Monthly Archives: November 2013

Happy U.S. Thanksgiving weekend. I have been in California enjoying the holiday with family so I’m just now posting some thoughts on “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” movie, which I saw last Monday after its opening weekend took in $158 million at the box office. It beat out the first Hunger Games movie in sales and is continuing to haul in more over Thanksgiving break.

I found it similarly as good as the first movie and it follows the novel quite closely. “Catching Fire” finds Katniss and Peeta on a Victory Tour of the 12 districts after their win in the 74th Hunger Games. But all is not well as rebellion against the tyrannical Capitol is in the air and Katniss turns into a symbol for the cause. President Snow retaliates by making many of the former victors return to the arena for the next Games. And soon, Katniss and Peeta are back there fighting for their lives once again.

The sets, costumes and special effects make it an eye-catching spectacle in a post-apocalyptic world. And the expanded cast is entertaining, too, seeing which actor will turn up as what character in the movie. It’s a large, diverse cast with everyone from Stanley Tucci to Amanda Plummer to Jeffrey Wright and Donald Sutherland to even Philip Seymour Hoffman this time around. They’re all fun to watch, as well as the returning cast, notably Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson and Woody Harrelson who are the main protagonists.

“Catching Fire” takes some time positioning itself at the movie’s beginning. I think people who haven’t read Suzanne Collins’s trilogy might find the movie quite slow in parts especially at the start, or they might be confused about particular parts of the movie. It’s more enjoyable I think to have read the books before seeing either of the movies to get the full experience, though it’s not a complex story like “Game of Thrones” or anything. But it’s good to remember such things as who Seneca Crane was. You might recall he was the head gamemaker of the 74th Hunger Games who ultimately is put to death for allowing there to be two victors (Peeta and Katniss) from the same district. His circumstances come up again in this movie.

“Catching Fire” does get suspenseful as the Capitol starts cracking down on the districts and Katniss threatens to run away and especially once the next Hunger Games starts. You might flinch a few times when they’re making their way through the forest, and since you know the ending can’t be as fortunate to have two victors as in the original.

But one segment of the book I was sorry they left out in the movie is when Katniss comes across two runaways from District 8 in her woods at home in District 12. They tell her there’s reason to believe that District 13 was not wiped out as they were always lead to believe but is still populated, how so they don’t know. The mystery surrounding District 13 and its hoped for part in the underground rebellion, which is quite interesting in the book, is not much touched on till the very end of the movie, which is too bad. That’s one example of why books that are made into films are usually so much better. The movie misses a bit of the mystery, as well as the thoughts that are explored in the book’s first-person narrative.

Still “Catching Fire” is an entertaining adaptation of the book to the big screen. It’s dark, it’s brutal and still there’s the love triangle between Katniss and Gale and Katniss and Peeta that’s not all figured out. At the end you’ll want to know more about what will happen to all of them, but you’ll need to hang on till November 2014 when “Mockingjay Part 1” comes out. So till then Happy Hunger Games and may the odds be ever in your favor!

Now what did you think of the movie? Continue reading →

I know, I know, I know: it’s “Hunger Games: Catching Fire” week but I saw two notable films recently that are still on my mind. First, the Robert Redford film “All Is Lost” about a 70-ish year-old man sailing solo in the Indian Ocean whose boat collides with a shipping container. He’s left struggling to survive for eight days adrift at sea, with seemingly no one else around for hundreds of miles.

It’s a different kind of film because it’s so quiet and just one person is in it, with no dialogue. It has a documentary feel to it as you watch the sailor (played by Redford) try to repair the damaged boat and overcome the elements. He moves methodically about his work and remains calm in the face of a very scary situation. At points you want him to hurry up (!) as the water swells in the boat, but he moves slowly as an older person and must be a seasoned sailor because he doesn’t panic like I would be doing.

You might wonder after his boat radio goes out why he doesn’t have a GPS device to locate his position or the internet or an emergency beacon to alert others to rescue him, but alas no. He’s way out there, alone with none of these things, which perhaps might speak to what kind of person he is or what he’s doing out there in first place. You might also second-guess a couple other decisions of him as a sailor, such as leaving the boat to jump onto the drifting container, or going on deck during a tropical cyclone, or not wearing a life jacket at certain times, but despite such recklessness, you’ll be taken in, too, by his utter resourcefulness and courage as he’s adrift at sea. He’s no quitter.

Redford is terrific in the role as a man facing his own mortality. Perhaps not since 1972’s “Jeremiah Johnson” has he shone as a survivor like this. Apparently the 77-year-old Redford insisted on doing all his own stunts in the film, which makes it feel quite real. “All Is Lost” is a quiet, yet compelling meditation at sea.

“Blue Jasmine,” on the other hand, is a film completely different from that but also includes a strong performance of the lead character played this time by Cate Blanchett. I do hope Ms. Blanchett receives some award nominations because she is superb as the New York socialite Jasmine who comes to stay with her sister in San Francisco after her life falls apart.

The story of what goes wrong in New York for Jasmine and her very rich financier husband (played by Alec Baldwin) unfolds in flashbacks while Jasmine is trying to get back on her feet in California.

In San Fran, the dynamic between the sisters is awkward at best, whereas Jasmine’s been wealthy, and is a bit haughty, her sister is divorced with two boys, doesn’t have much money, and is dating a low-life mechanic. Jasmine influences her sister to see someone better, while she eventually meets a well-to-do man who plans to run for Congress. But eventually all begins to unravel once the veneer Jasmine’s created gets pulled away.

It’s typical Woody Allen: a film full of relationships, deceits and their sticky consequences. It’s a bit depressing, watching the impending outcome. I didn’t think of a modern-day version of Tennessee Williams’s “A Streetcar Named Desire” when I was watching it, but have read since that some critics have compared it to that. And I guess the plot of “Blue Jasmine” is quite like that: A troubled woman comes to stay with her sister and affects her sister’s relationship with her guy and things end badly for her. It differs a bit in this modern telling with more characters etc., but there are some similarities.

The best part of “Blue Jasmine” is the cast and acting. Blanchett, of course is excellent as Jasmine, but so is Sally Hawkins as her sister who plays off Jasmine so well. Then there’s Andrew Dice Clay (remember the crude, stand-up comedian?) who is surprisingly good as the sister’s ex-husband, as well as Bobby Cannavale who plays the sister’s mechanic boyfriend, Chili. I was delighted, too, to see comedian C.K. Louis play the guy the sister has a fling with. He’s terrific! How can anyone not like C.K., even though his role here is pretty slimy.

Despite its dark overtones, “Blue Jasmine” makes for an entertaining romp, thanks to its cast that gives the script just the right touch. Continue reading →