The Hunger Games: Catching Fire Review

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire continues after the events of the first film and has Katniss and Peeta trapped in a victory tour where they are coerced to continue the love facade that developed during their time in the hunger games. Throughout the tour unrest among the many districts is clearly shown to be growing which has been sparked by many viewing Katniss and Peetas willingness to sacrifice themselves in the hunger games not as an act of love but as an act of defiance. Meanwhile President Snow and Plutarch Heavensbee the new game master prepare for the 75th Hunger Games which unlike previous games will pit previous victors of the Hunger Games from the twelve districts against one another.

Thematically Catching Fire is a more fleshed out and poignant exploration of the themes present in the first film which range from interdependence vs dependence, identity, love, sacrifice and more. Thankfully unlike so many films that are as thematically dense and ambitious as Catching Fire the films never gets weighed down by said ambition and doesn't force the themes to the forefront. Rather Catching Fire lets them present and grow in an organic manner steaming from the characters present and the situation they find themselves in. Likewise the film slowly introduces what is at stake in a manner that allows for the film to build itself to its conclusion in a very methodical and tense manner. That is until the finale which is overly abrupt and largely unsatisfying and clearly meant as bait for the next film in the series. Whilst I have no issue with this per se I found it rather ineffective in this case and certainly the weakest aspect of Catching Fire.

Unlike the first Hunger Games film which featured some delightful cinematography, Catching Fire features jaw drooping cinematography throughout. Furthermore Catching Fire doesn't feature the nauseating and overused shaky cam that was used in the first film that was more often then not to its detriment. The budget of Catching Fire has also been reported as being almost twice as large as the first film which no doubt has helped allow for the at times cheap looking effects from the first film to be absent. Simply put Catching Fire is a more polished film with less technical distractions present (such as the extremely fake and cheap looking fire effects which have not only been significantly improved in Catching Fire but actually now look good).

The single biggest stand out of Catching Fire would have to be quality of actors and actresses and the performances they provide. The performances are simply superb and Catching Fire easily features among the strongest casts I have seen in a film for quite some time. Most notably the weaker and underutilized roles from the first film such as President Snow, Haymitch, and Effie are given more substantial scenes which allows for the characters to be more rounded and fleshed out compared to their relatively limited characterization in the first film. The leads Katniss and Peeta are once again superb and along with the rest of cast elevate the film well above what most casts could hope to achieve. With that being said Catching Fire much like the first film does feature a love triangle Between Katniss, Peeta and Gale. Sadly Gale once has such a limited screen time we have little reason to care for his character and thus the love triangle whilst not forced could have benefited from more scenes fleshing out Gale as an actual character to allow us to relate to what Katniss may or may not see in Gale. However as it is the relationship between Katniss and Gale does fall relatively flat compared with the rest of the film and whilst not forced it also doesn't fell necessary.

Catching Fire most notably features a major leap in quality when compared to the already strong first Hunger Games film and features more confident film making featuring superlative performances, gorgeous cinematography and a thematically interesting and gripping plot. Hence The Hunger Games: Catching Fire comes highly recommended.

Note: A sizable portion of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire has been shoot using imax cameras similar to The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises. So if you have a real imax nearby it may be worth considering viewing this film in such an environment which I find to immerse in a way that normal cinemas simply cannot hope to achieve. Sadly I was unaware of this until after I had viewed the film so cannot comment further.

The Counselor Review

From director Ridley Scott and Pulitzer prize winner Cormac McCarthy comes The Counselor a film about greed and the consequences of ones actions. The Counselor starts as a character only known as The Counselor enters into a drug trafficking arrangement. Many may immediately take issue with The Counselor as it doesn't explain how The Counselor is involved and is shown to have little knowledge of the exact workings of the deal. But to do so would be to miss what The Counselor is striving for. The Counselor at its core is not a film about drug trafficking rather it is a film about how the decisions of today can effect tomorrows decisions and the horrific consequences that they can eventually lead to.

The Counselor is an unapologetically slow film that despite being classified as a thriller provides for little to no thrills. This in of itself isn't an issue and I quite enjoyed watching the consequences of the various characters actions slowly unfold on screen and how they react in a desperate attempt of self preservation. This is especially helped throughout by the performances which are mostly sublime throughout with Michael Fassbender as The Counselor Brad Pitt as Westray being particular highlights. Those however looking for the film to delve into the Drug Trafficking beyond a very cursory surface glance will likely be disappointed.

The most notable issue present with The Counselor is the quality of the writing which varies dramatically from scene to scene. Some dialogue is razor sharp and often impressively oblique, however other lines are borderline laughable. Thankfully the razor sharp lines overwhelm the relatively small portions of poor writing. None the less the borderline laughable dialogue is accentuated by the serious tone the film maintains throughout and whilst some of the actors and actresses are able to make some of the more egregious dialogue work, others simply come across with delivery that simply fells off. Characters motivations are also in most cases only surface deep which leads the film lacking the impact it so clearly is striving for. Thankfully The Counsleor himself has enough relatable albeit simple motivation behind his greed to keep the films slow but ever present forward momentum present.

The Counsellor is a film that with its at time ponderous pacing, lack of thrills and at times inconsistent writing has the signs of disaster written all over it. Despite this I found the majority of performances coupled with the at times oblique writing to provide for a fresh change of pace and compelling narrative. Hence whilst The Counselor doesn't come with the strongest of recommendations it still comes recommended for those who enjoy a slowly paced dialogue heavy film and are not looking for the edge of your seat thriller it was advertised as.

Byzantium Review

Byzantium has Neil Jordan the director of Interview with a Vampire tackle his second film featuring vampires and tells the tale of two female vampires who have been 'alive' for over two centuries. Byzantium follows these two vampires as they move to a coastal town and delves into the drawbacks and isolation that such a life could bring along with the obvious advantages such a life would also have.

The two leads are Elenaor whose actress Saoirse Ronan provides for a tremendous performance and Clara whose actress Gemma Arterton provides for a surprisingly strong performance. The characters themselves are notably different with Eleanor viewing her 'condition' more as a curse and longs to be able to connect with other individuals as apposed to the life of isolation she leads. Clara on the other hand reveals in the condition which of course causes conflict between the two individuals. Both characters have there own unique internal struggles which evolve throughout the film in what is an interesting coming of age story that is in many ways made unique by the age of the individuals involved.

With that being said whilst both characters have a rather different view on their condition they undeniably live a rather grim life, which is something I particularly prefer to the often overly glamorized life vampires are often shown to have. Byzantium does feature its fair share of blood however it is oddly more of a back drop for the characters and the situation they find themselves to be in, rather then the focus of the film. Put simply Byzantium is a film more interested in the character relationships present and the conflicts that arise as a result of such a life with little focus on the actual vampiric behavior.

Byzantium is not what many would consider a scary film, rather it is a film that provides for some hauntingly beautiful imagery and is paced deliberately slowly. Thus Byzantium is a film that I imagine will only appeal to a niche of viewers. I however found this take on vampires that focused on there internal struggles whilst completely forgoing any illusion of being a horror film a refreshing and dare I say adult take on what I would contend has essentially become its own genre.

Hence Byzantium comes with my highest recommendation.

Thor: The Dark World Review

When Thor was released in 2011 I was left satisfied yet still somewhat disappointed with the final results. Sadly Thor: The Dark Wolrd follows the first film to a fault. It is similar in numerous ways with many of the same strengths and weaknesses as the first film. But The: The Dark World ultimately falls flat and is a step back for the series with the action being less imaginative and the humour not as entertaining.

One of the primary issues I imagined Marvel Studio films would have post Avengers is that everything would fell smaller and more confined then the individual stories otherwise would. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but when a story requires a larger scale and then fails to deliver, things can start feeling rather tepid. Thor: The Dark World falls into this trap and as big as the stakes are told to be, we never truly understand why or are giving any reason to care about what is occurring on screen. The fundamental issue seems to be the villain who's motivations are so simplistic and undeveloped we might as well have no idea why he is striving towards his final goal. The result is there is little weight behind what occurs and the film fells oddly small given the at times larger then life imagery. It doesn't help that the action itself whilst reasonably well staged is only momentarily exciting and lacks the punch that one would expect from an end of world story featuring Thor.

With that being said my primary issue with the first Thor film is once again the primary issue I have with Thor: The Dark World. That issue is love story between Thor and Jane which in Thor: The Dark World is once again forced and unnecessary. This is most impressive as they even turn Jane into the Macguffin of the story, apparently in a vain attempt to make the character relevant. A good idea in theory but one that ultimately fells contrived and a rather desperate attempt to keep a character present who should simply have been dropped from the series. Thankfully Chris Hemsworth is once again excellent as Thor despite the lack of forward direction for the character and Natalie Portman simply seems bored as Jane which result in even less chemistry between the two, something I wouldn't have believed possible prior to release.

Conversely two of the greatest strengths of the first Thor film was its humour and the character of Loki. Loki is once again a joy to watch and whilst his screen time isn't notably increased when compared to the first film he thankfully doesn't fell underutilised this time around. Unfortunately the humour which was notably catapulted forward in the first film by the fish out of the water aspects (by having a god essentially become human) and by juxtaposing the surreal with the mundane, is not as successful here as it was in the first film. The same style of humour is present, but more frequently fells forced and present only to try and bring life to an otherwise tired scenes. As a result Thor: The Dark world is rarely amusing and often fells more like a poor imitation that was simply ticking of a list of what to include in a sequel to the first Thor film.

One could easily describe Thor: The Dark World as more of the same, but mostly not as good as in the first Thor film. The action is less exciting, the humour less amusing though the unnecessary and forced love story remains as uninteresting, unnecessary and forced as it was in the first film. Thor: The Dark World is not a bad film, it however is a very average film and as a result does not come recommended as anything more then a potential rental.

Thor Review

After a great deal of waiting that extended well beyond the titillating tease for a Thor movie in Iron Man 2 a Thor film was finally released in 2011. To this day I still sadly can't help but be underwhelmed by the final results with Thor being the second weakest Marvel Studios film thus far. To be clear, Thor is not a bad film like I found Iron Man 3 to be and still remains enjoyable, it however is in many ways also a wasted opportunity.

The strength of Thor is most notably the comedy and the film contains many extremely funny moments. The visuals are also simply stunning, though the scenes that take place on earth do fell dull and lifeless especially when they are are compared with Asgard. The 3d, which was yet another conversion at times displays the cardboard cut-out effect and clearly was not taken into consideration by the film makers. Put simply the 2d release of Thor is the version to see.

The main issue however resides with the pacing and forced love story. To put it simply whilst both Chris Hemsworth as Thor and Natalie Portman as Jane both give strong performance their is little chemistry between the two and as a result the love story present fells forced and completely unnecessary. This is particularly an issue as Thor fells overcrowded with little to no breathing room and could have likely benefited from either a longer run-time or the removal of a the forced and contrived love story. Likewise whilst Stellan Skarsgård provides a good performance he fells underutilized and once again unnecessary and is seemingly included for his more pertinent role in The Avengers.

The whole angle of the 'villain' also doesn't carry the emotional impact that the film-makers seem to have been aiming for which leaves the ending rather anticlimactic. Admittedly Tom Hiddleston as Loki provides for what is easily the strongest performance and also the most interesting character present. It is just a shame we get a tired, predictable and unneeded love story instead of a more in depth look at Loki and his relationship with his brother Thor and father Odin.

Thankfully the humour is successfully enough to overlook some of Thors more obvious flaws and the action scenes are generally exciting and keep everything moving forward at a brisk pace. Sadly the humour and action isn't enough to overlook Thors wasted potential. Thor is a film that I would have no hesitation recommending to fans of comic book films and those who like large doses of humour in their action films. For those less ecstatic about such films Thor is by no means a film that is likely to change their mind on the genre and thus comes tentatively recommended.

About Time Review

About Time comes from director Richard Curtis who's last film Love Actually was a romantic comedy that featured a large cast of notable actors and actresses which makes it all the more surprising that it was not only palatable but was actually enjoyable. Likewise About time is another romantic comedy though is allowed a more focused narrative as it features a much smaller cast.

About Time starts of with the protagonist Tim describing his overly 'perfect' family life which is juxtaposed with his awkward social skills. The day after yet another new years party Tim's father played by Bill Nighy tells him the men in his family had always been able to travel back in time. Understandably Tim doesn't believe him but none the less takes his fathers advice and discovers that he indeed can travel in time and goes back to last nights new years party and 'armed' with his knowledge of event he is able to change his past with more satisfactory results. Tim then decides he would use his time travel abilities for the purpose of finding love.

Time then sets out to find love utilising his time travel abilities to no avail until he meets Mary in what is an original yet overplayed scene, where they are dinning in a completely dark restaurant with blind waiters. This of course means in their initial encounter they are unable to see one another and in a rare occurrence Time isn't awkward in the presence of Mary and doesn't need to utilise his ability to time travel to correct his mistakes. Tim of course after this meeting time travels and in error erases this encounter from ever occurring. After which Tim sets out to meet Mary again (though why he doesn't simply travel back in time again and meet Mary as he originally did is sadly not given enough attention). Most of Tim and Mary's story from here is as predictable as expected, and whilst both Domhnall Gleeson as Tim and Rachel McAdams as Mary provide for solid performances it never goes beyond what is expected from such a film with the exception of a sprinkling of humor that the time travel enables.

Where the real heart of the film comes from is the relationship between fathers and their children, or most notably between Tim and his father. This is an area whereby the film utilises the time travel aspect to great effect providing for unique and emotionally resonant scenes that otherwise would simply not be possible. It however must be said that whilst there are some exceptions, those expecting an interesting time travel story will likely be disappointed and the time travel aspects are largely used to try and breathe fresh air to provide unique twists in what is usually an overly predictable genre and for the most part it succeeds in doing so. Unfortunately there are moments where the pacing of the film does come to a stand still which doesn't suite the portions of the film they are present in, this none the less is only a minor issue in what is otherwise a film that rises well above the genre it finds itself in.

About Time is a rare example of a romantic comedy done well and features mostly strong performances, quietly amusing comedy that doesn't pander to the lowest common denominator and an excellent and interesting take an the relationship between a father and son. Hence About Time comes highly recommended.

Skyline Review

"it's a little of a f u to the audience"

"recycle where you can create new where you have to"


The above are comments made by the directors regarding this film in the commentary and I think highlight what is behind the majority of issues present in this film. The Strauss Brothers (yes, that is what they like to credit themselves as) are clearly talented in the visual effects field as one can easily see by looking at their impressive resume in that field and that they are also the founders of Hydralux. They however have proven themselves here to be incompetent directors in near on every regard.

Hence it isn't surprising that Skyline is a film that has some impressive visual effects (although it also has some rather poor effects as well). However the rest of the film looks as if it was made for tv and cheaply at that. Performances throughout are dreadful (aside from Crystal Reed who provides an adequate performance which is impressive given how little their is to work with here), pacing is inconsistent and the script is simply dreadful.

With that being said the film does offer glimpses of something that could have made for a fun albeit still brain dead film. The idea of how the Aliens would make something beautiful (the light) and use it as a weapon could indeed be an interesting idea if further explored especially had the more interesting and mysterious Aliens forms we get glimpses of early in the film hadn't been turned into nothing more then brain munching zombies. The ending, that is what originally seems to be the ending is also surprisingly well shoot and is at least somewhat satisfying and almost gives me something positive to say about the film. That is until the extra end is thrown on, and their in lays the problem. Whilst some good ideas and a handful of well shoot scenes are nice to see, they are ultimately overwhelmed by every other scene featuring such poor film making it amazes me that they where made by the same people.

Put simply, Skyline is a film that shows faint signs of potential but such glimpses are few and far between and are overwhelmed by horrible acting, horrible dialogue, poor pacing and a dreadful and incompetent ending. Hence Skyline is a film one should go out of their way to ensure they never see.

Gravity Review

Gravity starts of in a rather condescending manner reminding viewers of how life in space is impossible and an incredibly harsh environment to try and survive in (would a film about trying to survive a damaged submarine fell the need to remind you that when surrounded by water and nothing else you will drown?). Thankfully my concerns resulting from this almost immediately vanished among seeing the very first shoot of earth which was shoot in such a way that could be only described as being spectacularly beautiful. The film then doesn't cut for what I have been told is around seventeen minutes and the shoot moves around three Astronauts as they work on what I believe was an optical system of a satellite. As they work they are told about a possible debris risk which is initially not on trajectory with their position but this soon changes as it crashes into other satellites making new debris which of course is on trajectory for their current position. As one would expect this does catastrophic damage to their ship and sends one of the astronauts spinning out of control away from their ship and thus begins the journey for survival for those left alive.

Performances by both Sandra Bullock as Ryan Stone and George Clooney as Matt Kowalski are superb. However whilst the characters are undeniably interesting and one in particular has a strong character arc, Gravity is less about the characters and more about the horrors and beauty of space. This isn't to say that the characters are unimportant, rather that the setting more then anything is the star of the film, whilst the characters provide an emotional core for you to invest yourself in. Simply put Gravity provides for an interesting experience in that it is successfully able to convey both the beauty of space along with how inhospitable and horrifying it simultaneously can be. From a visual standpoint Gravity is breathtaking and unlike the sadly large number of tacked on 3d releases of late (such as Iron Man 3, Wolverine, Star Trek Into Darkness, Man of Steel etc) Gravity is a film whose inclusion of 3d comes from the film makers who have been successfully able to utilize it in such a way that adds tremendously to the film.

Likewise the sound design throughout is superb and background space stations and satellites being destroyed in silence provide for some eerie moments that help emphasize the environment the Astronauts find themselves in. Likewise the muted sound design of the astronauts moving around as they come into contact with various objects likewise helps amp up the tension resulting in both the visuals and audio working in harmony along with the superb performances by both Sandra Bullock and George Clooney to create for a tense and satisfying experience that few films can hope to measure up to.

Gravity for good reason has been riding an unprecedented amount of hype for an October release and has also deservedly received critical acclaim which I can only concur with and Gravity comes with my highest recommendation.

Note: Gravity is also a film that I urge those interested in seeing it to do so in 3d as unlike far to many 3d releases this is a film that utilizes 3d in such a way that I can't imagine the 2d release being able to compare favorably to. In other words this is how 3d should be done.

Margaret (Extended Cut) Review

Margaret is a film that for various reasons was delayed several years prior to its eventual limited release which saw the film release in a two and a half hour cut. This however was not the directors preferred cut which has now been released on home video and has a run time of three hours and eight minutes.

Margaret despite my immediate assumption was not about a character called Margaret, rather the films is named after a character from the poem 'Spring and Fall: To a Young Child' by Gerard Manley Hopkins. The reason for which are the similar central ideas present in both the film and poem. The protagonist Lisa is played by Anna Paquin who is a young and apparently talented care free seventeen year old (though we are only told this and are never shown this). This however all changes when she distracts a bus driver who as a result runs a red light and hits a pedestrian who in the minutes that follow dies in Lisa's arms.

From here the film slowly begins to delve into the guilt Lisa fells for her part in what transpired, sadly the films jumps around different characters in Lisas' life and the numerous themes present at will. This results is the film felling overlong and unfocused. Likewise despite all around solid performances (in particular by Anna Paquin as Lisa and J. Smith-Cameron as Lisa's mother) the film ultimately lacks the emotional punch it could have had with a more focused narrative.

Margaret is a film that lacks focus and narrative cohesion that has an excessive number of interesting ideas forced into a film that as a result fells overcrowded yet still somehow manages to move at a snails pace. As a result whilst Margaret does have some strong performances the film devolves into a rather monotonous affair that is harder to sit through because of how uninteresting it is rather then how confronting the subject matter should be. Hence whilst the the extended cut of Margaret has glimpses of potential it ultimately does not come recommended.

Note: Sadly the leaner theatrical cut is not available on home video in Australia so I can't comment as to whether that provided for a more focused film.

Tron Review

“The Original Classic”

As proclaimed in large capitalized text on the blu-ray cover, Tron is indeed a classic that was no doubt not fully appreciated upon release, but more on that soon.

Tron stars Jeff Bridges as Kevin Flynn a young enthusiastic programmer who worked extensively to create some of the most popular video games released. Unfortunately his work is stolen by Ed Dillinger (David Warner) who then uses these stolen games to propel himself to the head of the company whilst Kevin Flynn is simply removed from the picture and left to scrape what money he can through his arcade. In spite of this Flynn remains determined to clear his name and return to his rightful place and so starts Tron which sees Kevin accidentally enter a computer world which is populated by users, which are essentially virtual representations of people in the form of programs.

As previously mentioned Tron does not seem to have been appreciated on release however over thirty years later and I imagine it has become increasingly appreciated as some of the ideas and concepts present have become a reality. The most obvious of which being ones second 'life' in the computer world which is indisputably occurring with such wildly popular websites as Facebook and Twitter. Whilst it is true that many ideas are more hinted at rather then fully explored they remain none the less astonishingly present for a film that was made before terms like bit or program where common knowledge.

The acting throughout much like the film is fittingly campy and Jeff Bridges enthusiasm practically oozes of the screen and provides for a particularly fun performance that helps mask the films several shortcomings. The other actors are for the most part are not as impressive as Jeff Bridges but still manage to help give this film heart that it so could easily have not had and saves the film from being nothing more then what today still remains a visual splendor.

Some may argue that the computer generated imagery (CGI) of Tron hasn't aged well, but to do so would to not understand the film makers intent. It is true in the more recent Tron Legacy the film-makers wanted the world to look real, however in the original Tron they wanted the world they created to look digital which they are undeniably successful in achieving, often with more standard techniques although a heavy amount of CGI is none the less present which is particularly impressive given that Tron is over thirty years old at the time of this review.

As I previously mentioned Tron is a classic but it is not without its flaws, but when a film is as overwhelmingly interesting and simply fun as it is in this case, the minor issues are easy to forgive.

Highly Recommended.