Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[dell71]

cabin in the woods thought

 

for cabin in the woods, besides the metaphor you pointed out about them and us, I felt like the reason all went to hell was because they got the virgin and nerd wrong. The girl wasnt the virgin, she fucked her professor. Also shes a nerd, she wanted to bring her study books to the cabin. the stoner was the virgin and nothing about him says nerd besides his glasses and clothes.

 

Agree with you about the nerd. As for the virgin, there was a scene addressing just that very thing. Even she had an incredulous look on her face when she found out she was supposed to be the virginal one to which she was told "you work with what you got," meaning she was clearly closer to that role than the other girl.

 

[nflman2033]

I am glad you liked Cabin in the Woods as much as I did. but then again I am a huge Joss Whedon fan. Also loved you watched Psycho one of my favorite movies of all time.

however still waiting on Bergman and the Skin I live In..

 

[dell71]

Safe House
<strong>Directed by Daniel Espinosa.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated R, 115 minutes.
Cast:
Denzel Washington
Ryan Reynolds
Vera Farmiga
Brendan Gleeson
Fares Fares
Liam Cunningham
Nora Arnezeder
Rubén Blades
Sam Shepard
Robert Patrick
Joel Kinnaman
Tracie Thoms</em>​

Since he is an FBI agent you wouldn’t think Matt Weston (Reynolds) has a boring job, but he does. He spends all day, every day as a housekeeper. No, he’s not the kind you rich folks employ. He is the sole agent posted at a “safe house,” a temporary holding facility for bad guys collared by the agency. This one is in Cape Town, South Africa. There is rarely anyone to watch. Suddenly, there is when former agent and suspected traitor Tobin Frost (Washington) turns himself in after a rather tense set of events has him staring death in the face. He’s brought to the safe house by a whole team of agents. Of course, things don’t go so smoothly. Some very bad people are after Mr. Frost and shoot their way in. After a narrow escape, Matt must not only stay alive but somehow get Frost safely to the higher-ups. His task is made even more difficult by the fact that Frost doesn’t really want to be in custody. The two men playing cat and mouse with both the bad guys and each other ensues.

Speedy pacing is this movie’s best friend. Though it doesn’t really break any new ground in the action/espionage genre, it does keep its foot fastened to the gas pedal. The next action sequence is never far off. For the most part, they don’t disappoint. They’re tense and just enough over the top to remain exciting. They’re helped by a narrative that functions enough to keep us somewhat interested in the fates of these two guys. Many of the twists and turns we can see coming pretty far off. However, in this instance they’re still pulled off nicely. So while it is predictable, it still works.

Lots of credit for clichés working well is due to our leads. Denzel does the thing where he’s constantly trying to pull jedi mind tricks on the other guy. Pure Denzel. Like Pacino, Nicholson and DeNiro, he’s in that rarified air where he’s always enjoyable even though he’s basically playing the same character he always does, just with different occupations.

By contrast, Denzel’s co-star Ryan Reynolds mostly forgoes his usual wiseass routine, giving us more of a straight-laced action hero. Even without his normal one-liners, the banter between he and Denzel is fun and he becomes easy to root for. For me, it’s his best performance in a non-comedy except possibly the underrated remake of <em>The Amityville Horror.</em> Yeah, I’m the one person that likes that movie.

If you’re just looking for an action flick to pass time, you could certainly do worse than <em>Safe House</em>. Despite the fact it offer little or nothing in the way of originality, it’s still an enjoyable ride. It gives us what we came for the way we like. Is it a masterpiece? No. However, for a popcorn flick it works fine. It goes down smoothly. Perhaps it’s a tad too smooth as there are no real surprises, but smooth nonetheless.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Sparkle
<strong>Directed by Sam O’Steen.</strong>
<em>1976. Rated PG, 98 minutes.
Cast:
Irene Cara
Philip Michael Thomas
Lonette McKee
Dwan Smith
Dorian Harewood
Mary Alice
Tony King
Beatrice Winde
Paul Lambert
DeWayne Jessie</em>​

In 1958 Harlem, local guy Stix (Thomas) dreams of making it big in the music biz. To this end, he’s a singer/songwriter/manager/promoter. Shortly, it becomes apparent the best vehicle to make his fantasy become reality is being in a group with his best friend, his girlfriend and her two sisters. It’s chauvinistic of me to start from the male perspective since this really is about the girlfriend and her sisters so we’ll get back to Stix later.

Stix’s girl gets top billing. Her name, of course, is Sparkle (Cara). She’s the youngest of the three sisters and the quiet one. Middle child Delores (Smith) is a budding militant so she’s a bit more mouthy, no boyfriend. The real star of the show is the eldest sister named…um…Sister (McKee). She’s obviously a lot more worldly than the others: chain-smoking, getting it on in the back of her boyfriend’s car and dispensing sage advice about birth control. By the way, her boyfriend is Stix best friend Levi (Harewood). And yes, the girls all live with their mom Effie (Alice).

Inspired after attending an all-night music revue, the gang decides to go full steam ahead at this music thing. They win a local talent show and become a popular act around town. Predictably, success proves to be problematic. So, too, is the cost of taking the next step on their road to stardom.

<em>Sparkle</em> functions simultaneously as a cautionary tale and a love story. It intertwines tragedy and triumph in a way that feels organic, for the most part. Age has only served to enhance this aspect. There’s a grittiness that gives off a vibe of authenticity. Even our villains help in this regard. There’s Satin Struthers (King), a local Harlem gangster and Max Gerber (Lambert), a mobster we meet in the latter portions of the film. Neither is the flamboyant, cartoonish type often depicted in black movies of the era. They seem a realistic threat to what our heroes are trying to accomplish.

Despite the title, the movie doesn’t become about Sparkle until the third act. Until then, this is really about Sister. A riveting performance by Lonette McKee carries this part of the picture. Every word she says and movement she makes feels exactly right. It is she, not Sparkle, that keeps us vested. Even during that final act, our title character doesn’t really take over. From this point on, we’re rendered powerless by the charisma and megawatt smile of Philip Michael Thomas. Folks my age will know he went on to greater fame as Det. Tubbs on the legendary <em>Miami Vice</em> TV series. On that show, he mostly played second fiddle to Don Johnson. Here, he’s pure charm, swagger and “good hair”.

If you couldn’t already tell, Sparkle herself is not as important to the proceedings as one would think. She’s written as meek, unsure of herself and seeking the approval of others as a real 15 year old might. This is a good thing. The problem is she never really breaks out of her shell. There is no evidence she ever has an original thought in her head. She isn’t so much heroine as she is beneficiary and blank slate onto which we can project our own feelings about what’s going on with the characters around her, feel happy or sad for their successes and failures. From this standpoint, she remains the perfect conduit for the audience over 30 years since. On the other hand, she also helps mark the movie as a relic. Her relationship with Stix is out of whack with our 21st century sensibilities. True, it was even questionable then, but not quite condemned as the act of sexual predators the way it is now. As mentioned, she’s 15. Stix most certainly has 15 well behind him and it is explicitly noted they’ve done much more than hold hands.

The other characters and the portrayals of them vary in importance, but aren’t earth-moving. Of these we get two very good performances, one from Dorian Harewood as Levi and the other from Mary Alice as mom, Effie. There is also a very bad one. Dwan Smith plays Delores with the vocal inflections and body language of a small child stomping away from her parents after being sent to her room, no matter what the situation. It gets to be an annoyance rather quickly.

Last, but certainly not least, is the music. It’s a mashup of two eras that’s far more effective than it has any right to be thanks to the late great genius Curtis Mayfield. Sonically, the songs are crafted to sound like the time in which the movie is set. The instrumentation is something you’d expect from the 1950s. Lyrically they’re pure 70s, loaded with ultra-thinly veiled dirty talk. This works brilliantly with what’s going on in the movie. Sister serves as lead singer and is constantly pushing the envelope on stage and off. It helps tremendously that they simply sound good. Many of the numbers have become R & B classics, rightfully so.

<em>Sparkle</em> may be almost 40, but it still holds up pretty well. Both sides of its story still resonate. It doesn’t feel sugar-coated or overblown. There are a couple loose ends and one miraculous development right at the end but they’re not so troublesome they detract from the rest of the film. That makes this a fun, but flawed rollercoaster. It’s main strength is that it gives us something we can feel.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Sparkle
<strong>Directed by Salim Akil.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated PG-13, 116 minutes.
Cast:
Jordin Sparks
Whitney Houston
Carmen Ejogo
Derek Luke
Mike Epps
Tamela Mann
Tika Sumpter
Omari Hardwick
Brely Evans
Michael Beach
Cee Lo Green
Terrence J</em>​

Sparkle (Sparks) is a songwriter with stage fright. Since she still wants her music to be heard, she recruits her oldest and most brazen sister named Sister (Ejogo), no less, to take a bus across town and sing her songs at a nightclub. Eventually, the girls meet up with Stix (Luke), a budding promoter. With dreams of making them into the next Supremes, by the way this is 1968, he recruits their middle sister Delores and transforms the trio into a girl group. He then begins getting them work all over Detroit in hopes of making it big. Even though the girls are grown, Sparkle is the youngest at 19, all of this requires repeatedly sneaking out the house of their tyrannical mother Emma played by Whitney Houston in her final feature film before her death in February of this year. Yes, this is a remake of the 1976 ‘hood classic.

If the title leads you to believe this movie is about Sparkle, you’re only partially right. We don’t focus on her until the final act. Honestly, the original did the same so that, in and of itself, isn’t a major complaint. The difference is the girl’s relationship with their mother takes center stage in this version while it was only occasionally touched upon in its predecessor. This moves our title character down to third on the totem pole. It’s probably just as well. Jordin Sparks isn’t a very good actress so lightening her load makes some sense.

In the older movie, the mother is a supportive sideline player. Here, she’s the complete opposite. To make sure we know who’s in charge, Whitney Houston is in full blown, stark raving mad lunatic warden mode. You get the feeling the girls have to ask permission to use the restroom or risk her wrath. She embodies the role well. Sadly, it’s a role that feels specifically for her. Emma is a woman who has battled drug addiction along with the ups and downs of the music business and now wants to protect her daughters from suffering the same fate, or worse. As she continually rages, it’s difficult to watch her, listen to the sounds come from her obviously shredded voice box and not think of her tumultuous real life and the once flawless pipes with which she serenaded us all. It’s distracting and depressing which makes it a morbidly effective portrayal.

Also of more importance than Sparkle is Sister. She’s clearly the most like her mother. Indeed, much of the film’s fireworks are made up of shouting matches between the two. In the role, Carmen Ejogo gives a powerhouse portrayal rivaling Lonette McKee’s in the same role in the original. Sister’s story also contains another excellent performance, albeit from a surprising source. As comedian Satin Struthers, the movie’s lone unrepentant villain, Mike Epps turns in what is easily his best work. Though playing a comic which is how he started, he really does bring this character to life and not just rehash the old Mike Epps schtick.

People who love this movie, and there will be plenty, will do so on the strengths of the aforementioned performances, the music and prerequisite ups and downs of high octane melodrama. However, there are serious problems. Beginning with the second act, the movie shifts into overdrive, propelling itself forward at breakneck speed. The various strands resolve themselves suddenly and/or predictably, leaving plot holes in their wake. In this regard, it pretty clearly follows the Tyler Perry template of filmmaking: scream, bicker, fuss and fight until an instant moment of clarity, kiss, make up.

In comparison with the original, <em>Sparkle</em> also suffers mightily in the charm department. That one is flawed, but it has a much more genuine feel. The grit and grime of the Harlem setting infused the characters not only with a sense of urgency about changing their station in life but also a naiveté about the temptations even minor success may bring. It also gives us a sense of danger. The same could’ve been achieved for this movie in Civil Rights-era Detroit. However, we’re given what feels like a glamorized version of the city wherever the girls perform. At their nicely sized suburban home they want for nothing tangible and can retreat from one another in a way the girls in the original could not. There is a real sense of unit breaking up as the older movie progresses. Here, each of the sisters wears their individuality proudly on their sleeve, weakening both their bond to one another and ours to them. The glossiness of the sets, flossiness of the outfits and four ladies constantly proclaiming “I am woman, hear me roar!” mark this effort as falling off the assembly line of movies aimed at black females over the last decade. Girl power is great and I generally applaud the movies for the attitude but it misses the point of its predecessor.

<strong>MY SCORE: 5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Immortals
<strong>Directed by Tarsem Singh.</strong>
<em>2011. Rated R, 110 minutes.
Cast:
Henry Cavill
Freida Pinto
Mickey Rourke
Stephen Dorff
Luke Evans
Isabel Lucas
John Hurt
Kellan Lutz
Joseph Morgan
Ann Day-Jones
Peter Stebbings</em>​

Where there are swords, there must also be sandals. Not really, but they do enjoy each other’s company quite often. In <em>Immortals</em> they not only hang out together once again, they have many more of the usual suspects with them: chain mail, oracles, prophecies, and of course, immortals. Oh, I almost forgot there has to be a magical weapon. In this case it is The Epirus Bow.

Let’s back up a bit. Many moons ago, the gods defeated the titans at war. Instead of killing their enemies, the gods banished the titans to a special cage deep within the bowels of a Greek village where they are to spend eternity in a state of suspended animation. Sigh. This is where The Epirus Bow comes in. Whoever possesses it can use it to free the titans and wreak havoc on the world. Inexplicably, the gods don’t deep or even attempt to destroy this bow. The gods must be crazy.

Fast forward a few years. Unsurprisingly, the tyrannical King Hyperion (Rourke) is busy turning over every stone he comes across looking for said bow as part of his master plan…wait for it…wait for it…to rule the world! Muahahaha…ahem, sorry. In the process, he kills lots of people just to make sure we know how evil he is. Many of these are his own soldiers and mostly for no more reason than I’ve already given. That’s got to be bad for the troops’ morale, no?

Since every villain must contend with a hero, we have Theseus (Cavill). He’s a peasant who takes care of his mom and pals around with an old man (Hurt) whom he doesn’t realize is Zeus (Evans) in disguise. Pretty early on, Zeus comes right out and tells us Theseus is the only person who can stop King Hyperion. Of course, the gods could but Zeus forbids them from getting involved in human affairs. That whole thing gets darn messy, but I digress. The virgin oracle we can’t believe is a virgin is played by the almost impossibly beautiful (in my opinion) Freida Pinto. Also early on, she “sees” that Theseus will indeed get his hands on The Epirus Bow. So there, now you don’t have to watch this crap. Hmmm. Since we are in Ancient Greece I’ll say it Olde English (wait…what?). This crap, thou mustn’t watcheth.

If you couldn’t tell already, I hateth this movie. <em>Immortals</em> is aggressively dumb without the good sense to not take itself so seriously. Nearly every action any character makes can be summed up by one word: stupid. It also breaks its own rules several times. This is noticeable mostly because the film itself makes a big deal out of these rules. Save for a couple of brief instances, it lacks the visual splendor of <em>300</em> or even the <em>Clash of the Titans</em> remake so we can’t even distract ourselves with shiny objects other than Mickey Rourke’s ridiculous looking headgear. The final, meant to be spectacular, battle involving the cgi titans is underwhelming. The Epirus Bow isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, either. It’s a bow that supplies its own arrows which is nice, but after taking the one shot to free the titans, it’s still just a bow and arrow.

<em>Immortals</em> wants to an epic but just comes across as hokey. Despite his helmets, Mickey Rourke is awesome as always and does all he can with a role requiring little more of him than being sweaty and stomping around the set. John Hurt also fares well. As our hero, Henry Cavill is just ho-hum, though he certainly looks the part (or for Superman, the part which he’ll use to soar into theaters next summer). Freida Pinto is absolutely drop dead gorgeous, just in case I didn’t make that clear. Unfortunately, the amount of drool that escapes my hanging bottom lip whenever she is on screen isn’t nearly enough for me to recommend this.

<strong>MY SCORE: 3/10</strong>​

 

[Senser81]

The Car
<strong>Directed by Elliot Silverstein.</strong>
<em>1977. Rated PG, 96 minutes.
Cast:
James Brolin
Kathleen Lloyd
John Marley
R. G. Armstrong
Ronny Cox
John Rubinstein
Kim Richards
Elizabeth Thompson
Kate Murtagh</em>​

The Lincoln Continental Mark III is a marvel of 1970s engineering. Sure, I could wax poetic about its classic look and sturdy construction, but suffice it to say what the people of Santa Ynez say about it: it’s big and black. Heeeeyyyy, that’s what she…nevermind. The most important feature of the particular vehicle we focus on is that it’s driven by Satan, himself. No silly, he’s not actually sitting in the driver’s seat. No one is. The townspeople of Santa Ynez can’t tell this from the outside, however. The windows are tinted an incredibly dense red. Red, Satan, get it? All they know is that this behemoth of a car is mowing down any pedestrians it comes across. Man, there are days I wish I could do this! Does that make me evil? Anyhoo, the race is on to keep The Car from running over the whole town.

Our hero is Captain Wade Parent (Brolin). The responsibility of stopping The Car falls to him after the town sheriff finds himself all killed and stuff. There is a subplot about Wade trying to get his two daughters to accept his girlfriend Lauren (Lloyd), who happens to be their teacher. However, this is about as important to the movie as you are. There is another slightly more relevant one about one of the deputies who is an alcoholic being so shaken he goes back to the bottle. I only mention it because he’s played by Ronny Cox, or as I like to refer to him, Lt. Bogomil from Beverly Hills Cop. Yes, I know he’s done plenty of other stuff. Sue me. Actually, you’re more important than either of those storylines because the movie needs you to watch and not ask silly questions. Why did the devil choose this particular town? Don’t worry about it. Just know that’s he’s there and be glad you’re not. How does ramming a bicycle directly from the back send it and the rider careening over the side of a bridge? Unimportant. How come no one tries any evasive maneuvers aside from waiting until the very last possible second to jump out of the way? Never you mind. How exactly does Lt. Bogomil’s, er – I mean the deputy’s wife get <em>those</em> into that top? Accept that some mysteries will never be solved.

There are some questions you might persist on asking. What can this car do that others can’t? You mean, aside from drive itself? For starters, it can turn sideways, flip itself and/or leap off the ground whenever it wants. Nice. Think you’re safe in your living room? Nope. Here comes the Car flying through your window, somehow landing back on the street despite driving straight through your house. Huh? Yes, that really happens. It can also flick open its doors with enough force to hospitalize a grown man and occasionally gale force winds kick up when it comes around.

Okay, what have we learned today? We’ve learned that Satan likes Lincolns and is pissed off at the (mostly) good people of the fictional desert town of Santa Ynez. We’ve learned that His Lincoln can routinely defy the laws of physics. We’ve also learned that this is a grade Z unintentionally funny, cheesy hunk of 70s horror. Believe me, I mean this in the most endearing terms possible. In other words, it’s so bad it’s awesome!

<strong>MY SCORE: -10/10</strong>​

I would recommend a movie called "Duel". It stars Dennis Weaver and was Steven Speilberg's first film. Its about a guy (Weaver) who is driving home from work when he's cut off by a semi-truck. Hilarity ensues. I would be interesting in reading your review of it, if you get the chance.

 

[jms493]

I would recommend a movie called "Duel". It stars Dennis Weaver and was Steven Speilberg's first film. Its about a guy (Weaver) who is driving home from work when he's cut off by a semi-truck. Hilarity ensues. I would be interesting in reading your review of it, if you get the chance.

i saw that movie way back when....I was entertained...but I dont remember the end.

 

[Houston]

I watched Duel after seeing the unofficial remake they did with Paul Walker and Vin Diesel.

 

[tigstah]

i remember this movie as a kid. i like the scene where the chick/wife curses at the car and it mows her down in the house.....while that loud horn is going off.....

 

[dell71]

I would recommend a movie called "Duel". It stars Dennis Weaver and was Steven Speilberg's first film. Its about a guy (Weaver) who is driving home from work when he's cut off by a semi-truck. Hilarity ensues. I would be interesting in reading your review of it, if you get the chance.

Thanks. Somehow I've only heard of this just recently. I'll have to see if I can find a decent copy somewhere.

 

[Senser81]

Here is a highlight/lowlight

 

[dell71]

Young Adult
<strong>Directed by Jason Reitman.</strong>
<em>Rated R, 94 minutes.
Cast:
Charize Theron
Patton Oswalt
Patrick Wilson
Elizabeth Reaser
Jill Eikenberry
Richard Bekins
Collette Wolfe
Hettienne park
J. K. Simmons</em>​

Mavis Gary (Theron) is the ghost writer of a once successful series of books aimed at teens, hence the movie’s title. Fresh out of a bad marriage, she suddenly decides to take a trip back to her hometown in hopes of reigniting an old flame. His name is Buddy (Wilson), her high school sweetheart. The problem? Not only is Buddy happily married, he’s just become a dad and is absolutely smitten over his family. Another hindrance is the small bit of fame she’s garnered as the prom queen who went off to the big city and did good. Lastly, it becomes clear rather quickly that Mavis is an alcoholic, or at the very least going through a bout of self-medicating with booze. The local yokels, most of whom admire but aren’t particularly fond of her, wonder aloud what she’s doing back home. Undeterred, she makes play for Buddy against the better advice of her newly found drinking pal Matt (Oswalt). He’s a former high school misfit whom she barely noticed was alive and has to have her memory jogged to remember him despite having the locker right next to his. He has his own set of complex issues.

Hopefully, you haven’t gotten the impression that <em>Young Adult</em> is a plucky romantic comedy of the sort Jennifer Aniston might star. This movie resides in a decidedly darker neighborhood. A couple of characters indeed have romance in their hearts, but it’s all misguided and unreciprocated. When there is eventually sex, it amounts to damaged people simultaneously taking pity on one another and consoling themselves. Beyond that, when the credits roll these people still have severe problems. I certainly would not categorize this as a date movie.

I will categorize <em>YA</em> as the character study of a delusional woman. And, as delusional people often are, she’s oblivious to her own insanity. Theron plays the role without a hint of self-awareness about the ridiculousness of the mission her character has assigned herself. Even when someone else tells her she’s completely out of line, she easily explains her point of view, as much to herself as the other person. In the face of common sense and decency she will not be swayed. Nothing short of getting her man will suffice, regardless of the consequences and/or collateral damage. Theron once again delivers a masterful performance.

Patton Oswalt takes a different path to excellence. His portrayal of Matt is made up entirely of self-awareness and pity. He has no delusions of grandeur and resigns himself to the idea that he will forever occupy the lowest runs of the social ladder. As a person who suffered a life-altering trauma because of the misperception of others, there is a thread of bitterness throughout his entire existence. The tricky part is he puts up just enough of a front to not be totally unapproachable. We even trust him even though his motives aren’t always clear. Is he befriending Mavis in hopes of sharing anything more than a few drinks with her? Or, is he just happy to have the most popular girl from his high school days hanging out with him?

The DVD cover of <em>YA</em> purports it to be some zany comedy that might easily star Tina Fey and/or Anna Faris. If that’s what you’re looking for you’ll be sorely disappointed. The ever-trusty Wikipedia page for the movie calls it a dark comedy. I’ll take it a step further. Any comedy within the confines of this picture is very dark, at best. It’s not quite as aggressively depressing as <em>Melancholia</em>, which also deals with emotionally damaged people along with our always imminent mortality. However, <em>YA</em> is no ray of sunshine. It dives into some of the more desolate corners of the human soul. It is a very good movie as long as you understand what you’re getting yourself into. There will be times when you will laugh. Just don’t go into it looking to yuck it up.

<strong>MY SCORE: 7.5/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

Battle Royale
<strong>Directed by Kinji Fukasaku.</strong>
<em>2000. Rated R, 122 minutes.
Cast:
Tatsuya Fujiwara
Aki Maeda
Taro Yamamoto
Masanobu Ando
Kou Shibasaki
Chiaki Kuriyama
Takeshi Kitano</em>​

The youth of Japan have gotten so unruly that drastic measures have to be taken. Each year, one class of ninth graders is randomly chosen and forced to compete in “Battle Royale.” If you’re at all familiar with professional wrestling you’ll have a vague idea of what’s going on here. The difference is the stakes are considerably higher. The “lucky” class, 43 students in this case, is taken to a classroom on a deserted island where they learn that all but one of them will die over the course of the next three days. They are sent out of the classroom, one at a time. Each is given a bag that includes food, water and a weapon. What each gets for a weapon is completely random, ranging from automatic assault rifles to a pot lid. Their objective is to be the last survivor within the allotted time frame. To ensure there’ll be lots of killing going on each kid is fitted with a necklace that can be remotely triggered to explode. If a sole survivor hasn’t been identified at the end of 72 hours then all of the necklaces will be detonated. A few of the regular cliques from school stay together, each trying to figure a way out of this mess. Some go it alone, trying to avoid the others as much as possible. Of course, several of them become hunters of their classmates.

As you might imagine, this is a graphically violent movie. Though there are geysers of blood spraying from the unfortunate it’s still not as gory as some other Japanese horror and/or manga style flicks. That’s logical since the focus isn’t on violence as much as it is on adolescence. We concentrate more on how the kids react in an extreme situation. It is remarkable to see how some attack their predicament head on while others withdraw from conflict and some try to detach themselves from their reality all together. From time to time flashbacks give us tidbits about why some of them behave the way they do and/or why they’re viewed in a certain light by their classmates. Many of the performances are very good and the script deciphers for us who the heroes and villains are. Expectedly, there are even some twists to that dynamic. When the picture is complete it reveals itself to be a serious parable about growing up and the survival of the fittest mentality that governs most student bodies.

However, Battle Royale does fall short in some areas. We’re never given a clear indicator as to why this program was started. There is only the vague blanket statement that the youth no longer respects adults. I understand respect is huge in Japanese culture, but I need a little more to go on. We’re never shown or really told about any rash of heinous acts by teenagers. We see what seems to be an isolated incident of the sort that occasionally happens in schools. Still, it’s nothing that would come close to justifying these means. With very few exceptions, none of the kids here seem to be the type you’d cross the street to avoid. Another concern is how the flashbacks are used. They don’t have the effect they’re intended to. It seems the director knew this and tacked on a few more at the very end that work better and should’ve been shown earlier in the movie.

BR combines it’s thrills with some sharp commentary. As noted, the whole thing functions as a metaphor for growing up. In that vein, it works brilliantly as a steroid enhanced, weaponized version of high school. On the other hand, some interesting concepts are brought up but rendered irrelevant by the plot’s execution. There are others, but mainly I’m referring to the “Danger Zones”. They’re set up and explained but nothing ever comes of them. Still, the human drama is intriguing and the camera doesn’t flinch in the face of violence. I’ve seen this on a number of lists of the best movies of the decade (2000-2009). I wouldn’t go that far, but it is an ambitious effort well worth your time as it predates similarly themed best-selling novel The Hunger Games by eight years and the movie that followed it by twelve. Be warned though, this is most certainly not PG-13’d for mass consumption.

<strong>MY SCORE: 8/10</strong>​

 

[dell71]

The Hunger Games
<strong>Directed by Gary Ross.</strong>
<em>2012. Rated PG-13, 142 minutes.
Cast:
Jennifer Lawrence
Josh Hutcherson
Liam Hemsworth
Woody Harrelson
Elizabeth Banks
Stanley Tucci
Lenny Kravitz
Donald Sutherland
Wes Bentley
Isabelle Fuhrman
Willow Shields
Paula Malcomson</em>​

Once a year, as penance for an earlier uprising against The Capitol, each of the 12 districts in the post-apocalyptic nation of Panem is required to send one male and one female between the ages of 12 and 18 to participate in The Hunger Games. The 24 “tributes” are shipped off to the Capitol where they’ll train for a couple weeks than head out into the forest where they will literally try to out survive each other. Yes, this means only one of them will leave these battlegrounds alive and be crowned the winner. This person will then be showered with copious amounts of fame and fortune.

The kids are chosen at their annual “Reaping.” Basically, all the adolescents have their name thrown into a bin from which two unlucky contestants are drawn. This year in District 12, barely eligible and obviously weak Primrose Everdeen (Shields) gets picked. Valiantly, her older and sturdier sister Katniss (Lawrence) volunteers to go in her place. It helps her chances that she’s an expert with a bow and arrow. She’ll be joined by Peeta (Hutcherson). No one is kind enough to volunteer for his spot. Off they go to The Capitol. Oh, I almost forgot: they travel with Effie Trinket, one of the district’s head honchos. I only mention her because she’s played by ElizabethBanks in full drag-queen regalia. Also with them is their appointed coach Haymitch Abernathy (Harrelson). He’s a past winner and obviously jaded by the experience.

We get a lengthy section on our heroine training, learning how strong some of the others are, how to play nice with the higher-ups and being introduced to the world. Sorry, I failed to mention that “The Hunger Games” are televised throughout the country. After more than sufficient build-up, we finally get to the games. Teenagers trying to kill each other ensues.

On the surface, it’s a fine movie. The setup is a bit too long as it is working really hard to make sure we like Katniss. Much of it is extraneous energy since she has us wrapped around her finger the moment she volunteers. This part of the film also makes sure we know who the favorites to win are. By default, they serve as villains. We also get to meet a few bad guys who will stay behind the scenes. This way, we’re fully vested in Katniss by the time the action begins. Like I said, it’s overdone but it’s still effective.

For some of us, there is the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in the room: Battle Royale. For those unaware, BR is a 2000 Japanese film with pretty much the same premise. A group of ninth graders are made to go off into the woods and terminate one another until only one remains in the land of the living. The way things play out in both movies makes The Hunger Games essentially a remake, or re-imagining, with a bigger budget, more screen time for adults and far more extravagant costuming.

That said, there is a major difference between the two movies: what they choose to be a metaphor for. BR is a microcosm of the way teenagers interact with one another and of adolescence itself. The cliquish nature of high school and hyperactive teen angst take center stage. THG ignores those things as much as possible. Instead, it’s a riff on our ever-expanding fascination with and the proliferation of reality television. It takes square aim at the logical evolution of a genre in which the stakes are constantly being raised. This is a solid, though still not quite fresh, topic for people in the target audience. However, for those of us old enough to remember such films, it lacks the depth and originality of such fare as The Truman Show or The Running Man.

Taken on its own terms, THG is a solid flick with slightly more on its mind than your average popcorn flick. Still, it never gets preachy. After all, social commentary is not the main purpose here, engaging and entertaining us through a likeable protagonist is. The other purpose is precisely like almost all other big blockbuster movies: setting us up for the sequel.

<strong>MY SCORE: 6.5/10</strong>​

 

[j.hen]

'Sup?

 

[dell71]

^I'm getting there.

 

[JimLeavy59]

I actually really enjoyed The Hunger Games I thought it was going to be some bullshit like those Twilight movies.

 

[dell71]

much much better than the Twilight flicks.

 

[Palooza]

Eh. The Hunger Games was beat. The action could have been awesome without the shaky cam and the plot was filled with bullshit (Katniss's forced relationship with the girl, Peeta's ridiculous attributes and their origins, etc).