehaving in class, nuns breaking bread together in silence, etc.), the writer wastes no time in letting us know that suspicion looms over Father Flynn regarding his relationship with Donald.
Amy Adams, in a role tailor made for her expertise in playing innocence, is Sister James, a naive teacher who notices a behavioral change in Donald after he returns from a private visit with the father. She soon tells Sister Aloysius, who is immediately anxious to expose and expunge the certainly guilty priest.
From there the movie places its title into your reactions as an audience member. Is this miserable woman just making life difficult for a man because he is a man? Is this kind-hearted priest who has a natural rapport with his congregation and students capable of such unspeakable harm? Is Sister James too inexperienced to correctly read the signs of abuse in one of her students?
All of the doubts they weave into your mind will have you taking sides with yourself, or perhaps the person sitting next to you. But they won't definitely answer the questions, which is what makes the film good.
What also makes the film good are the performances. It's not shocking that Streep's accent is dead-on 60s New Yorker, and it's no surprise that Hoffman can be equally endearing and creepy, but the unexpected thrill is seeing the two battle it out on screen as if they were performing live theater. It's hard to take your eyes off of them.
Also great are supporting players Amy Adams as the sugar-sweet Sister James, and Viola Davis as the pained mother of young Donald. Both infuse their characters with mannerisms, expressions and speech patterns that perfectly illustrate their plight.
What makes the film bad is the ending. It betrays one of the characters they've crafted so brilliantly and makes no sense in the context of the resolution.
Shame it had to end that way.
```
It's a drama (with a hint of comedy) about a Catholic school in the Bronx, in 1964. Sister Aloysius (Streep) is the stereotypical "mean nun" who administers wicked punishments to the children and is quick to judge her colleagues. Father Flynn (Hoffman) is a kind, warm-spirited priest who pays special attention to Donald (Joseph Foster), who is the first black student admitted to the school.
After witnessing a few normal situations at the school (kids misbehaving in class, nuns breaking bread together in silence, etc.), the writer wastes no time in letting us know that suspicion looms over Father Flynn regarding his relationship with Donald.
Amy Adams, in a role tailor made for her expertise in playing innocence, is Sister James, a naive teacher who notices a behavioral change in Donald after he returns from a private visit with the father. She soon tells Sister Aloysius, who is immediately anxious to expose and expunge the certainly guilty priest.
From there the movie places its title into your reactions as an audience member. Is this miserable woman just making life difficult for a man because he is a man? Is this kind-hearted priest who has a natural rapport with his congregation and students capable of such unspeakable harm? Is Sister James too inexperienced to correctly read the signs of abuse in one of her students?
All of the doubts they weave into your mind will have you taking sides with yourself, or perhaps the person sitting next to you. But they won't definitely answer the questions, which is what makes the film good.
What also makes the film good are the performances. It's not shocking that Streep's accent is dead-on 60s New Yorker, and it's no surprise that Hoffman can be equally endearing and creepy, but the unexpected thrill is seeing the two battle it out on screen as if they were performing live theater. It's hard to take your eyes off of them.
Also great are supporting players Amy Adams as the sugar-sweet Sister James, and Viola Davis as the pained mother of young Donald. Both infuse their characters with mannerisms, expressions and speech patterns that perfectly illustrate their plight.
What makes the film bad is the ending. It betrays one of the characters they've crafted so brilliantly and makes no sense in the context of the resolution.
Shame it had to end that way.
```
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
Tonight I saw Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, starring Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke.
In this unconventional story of brotherhood, Andy (Hoffman) is a successful real estate mogul who is married to Gina (Tomei), the very definition of a dumb broad.
His brother Hank (Hawke) is not the sharpest tool in the shed, but is somewhat redeemed by his genuine love for his daughter. Unfortunately he also loves Gina, who he is having an affair with, unbeknownst to anyone but them.
For some reason, everyone is in need of cash. Andy for drugs and an escape to Brazil, Hank for child support, and Gina for...well...we assume shopping. And maybe upkeep of her most valuable asset (her body, which we see revealed throughout the film).
There isn't too much background on why neither son has a great relationship with their parents, but for what it's worth, they must not feel comfortable approaching them for a loan since they decide to rob their jewelry store instead.
It sounds ridiculous, but because I've read a lot of Dominick Dunne in my time, I know this sort of thing actually happens. That knowledge affords a special suspension of disbelief while witnessing the smart brother hatch the plan and impose it on the dumb brother (you'd think he'd just employ someone smarter to do it, to be sure they wouldn't screw it up).
What transpires at the robbery triggers a sequence of Babel-like events that basically all lead back to the moral of the story: don't lie, steal, cheat or shoot people.
The film is well-acted and the pace is comfortably fast, but I am a little mystified why this received such universal praise. The plot twists aren't surprising and there aren't a lot of characters to root for. What we learn is that people are basically rotten and the actions of smart people and dumb people are interchangeable when their intent is dishonorable.
What results is entertainment that resembles the nightly news: while compelling to watch, it can also turn your stomach.
In this unconventional story of brotherhood, Andy (Hoffman) is a successful real estate mogul who is married to Gina (Tomei), the very definition of a dumb broad.
His brother Hank (Hawke) is not the sharpest tool in the shed, but is somewhat redeemed by his genuine love for his daughter. Unfortunately he also loves Gina, who he is having an affair with, unbeknownst to anyone but them.
For some reason, everyone is in need of cash. Andy for drugs and an escape to Brazil, Hank for child support, and Gina for...well...we assume shopping. And maybe upkeep of her most valuable asset (her body, which we see revealed throughout the film).
There isn't too much background on why neither son has a great relationship with their parents, but for what it's worth, they must not feel comfortable approaching them for a loan since they decide to rob their jewelry store instead.
It sounds ridiculous, but because I've read a lot of Dominick Dunne in my time, I know this sort of thing actually happens. That knowledge affords a special suspension of disbelief while witnessing the smart brother hatch the plan and impose it on the dumb brother (you'd think he'd just employ someone smarter to do it, to be sure they wouldn't screw it up).
What transpires at the robbery triggers a sequence of Babel-like events that basically all lead back to the moral of the story: don't lie, steal, cheat or shoot people.
The film is well-acted and the pace is comfortably fast, but I am a little mystified why this received such universal praise. The plot twists aren't surprising and there aren't a lot of characters to root for. What we learn is that people are basically rotten and the actions of smart people and dumb people are interchangeable when their intent is dishonorable.
What results is entertainment that resembles the nightly news: while compelling to watch, it can also turn your stomach.
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Charlie Wilson's War
On December 23, I saw Charlie Wilson's War starring Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman.
With so many big names (Hanks and Hoffman are joined by Amy Adams and Julia Roberts) attached to this film, it was hard not to anticipate its merit before going in, but having been burned in the past by similar assumptions, I reserved judgement.
Thankfully, there was no need for me to.
Hanks dazzles as real-life Texas congressman Charlie Wilson, a booze-loving womanizer with the heart of an everyman who is faced with political demands from a wealthy mover and shaker (played by Roberts), who also occupies his bed. Luckily, he's on the same page with her intentions, to covertly help the Afghans defend themselves against the then-enemy of Russia.
The plot is pretty basic and simple to follow, but what makes this movie so watchable (and will have you wondering how the time went so fast when it ends) is the collection of charisma that ensues: partly a result of good writing; partly a result of the performances.
The main scene stealer is Philip Seymour Hoffman who plays the Greek colleague of Wilson's that has enough justified anger and sarcasm to fill each room he steps into. He is absolutely electric in this role and I wouldn't be sorry to see him score another Oscar® nod because of it.
Also great is Wilson's adorably smart administrative assistant played by Amy Adams. Just the right mix of wholesome and alluring, Adams possesses a unique balance of what most men want: sexy mixed with Betty Crocker. There couldn't have been a better actress for this role.
The clothing and sets are also authentic to the time (early 80s), however I did question whether the phrase 'dial it down' was used back then?
Regardless, this film is solid entertainment that just happens to contain a valuable history lesson: don't fuck up the end game.
With so many big names (Hanks and Hoffman are joined by Amy Adams and Julia Roberts) attached to this film, it was hard not to anticipate its merit before going in, but having been burned in the past by similar assumptions, I reserved judgement.
Thankfully, there was no need for me to.
Hanks dazzles as real-life Texas congressman Charlie Wilson, a booze-loving womanizer with the heart of an everyman who is faced with political demands from a wealthy mover and shaker (played by Roberts), who also occupies his bed. Luckily, he's on the same page with her intentions, to covertly help the Afghans defend themselves against the then-enemy of Russia.
The plot is pretty basic and simple to follow, but what makes this movie so watchable (and will have you wondering how the time went so fast when it ends) is the collection of charisma that ensues: partly a result of good writing; partly a result of the performances.
The main scene stealer is Philip Seymour Hoffman who plays the Greek colleague of Wilson's that has enough justified anger and sarcasm to fill each room he steps into. He is absolutely electric in this role and I wouldn't be sorry to see him score another Oscar® nod because of it.
Also great is Wilson's adorably smart administrative assistant played by Amy Adams. Just the right mix of wholesome and alluring, Adams possesses a unique balance of what most men want: sexy mixed with Betty Crocker. There couldn't have been a better actress for this role.
The clothing and sets are also authentic to the time (early 80s), however I did question whether the phrase 'dial it down' was used back then?
Regardless, this film is solid entertainment that just happens to contain a valuable history lesson: don't fuck up the end game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)