The Hunger Games

There was no doubt in my mind from day one that I would totally like this movie. It had the dream cast, the dream director, and furthermore Suzanne Collins wrote the first draft of the screenplay and added extra scenes. I mean seriously, I've been Hunger-Games-spazzing all week. So now without further delay, my review.

So for all you that don't know, The Hunger Games is set in a futuristic America called Panem, where annually The Capitol hosts The Hunger Games, where 2 tributes from each of the 12 districts fights to the death in a televised arena, gladiator style. We follow Katniss, a girl from district 12, the coal district, who is used as a machine for rebellion starting with her sacrifice to go to the games instead of her sister. To keep it spoiler free in the description, that's the furthest I will go, but keep in mind there will be spoilers throughout this review. I will label them as needed.

One thing that worked really well in this movie was the actors. Jennifer Lawrence played a different Katniss from the books, but not a polar opposite. There is still the feeling that she is clueless to her being used by the rebellion, and her confusion is shown really well. Book Katniss on the other hand, never showed her confusion to the cameras, and always kept it in her inner thoughts. I think I liked this Katniss more, it made her seem more human and less of a pawn. Josh Hutcherson was not what I expected, but given some of his screen time I really liked him. I think he was truly Peeta, I could feel it in his eyes. He cared for Katniss, and you could see that. Liam Hemsworth was alright from what I saw, he certainly feels like Gale. Unfortunately, we do not see a lot of him in this movie unless he is scowling at the screen when Peeta and Katniss kiss (twice). I felt directional-wise this could have been done a lot better. I wish they had given him some dialogue rather than just a scowl, because by the second time they showed him, you really got the point. Furthermore, he also ruined the scene drastically with his jealousy.

Elizabeth Banks was a perfect Effie, she looked and acted as her to a point where I couldn't imagine anyone else as her. Haymitch was grand too, and I particularly loved his reactions to Katniss' pain throughout the games. My favorite scene depicting this was [SPOILER] when he approaches Seneca Crane and asks him to change up the rules for young love [/SPOILER]. Seneca Crane was also fantastic, and I loved every scene when he and President Snow were in the garden. I also adored the behind the scenes of the Gamekeepers' control room. It was amazing. However, my favorite casting job surprisingly had to be Cato. I recently reread the book just days before I saw it at midnight last night, and one specific line about Cato stood out to me -- at the end when Katniss and Peeta are fighting him, she thinks to herself that there "is something not right" about him. I feel like the actor really took that line and went with it. During the warm up sessions, Cato freaks out about someone taking his knife. His reaction is perfect, and right when I saw it, I thought directly to that line. To me, Cato could have not been more perfect, and it's sad that he will not return.

There were two huge miscasts, however. During the pregames, Foxface and Thresh both seemed fine, but once the games started it felt all wrong. To me, Foxface should have looked like a young Bryce Dallas Howard with all the agility of a fox. The movie Foxface just didn't seem to have the fox-like charm, and seemed clunky rather than swift, so her nickname didn't make much sense to me. I also did not like Thresh's big scene at the Feast. It was too quick, and it was evident he was not tall enough. Because this scene was not done right, when Thresh is killed, it does not hold the same power and it's curious as to why Katniss seems bothered by it. I felt like the film gave me no reason to be upset over Thresh's death.

Aside from acting, I loved the way this movie looked. The Capitol was just how I imagined it -- grand, almost Roman-like, and everyone looks like Lady Gaga. The film technique was also a great choice, and I thought it was an interesting idea to use Caesar Flickerman as segue between what we see, and what Katniss is thinking. The best scene by far though was [SPOILER] district 11's rebellion after Rue's death. I have to admit, I cry during just about everything, but Rue's death both in the book and the movie just don't make me cry. I feel sad, but I also feel like we just never get the time to get to know her past "she looks like Prim," and "look how tiny she is." However, when they showed district 11's reaction that brought tears to my eyes. For what Thresh did in the books for me, the rebellion sparked by the love this district felt for this little girl was remarkable. If anything, Rue's death was the last straw in the film [/SPOILER].

As a movie, this is something completely new. It's a fantastic sci-fi film that I feel even non-fans of the books can relate to and follow. No, some of my favorite parts did not make the cut (the hybrid-tribute-wolves were just disjointed looking dogs, and Katniss and Peeta sharing their big meal, among others), but I feel like as a film this totally worked for me. As an adaptation, I feel like it did almost as well as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. I also really liked the fact that I had no idea what the games had to offer, thanks to Lionsgate's advertising scheme. I cannot wait until Catching Fire comes out, because it's my favorite book in the series, and also my favorite character finally shows up -- Finnick!

La Casa Muda

La Casa Muda is a really interesting horror film. Similar to the idea behind Hitchcock’s Rope, La Casa Muda(aka Silent House) is supposedly done in one whole take. Many skeptics believe that this is in fact a fudged claim, but there is no getting around that this film (if it is true that the film is actually done in two shots) had some seriously fancy camera work going for it. There had to have been a lot of practices to get this movie right, and it shows that the camera man is really competent when it comes to framing the shot. I could only imagine how hard it must have been to make this movie happen, and there is a definite need for applause for this one. (WARNING: spoilers below)

Though the movie wasn’t all too creative in plot, and moreover the plot is sometimes actually confusing, I really enjoyed watching this movie. At times, I didn’t even remember it was done in one take. I really enjoyed the real time aspect to it, but I fear that it could have possibly hindered on the film’s plot. The film is shot mainly from the perspective of the daughter, Laura, who [SPOILER ALERT] we discover is the psychotic killer. This is discovered when the POV of the story is cleverly switched over to Nestor (which btw I LOVE his name). This clears up what’s going on a little bit more, like why Laura doesn’t want to leave to house and also why she also doesn’t seem to be injured, but for some reason has a good amount of blood on her face.

The film’s story definitely needed some improvements. It is not particularly satisfying to be in the dark when it comes to the story. The climax needed to be drawn out longer. I also feel like [SPOILER] the audience needed to know what happened to the daughter and why Nestor and Laura’s father were having sex and documenting it upstairs in the old house. It would have been nice to know these plot holes, if you can even call them that.

La Casa Muda was an interesting trial. The single shot horror film placed the audience directly with the protagonist, and increased tension well. It was very creative, but I am not so sure that other horror films should follow suit. The first person perspective muddles the story, and while the film is aesthetically pleasing for the most part, there were still some old horror tricks throughout the film (ex. camera flashes for light =REC).

But do not think this means you shouldn’t watch this movie. If you are a lover of film, and especially the horror genre, this one is a definite must-see. The story need not be the reason to rent this film, but the mirror shots, lighting, and staging in a single 80minute shot is worth a watch. It’s an incredible feat.

La Casa Muda: 3.5/5

The Woman in Black

You can locate it at my horror movie blog: http://gore-tastic.tumblr.com/post/17049561343/thewomaninblackreview

Is It a Remake when it's a Book??

With the new release of Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, many people are calling it a remake. But is it really? When the source material is a book, can it be called a remake? I suppose you could even say the movie is a remake of the book. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is the current one in the spotlight, but with the up in coming The Great Gatsby, should we even call these remakes but rather a different viewpoint of a story that was written on paper first?

A really popular book that has constantly been made and made again into different films is the Christmas favorite A Christmas Carol. A simple story written by Charles Dickens, and it has been adapted into film over 20 times, and there have been even more television adaptions. The most recent big screen adaptation was Disney's animated A Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey in 2009. It made millions at the box office. Speaking of Disney, other examples of this case are classic fairy tales like Alice in Wonderland or more recently Snow White. In some cases it's true that some people complain when they see a new trailer for Snow White and the Huntsmen or Mirror, Mirror play in front of their film, but not so many complain and say "I can't stand remakes." No, more than often the complaints are "get new source material."

VS

It's easy to call a movie like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo a remake, because there was a Swedish film that came out last year; And these people who are flocking to see the American version had no idea that they could just as easily watch it streaming from their Netflix account...six months ago. Strong fans of the Swedish film are outraged, and maybe they have a good reason to be. I recently did a report over the international film industry in Hollywood, and it is an issue that is close to my heart. Last night during the Critics' Choice Awards, before announcing the best foreign film, the girl stated that everyone should go out and see these movies. But how can they? The only one from my understanding that wasn't restricted to LA and NY was The Skin I Live In, and do you see that movie coming to your local college town Cinemark anytime soon? I didn't think so. I was outraged by her comment. She, like many others in Hollywood, are not familiar with the scarceness of these films in everyday cinema. So when Sweden's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo came out last year, why would anyone have known about it? I was only lucky enough to see it in theaters with my mom because I live in Austin, an up in coming movie city thanks to SXSW and Austin Film Festival. In the end, no one was given a chance to see the Swedish version, or even given a chance to know it existed, so when a big Hollywood version comes out, can we really be mad that all these people went rushing to see their favorite book as a movie? I certainly cannot blame them.

Another looming question is, are remakes even a bad thing? I certainly know I used to throw fits when I saw my favorite foreign film being remade into Hollywood "garbage." I was the one who complained when I found out best picture The Departed was a Hong Kong drama called Infernal Affairs prior to its remake. Furthermore, for a point in time I was even disappointed that the great Scorsese had done so many remakes (did you know Taxi Driver is a remake of the western The Searchers?). I later came to the realization that Scorsese is a genius when it comes to the adaptation and remake. He brings remaking films into a whole other art form. He's brilliant. This is why no one complains when he remakes a film.

However, not all remakes come off as smoothly or as artistic as Scorsese's. An example being the remake of one of my favorite Korean films, A Tale of Two Sisters. When I saw the trailer for the movie The Uninvited I knew right away that it was a remake of the former. I was angry it was being remade, I was repulsed. But did that stop me from seeing it? No, not in the least. I went and I saw and I...didn't hate it. I wasn't about to go out and buy the DVD and re-watch it over and over, but it wasn't terrible. And yes, there are some bad remakes in the world, like The Eye (a remake of Gin Gwai), but more than not, these remakes lead people to watching the originals. So, are remakes that bad?? Sure, they are Hollywood at its worst, exploiting other cinema for money, but maybe this sort of exploitation isn't as bad as we think. I mean, a little remake called Fright Night was in my top 10 of 2011. People just like the same stories. If you've ever seen an Asian TV drama, you'd know they have a fondness for dressing up women as men and having other men fall in love with them. Sounds sort of like Shakespeare's The Twelfth Night, doesn't it? And we all know he wasn't original.

So back to the original question, is The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo a remake? I say no, it's not a remake. A remake, by my definition, is taking an original movie and doing it over. Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is not the same as the Swedish version by any means. It has vastly different actors/actresses, stylized very differently, and focuses on different aspects of the original book. The two are not the same by any standard. If it is a remake, then it is one of the book. It is by no means a remake of the Swedish film (which is a better adaptation in my mind either way).

What are your thoughts? :)

The Descendants

The Descendants: 4/5

Can I change my top 10 now? Because I think I've changed my mind on a few things after seeing this movie. I really liked it. It's possible I have a taste for "old people" movies, but this one really captivated me and I enjoyed it all the way through. Even after seeing the trailer and figuring I had seen it all, this movie continued to surprise me until the end. Some parts of it were a little predictable, sure sure. But overall it was a lovely movie with lovely performances throughout.

To get things started, the acting was pretty well done. George Clooney was pretty fantastic and really fell into his role. I know there are some Up in the Air fans out there, but I feel if he deserves an Oscar for any role recently, this is eons better than his attempt a couple years ago. As for Shailene Woodley, I was content with her role. I thought that she would be uber impressive because she's had nominations left and right and rave reviews, but I wasn't too impressed with her actually. For sure, her performance is a lot better than her cheesy acting in ABC Family's The Secret Life of an American Teenager, but in all honesty it has to be hard not to be cheesy with that script. Who impressed me quite a lot in the supporting female role was actually Judy Greer. I enjoyed seeing her outside her usually goofy role and into something serious. Although (spoiler alert), she kind of hit the deep end when she was crying over Clooney's wife's dead body. I just feel that for Shailene's character, there wasn't much room to be impressive except for that underwater crying scene in the beginning.

There were also a great amount of good tense moments in the movie. It makes for a fantastic drama. It unfolds really well and there is never a dull moment because the pacing is on the spot. It's a really great, really well done drama. Although, is it best picture worthy? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean it's not great and you should go and see it. The acting's there, the story's there, the cinematography is there, and if anything else cannot convince you, George Clooney is there in Hawaii of all places ;). I would say it's one of the better films of this year for sure, and so what if I was in a theater that was full of people over their 80's, they must know what's good. They have, for that matter, seen more movies than I have probably.

The Artist

The Artist: 4/5

Walking into this movie, I was not as excited as I should have been. I heard it was slow and furthermore, it was an almost two hour silent film. I figured all of the praise was just a bunch of snobby film people getting a chance to feel "nostalgic" and more so "snobbilicious." But oh how I was wrong, because this movie was cute, quaint, simplistic, and above all one of the most pleasant movies I saw this year. And to think, I had no idea what I was getting into :).

The movie was a lot more quirky than the trailer made it out to be. It looked so very serious, but in fact it was up beat and was more comedic at times than dark. Above all, it was a great throw back to the old silent films. It made me think of Singing in the Rain and more recently Hugo. I suppose this year would be the year of nostalgia then ;).

I also found the main two actors fabulous. They have never been in any major roles before, so it was odd to see so many big-time actors and actresses playing along side them. However, they were great. Jean Dujardin (who played the main George Valentin) not only played the role well, but above all looked the part to a tee. And [spoiler alert] it was interesting to hear him speak in the end.

However, if you asked me if I thought it would win the Oscar this year, I would most certainly be surprised. It definitely does not have wide-spread audience appeal. It is at times slow, and if people complained about Wall-e not having enough dialogue, then there's no way people will be flocking to the theaters to see this if it made it into wide-release. Though, if you are an artsy film person, then this one is most definitely for you, my fellow movie lover.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (David Fincher)

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo -- 2.5/5

there are spoilers in this review

I'm going to say it right now, but I watched this movie not thinking about the Swedish version I saw a year ago at all. I wanted to see it with new eyes, and in all honesty I wasn't crazy for it.

I was excited to see Daniel Craig as Mikael, because he is a very handsome and rugged guy, and from what I read of the book he was described as such. He looks the part for sure. However, he did not act it quite the same. His character seemed timid and also just seemed to go with the flow. He wasn't very assertive at all, but instead a boring and bland guy that just does what he's told without question. Didn't seem too interesting to me. And Rooney Mara was alright as Lisbeth, but she appeared not as strong to me as she should be. For a girl that rapes a guy and tattoos his life sentence across his chest, I would expect her head to be held high a little bit more than it is. I feel like her head's always down, always submissive-like, always shy and weak. It's almost odd to see her so assertively crazy when she is. And the ending made her look far too soft in my opinion. The girl needed to be stronger to the audience, and stronger was not what we saw. This dynamic duo seemed weak, sloppy, and aside from the fact that they were sleeping with another, they did not seem to communicate very well as far as the mystery is concerned.

The location wasn't very intriguing either. The houses were pretty, but it just seemed very fake to me. It did not look like the location from the book, but almost as if it was just a set. It didn't have that awe that I remembered. It just was flat for me.

I also really disliked finding Hariett in London. It seemed all too easy.

Furthermore, there were some things I thought about this movie as good. The choice to cast Stellan Skarsgard was a great one. He was super creepy and a fantastic actor. Although, I felt they gave him away too soon. It was pretty obvious that in the scene where Mikael is drinking wine with Martin and his girlfriend, that a girl is screaming elsewhere in his house. And it seemed brilliant at first when he put on "Come Sail Away" as he was trying to kill Mikael, but as the scene progressed I liked the song playing in the background less and less. It was silly.

Something that I found the most intriguing was the flashback sequences. I enjoyed watching them get played out in front of my eyes, rather than just a back and forth conversation that can tend to get a little winded to watch. The movie was also shot very beautifully.

Other than that, in all honesty I enjoyed watching the Swedish version a lot more. It wasn't nearly as long, and it wasn't quite as jumbled. That film is edited down pretty well, while this one I feel was not given the same care. I suppose that is what happens when you sign on for a movie and have to make it within the year. I would maybe catch it when it airs on TV, but other than that I think I am good without.