Better Than The Book? THE HUNGER GAMES - MOCKINGJAY: PART 1

THE HUNGER GAMES - MOCKINGJAY: PART 1
2014 - 123 minutes - Science Fiction/Action
Director: Francis Lawrence
Country: United States
IMDB: 7.2
Metacritic: 64
RT: 66%

CinemaChagrin's Rating:  C

Watch this movie if you enjoy:

• The book
• Any of the big names in the film
• Fantastic direction/visual effects/props/sets

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• Movies lacking conclusions
• Obvious cashgrabs
• Silly "action-movie" moments
• Shoddy writing
• Bizarre casting choices

Welp, here's another multi-part finale to a book adaptation series that feels altogether unnecessary from a storytelling standpoint but completely understandable from a business standpoint. I can't entirely blame the execs at LionsGate for splitting this movie into two parts - after all, I would do it too if it made me more money! Plus, moviegoers seem not to mind too much, as they show up for these films in droves. And while one could make the argument that the final installment of the Harry Potter series warranted two films due to the length of the book, one cannot make a similar argument for Mockingjay. It's not a very lengthy book by any means. At least they didn't try to make 3 movies out of it, a la The Hobbit. 

Don't worry, I'm confused too, Katniss.

Despite my peeves about splitting the final book into two movies, I (and many others) anticipated this movie because of the opportunity for it to outshine its written counterpart. Though the Hunger Games series is by no means fine literature, the first two books were entertaining fluff if also highly derivative and unoriginal. However, the third book was an absolute trainwreck - dull, uninteresting, and sloppily written. This presented an excellent opportunity for the screenwriters to trim unnecessary fat and present a taut, exciting closing film in the trilogy. For example, the writers of Game of Thrones are very good at cutting the unnecessary crap from Martin's book series and streamlining the plot of the show. Sadly, by splitting Mockingjay into two parts, any opportunity to improve upon the book pretty much went out the window. Plus, the naturally-resulting cliffhanger ending definitely does not leave the audience with a good taste in their collective mouths, given that they have to wait another year for the next installment.

Despite this, I actually liked the movie, and wouldn't mind re-watching it. That's saying something, as I don't ever plan on re-reading the book. However, just because I enjoyed the film to a certain extent doesn't excuse it from its glaring faults, of which there are many. I could spend entirely too much time dissecting each and every issue with the film, but I'll save us all a lot of time and identify the primary source of Mockingjay: Part 1's weaknesses (aside from the decision to split the book into two movies): the script.

Gale (Liam Hemsworth) & Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) save the day

An outstanding script made Catching Fire not only an exciting blockbuster, but a great film in overall. Sharp writing allows quality directors and actors to excel at what they do. Unfortunately, a lackluster screenplay can and does limit the directors and actors forced to work with it. Such is the case with MJ: P1. Whereas Catching Fire balanced wit with gravity and excitement with sorrow, the script of MJ: P1 comes across as a bland offering riddled with cliches and silly lines. None of the actors are allowed to shine because the script doesn't really give them anything to work with. Character development has never been this series' strongpoint; however,  all of the returning characters in this film are reduced to either shadows or caricatures of their former selves. New faces are mostly uninteresting. It's really a shame to see so much talent wasted. Granted, the substandard source material doesn't help, but I wish the writers could have inserted a bit more pep into the screenplay.

The film's pacing is also off. It's admittedly a little slow for a big-budget blockbuster (again, the two-movies issue), and much of the screenplay involves characters reacting with horror to **shocker** the horrors of war. Large sections of the film seem to amble along with nothing much happening. When things really get going near the middle and ending segments of MJ: P1, the film gets quite exciting. Unfortunately the poor script fails to provide any sort of foundation during the more quiet moments. The ending also materializes quite abruptly.

Finally, although casting has been a strength of the series until this point, Julianne Moore is horribly miscast as the autocratic president of District 13. She delivers her admittedly terrible lines in a wooden and unconvincing fashion. I'm not sure who decided it would be a good idea to have her in this movie. Additionally, Natalie Dormer (known from playing Princess Maergery Tyrell in Game of Thrones) seems quite out of place too. Though her character is pretty much a cardboard cutout, she doesn't really strike me as the type of actress who would thrive in a science fiction setting. 

I love Natalie Dormer as much as the next guy, but she felt out of place

You might be asking by this point, "didn't he say he enjoyed the film?" Well yes, I did to a certain extent. First of all, Francis Lawrence once again proves a competent director. Given the material he had to work with, he did a fine job. MJ: P1 looks beautiful. Action scenes are superbly shot (though the content is typically pretty silly). Lawrence really has a great way of framing shots to help the viewer focus on the most important subject onscreen without ignoring the rest of what's going on. MJ: P1 also had some really great editing. The tribute extraction scene in particular was very well-shot and quite tense. From the scenes featuring Panem subjects revolting accompanied by Katniss' haunting singing, to the aforementioned raid scene, the film's editing stands out consistently.

Good news: Peeta bread is still one suave mofo

Bottom line - those of you who are fans of the book or were already planning on going to see the movie, by all means check it out and forge your own opinion. Unlike Catching Fire, though, I can't recommend this film to someone sitting on the fence or who doesn't already have an active interest in seeing it. It's entertaining but ultimately unsatisfying for the most part. Was it bad? No. Was it good? Not really. I'd say it's average. Hence my "C" rating.

-CC

Check out the trailer:

2015 Oscars Preview

2015 can't possibly be as strong as last year, but it's getting there

2013 was an absolutely stacked year for movies. 

You had Alfonso Cuaron's groundbreaking space thriller Gravity that dominated the Academy Awards and took home seven Oscars. You had the best picture-winning 12 Years a Slave that masterfully depicted slavery in a way we had never imagined. 

There was Matthew McConaughey's breakthrough in Dallas Buyer's Club and there was Spike Jonze's captivating modern love tale in Her. There was Captain Phillips and Before Midnight. There was American Hustle, Nebraska, and The Wolf of Wall Street, who were nominated for a combined 21 Oscars and didn't win a single one. 

What gives, huh?

A Martin Scorsese film didn't win an Oscar of any kind. That's when you know. 

Naturally, 2014 wasn't going to compete. It couldn't have. And it hasn't. But now the year is dwindling down and a few strong Oscar contenders are emerging. 

The year started slowly, with George Clooney's The Monuments Men leading the way as a promising Oscar contender that disappointed big time. 

In March, Darren Aronofsky debuted his modern take on the classic tale of Noah that sparked some controversy to say the least. The critics were more forgiving though, and Noah might grab a couple nominations, especially in visual categories. Aronofsky certainly didn't follow the biblical guidelines of the story in full, but he created one hell of an aesthetic experience. Oh, and Emma Watson. Because Emma Watson.

If any film from the early part of the year is going to make an appearance at the Academy Awards, it'll be The Lego Movie, but that can only win so much. It grossed over $250,000,000 and made even more from promotional products, but even last year's smash hit Frozen only won a couple Oscars, and one was for a song. It seems unlikely that "Everything is Awesome" will win one for The Lego Movie, but it could very well win Best Animated Film of the Year. 

In the summer came The Fault in Our Stars, and even though director Josh Boone did John Green justice with his heartfelt adaptation, it probably won't win much. The most likely nomination might be the Green-infused screenplay. Shailene Woodley deserves a best actress nomination, but it can't be expected. 

It wasn't until July and Richard Linklater's Boyhood that a definite Oscar contender emerged. The 12-year epic will surely garner interest from the Academy, especially because it's not Linklater's first rodeo. His script should earn him a second straight nomination, this time for Best Original Screenplay. It's also quite possible that he'll earn a nomination for best director, seeing as most don't work over a 12 year span. And don't be surprised if the "Boy" in Boyhood Ellar Coltrane earns a Best Leading Actor nomination. He was quite literally growing up twice during filming. Not to mention Best Picture. Look for Boyhood to make some serious noise. 

Fast forward a few months to October and David Fincher comes calling. His latest entry to the dark crime genre Gone Girl will earn him some nominations, especially on the production side of things. Ben Affleck probably won't win his first Oscar as an actor, but he should earn a nomination for his role. The real question is: Will this finally be the year Fincher wins Best Director? Richard Linklater and Christopher Nolan might have something to say about it, but 2014 seems likes a decent year to do it. 

A nomination for Affleck is debatable, but there's not even a question about Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler. His role might have been the best of his career, which is saying a lot. Don't be surprised if he wins. Dan Gilroy's dark satire of the modern media might earn a few more nominations in categories like Sound Mixing or Sound Editing, but it won't light up the show too much. 

And then there's Interstellar. Will it be this year's Gravity? Probably not, but let's just say Nolan picked a good year to debut his daring space adventure. Best Director, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing and Best cinematography all seem like definite nominations, and it doesn't stop there. Matthew McConaughey could see his second straight Best Leading Actor nomination and Hans Zimmer seems like the current favorite for Best Score. 

While Interstellar probably won't win seven Oscars like Gravity did, it should definitely be nominated for at least that many. At this point, Nolan's epic seems like the overall frontrunner. 

The year is far from over, though, and there are a few titles set to be released soon that might join the conversation. Jennifer Lawrence is back in the latest The Hunger Games project, and Peter Jackson's The Hobbit trilogy is set to close in December. You also can't overlook Ridley Scott and Christian Bale in the upcoming Exodus: Gods and Kings. 

There have certainly some great films so far in 2014, and as long as you aren't expecting anything like last year, it should make for an entertaining awards season. 

-EE

"The City Shines Brightest at Night" - NIGHTCRAWLER

NIGHTCRAWLER
2014 - 117 minutes - Crime/Drama/Thriller
Director: Dan Gilroy
Country: United States
IMDB: 8.4
Metacritic: 76
RT: 94%

EpicEnthusiast's Rating: B+

Watch this movie if you enjoy: 

• crime dramas

• dark films 

• Jake Gyllenhaal 

Avoid this movie if you dislike:

• violent crime

• dark films 

• satire 

If you're a fan of Jake Gyllenhaal, you should go see Nightcrawler. If you enjoy crime thrillers, you should go see Nightcrawler. If you like dark films, or films that may be more than originally meets the eye, you should go see Nightcrawler.

And if you you're interested in journalism, you need to go see Nightcrawler.

In his directorial debut, Dan Gilroy gives us a story centered around Louis Bloom, a shady thief living in the underworld of Los Angeles. Bloom resorts to stealing metals and bikes for money until he drives by a nasty car crash on the highway and decides to stop. Along with the police and medical crew, he sees someone filming the fiery wreck. As officers pull an injured women out of the car, Bloom, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, is standing there not horrified, but fascinated. He approaches the camera man with questions immediately, and even asks if he's hiring as he's leaving the scene. 

Jake Gyllenhaal as Louis Bloom 

Just like that, a nightcrawler is born. 

The trailers for Nightcrawler emphasize the more action-packed sequences of Bloom's plunge into Los Angeles crime journalism, and while those bits of the film certainly stand out, Gilroy's film is much more of a character study than it is an action flick. 

In the opening shot, we see Bloom attempting to cut a fence so he can sell it for scrap metal. He's soon approached by a security guard in the dark, who wonders what he's doing. Gilroy then strategically has the guard point a flashlight on Bloom's face to illuminate his gaudy structure and put emphasize on his eerily stoic dialogue. From the get-go, you're led to believe that Gyllenhaal isn't going to be playing one of his charming protagonists. 

In fact, Nightcrawler may not even have a protagonist. But Gyllenhaal dominates the screen like one, and puts forth a performance that will be remembered as one of the best of his career. To prepare for his role as Bloom, he lost 20 pounds and biked or ran to the set each day. It's clear that Gyllenhaal is far more than familiar with his character — he immerses himself in him.

Everything from manically screaming into a bathroom mirror to putting his hair up into a "man bun" before his adrenaline spikes is executed with control and impact, and his embracement of Gilroy's characterization drives Nightcrawler throughout. Gilroy couples a tactical use of the camera to thoroughly uncover surroundings with Gyllenhaal's charisma to bring his lead man to a chilling life.

And while Nightcrawler marks his first time directing his own screenplay, Gilroy's writing experience shows. With the exception of a few forced one-liners, his dialogue is both fitting and provoking and his cast capitalizes on what they had to work with. Notably strong is Rene Russo, who plays a news director at a Los Angeles news station that Bloom sells his footage to.

Similar to his actors, Gilroy takes advantage of the Los Angeles landscape with some stunning cinematography. Sweeping shots of the city are aesthetically pleasing and establish an absorbing atmosphere. Like Nicolas Winding Refn did before him with Drive, Gilroy makes the metropolis a theme of his film and proves that nightcrawling in Los Angeles is unlike nightcrawling anywhere else.

In the end, though, Nightcrawler's strong production value gets pushed aside by a light-hearted, but gripping message. At one point in the film, when another lead character seemingly adopts the philosophy of the deranged Bloom, Gilroy's true reasoning breaches the surface. He isn't just attempting to tell the story of some monster that stumbles upon the world of freelance crime journalism in one of the country's biggest cities — he's speaking to the industry as a whole.

Bloom's character alone sparks questions of ethics and morality, but so does journalism. In world where news is demanded immediately, technology rules, and journalism is one big competition, is it possible that someone like Bloom — who at one point in the movie drags a dead body into better lighting for his camera — could be feeding the public information?

More than anything else, Nightcrawler explores questions like this. It pokes fun at the current state of the media, but also presents a potentially alarming scenario. It manages to be serious, disturbing, comical, dark, and thought-provoking, all at the same time.

Gilroy's film is ultimately bogged down by a few unnecessary scenes, some rigid editing, and a soundtrack that sometimes doesn't have an identity — that makes you wonder what its purpose is — but it's a ride worth taking. If not for its visuals, then for its voice. If not for Gyllenhaal's performance, then for Gilroy's style.

Even more rare than a simultaneously satirical, edgy crime drama is a film that poses a relevant and purposeful question. Nightcrawler is one of those films and its pacy entertainment is just a bonus.

-EE

As of November 9th, 2014 Nightcrawler is in theaters everywhere. Here's the trailer: