The Hunger Games

When the "Harry Potter" series came to an end last summer, people began to wonder what franchise would come along next to make its mark on Hollywood. So far the attempts have not been so successful ("John Carter" "Green Lantern") and while the Twilight series has made lots of money--the majority of the world despises it. So now we have the Hunger Games; a bestselling trilogy about an intense concept that involves twenty-four kids fighting to the death. The anticipation leading up to the premier was huge and now that it has been released has Hollywood found its next cash cow?

The land that was once North America is long gone, devastated by an unknown apocalyptic event. Now it is known as Panem, a nation divided into twelve districts and the wealthy and controlling Capitol. After a previous rebellion against the Capitol, a decree was made so that each year, children between the ages of twelve and eighteen would be selected from each of the districts to compete in an annual ceremony known as The Hunger Games. In these games, the "tributes" would battle to the death in a large arena composed of different environments (forest/desert/etc) until one victor remained. This year, in District Twelve, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) have been selected to take part in the games. With fiery outfits, incredible talent, and growing connection between the two tributes, Katniss and Peeta gain a lot of attention in the capitol before the Games begin. When the times comes to survive in the arena, the two must decide to either stick together or kill each other, and their decisions may have a larger effect on the corrupt Capitol than they know.

The big thing that "The Hunger Games" boasts is a well-rounded cast, with the two leads being up-and-coming actors, surrounded by better-known Hollywood stars. I've only seen Jennifer Lawrence in one other film but this Oscar nominated actress has started her career off with a bang. She captures the seriousness and emotionality of Katniss's personality brilliantly, which is impressive since her character does not have a heavy amount of dialogue for the majority of the film. Opposite her is Josh Hutcherson who, to be honest, I've never been a big fan of. While his performance was above average, he has some catching up to do in the sequels before he can reach the excellence of Lawrence's performance.

But the supporting cast--two in particular--is where I was most pleased in terms of acting. First, Woody Harrelson was by far the best casting choice as he stole every scene with his humor portrayal of Haymitch, the mentor to the two tributes (and my favorite character from the books). Harrelson finds a perfect balance between drunken fool and wise mentor and serves up many of the film's laughs. The other actor worthy of praise is Donald Sutherland who plays the evil President Snow who is showcased far more in the film than in the books. His character is a man of few words, but that is what makes him so menacing.

With a running time of nearly two and a half hours, I was a little concerned about parts of the film dragging out. Surprisingly, "The Hunger Games" has remarkably good pacing. The film never spends more time on a scene than it needs to and more often than not, the action and suspense speed the story along at a quick pace.

And there is plenty of great, high-octane action. With the film being about a futuristic version of the gladiator games, you know what to expect. Most of the killings happen off-screen or in quick flashes while others are quite brutal especially since they involve teens. Yes, the filmmakers did majorly tone down some of the more intense aspects of the games, but it shouldn't upset many fans of the books (it didn't upset me). Once all of the tributes go into the arena, the film quickly speeds up and never really slows down...and that's ok with me.

As a fan of the books, perhaps the most exciting thing about "The Hunger Games" is how great of a job the filmmakers did with the book to movie adaptation. The film captures the intense nature, the suspense, and the emotional power that the book had and any who have not read the book will have no problem understanding the movie. The film has everything: a unique plot, great action, superb action, and even a little romance. So has Hollywood found its next big franchise? With the film already meeting high praise from fans and critics premiering to the third highest opening gross of all the time, I'd say the odds are definitely in its favor. I give it three and a half stars out of four.

"The Hunger Games" has a running time of two hour and twenty-two minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense violent thematic material and disturbing images-all involving teens.

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance

Sure there used to be a time when Nicolas Cage made good movies but frankly, I don't remember those days. Now I can only remember the past five years or so...where Mr. Cage has stared in terrible films with terrible plots that feature him either speaking corny dialogue or yelling his face off. An example of this kind of film was 2007's "Ghost Rider," a Marvel Comics movie where Cage rode around with a flaming skull, sending demons back to Hell. While the comic character is indeed pretty cool, the film adaptation was much less impressive, which is why I was just as surprised as anyone to learn that a sequel was in the works. Five years later, Cage has dawned his flaming motorcycle again and...oh brother.


The devil's human form has grown week and the time has come for him to find a new host to inhabit. So he chooses a innocent boy...oh wait he's actually the devil's son...I think (the movie doesn't explain). To protect this boy from becoming the Antichrist, a secret sect of the church seeks out Johnny Blaze, who has been hiding out in Eastern Europe, attempting to cope with the demon living inside of him. They tell Johnny that if he can use his demon, the Ghost Rider, to save the boy from the devil, they can relieve him of his curse.


I'm just going to come out and say it...everything was wrong with this movie. The center of all the problems was the plot. The story was so simple and predictable and the directors obviously had no intention of developing it at all. There is no elaboration on any the characters (who are they, what are their motives, why are they doing this, etc.) and there is no character development. All of the characters are one-sided and don't allow the audience to connect with them or care for them.


This might be because of the dreadful acting. I don't know if Cage has realized that the world views him as a madman in his movies and has decided to embrace that or not, but his acting was WAY over the top. In scenes he would go from whispers to screams at the snap of a finger and when he tries to be emotional near the end of the film, the crowd just started to laugh. Some of the dialogue may have been corny to start with but most of the time, he made it corny,


And I though that at least the action would save the movie from being a total waste...wrong! The film tries to find these artistic ways to make the action unique, but it fails each time. If he gets hit with a rocket, have him fly against a wall or something, instead of spinning around on his back in the air like some old cartoon. If you want to show how he can manipulate fire, have him shoot it from his fists instead of urinating fire while shaking his head up and down. Oh, and don't have him do this weird, swaying dance whiles he's waiting to be attacked. The movie almost seemed like it was making fun of itself, through the action, the acting, and everything else.


Awhile back on an episode of Saturday Night Live, Andy Samberg did a hilarious Nicolas Cage impression where he mocked Cage's insanity. In the skit he made a remark on one of Cage's upcoming films (maybe "Ghost Rider) saying, "It has every element of a classic Nicolas Cage movie. One...IT EXISTS!" That's how I view "Ghost Rider 2." It's a bad movie with a lousy plot, dumb action, and a cliche script and yet it existed. And because it existed, Cage wanted to do it. What did he see in this film? I haven't the slightest idea, but one thing is for sure, his acting only made it worst. "Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" is not only the worst film that Marvel has made in past decade (replacing the first "Ghost Rider") but it's quite possibly one of the worst films that I have ever seen. I give it a half star out of four.


"Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance" has a running time of 95 minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, some disturbing images, and language.

The Woman in Black

Nowadays, when a horror movie comes around most people think of several things: pointless gore and torture, disturbing murderers, and overall...a cruddy movie. Of course nine times out of ten, this is true. A good scary movie is very hard to come by these days, but every once-in-awhile one manages to be a crowed pleaser. Since "The Woman in Black" is the first film to showcase the Hammer Film name (who were behind some of the most famous horror films such as the classic Dracula, Frankenstein, and the Mummy) in 35 years, it seemed like this film had promise, and with "Harry Potter" star Danielle Radcliffe as the leading man, the film guaranteed many eager viewers. But does "The Woman in Black" shine in a genre that hasn't been favorite of critics?

Arthur Kipps (Radcliffe) is going through tough times. His visions of his deceased wife, combined with financial problems and the threat of being fired from his job as a lawyer, are causing much trouble in his young life. He is given one last chance to prove himself a worthy worker and is sent to handle the estate of Alice Drablow. Things don't get much better for Arthur when he arrives to the small town where the house is located. Nobody seems to want him there and nobody is willing to take him to the house to begin with...oh, and a creepy ghost is haunting the entire town and is taking out her vengeance on children. Sound creepy? It is! Determined to get to the bottom of this haunting problem, Arthur must learn the past of this mysterious Woman in Black and work to prevent her from further harming not only the towns people but himself.

"The Woman In Black" stands out from other scary movies because of two big reasons: an intriguing character and an engaging story line. So many protagonists are never developed (or given time to) in films of this genre. Instead they are dumbed up only to be slaughtered to simply get a reaction. Not Kipps. It is very clear that the filmmakers want the viewers to really get to know and care for Arthur Kipps. Besides the fact that Radcliffe is almost never off the screen, the character is developed throughout the entire film so that by the climax, we want him to succeed (and survive).

The story itself is a very classic one and that is in no way a bad thing. Several plot points (to give an example would be spoiling the film) echo the most famous of the haunted house/ghost story flick. It's suspenseful, it's intense, and it isn't predictable. Yes it does draw from other ghosts stories but there are some twists and turns that you won't be expecting.

Now make no mistake, while the film is different than most horror films regarding the character and plot, it's all the same when it comes to the scares. "The Woman in Black" is heavy on the "jump scares." And they do it so perfectly that many of the scares come just after you would normally expect them. This process effectively drew screams from most of the audience in my theater (although there were a few who laughed at my terror and the terror of many others). Some people, such as myself, enjoy the feeling of waiting for something freaky to pop out on the screen, and if you are one of these people...you will be impressed. Another great thing about these scares is that they are achieved without the overwhelming amounts of gore found in most horror films

Hammer Films chose the right movie to be their first in so many years. The intense and engaging story and interesting protagonist, combined with Radcliffe's great performance, makes one great film that breaks the mold of the horror genre and succeeded in throwing me out of my chair in shock. I give it three stars out of four.

"The Woman in Black" has a running time of 95 minutes and is rated PG-13 for thematic material and violence/disturbing images.

Beauty and the Beast 3D: An Investment or a Scam

It's hard to find a new movie that ISN'T playing in 3D these days. In fact it's become such a popular money-maker that I'm surprised movies still advertise the 3D instead of just assuming that people know (this will happen soon enough). Anyways, ever since the release of "Avatar" back in 2009, the third dimension has taken over the film industry. But this year a new strategy is beginning to take it's course...3D re-releases. With such films as "Star Wars," "Titanic," and "Finding Nemo" being re-released on the silver screen later this year (in that order), the time has come to ask the question, "Are seeing these old films in 3D really worth the money?"

This weekend showcased the opening of the first 3D re-release of 2012, Disney's "Beauty and the Beast." Was I willing to pay the extra cash to see a film that I could simply watch at home? Of course! Why? For starters it's my favorite animated Disney film and I never had the privilege of seeing it on the big screen. This is the best quality of these upcoming re-releases, it allows people to experience a film they love in a way they have never experienced it before...at a movie theater. This alone is worth the money; but in case you aren't convinced, "Beauty and the Beast"
boasts digitally restored visuals, providing a more colorful, descriptive, and high-quality picture. The sound is also restored and when played on the powerful movie theater speakers, it's hard not to sing along.

Now if you didn't like the movie when it first came out, this will obviously be a waste of money. The filmmakers didn't add anything new (story-wise) to make the film different. In fact they actually removed the new song that was placed in the recent Blu-Ray/DVD release, making this movie exactly as it was when it was first released (except for a few minor visual changes). Also, if you describe your attitude towards the film as "Alright" "Worth the nine bucks" or any other mediocre term...RED FLAG! Only pay to see these re-released films if you absolutely love it, otherwise it will be a waste of money.

So it's simple, if you loved the film the first time then see it again, especially if you never saw it at the theater. "Beauty and the Beast" was the same magical masterpiece that it was when I first saw it, and in 3D I got to experience it all on a whole new level. I eagerly anticipate the upcoming re-releases that 2012 is bringing our way (STAR WARS!) and will gladly pay to see some of the most famous works of Hollywood in the third dimension.

War Horse

With films like "Saving Private Ryan" and "Schindler's List" on his filmography, it's no question that director Steven Spielberg is a master of the "war" genre (and every other genre for that matter). This being the case, I could not wait for his new World War 1 epic "War Horse" to be released on Christmas day. With my high expectations and Christmas spirit I walked into the theater ready to be impressed. Hello Academy Awards, let me introduce you to the film that deserves to sweep the prizes this year.

"War Horse" is the tale of a horse, obviously, who impacts several English, French, and German families and individuals during the course of World War 1. The start of the tale begins with the young horse, named Joey, being sold to Albert Narracott's (Jeremy Irvine) family. Albert raises Joey and trains him to plough so that his father will make enough money to keep their house. Against all odds, Albert and Joey succeed in ploughing the farm. Sadly, this joy is quickly diminished when Albert's father is forced to sell Joey to a captain in the English army (Tom Hiddleston) in order to make ends meet. From here Joey travels through the course of the war, passing from the English army, to the Germans, and to several other places. At the same time Albert keeps faith that he will be united with his closest companion before the dangers of war can affect either of them.

The grand thing about "War Horse" is that it showcases what Spielberg does best, telling a great story. The movie doesn't try to cram special effect laden action sequences or unrealistic heroic feats into the plot line. Instead it focuses on what is important, the heart and soul of the film...the story. And the story connects to the viewer. It drew me in, made me care about the characters and the horse, and stirred my emotions in scenes of both sorrow and happiness.

And for those who can be squeamish to graphic violence scenes prevalent in most war films, don't worry. This PG-13 rated epic stays far from the intensity seen in "Saving Private Ryan." That's not to say the the battle scenes are any less impressive. Each conflict is beautifully shot and visually captivating. The film as a whole includes beautiful landscapes and set pieces that fully immerse the viewer in WWI Europe.

And the music is a grand addition as well. John Williams, who has composed some of the most famous movie themes of all time (Star Wars, Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, etc) is back with his usual collaborator (Spielberg) and has created another beautiful score. Williams bring a stunning, classical sound to "War Horse" that lives up to his reputation.

Spielberg has done it again. Another instant classic has been brought to the silver screen and thanks to the brilliant acting, cinematography, and captivating story, "War Horse" is the best film of the year. I give it four stars out of four.

"War Horse" has a running time of two hours and twenty-six minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of war violence.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

It's a known fact that sequels are almost never as good as the original. But for the Mission Impossible series, this wasn't necessarily the case. The second and third installments each brought more explosive effects and stunts, and more diabolical villains to the mix. However, when I heard that a fourth film was in production, I had my doubts. Even if sequels are better than the original, a franchise that ventures past a trilogy is rarely guaranteed success. But with the great marketing campaign and director Brad Bird (The Incredibles) heading up the project, I remained optimistic. Not only is "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" a great addition to the spy genre, but it's the best film of the Mission Impossible series.

IMF Agent Ethan Hunt's (Tom Cruise) latest mission has landed him in a Russian prison, but he doesn't seem to be worried. He knows that agents Jane Carter (Paula Patton) and Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) will soon break him out and they do, in quite an explosive way. Hunt escapes only to find out that another agent was killed while investigating a man with the codename "Cobalt." Hunt and his team then infiltrate the Kremlin to acquire files on "Cobalt" but are forced to evacuate when an unknown group bombs the building. The Russians then place the blame on the IMF and as a result, the organization is disbanded. However, the three agents are given the chance to "escape" to continue their investigation and now Hunt must go against all of Russia to prevent a madman from starting a nuclear war.

What drives every Mission Impossible film are the brilliant stunts and action sequences and "Ghost Protocol" boasts the most jaw-dropping ones yet. To give an example, the film shot scenes at the tallest building in the world in Dubai. The filmmakers could have just settled for a thrilling sky-dive/fight off the gigantic tower but no, they wanted to have Tom Cruise run up, down, and across the side of the building while the iconic theme song plays...and it's awesome. This installment has frequent and intense hand to hand fighting, chase scenes, and explosions. All around, it's one wild ride.

Also, don't expect "Ghost Protocol" to just be another predictable action flick. While many sequels reuse plot points from earlier films, "Ghost Protocol" features a new, suspenseful story that will keep you guessing what is gonna happen next, just the same as the previous three. A great thing about the plot is that it welcomes those who haven't seen the first three, avoiding conversations and lingering plot points concerning the previous films that would easily confuse a newcomer to the series.

Director Brad Bird's most famous film, "The Incredibles," had many elements of a spy-thriller, so hiring him to direct a film that is part of one of the most iconic spy franchises of all time was an excellent move. And he succeeded not only in amping up the action of stunts, but providing a fresh story, a great set of new characters, and one of the best action blockbusters of the year. I give it three and a half stars out of four.

"Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol" has a running time of two hours and thirteen minutes and is rated PG-13 for sequences of intense action and violence.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Yes! Batman is back! Oh, sorry I'm still freaking out over the newest trailer for "The Dark Knight Rises." Ahem...the Great Detective is back! Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, and director Guy Ritchie surprised us all two years ago when they brought their take on the "Sherlock Holmes" series to the silver screen. When the film was released, the people were shown a different kind of Holmes that uses his supreme intellect to solve crimes AND take down bad guys in the most creative, jaw dropping ways. There was no doubt that a sequel would eventually be made and now its hit theaters to once again attempt to impress the crowds. Make no mistake, Holmes is back and better than ever...in every way.

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" seems to pick up right where the first left off. The evil Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris) had begun to strike terror across Europe through a series of bombings and assassinations taking place in different countries. The goal is to create a World War that he can profit from through the selling of advanced weaponry that he and his men have created. Fortunately Holmes (Downey) has picked up on Moriarty's trail but there is a slight problem. His closest friend and partner Dr. Watson (Jude Law) cannot help him on the case because he is preparing to get married. With the upcoming honeymoon which will keep Watson away for several weeks and the public threat that Moriarty has made against Watson and his fiancee, Holmes sees this time of romance as an obstacle and, using his brilliant mind, finds a way to "postpone" it. Now with the help of his partner, Holmes and Watson must race across Europe before Moriarty sends it plunging into war.

What makes "Sherlock Holmes" great is the acting. The leading men are all suburb. Robert Downey Jr. plays the title role with such a great mix of wit, cockiness, and a bit of insanity and is absolutely fantastic. Better yet is the chemistry that he and Jude Law have on screen. The duo's different characters and personalities mesh so well that not only does it create great acting, but lots of humor. Downey also has a great on screen chemistry with Jared Harris who plays Moriarty with the same wit and cockiness as Holmes but also adds a more cunning and menacing side creating an even more powerful character. The two scenes with Holmes and his nemesis having a battle of wits (and fists) were definitely my favorite of the film.

Another highlight of both "Holmes" films is the excellent cinematography. The way that the film is shot is remarkable. Many will remember the scenes from the first films featuring Holmes thinking in his head (in slow-motion) on how to beat his opponent, and then doing just that (back in regular speed). There is much more of this in the new installment and it makes the best action. The many different and diverse camera angles that cover all points of the different action and fight scenes will impress many. Action aside, the film features many beautiful landscapes and set pieces and while I could go on forever with the look of the film, I need to leave some for surprise.

The final aspect of "Holmes" that I'll devote a paragraph to is the music. Hans Zimmer is without a doubt my favorite composer. His music is powerful, energetic, and creative and he did an outstanding job with the first film's score. For the sequel, Zimmer brings back the great main theme and a few other memorable compositions, but has also created a whole new soundtrack of fantastic music that will surly be remembered as some of his best work.

In the end, the makers of "Holmes" took everything from the first film, and improved on it. The action is bigger, the acting is better, the story is even more complex and engaging (which is really saying something). Not many sequels end up besting the first, but "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" is a grand exception. I give it three and a half stars out of four.

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" has a running time of two hours and eight minutes and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and some drug material.