The Hunger Games (2012)

Primrose Everdeen (Willow Shields) has nothing to worry about. At least, that's what her older sister Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) says. Primrose's name is only in the Reaping once - which means she has a very, very small chance of being selected to participate in the Hunger Games. But when the fateful day comes, Primrose's name is the one pulled out of the glass bowl. Katniss immediately volunteers to take her little sister's place. And, just like that, she and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) are whisked away from dirt-poor District 12 to the sparkling Capitol. In a few short days, they find themselves inside an arena with twenty-two other young men and women in a fight to the death - the Hunger Games. But Katniss is determined to come through alive. After all, she promised her sister that she would do everything she could to win.

A good movie adaptation should always try to stay close to its source material. Unfortunately, the definition of "close" can be disputed when the two media are as different as books and movies. But no matter what definition one uses, The Hunger Games movie is very close to the book.

After the text in the beginning of the movie explains the concept behind the Games, the intensity jumps in and completely takes over. Right from the outset, terror reigns supreme. Primrose is terrified of being chosen, and though Katniss gently comforts her, the overall impression of the scene is one of entrapment in a cruel, unfair situation with an undertone of fear. This continues throughout the movie, getting successively amped up as the story develops. Considering that the book has a similar level of intensity (though not as immediate), this was quite an achievement for the filmmakers.

The level of intensity is not the only similarity between the movie and the book. The story is virtually identical, which is to be expected when one considers that Suzanne Collins, the author, helped write the screenplay. However, the most startingly accurate part is the characters. The casting job was about as perfect as it could be. Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) is maybe a little better looking than I would have made him, but everybody else is pretty much spot-on. Jennifer Lawrence, one of the best actresses I have ever seen, is Katniss to a T. Josh Hutcherson is gentle Peeta - but with a masculine side that could easily have been left out. Liam Hemsworth plays a strong, rebellious Gale. Even Donald Sutherland is good in his part. (Of course, bad actors are particularly good at exuding insincerity, so don't go thinking that this is an Academy-Award-worthy performance.)

However, while the story and characters don't deviate one iota from the book, there are a few themes left by the wayside. For example, the Capitol still exerts complete (or nearly complete) control over its citizens. But the Capitol as a mysterious, almost omnipotent - and almost faceless - power just doesn't exist in the movie. Whereas in the book the leaders are seen by Katniss from afar and only occasionally, these same leaders have their own scenes in the movie. This lowers the creepy sense of "The Capitol" that makes it akin to "Them" or "The Others." In other words, the sense of a looming, unseen (and, therefore, unassessed) power is largely gone.

Generally, I like to watch movies before I read the books on which they're based. Because books are nearly always much better than their movies, I get to enjoy the same story twice without being disappointed by the second version. But this movie is very, very close to the book - and is therefore not a disappointment. Because of this, Suzanne Collins's The Hunger Games should be read before watching this movie. The book has much more depth - and explains things barely touched upon by the movie. On the other hand, while the movie doesn't quite live up to the book, it's still an enjoyable experience. That is, if your hands don't lock up after gripping the arms of your seat for two hours and twenty minutes.

Note: Since such a big deal has been made of it, I think I should address the issue of the violence. Is it too violent for a tweenager? Definitely. But I wouldn't go so far as to slap an "R" rating on it. There's a little blood, spears, necks broken by hands, and other kinds of violence. Much of it is hand-to-hand. But most of it is also filmed with a jerky camera or not quite seen. Because it doesn't have the same psychological terror associated with it, I would say that this movie is not as violent as The Dark Knight. But then, that's not saying a whole lot.

My Rating: T/MT (violence, intensity)

Concerning Red

Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) is a retiree with a very dull time of it. For kicks, he tears up his retirement checks so he can call Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker) at the help desk. Of course, the fact that he, as he puts it, "likes" her might have something to do with that, too. But then one day a bunch of assassins come to his house and try to kill him. As an ex-CIA agent, Frank takes care of them without a problem. Thrown into a fight he didn't choose, he still leaps at the chance to get back into some of his old habits - and save (and impress) Sarah in the meantime.

This is going to sound like a very strange parallel, so brace yourself. This movie is like a Jane Austen story with a lot of bullets. Oh, there's a lot more excitement in Red (and a lot more bullets) and perhaps the language is a little worse. But Red is driven by the funny, likeable characters, just like an Austen story.

First there's Frank, who's a tough guy with a giant soft spot. Then there are all his old spy friends - Joe (Morgan Freeman), Victoria (Helen Mirren), and especially the really odd and extremely paranoid Marvin (John Malkovich). Each has his/her own unique character, complete with body language and a sense of humor. Finally, Sarah is hilarious. She's so sarcastic and frank it's funny, and she never once slips out of character.

Granted, the characters are not quite as filled out or varied as those created by Austen, but I think the parallel still holds. Regardless of whether this reaches mastery or not, Red is a fun couple of hours with lots of shooting (explosions, too), funny lines, and very likeable characters. What more could one want in a movie?

My Rating: T (violence, language, mild sexual content)

The Hobbit Trailer!!!!!

Okay, this is soooooooooooooo much better than I thought it would be! The character list (Frodo? Legolas?) and various other things were rather worrisome and indicated that perhaps Peter Jackson and company would not be particularly faithful to the book. But this! This is awesome.

The dwarves look much I remember they do in the book - rather short and stout and not nearly as fearsome as in their publicity stills. It looks as if there will be a Shire sequence to rival even that in The Fellowship of the Ring, only with dwarves added! And most of the scenes (Galadriel excluded) seem straight out of the book, right down to the dwarves tumbling into Bilbo's house. Martin Freeman is very nearly perfect for Bilbo - though perhaps not quite as Ian-Holm-like as I would wish.

In short, LOTR fans should be positively drooling over this trailer. Here's a question: If there's enough footage to put out this trailer, why do we have to wait until next December to see the whole movie?!!

The Hunger Games Trailer

Well, the reason why I read the Hunger Games trilogy in the first place was because I noticed this trailer for the movie starring Jennifer Lawrence that is slated to come out next year.

I loved the trailer when I first saw it, not least because I love Jennifer Lawrence. She's fantastic as Raven in X-Men: First Class and even better as Ree in Winter's Bone. Here she plays tough, thick-skinned Katniss - a perfect casting if I ever did see one.

Everything looks very close to the book, with the exception of Lenny Kravitz as Cinna. I confess I never imagined Cinna as dark-skinned. Somehow I think the Capitol would not have approved of minorities. The overall fidelity to the book is great, however - I loved the book, and I think it would make a great movie if one or two parts are dumbed down violence-wise.

All the movies will likely remain close to the books, since author Suzanne Collins is in on the writing (thanks to lostdog from The Wind-Up Dog Chronicles for that info). This is both good and bad, since I liked the series until the end of the third book. Unfortunately, while I might go see the first movie and possibly the second, I have no interest in seeing the third one unless the ultimate message of the story is changed. Since Collins will probably not consent to changing that message, I have low hopes for the third installment of the series.

Pertaining To Mockingjay

(Written by Suzanne Collins. Book Three in the Hunger Games Trilogy.) *Book II spoilers throughout* Katniss Everdeen has a decision to make. She survived the Hunger Games for a second time, with the help of Peeta and other victors. Now she has been rescued by the people of District 13, who have lived underground since the end of the war. President Coin of 13 wants her to become the Mockingjay: The symbolic leader of the revolution. But Katniss only cares about Peeta. Sweet, strong Peeta whose life she had been determined to save during the second Hunger Games, but who was captured by the Capitol. Then he appears in an interview on television and calls for a cease-fire - a sure sign of betrayal to many rebels. Katniss believes the only way she can save him is to agree to be the Mockingjay on condition that he be pardoned after the war. She has no idea what she's about to get into.

Where to start? This is a very, very disappointing Act III to what began as a very good story. The connections between the Capitol and Ancient Rome (something only vaguely hinted at in the first two books) are strengthened. It is well-written, and there's enough action to keep the book exciting. Those are about the only things I liked.

First, Katniss's character devolved into an even worse one than when she started in Book I. This, after growing into a better person in Book II. Throughout Mockingjay, she seems to have become more compassionate and more loving than she had been previously. But three decisions she makes toward the end of the book are, quite simply, cold-blooded and inexcusable.

Second, I did not like the portrayal of District 13. More specifically, I didn't like the portrayal of those fighting for District 13. Gale, President Coin, and Plutarch are the ones in charge, and none of them are ultimately shown to be very good people. President Coin, in particular, is depicted as monstrous (though this is never confirmed explicitly). This is outright slop, and I'll bet it was directed at the Bush administration. With the ending, the implication of the entire series is that no war is justly fought. The rebels had good reason to fight; it was definitely a just war. But the way in which they went about fighting was wrong, at least at the end. Translation: The message is that both sides in war are evil. This is especially offensive given that the story hints at the Revolutionary War - thirteen districts run by an out-of-touch, seemingly impregnable capitol that views the districts as suppliers. Then the new president commits an atrocity like the one Coin ppresumably orders? George Washington would have been horrified. What really ticks me off, however, is that there is absolutely no reason why it should be that way. Story-wise, there is no real reason why things had to end as they did. No reason except one of anti-war, anti-American sentiment.

Then there is Peeta's character. *Spoiler Warning* He has been "hijacked" by the Capitol (I'm sure there's another message in that term, but I can't figure out what it is). Throughout much of the book, he thinks Katniss is evil and tries to kill her periodically. I find this extremely offensive as well. Peeta was the one that no one could touch; the one whose unwavering strength and devotion were lights amidst the darkness. Then, all of a sudden, the Capitol plants these false, evil memories in his mind and he becomes crazy enough to try to murder Katniss in cold blood? Even if his memories could be altered so that he remembers her as an evil being, Peeta wouldn't try to kill her with his bare hands. It's totally out of character. Then he randomly recovers near the end, with very little explanation or description of his journey. Having said that, he loves Katniss as much at the end as he ever did. He remains a bright spot - that wavers somewhat - in the midst of a dark story. *End of Spoiler*

So, basically, this book ends with an anti-war, vaguely anti-American (aren't those terms synonymous by now?) message, and the main character is less likeable than she was at the beginning of the series. However, Peeta remains a strong character (with a blip - but that's so unbelievable I hardly count it), and it was well written from a pure dialogue and description standpoint.

My Rating: T (brutal violence, psychological warfare, sexual references)

Reviews of Similar Books:

• The Hunger Games (book I) and Catching Fire (book II)
• Airman
• Incarceron

In Relation To Catching Fire

(Written by Suzanne Collins. Book Two in the Hunger Games trilogy.) Having survived the Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen is now adored by people all over Panem - particularly the citizens in the Capitol. There are only two problems: First, she can't seem to shake the Games from her life. They linger in her dreams and keep her apart from Gale, her old friend who might just be something more. Second, President Snow thinks Katniss is dangerous. If anyone in the districts thinks she was directly defying the Capitol with her final act in the Games, she might just be the cause of a rebellion. So Katniss is left in a position every bit as dangerous as the one she held in the Games - perhaps more so, because her life isn't the only thing on the line.

The first book in this trilogy developed the setting: The way North America will be X years from now. Guessing that the government will have taken over and that people will be grossly self-absorbed, The Hunger Games could be seen as a cautionary tale or a philosophical exercise. The second book delves more deeply into Katniss and, unfortunately, also focuses more on the romantic storyline.

In this book, Katniss develops a strong sense of responsibility and honor. The first book depicts her as pretty selfish and self-centered at times. She has had to fight for her survival and the survival of her family for so long that she has forgotten what it means to be honorable. In the second book, however, she discovers that a lot more than her family and her own life hinges on her choices. Because she has evidently been the cause of uprisings, widespread bloodshed and death might come on the heels of any decision that she makes. Additionally, she develops a high sense of honor and a strong protective instinct that she only hints at in the first book. She will not harm anyone who has helped her in some way, nor will she harm anyone who is too weak to protect him or herself.

Since the focus of Catching Fire is on Katniss and her development (as well as setting the stage for the third book... but I don't want to spoil anything), the book naturally takes a look at her romantic feelings. *Book 1 Spoiler Warning* Does she love Gale? Does she love Peeta? Does the reader need to know every little nuance of her complex relationship with him? While Peeta's sleeping in her bed to comfort her after nightmares is a little sweet, it's also highly dangerous - what is known as "a near occasion of sin." Katniss obviously has no interest in taking the relationship farther than their fake love on the screen and their real friendship off of it. However, it's still uncomfortable. Then there's Gale, who might be a red herring. He completes the love triangle, which is fairly solid from a character interaction standpoint - Katniss is definitely appealing, Peeta is the sort of loving, sweet man that most girls dream of, and Gale has been Katniss's best friend for years. But Gale is in the books very little (at least so far), which makes the love triangle existent mostly in Katniss's thoughts. In fact, it seems to pop up mostly when she tells herself that she won't think about it. This makes the romantic triangle an annoying sideshow that, at times, threatens to engulf the story. *End of Book 1 Spoiler*

The Hunger Games trilogy got off to a fantastic start with the first book. The second one, although it moves Katniss's character farther along its arc, tends to get lost a bit in the romantic triangle and in various other storylines. In short, it seems very much like an intermission between Act I and Act III. Having said that, Act III looks promising, if only because Katniss seems to be moving along from a girl with only the will to survive to someone concerned with honor and the protection of the weak.

My Rating: T (sexual content and references, violence)

Review of the third book, Mockingjay

Reviews of similar books:

• The Hunger Games (Book I)
• Airman
• Incarceron

On The Hunger Games

(Written by Suzanne Collins.) Katniss Everdeen is a survivor. She has cared for her mother and her little sister ever since her father died. Back when she was a little girl. Before near starvation and the need to hunt animals robbed her of her childhood. Now she has to survive the annual Reaping Day - the day where one boy and one girl between the ages of twelve and eighteen will be picked to fight in the Hunger Games. The "Games" where two people from each district of Panem, twenty-four "tributes" in all, will fight to the death. But Katniss's name is not pulled out of the glass bowl. Her younger sister Prim's is. So Katniss reacts like any protective, loving sister should - she jumps forward and volunteers to take Prim's place.

A reviewer quoted on the back of The Hunger Games declares that philosophy can be found within the pages of the book. Though all books contain some sort of philosophy merely because they have words put together in a (somewhat) meaningful manner, this book has a little more deliberately philosophical look at the modern world. Set in North America sometime in the future, it is a commentary on the way our culture seems to be heading - downhill. The good characters, while they don't stick to stereotypes, stick closely to an ideal that our culture, helped by feminists on the warpath, is speeding away from at an alarming rate. But this presentation of goodness is tempered with two searing attacks on evil.

The relationship between Katniss and Peeta is odd, but that is more a compliment than a criticism. With a strong heroine and a strange tendency to end male characters' names with an "a," The Hunger Games hinted that perhaps Katniss would end up saving Peeta, the main male character (I can't call him a hero yet because I haven't read the other two books in the series and he has a rival). Now, there is nothing wrong with the girl saving the guy, as long as it does not constitute an inversion of gender roles. That is, the heroine can save the hero through feminine means (wiles, love, etc.), but she should not save his life in battle through her physical prowess. But there is no inversion of gender roles in this book - just a switch in story roles. Katniss is definitely the heroine and the main character, with Peeta taking an unassuming spot in her shadow. But he is strong in his own right, and spends much of the book looking out for her. In fact, their relationship is refreshingly reciprocal, with each saving the other at different times and through different means.

Now to the depiction of evil. There are two noteworthy lessons in The Hunger Games; a lesson on an unhealthy obsession with beauty and youth, and a lesson on a large, overbearing government. First, the people in the Capitol - the ones who live high on the hog while the rest of Panem starves - are addicted to beauty and youth. People have countless surgeries to keep themselves looking young. They reject fatness as ugly, and have a strange, bright sense of fashion. (Picture Lady Gaga and you have a pretty good idea of what people in the Capitol think is beautiful.) There is almost nothing they can't do when it comes to personal appearance, and they choose to use the technology at their disposal to make themselves fit the ideal of beauty. But those who participate wholeheartedly in this idea are self-absorbed and, frankly, stupid. Caught in the cages of their self-absorption, the ones most obsessed with their appearances are those who are most clueless about what it means to be a good person. Thus, they are portrayed as shallow.

Second, the government, which is a threat to the people of Panem because of its power, is portrayed as evil. So many books and movies nowadays seek to pit the rich against the poor. Some of these stories even offer some form of government as a remedy to the inequalities of wealth. While the government can and should regulate society and the economy to some extent, it can become over powerful and oppressive. It is not the answer to all societal ills or even, I daresay, most of them. The Hunger Games embraces this idea and indicts both the rich, who live clueless, self-absorbed lives in the Capitol, and the government, which oppresses those in the twelve districts. Both the controlling government and the rich are portrayed as bad, but only the government is shown as a real threat. Now, I haven't read the other two books in the trilogy yet, so I can't guarantee that the end won't produce some rich businessman or other pulling the government's strings. But so far, at least, the government is portrayed more as a threat than a savior.

This isn't to say that the good characters are always good. Katniss makes a few questionable moral decisions, and some of the other good characters have definite flaws. But flaws allow for moral development in the characters - and sometimes the portrayals with the most contrast between good and evil rest in a character's realization that something he or she did was wrong.

In the end, the people are what matter to good characters in The Hunger Games. Katniss goes to what she believes is certain death in order to save her younger sister. Peeta nearly loses his life protecting Katniss. Even the odd Cinna, who designs Katniss's costumes for the opening ceremonies, is portrayed as good because of his obvious compassion for her. On the other hand, evil is sometimes portrayed as brutally violent, sometimes as subtly oppressive, but always as manipulative, cold, and self-absorbed. The Hunger Games asks and answers the question of what will happen if our culture continues to careen in the direction it is currently heading. The conclusion is not pretty, but it is sound.

My Rating: T (violence, sexual references, murky moral decisions)

Review of the second book, Catching Fire

Reviews of similar books:

• Incarceron
• The Homelander Series
• Airman

Pertaining To Captain America: The First Avenger

Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is an ordinary guy. Except for his asthma and other health difficulties. And his weight - about one hundred pounds, and he's a grown man. But the thing that really sets him apart is his heart. Far more courageous than he should be given his physical stature, he would do anything to join in WWII over in Europe. Even lie on his enlistment form, which he does with regularity only to be turned down because of his health. Then one day, Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci), a researcher for the United States military, offers Steve a chance to help his country. The little guy jumps at the opportunity. But when something goes wrong and he is relegated to selling war bonds and making propaganda movies, he thinks he may have gotten less than he bargained for.

This movie is awesome. The special effects are stunning (more so in the theater than on DVD), it's well-written, humorous, and has a sweet romance. The characters are not only likeable - they're lovable. It's also actually pro-America. But the thing I like the most is the old-fashioned feel.

The presence of World War II probably added to this feel. Setting the story in this time period helped to avoid the usual pitfalls of so-so modern movies: Dated jokes. There's also a simplicity in the story that hasn't been in any other superhero movies I've seen. (And I've seen twelve.) The good guys are genuine good guys (every one), and the bad guys are genuine bad guys (every one). The bad guy wants to conquer the world. The good guy wants to save it. So far, extremely simple and very much like a classic movie.

But what ultimately makes Captain America a throw-back is its similarity to the rousing speeches that heroes used to make in war movies. If you've seen a movie made about WWII during WWII you'll know what I mean. In the climax scene of every one of these movies I've seen, the hero is confronted by the villain. It seems as if all hope is lost. But the hero tells the villain that, while good has lost this battle against evil, evil cannot conquer good. That the Nazi agenda is too evil, too brutal to ultimately win. When one man goes down, three more take his place. When the stakes are high, someone or a group of someones step in and win the battle against evil, at least for a time. That is the final impression of Captain America. Steve is the only one who can defeat the Red Skull (Hugo Weaving), but his help is not needed to win WWII. *Spoiler Warning* Though he is lost to the world by the end, the Allies march on to victory against the Nazis. Evil has been defeated, but not for want of victories. That was the message of old WWII movies, and that is a message of Captain America. *End of Spoiler*

The first Iron Man movie is probably the best superhero movie I've ever seen. But Captain America is my favorite. Pro-America, lovable characters, well-written, cool, and with a sense of the old-fashioned, good ol' movie about it, it's a more familiar, sympathetic movie than Iron Man. Even better, the ultimate triumph of good over evil, though it comes with great cost, is clearly seen.

My Rating: T (violence, thematic elements, vague sexual references)

Reviews of similar movies:

• X-Men: First Class
• Spider-Man: First, Second, and Third
• Thor

Snow Whites and the Fourteen Dwarves?

Two Snow White movies in one year! Both have trailers, so I thought I'd write a few observations.

Mirror, Mirror with Lily Collins, Julia Roberts, and Armie Hammer

Page at imdb.com

Snow White and the Huntsman with Kristen Stewart, Charlize Theron, and Chris Hemsworth

Official website

MM has by far the better actress for Snow White. I've never seen the Twilight series (and never care to), but I can say right now that I just don't like Kristen Stewart in the role of Snow White. Stewart's kind of "beauty" is purely fashionable - a pouty chin and not much else to recommend her. Her lips are "red as blood"? Her hair "black as night"? I don't think so. Plus, the story has had to be altered a little ("You are the fairest, but there is another destined to surpass you") because no one with eyes to see would think Kristen Stewart is fairer than Charlize Theron, the evil queen. On the other hand, Lily Collins has been given black hair, white skin, and red lips to fit with her character. Julia Roberts plays the queen as a convincingly (slightly) fading beauty who isn't quite as pretty as Snow White.

Unfortunately, SWATH looks like a far better fairy tale than MM. For one thing, MM looks like it has been hopelessly updated. The characters speak in modern language made harsher by their American accents. And changing it so that Snow White saves the prince? Not loving that idea. (Although, as an aside, the trailer seems to hint that this doesn't really happen.) In contrast, SWATH has a Lord of the Rings/Eragon oldness that I rather like. Additionally, though Snow White goes into battle, she still must be saved by the kiss. However, that retainment of the climax in the fairy tale also creates a contradiction in the movie. Why make her a "tough girl" if she's going to end up being saved by her man anyway? That only makes her look worse - she tries to be "tough" (read: like a man) and take care of herself, but she pathetically fails. Unless the kiss is before the battle, which would be completely anticlimactic and ridiculous.

Just as a footnote, the content in both movies looks borderline. For SWATH, I understand that someone obsessed with beauty (like the queen) would do some pretty evil and/or eyebrow-raisingly bizarre things. Like bathing in white liquid. Or stabbing a man in bed. Plus, I don't mind sexy content (within reason) as long as it is portrayed as bad. So the content in SWATH, though it appears not as good as I would like, is excusable. But the content in MM looks like it's supposed to be funny. It also looks like the movie will be marketed to tweens. (With that kind of humor? I hope teens and up don't think it's side-splittingly funny.) With both these elements, and MM may cross a line or two with its content.

Pertaining To X-Men: First Class

Erik Lensherr (Michael Fassbender) was treated brutally as a child in a concentration camp, where he first learned that he can control metal objects with his mind. Now it's 1962, and he's determined to track down Klaus Schmidt, the German doctor/scientist who murdered his mother and subjected him to hideous experiments. Enter a telepathic mutant named Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and his adopted sister and fellow mutant Raven (Jennifer Lawrence). Charles teams up with the CIA to track down another mutant named Sebastion Shaw (Kevin Bacon) - formerly known as Klaus Schmidt. Shaw has his own team of mutants, and he has partnered with the Russians in an apparent plan to attack the United States. Charles and Erik inevitably cross paths and decide work together.

(Disclaimer: I have never read an X-Men comic book, so none of this review will come from a comic fan's standpoint.)

This is one of the most enjoyable movies I have ever seen. Funny, tragic, cool, exciting, and a little scary at intervals, First Class rises above its minor flaws to the status of a great movie. But the real meat of the movie isn't in the cool superhero (and heroine) powers, or in the story, or in the dialogue. It's in the marvelous acting jobs.

James McAvoy is a pretty good actor. He was great as Mr. Tumnus, and so-so in a badly written part in The Conspirator. But he really shines as Charles/Professor X in First Class. Funny, always optimistic, ever looking out for his friends, and a born leader, McAvoy's Charles is a great character. Every single line and facial expression in the movie is perfect.

Next is Michael Fassbender. I have seen him in three parts now (only two that I remember), and he's simply a fantastic actor. Erik/Magneto is a very complicated character. He's brutal and angry, but can be gentle or even, in one scene, happy. Essentially, he's a conflicted man whose overbearing drive for revenge dominates his entire life, but not so much that his revenge is all there is. As Charles tells him in one scene, there's good inside him - he just doesn't know it. Fassbender pulls this contradiction off beautifully.

The last acting job I want to mention (though everyone in the movie is great) is Jennifer Lawrence's performance as Raven/Mystique. She's not a particularly complex character. She has blue skin, red hair, and yellow eyes that she hides by using her power - the ability to change her appearance completely. She is hurt and angry that society won't accept her. Even her adopted brother seems a little put off by her natural appearance. All in all, not a very difficult part to play. But where Lawrence really shines is in the scenes where Raven is just an ordinary young woman. A warm, fun-loving young woman who's a bit of a spitfire at times must be a difficult part to play, because most actresses I've seen can't do it. Lawrence is perfect.

Unfortunately, First Class isn't my favorite movie for three little reasons. 1) There's too much sexual content for my comfort. None of it is what I would call terrible, but it's constant enough to make it annoying. 2) There's a half-hearted attempt to tie the Civil Rights movement in with the gay "marriage" movement of today.* The attempted tie-in in First Class takes the form of a few scattered jokes, but it's still there. 3) *Spoiler Warning* The part where the U.S. fires on the mutants - good and bad - on the beach is more than a little unrealistic. Unfortunately, there had to be a reason for the X-Men to go into hiding from the government, but the filmmakers could have come up with something better than that. *End of Spoiler*

Despite its flaws, First Class is a job well done. After the total failure of X-Men 3: X-Men United (I haven't yet seen X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but I've heard it's not very good either), the X-Men franchise needed a good reboot. They certainly pulled it off in First Class, despite the movie's flaws.

My Rating: MT (sexual references and content, brutal violence, disturbing images, language)


* For those who don't know, the X-Men stories are reflections of the Civil Rights movement. Professor X is the peace-loving Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., and Magneto is the more violent separatist Malcom X. So any tie-in of the mutants with gays is, by extension, a tie-in of the Civil Rights movement with gays.

Reviews of similar movies:

• The Incredible Hulk
• Thor
• Spider-Man
• Spider-Man 2
• Spider-Man 3

First Avengers Trailer Released

*squeals with delight* Okay, now that I'm over my initial thrill, I just have to say that this looks awesome. First, a genuine conglomeration of superheroes, with their own quirks and coolnesses, put into one movie. Second, only Hawkeye's character needs to be established, since the others have had their own movies or at least a fairly major part in another's movie. That means the movie can get right down to the business of saving the world - or avenging it. Finally, Loki looks like he has progressed to a little bit better character. If that is the case, this movie's going to be one for the ages.

On The Incredible Hulk

As the result of a military science experiment, Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) transforms into a mindless beast every time his pulse rate hits 200. Now he must hide in South America with no connections to his former life - he even had to leave the love of his life, Dr. Betty Ross (Liv Tyler), behind. But when the military discovers where he is, they come after him with lots of firepower. Bruce soon finds himself caught up in a deadly battle with military commandos led by the increasingly out-of-control Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth). But Bruce suspects that his greatest enemy just might be himself.

Bleah. First, I wish Bruce hadn't come back to Betty - Liv Tyler is simply dreadful in this role. Arwen in the Lord of the Rings must have been the role of a lifetime, because Liv sadly cannot act. Heck, she isn't even that pretty. Her scenes with Bruce range from crude to stupid to ones of the snorefest variety. And if there's one thing that every movie with romance must have, it's a likeable hero and heroine who actually have some chemistry.

Second, there are holes the size of the Atlantic in the climax scene. Superhero movies are not and should not be totally realistic (otherwise, the heroes would have no powers), but they should definitely be consistent. The climax scene in The Incredible Hulk is not. *Spoiler Warning* It begins as a ho-hum scene, with the Hulk fighting what is apparently called 'The Abomination,' though it's never named in the movie. They try to smash each other up a few times - until the helicopter that holds Betty crashes and eventually catches on fire. This is when the scene becomes stupid. Hulk puts out the fire with a clap of his hands. Really? Seriously? Yep. Then the scene quickly becomes ludicrous. Hulk manages to get a chain around the Abomination's neck and he begins to strangle it. But then Betty - for some unexplained reason - tells Hulk to stop. He does so (thereby showing that Bruce does have control over the Hulk). The Abomination is still conscious, but for some reason it is now subdued. Hulk lets the military deal with it. Really? The only blow that had seemed to even slightly annoy the Abomination was when Hulk threw its head through a concrete wall. But it quickly recovered and attacked again. And now it's subdued? After being merely partly strangled? Pathetic. *End of Spoiler*

All that aside, I was very pleasantly surprised at Bruce's character. The only role I had seen Edward Norton play was Steve in The Italian Job, and I honestly could not imagine him playing a hero that I liked. I was wrong. He was very sweet and kind (except for that one stupid scene in the motel room), and I thought he was a pretty good actor.

Also, any Avengers fan must see the final scene in the movie. I can't imagine that it would be necessary in order to understand the Avengers movie coming out next year, but let's just say that this one scene almost made me forget the stupidity of the rest of the movie.

My Rating: MT (sexual references and content (almost-sex scene in bed; both are clothed), language, violence)

Other superhero movies:

• Thor
• Spider-Man
• Spider-Man 2
• Spider-Man 3

Concerning Sapphique

(Written by Catherine Fisher. Sequel to Incarceron.) Finn is Outside, just like he wanted. But, unsurprisingly, he’s having second thoughts about his decision. He finds the world and its silly Protocol to be stifling. Perhaps it isn’t as physically constrictive as Incarceron, the prison where he was entrapped before, but it’s a prison nonetheless. Besides, his oathbrother Keiro is still stuck in the prison – and the Warden of Incarceron absconded with the only way out of Incarceron and sabotaged the only way into the prison at the same time. Finn’s hopes of rescuing Keiro and the former dog-slave Attia are pretty slim. Or is there more to the prison than meets the eye?

Like I said in my review of the first book, this is a really cool idea. There were more cool things in this book, including a crystal-like tower and an airship. And the original idea of Sapphique’s way Out was taken in a new, fairly clever direction. Unfortunately, that’s about all the good I can say about this book. Much to my chagrin, Ms. Fisher took the story from the first book and led it exactly where I didn’t want it to go.

First, Finn alarmingly began to prefer Claudia over Attia. Claudia? The spoiled brat who occasionally yells at Finn for only thinking of himself? I find that particular characteristic of hers both annoying and ironic since Claudia is the one who only thinks of herself (and, occasionally, her tutor Jared). Finn is genuinely concerned about Keiro, although Claudia thinks that’s stupid. Apparently, she thinks Keiro is only concerned about himself as well. Funny how people are most annoyed by the character traits that they possess.

Then there was the really, really cool twist that was hinted at several times. Based on what people were saying, I began to believe that maybe Incarceron could be the Outside, and the Realm might be the experimental prison. It might not be a completely logical idea, but it really seemed like that was where the book was headed. I’m not a real big fan of stories that claim the world is fake, but it would at least have been an interesting twist. Unfortunately, Ms. Fisher didn’t think so.

Finally, I have a strong dislike for the vague and, frankly, weak ending. One of three things happened with that. Either Ms. Fisher didn’t think the whole story through, she neglected to explain it all, or I missed something big. *Spoiler Warning* How did Sapphique, the Emergency Exit glove, become both an exit from and an entrance to Incarceron? And how did Jared become a prison/person hybrid when he put Sapphique’s glove on? Where did his body go? None of these questions are answered.

Sapphique is a very, very disappointing sequel to an intriguing book. There are unanswered questions, a frustrating love story, and a neglect of interesting twists that would keep the story alive and fresh. Need I say more?

My Rating: T (strange sci-fi ideas about the relationship between the body and the soul, mild sexual references)

Pertaining To Incarceron

(Written by Catherine Fisher.) Finn was born Outside. He knows it. He has memories that come back to him during seizures. People don't believe him. Even Gildas the Sapient thinks Finn is the creation of Incarceron. To Gildas, and to most of the Comitatus, Finn was created by the prison out of recycled bits of matter - a cellborn. But Finn knows better. He knows there is somewhere outside the prison, that he came from that somewhere, and that one day he will remember.

This is a really creepy and really cool idea. In fact, it reminds me a bit of the Matrix. Incarceron is a living, self-sustaining, and speaking prison that keeps its inhabitants trapped inside. Of course, one of the notable differences between the Matrix and Incarceron is that, in the Matrix, one fights the Agents, but in Incarceron, one fights the prison itself. That makes it a bit tough to make any headway. Also, in the Matrix, the prison holds minds, but Incarceron is a physical prison as well as a mental prison of sorts.

However good the idea, an idea can't keep a book afloat all by its lonesome. I've read books that were good ideas, but failed because the main characters were unlikable. That especially seems to happen when the main character is a girl. No offense, but I think most girls in books are idiots. Unfortunately, one of the main characters in Incarceron is an annoying young lady named Claudia - with more emphasis on the "young" than the "lady." She's betrothed to the Heir, a particularly spoiled and weak-minded fellow. But she's willing to do anything to avoid marrying him, etc., etc., etc. Oh, and she can't stand having to wear the starched skirts and other things that Protocol requires of her. A new character trait, that is not. But at least she has an excuse; Protocol (which is basically a rule that says everyone has to live like it's about 1750 or so) has been imposed on them by the rulers, who are somewhat implausibly convinced that they can avoid another bloody uprising like the one that happened decades ago by forcing people to live in the past. Hm. Not the most realistic backstory, but it serves its purpose. Putting all that aside, Claudia is still annoying.

Luckily, Finn is not annoying in the least. He's a good-hearted young man who tries his best. He makes the wrong choice once or twice (notably in the beginning), but these wrong choices only drive him to be better. His friend Attia is a great character as well, and his oathbrother Keiro... well, he's a whole 'nother story.

Incarceron also had just enough twists to show that the authoress knew something more than an interesting concept was needed to keep the story afloat. I guessed most of the developments before the characters knew, but there were one or two good surprises. And really, one can't expect too much from a young adult science fiction book.

All in all, it certainly kept my attention, right up until the end. When I read the last page, I wanted it to go on; what kind of an ending did Ms. Fisher think she was writing? That's not an ending, that's a teaser for Book 2, which, incidentally, I'm getting from my local library today. I can't bear to go much longer without finding out what happens next.

My Rating: T (disturbing concepts about a prison (including that the prison "makes" people), people referred to as "halfmen" or "dog-slaves" as if they were less than human, violence, family problems, mild sexual references)

On The Homelander Series

(Books: The Last Thing I Remember, The Long Way Home, The Truth of the Matter, and The Final Hour. Written by Andrew Klavan.) Charlie West is an ordinary high school kid. He has an older sister he tolerates, parents he loves but takes a little for granted, and he's in love with a beautiful girl named Beth. Oh, he also has a black belt in karate and a strong desire to enter the Air Force. Yep, Charlie is somewhere between skinny little Steve Rogers and hulking strongman Captain America. A good kid who loves his country and tries to do the right thing. But if all that's true, how did he get strapped to a chair and tortured by terrorists? Why are the police after him? And why can't he remember the last year of his life?

Finally, a series written for young adults that's actually appropriate for young adults! Better yet, it's a modern action/spy thriller. Best of all, the author is a conservative who has his head on straight about the goings-on in the world today. If someone else wrote this series, the terrorists would be funded by some greedy jerk in the CIA, oil industry, or _____ (fill in the blank with some other government organization or large corporation). Klavan takes a different, more realistic approach, and doesn't blame capitalism for all the ills that plague our country.

Is this the most realistic series I've ever read? Aside from the proper portrayal of terrorism, etc., probably not. I'm not sure if all the things in the books are possible, but they require only a slight suspension of belief. Charlie seems to be extraordinarily resiliant, but I've never been on the run before. Maybe some special grace or strength kicks in when one's life is on the line. Or maybe this is just a fictional series that shouldn't be taken too seriously. Either way, the unrealistic elements don't really take away from the series.

Finally, I love Klavan's sense of humor and his writing style. If you want a taste, just watch this video: Barack the Magic Suit, A Political Fairy Tale. No, his books are not quite this blatantly conservative. Although you should pay close attention to the last name of the President of the United States at the end of The Final Hour. It sure made me laugh.

This review is long enough already, so I'll try to keep my other gushing down to a bare minimum. Charlie and all the "good guy" (or girl) characters are all awesome, particularly Mike. And Klavan did a very good job of letting the reader figure out what was going on just before Charlie found out. The line between telling too soon and blatantly misleading readers is a delicate tight rope. Klavan walked it perfectly.

In short, I highly recommend this to anyone looking for a good, clean, conservative read.

My Rating: OK (violence, mention of torture (none actually in the books), terrorism)

On Thor

Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is on top of the world. As the older son of Norse god Odin (Anothony Hopkins), he is destined to assume the throne of Asgard in place of his father. Unfortunately, just before his father pronounces him king, Asgard is penetrated by evil frost giants from Jotunheim. Thor makes an ill-advised attack on Jotunheim and, instead of being crowned king, is deprived of his powers and banished to Earth for his arrogance. There, he must become worthy to wield the hammer before he can once again return to his home.

The best thing that can be said about this movie is that it is a treat to look at. Asgard took my breath away when the camera first introduced me to the kingdom. The landscapes of New Mexico (New Mexico in the movie, anyway; I don't know if it was shot on location or not) are nearly as beautiful, and even icy Jutenheim, surrounded by clouds, is lovely in a stark, harsh way. The rainbow bridge was also pretty cool, although not as cool as I had heard it would be. The constellations shown during the end credits were also beautiful. The special effects were amazing as well; probably the best I have ever seen. (I've not seen Avatar, nor do I have any plans to.)

The other two great parts of the movie were the humor and the squeaky cleanness. Those two things don't often go together in a movie, even in an animated movie supposedly made for children, but Thor managed to be funny and perfectly clean at the same time. In a day and age when most live-action comedies are rated R, being able to laugh without blushing at the same time is really nice.

With beauty, great special effects, humor, and cleanness, the only things Thor is missing are, well, characters and a story. There are, technically, characters. In fact, there are a lot of characters. Unfortunately, most of them seem to be like Wendy's burgers (i.e., like cardboard cut outs). Even romantic interest Jane's (Natalie Portman) quirky assistant is the type of character that's been in a thousand movies. Granted, she's still funny, but she's not exactly original. Thor is just passable; at least his old-fashioned, gentlemanly manners toward Jane make him unusual for a modern America movie. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is the most disappointing. Just when I thought I had his character figured out, he would do something completely out of character and I would have to rearrange my opinion of him. This isn't to say that his character kept surprising me with new twists. The filmmakers tried too hard to make him evil and conflicted at the same time, the result being one of the clunkiest villains I've ever seen.

Unfortunately for Thor, characters are the driving force behind any movie. Adaptations of Jane Austen's classics, particularly A&E's masterful Pride and Prejudice, are based entirely on their characters. Even caper movies like the Ocean's trilogy wouldn't be nearly as good without characters like Linus or Reuben. At the same time, while Thor isn't exactly a classic, at least it's an action/adventure movie that's actually appropriate for young teenagers.

My Rating: T (family tensions, mild language, violence, scary images)

Regarding Saints and Soldiers

Four American soldiers survive a Nazi massacre of POWs. They're a rather strange bunch: a firm but loyal sergeant, a religious man struggling with his demons, a medic who doesn't believe in God, and a southern man who has more enthusiasm than brains. On the run, they come across an RAF pilot dangling from a tree. He is in possession of vital information about the Battle of the Bulge that must be got to an allied command post. The four soldiers agree to help him - whatever the cost.

This is the first war movie made within the last sixty years that I have seen. I rarely watch movies from the seventies or eighties (or even the sixties), and anything made in the last fifteen years is probably too violent (and/or politically motivated) for my taste. But Saints and Soldiers wasn't made to linger on the horrors of war or to push an agenda - rather, it focuses on the heroism of men, and one man in particular, who are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to win a war.

While the short summary I read looked promising, I must admit I had low expectations of quality going into this movie. After all, it was made in 2003, but I had never heard of it before. Translation: It didn't make a huge splash when it first came out. But I was very pleasantly surprised.

The dialogue was well written, without many cliches or clunky lines. The acting was pretty good, although the accents leave something to be desired. The southerner's accent was only slightly cringe-inducing (I got used to it after a while), but the British guy's accent really got on my nerves. Perhaps this was because I've seen hour upon hour of British movies with real British people and have consequently become hyper sensitive to this sort of thing, but I must say I wish they had picked someone who really is British.

Another issue I feel I must address is the fact that Saints and Soldiers was made by a Mormon, and at least one of the actors is Mormon as well. This might be more of a stumbling block if Mormonism permeated the whole film, but not only did the few references escape my notice (e.g. the religious man is from a town densely populated by Mormons and doesn't drink or smoke), a Catholic supply company I trust has the film for sale. (Although I must say I thought it was strange when the religious man said he had been on a "mission" trip to Germany.)

In the end, Saints and Soldiers is about heroicism, sacrifice, and even redemption in a time of war. Add in the fact that it feels like a good, old war movie in that it has a simple story line and not a great deal of violence or blood, and the end product is an enjoyable - and rather touching - ninety minutes.
My Rating: T (violence, mild language)

In Relation To Paycheck

Michael Jennings (Ben Affleck) is a special kind of engineer. He is hired by companies to work on highly sensitive (read: illegal) projects. After each project is finished, he is handed a big paycheck and his memory of everything that happened while he was on the project is promptly erased. When a man called Rethrick (Aaron Eckhart) offers him a job that will consume three years of his life, but leave him rich beyond his wildest dreams, Jennings agrees. Three years later, he finds he not only forfeited his paycheck, he's also being chased by everyone from the feds to Rethrick - and he has no idea why.

This movie is a really, really good idea. In the right hands it would have ranked up with other thrillers like Inception. Unfortunately, it was not in the right hands, so it's only so-so. Sometime between the original idea and the actual making of the movie, something went wrong.

First, Ben Affleck is not a very good actor. Jennings' generic character doesn't call for much acting, so that didn't bother me too much. But his girlfriend Rachel is played by Uma Thurman, who is not very good in this movie, either. Her character is pretty boring (I think perhaps the movie makers relied a little too much on her exotic looks), but she has some lines that should be funny and aren't.

This trend of character-less characters is pretty widespread; almost none of the characters are developed in any sense of the word. By far the best character is Shorty (Paul Giamatti), the kooky sidekick with the funny taste in clothes. Perhaps that's because Giamatti is the only good actor out of the bunch, with perhaps the exception of Eckhart. Unfortunately, Shorty isn't in nearly enough scenes. The evil characters are stereotypes, and the feds are just boring.

The characters are not the only part that doesn't work. Everything is extremely dramatized, as if the movie makers were aiming to make Paycheck the movie of the decade. Evidently they didn't realize that drama only works if the audience has more than money invested in the movie. Excitement cannot be drummed up with slow-motion action scenes or exhilirating music; audiences have to be emotionally invested in the characters at least a little.

My Rating: MT (language, violence, palm-reading, sexual content between hero and a side character)

Picture from coverbrowser.com

On The Searchers

Ethan Edwards (John Wayne) has just returned from an extended absence that began with the Civil War, but continued for some time under mysterious circumstances. His brother, sister-in-law, and the couple's children welcome him back with open arms, but Ethan seems to have a little trouble settling in. When Indians attack while Ethan and his adopted nephew Martin (Jeffrey Hunter) are elsewhere, the whole family is murdered except for Ethan's two young nieces. Ethan and Martin leave to search for their two family members, but it isn't long before Martin fears Ethan's hatred of Indians may cause him to do something drastic.

Generally speaking, I don't like John Wayne movies. I think he was a dreadful actor, and, to be honest, he played exactly the same character in all his later movies that I've seen. In this one, he's a particularly bad actor. He has this one line that he keeps repeating at different points in the movie that is just laughable. However, I enjoyed watching The Searchers because it isn't so much about him as it is about his nephew Martin.

Martin is an enjoyable character. He's only a decent actor, but his character is surprisingly well formed for a Hollywood movie. He has his own little quirks without seeming like an overly exaggerated character, and some of the situations he gets himself into are pretty funny. Best of all, he's young, inexperienced, and rather foolish, but he's still a brave hero. He puts the safety of his adopted sister above his own comfort, even though his girlfriend is furious with him for being gone for so long.

Although I really enjoyed Martin, I must say that the portrayal of Indians made me cringe a little. It's a typical Hollywood stereotype (for crying out loud, the bad guy's name is Scar, a sinister name if I've ever heard one), and Ethan's overblown hatred and disgust for Indians (though partly justifiable because of the Indians' raid on his family's home) is a bit over the top. Although, in defense of the movie, there are a few peaceful Indians as well, and the U.S. soldiers are sometimes portrayed as cruel toward Indians.

Note: John Wayne's son Patrick plays a young soldier in this movie. A little fun is poked at their relationship; Patrick plays the son of an officer, and the men keep giving him a hard time because of his father.

My Rating: OK (frightening situations, mild sexual content)

Concerning Spider-Man 3

Life is good. At least, that's what Peter Parker/Spider-Man (Tobey Maguire) thinks. Sure, the door to his one-room apartment sticks. But he's at the top of his class, he gets to go around saving people with his superhero powers, his popularity in New York has never been so high, and he's about to propose to Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst), the girl he's loved for as long as he can remember. Unfortunately, things never run smoothly for long. Peter's best friend, Harry Osborn (James Franco), knows that Peter is Spider-Man. He also knows that Spider-Man was responsible for his father's death. Add that to a strange robber nicknamed the Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) terrorizing New York, Mary Jane's career troubles, and a weird black substance from outer space and you get a lot of trouble.

Spider-Man 3 is not my favorite Spider-Man movie, but it's probably the best one. The themes, visual symbolism, and graphics are superior to the first and second movies. The reason why it's not my favorite is very simple: The first two feel much more like superhero stories. Slow-motion action scenes, spidey-sense, and basic good vs. evil storylines all contributed to the good ol' action-figure hero feel. Spider-Man 3, on the other hand, is much more complicated.

This more complex twist to the movie is partly owed to the sheer number of "bad guys" in the movie. Harry, the Sandman, the black goop, and even Eddie Brock (Topher Grace), the rival photographer, are all bad characters that Peter or his alter-ego must fight. In the first two movies, it was just Spider-Man vs. the Green Goblin or Spider-Man vs. Doc Ock. Spider-Man 3 has Peter/Spidey fighting evil on all fronts - his personal life, his professional life, and his life as a superhero.

Besides the large number of bad guys, another reason for the complexity of this movie is the question that is posed and answered: Can people who lead bad lives be good, or are we responsible for the lives we lead? I'm quite pleased with the answer given by Spider-Man 3.

As well as asking what a "good person" is, this movie also contains a lot of religious symbolism. *Spoilers from here to the end* The most obvious symbolism is when Eddie goes to the church and prays for Jesus to kill Peter Parker. First he speaks about being humbled and humiliated, which is followed immediately by a shot of a crucifix on the wall. Eddie's humility is being compared to Jesus' humility in not only giving up His life, but in everything He suffered leading up to that point. Then the comparison ends and the contrast begins - Eddie pleads for Jesus to kill his enemy. Jesus' ultimate victory over death was not achieved by killing His enemies, but by sacrificing His own life. A quick glance at a crucifix would show how twisted Eddie's approach to justice is.

Soon after Eddie's prayer, Peter decides to free himself of the awful black goop that took hold of him in the form of a new Spidey suit through the hatred in his heart. He soon discovers that he can't pull it off. His black suit, which has almost taken on a life of its own, has attached itself to him so strongly that nothing he can do will loosen it. Until he accidently strikes the church bell. The rich sound of the bell ringing sends the black suit into contortions, and Peter is freed. His lack of clothing while he lies gasping in the shadows is most likely a reference to being born again.

After Peter rids himself of the suit with the aid of the church bell, the black goop finds another victim in Eddie, whose hatred for Peter consumes him. When Spider-Man tries to free Eddie from the villainous goop, he uses steel bars in a construction zone to make a bell-like sound. Eddie is freed from the goop, but almost immediately throws himself at it again - straight into an explosion. Peter was freed by a church bell. Eddie was, sadly, not entirely freed by steel bars.

My Rating: T (frightening images, mild sexual content)

Picture from coverbrowser.com