Hunger Games: Mocking Jay-Part 1

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

Hunger Games:  Mocking Jay-Part 1

Release Date:  21 November 2014                                                      Runtime:  123 Minutes              

Review Date:  18 December 2014                                                       Rating:  5 (of 6)

      I'm not usually a fan of the corporate greed that leads a company to milk the last novel of a series by making 2 films based on it while every other previous entry is condensed into 1.  It was a complete failure, in my opinion, when done with the Harry Potter series, Part 1 of the Deathly Hallows two and a half hours of completely unnecessary exposition, the important elements capable of being more concise and included in Part 2 for one WHOLE movie. So it was a pleasant discovery to find that Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 1 was worthy of its own standalone picture.

     They kept with the same director from the last chapter and, though they hired a new batch of writers for the screenplay, the original author Suzanne Collins did the initial adaptation.  Much to her involvement I'm sure, Mockingjay seems to reasonably follow what happened in the novel.  And while I still would rather watch one supersized movie in one sitting than 2 viewings a year apart, I walked away more than satisfied with the final product.

 

Guardians of the Galaxy

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

 

Guardians of the Galaxy

Release Date:  1 August 2014                                                               Runtime:  121 Minutes              

Review Date:  16 December 2014                                                         Rating:  3 (of 6)

      While those that can't get enough of superhero films may bask in Guardians of the Galaxy, it failed to capture my interest.  Not that it was bad, per say, just didn't interest me in the least.  Which is too bad, because I've loved raccoons since I was a kid...

     On a side note, while I think Zoe Saldana is decent enough looking--she made an attractive Uhura--the green make-up job for Gamora made her pretty unappealing (despite the fact, it's worth noting, that green is my favorite color).  I don't know if it's meant for the whole "beauty is in the inside" sentiment or to convey that not all kick-ass warrior women have something going on in the looks department, but I thought it was a shame.  They could have gone more the route they did for Karen Gillian and her minor character of Nebula who was looking quite hot for an alien.  Just saying.

The Giver

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

The Giver

Release Date:  15 August 2014                                                          Runtime:  97 Minutes              

Review Date:  9 November 2014                                                       Rating:  5 (of 6)

     It's probably been 20 years since I read the book upon which the film is based, so I can't say with any certainty how closely The Giver is to the source material--there seemed to be some differences to my recollection--but as a movie it was solid.  As was the acting.

     (There even was an unexpected cameo, leaving me thinking, "Is that Taylor Swift?".  It was.)

 

As Above, So Below

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

As Above, So Below

Release Date:  29 August 2014                                                           Runtime:  93 Minutes              
Review Date:  9 November 2014                                                        Rating:  2 (of 6)

      A creepy movie set in the Parisian catacombs.  I was ready for a good horror flick, something I hadn't seen in sometime.  Unfortunately, when it comes to As Above, So Below, time keeps passing me by.

     What the trailer* both cleverly and deceptively hid was that this movie is all handheld (or headband held, 6 pin cameras in place in addition to a singular handheld).  That choice was a very poor one as the story was different and might have been somewhat entertaining if you could actually see it unfolding.  It doesn't work as a device either because, though this is supposed to be being recorded for a documentary, we know the lost cameras will never be recovered so how is it that we're viewing the footage from them? 

     Because of the God awful shaking, I'd be bestowing my first ever 1.  But I'll give the story a 3 and average it out to a more generous 2.  Either way, still not worth your time.

     *I went back and rewatched the trailer to be sure.  The clips are only seconds long and they chose the most steady, inserted freeze frames and added time lapses not in the movie to give the appearance of a regularly shot film with no mention at all that this was a "documentary" or any other indication that the viewer is in for shaky content from start to finish.  Shame on you Universal Pictures and Legendary Pictures!

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

  TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 

 by Frederick William Springer III

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Release Date:  08 August 2014                                                             Runtime:  101 Minutes              
Review Date:  21 October 2014                                                             Rating:  5 (of 6)

    As an adaptation of the original 1987 show (I admittedly haven't seen the later 1997, 2003 or 2012 incursions or the initial 1984 comic book source material), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is pretty decent.  The elements and the essence are all there.

     Here the origin story of the turtles and Splinter are again altered, as they were in the 1990 film, but it doesn't differ too greatly.  (Though, the mutagen being as powerful as it was, it seems odd that Donatello would need to wear corrective eyewear). 

     However, linking April to the backstory à la the new Peter Parker backstory is not only unbelievably coincidental but becoming overdone theatrically, at least in this very parallel way.  How Splinter learns ninjutsu is a little farfetched and the delivery method coming into his possession highly coincidental again.  Megan Fox doesn't strike me as a natural fit for April O'Neil.  And the Foot Soldiers are kind of lame.  But, as parts of the whole, these things can be easily overlooked.

     The writers, Evan Daugherty and partners Josh Appelbaum & Andre Nemec, were able to implement things from the cartoon without them feeling forced or overly corny, as well as sow the seeds for the future of the franchise in a very subtle fashion.  For instance, in a throwaway line that could be missed if one wasn't paying attention, the word "alien" was uttered in a context which could imply Kraang.

     With (weakly) introduced science entering into the picture, I do question the creation of the Sacks character.  I believe Daugherty, Appelbaum & Nemec could have taken things a step further by replacing him with another character from TMNT canon beginning with that letter "S"--Stockman.  Baxter Stockman.  After all, both are scientists and Sacks says that one of his motivations for his nefarious plans for the future is to become "stupid rich"--judging by his mega mansion and huge property, this feels hollow as he already appears just that--which can easily be passed off on anyone, the link between Sacks and the Shredder not really that important.  This way they could have smoothly built to his transformation down the road, rather than force it in one film.

     I was pleasantly surprised to see Will Arnett finally growing just a little as an actor.  In the past, it seemed he couldn't shake his Arrested Development persona, every character from the center piece in Running Wilde to Brent in The Increasingly Poor Decisions of Todd Margaret a Job redux, making him seem like a one trick pony.  But not here.  (Granted, it's no Academy performance either, but just enough of a change from the old.)

 

     The only real disappointment here was that they opted to turn my favorite turtle as a child, Michelangelo, into this hip hop dude.  While he maintains his comical sense, I wasn't really digging his new musical sensibilities or lifestyle.  I got over it though and, perhaps over zealously, award this flick a 5.

 

Lucy

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

 by Frederick William Springer III

Lucy

Release Date:  25 July 2014                                                                    Runtime:  89 Minutes              

Review Date:  14 October 2014                                                              Rating:  3.5 (of 6)

     "Life was given to you a billion years ago.  Now you know what to do with it."*  Um, stop seeing Luc Besson movies?

      While I always enjoy watching Morgan Freeman perform, his role is limited and not worth watching Lucy for.  Scarlet Johansson, while she can act, usually does nothing for me on screen (though, interestingly, I did enjoy her voice as the operating system in Her).  As she is the title character here, that's problematic.

 

 

     The story is a little different, though I wouldn't call it all-out weird, which was enough to hook me into giving it a try but not enough to keep me interested.  Luckily, the pacing and editing were good, so while my interest did wane, there was never a lull for me to actually get bored.

     Luc Besson fans are going to see Lucy regardless of what I think, but the rest of you can skip this one.

 

     *Oh, by the way, primates can only be traced back 65 MILLION years, not a BILLION.  Single-celled organisms can be traced back 3.8 Billion, but life forms we're more familiar with only began to appear 570 million years ago.  Again, not a BILLION.  So, if you're trying to build off science fact for your film, which all things suggest, than maybe you should take 10 minutes and actually get the facts straight!

      (On a related side note, a neat graphic of life on earth can be viewed here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Geological_time_spiral.png)

The Purge: Anarchy

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

The Purge: Anarchy

Release Date:  18 July 2014                                                              Runtime:  103 Minutes              

Review Date:  5 October 2014                                                           Rating:  3 (of 6)

 

 

     As speculated after the first, the basic concept paved the way for numerous possibilities and paths for future sequels to follow.  Here, rather than choosing 1 (or even 2 or 3) of these, The Purge: Anarchy opted to cram too many different directions all in one.

 

 

     Instead of one set of protagonists, we have 3 sets that come together, their plight unraveling across a downtown city landscape.  Other than you average, run of the mill Purgers, we have antagonists in the form of 2 specialized groups (and a minor 3rd).  And, just for good measure, we also have an underground rebellion movement taking place.

 

 

     While all these components may have been able to work together, I never gave a shit about any of the characters and didn't much care what happened to them.  The way this film was executed left the novelty of the franchise's premise wearing off and nothing otherwise engaging me.

 

 

     While I bestowed writer/director James DeMonaco accolades on the first film--"...give a lot of credit because, with a very simple premise, he's managed to set up a potential, never ending franchise..."-- here I take them away, demerits in their place.  DeMonaco could have just killed his potential cash cow, other than it still having been, relatively, dirt cheap to produce at 9 million, recouping almost an additional 21 million it's opening weekend alone. 

 

 

     So, though I'll choose to part ways here, I'm sure another installment will be in the works.