MOVIE REVIEW: THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY PART 2

In the conclusion of the global-phenomenon, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) stakes her claim as the leader of District 13 and commands the revolution against the brutal dictatorship of President Snow (Donald Sutherland) and the Capitol. Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks, Jena Malone, and Julianne Moore all return to reprise their roles one last time, with Francis Lawrence continuing his directorial duties. ~ Daniel Gelb, Rovi

Director: Francis Lawrence    

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Natalie Dormer, Julianne Moore, Wes Chatham, Elden Henson.

Release Date: Nov 20, 2015    

Rated PG-13 for Intense sequences of violence and action, and for some thematic material    

Runtime: 2 hr. 16 min.    

Genres: Action/Adventure, Drama, Family, Sci-Fi/Fantasy    

Review:

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 is unfortunately a laborious slog to the finish line of the franchise.  It’s never a particularly bad movie Francis Lawrence’s direction is solid throughout as are most of the performances from the films cast.  Jennifer Lawrence is fairly comfortable in Katniss skin and she does a solid job of showing us all sides of the character’s constant perturbness.  Donald Sutherland does get plenty of credit for perfecting the art of eyebrow acting.  The biggest issue at play here is the film’s story just isn’t that interesting.  The story plays out exactly as expected throughout with very little surprise and it never really builds to a crescendo to finish off the story.  It’s probably a result of unnecessarily stretching the story out to 2 films when it could have been handled ably in 1 film.  As it stands the final film delivers some solid action sequences and throws some character deaths at you to keep you awake during the 2 hours plus runtime but none of it carries all that much weight when it’s all said and done.

C+

Cindy Prascik's Reviews of The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 2 & Secret in Their Eyes

 

 

 

 

Dearest Blog, yesterday it was off to Marquee Cinemas for the depressing double-bill of The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 2 and Secret in Their Eyes. Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers. 

 

 Mama always said, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." If I adhered to that advice, I'd have a free day today, but since I wasted yesterday watching these movies, it seems fitting that I waste today writing about them. 

 

First on the docket: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 2, the further and final adventures of Katniss Everdeen. Dear Reader(s), let it be noted that I consider myself a fan of the Hunger Games franchise. 

 

It doesn't talk down to its audience, and the folks responsible for bringing it to the screen have done so with genuine regard for quality, rather than just milking a popular franchise for a cash grab. 

 

It's a miserable premise--the sort of thing I'd never watch more than once--but to this point I've given HG full marks for execution. 

 

Sadly, this final installment is a real letdown. For as much as Mockingjay-Part 2 has got going on, it is insufferably slow and dull. Perhaps stretching the final book to two movies was a bad idea, or maybe they've just done a poor job of translating events from page to screen, but I was ready to claw out my eyes long before the halfway point. 

 

The film yadda-yadda-yaddas over at least one thing that seems pretty important, and the ending feels like the author just got bored and turned it over to a 14-year-old fan-fiction writer. On the plus side, James Newton Howard has provided his usual strong score, and there are some nifty effects. 

 

The acting is solid from top to bottom, and Jennifer Lawrence is no less outstanding than when she's fronting something the Academy takes seriously. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 2 clocks in at an excessive 137 minutes and is rated PG13 for "intense sequences of violence and action, and for some thematic material." 

 

It's not without its good points, but The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 2 is, overall, a disappointment. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Mockingjay-Part 2 gets five.

 

Next up: Secret in Their Eyes. A group of law-enforcement professionals presses the law's limits when one of their young daughters is murdered. It's clear, at some point, someone fancied Secret in Their Eyes a legitimate awards contender, The film on which it's based has already collected an Oscar (thanks, Maynard Maynard, for that tidbit!), the cast is mint, and it's a Very Serious Story. 

 

Sadly, it's also a tedious affair in which the twists happen exactly how and when you'd expect, and two-thirds of the decorated principals are embarrassingly bad. 

 

Nicole Kidman is about as expressive as a ventriloquist's dummy, which may be less about her actual acting than it is about her tinkering with her face 'til it no longer moves. On the other end of the spectrum, Julia Roberts flails through the proceedings "as if there were no such thing as overacting." (I have shamelessly poached that glorious insult from an old review of Gary Oldman's performance in Bram Stoker's Dracula!) 

 

Chiwetel Ejiofor is terrific, making it hard to believe he's the only one of the three who doesn't (yet) have an Oscar. 

 

An unnecessary romantic subplot adds nothing, and the movie seems to take it as a matter of personal pride that each storyline reaches the least-satisfying resolution possible. Secret in Their Eyes runs 111 minutes and is rated PG13 for "thematic material involving disturbing violent content, language, and some sexual references." 

 

Secret in Their Eyes has all the pieces of a great bit of cinema, but, unfortunately, it fails to put them together. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Secret in Their Eyes gets four. 

 

If you are visiting the cinema this weekend, and--like me--you weren't lucky enough to get Legend or Spotlight, I suggest you revisit Spectre or The Peanuts Movie, and take a pass on these two downers. 

 

Until next time...

Cindy Prascik's Review of The 33

Dearest Blog: today it was off to Marquee Cinemas for an uncommon treat: Lou Diamond Phillips on the big screen in The 33. Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers or the news. 

 

A mine in Chile collapses, trapping 33 miners underground for over two months. 

 

Dear reader(s), make no mistake: This is a fascinating, inspiring story that's more than worth hearing. 

 

Shame somebody couldn't do a better job of telling it. 

 

For The 33's purposes, it's not good enough that these men survived such extraordinary circumstances. 

 

Not good enough, the genuine angst of family and friends camped out waiting for any small bit of news. Not good enough, the folks whose great leaps of faith ensured hope was never abandoned. 

 

The melodrama is laid on so thick that connecting to any real emotion is...well...about as easy as finding a bunch of guys buried under thousands of feet of solid rock. The miners' personalities are so broadly-drawn they're little more than caricatures, and the dialogue is just plain cheesy. 

 

That's the bad news. The good news is, an excessive runtime doesn't really feel like it. Despite a well-known outcome, the movie still expertly maintains tension as the audience waits with the miners' loved ones for any positive sign. We West Virginians are no strangers to holding our collective breath through such events, and the painful experience is effectively portrayed onscreen. 

 

There's some strong work among the supporting cast, even if most of the headliners are quite over the top. Lou Diamond Phillips is amazing, because Lou Diamond Phillips is always amazing. (That's a scientific fact.) There are some good laughs and some cheap ones--the good ones lightening the mood at just the right moments--and James Horner's score is terrific. 

 

Overall, an imperfect exercise, but still worth a look. The 33 clocks in at 127 minutes and is rated PG13 for "a disaster sequence and some language." The 33 isn't a terrible movie, yet it's hard not to think such a great story deserves better. Of a possible nine Weasleys, The 33 gets five. Until next time...

Cindy Prascik's Reviews of The Peanuts Movie & Spectre

Dearest Blog: Yesterday it was off to Marquee Cinemas for the latest offerings from a pair of iconic franchises: The Peanuts Movie and Spectre.

 

Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers.

 

First up: Hapless Charlie Brown tries to reinvent himself in The Peanuts Movie.

 

As animation goes, The Peanuts Movie is classically cartoonish, nothing revolutionary. If you pay to see it in 3D, you've probably wasted your money; you'd do better to put the extra two bucks towards a second 2D screening. That out of the way, The Peanuts Movie is otherwise PERFECT. The story is classic Peanuts: luckless Charlie Brown attempts to impress the Little Red-Haired Girl. 

 

That sounds pretty thin, but the film--even including an Ice Age short--is barely longer than your average TV special, and the main storyline is spelled by chapters of the WWI Flying Ace's never-ending battle with the Red Baron, so it holds up just fine. There's nothing in the movie that requires viewers to have previous Peanuts knowledge, but if you're a fan...boy are you going to be happy. 

 

This movie has absolutely everything a Peanuts lover could want...Vince Guaraldi's musical themes, Lucy's "Psychiatric Help" booth, Schroeder's Beethoven obsession, and "Sirs" and "Blockheads" to spare...hell, even Marcie and Franklin get a decent amount of screen time! Nostalgia is laid on good and thick, but not in a patronizing way that detracts from what's overall a delightful film for the entire family. The Peanuts Movie also bears a lesson about self-worth that's important, but never overbearing. My theatre gave the movie an enthusiastic round of applause as the end-credits rolled.

 

The Peanuts Movie runs 93 minutes and is rated G.

 

When classic properties are remade or rebooted, the Internet is fond of saying: "Childhood: ruined;" however, in the case of The Peanuts Movie, it's more like Childhood: regained. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, The Peanuts Movie gets eight.

 

Next on the agenda, James Bond's latest outing: Spectre.

 

Bond's past haunts his present as he tries to derail a sinister foe's dastardly plan.

 

Dear Internet Blurbs: Spectre is no Skyfall, we get it. It's still pretty great, though, eh? Well, at least I thought so.

 

Spectre is looooooong...like, almost-two-and-a-half-hours long. I'm always the first to cast the stinkeye at any runtime that exceeds two hours, but in this case it would be an unfair complaint; I'm sure the movie could have been trimmed here or there, but it never feels like it should have been. 

 

The spectacular opening scene--beautifully set in Mexico City during a Dia de los Muertos celebration--sets the tone for what follows: a sexy, funny, sometimes cheesy (in the best way), fast-paced thriller that does the 007 franchise proud. Craig's Bond is on point as both super-spy and ladies' man, with a healthy dose of "haunted by the past" thrown in for good measure. 

 

The supporting cast is terrific, though the always-wonderful Christoph Waltz is MIA for most of the first hour, and I'd hoped for a bit more Ben Whishaw. *sigh* Well-placed humor lightens the tone amid frenetic action sequences, all set against the backdrop of some of the world's most beautiful locations.

 

Spectre clocks in at 148 minutes and is rated PG13 for "intense sequences of action and violence, some disturbing images, sensuality, and language."

 

Spectre may be a less perfect outing than its predecessor, but it's still a lot of fun. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Spectre gets seven and a half.

 

Until next time...

MOVIE REVIEW: SPECTRE

A cryptic message from Bond's past sends him on a trail to uncover a sinister organization. While M battles political forces to keep the secret service alive, Bond peels back the layers of deceit to reveal the terrible truth behind SPECTRE.

Director: Sam Mendes

Cast: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Ralph Fiennes, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris

Release Date: Nov. 6, 2015

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, some disturbing images, sensuality and language

Runtime: 2 hr. 28 min.

Genres: Action, Adventure

Review:

Spectre is a totally serviceable Bond film that hits all the expected beats but rarely surprises.  Coming after Skyfall, which is probably one of the best Bond films, doesn’t help Spectre since the comparisons are unavoidable.  Skyfall felt fresh and had a strong sense of immediacy something Spectre lacks.  Spectre delivers all the globe trotting set pieces and love interest required for a Bond film.  Its biggest issue is that it feels rather paint by the numbers throughout.  Even the big reveal feels kind of perfunctory when it should be a jaw dropping moment.  In lesser hands this would be a total miss but Sam Mendes is an incredibly talented film maker.  He delivers a beautiful film that has some great moments with the opening sequence in Mexico City and a thrilling chase in the Austrian mountains leaving the biggest impression.  For all the grumpiness during the press tour, Daniel Craig delivers another strong performance as Bond.  I’ve always enjoyed the level of intensity that he’s brought to the role, something that’s been missing from previous incarnations.  Bond’s supporting cast gets some slightly expanded roles with Ben Whishaw bringing some much needed to energy to the middle portions of the film.  Sadly, some of the new faces like Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, doing her best Eva Green impression, and Monica Belluci are woefully underused.  Christoph Waltz was born to play a Bond villain but he’s left on the sidelines for the better part of the film meandering runtime.  Spectre has a steady sense of finality for Craig’s run as Bond which is a shame on so many levels.  Sadly, Spectre stands closer to Quantum of Solace instead of a worthy follow up to Skyfall.

C+

Cindy Prascik's Reviews of Our Brand is Crisis & Burnt

Dearest Blog: Welcome to Awards Season, where every film feels vaguely like it *could* be based on a true story. Thus, yesterday it was off to Marquee Cinemas for two stories that kinda sorta seem like they maybe could be a little bit real: Our Brand is Crisis and Burnt.

 

First on my agenda: Our Brand is Crisis.

 

An American political strategist reluctantly becomes part of an unpopular Bolivian presidential candidate's team.

 

Our Brand is Crisis probably isn't a bad movie for any other time of year, but plunked down in October, when everything either hopes for an Oscar or hopes to scare the pants off of you, it seems an inexcusably poor offering. Crisis is hilarious at times, yet the premise is so depressing it feels wrong to laugh. 

 

The film never really earns your full attention, and, sadly, there's no amount of humor that could buoy this all-too-real real depiction of politics with no soul. If there's any good news to be had, it's that the movie boasts uniformly strong performances. Sandra Bullock has a few bravura moments that might justify another Oscar nod, Billy Bob Thornton is an able adversary, and the delightful Anthony Mackie is solid as always. The real star of the picture, though, is Bolivian actor Reynaldo Pacheco, whose earnestness single-handedly salvages what's otherwise a depressing exercise in cynicism.

 

Our Brand is Crisis clocks in at 107 minutes and is rated R for "language including some sexual references."

 

It provides a few good laughs, but Our Brand is Crisis is a mostly-discouraging look at the political process. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Our Brand is Crisis gets five.

 

Next on the docket: Burnt.

 

Bradley Cooper stars as Adam Jones, a brilliant chef who is so messed up he does nothing but hurt the people who care for him, and you'll be too distracted by those baby-blues to really care.

 

Dear reader(s), I don't mean to belittle chefs, as nobody--and I mean NOBODY--has a greater regard for food than I do (as my profile photo will attest), but I am unsold on any attempt to portray a chef, even the world's greatest, as some kind of rock star worthy of a feature film. I'm something of a rock star, myself, when it comes to secretaries, and last I looked, Angelina Jolie wasn't queuing up play me on the big screen anytime soon. 

 

Thus Burnt starts out at an insurmountable handicap: it's just not that great a story. The high-emotion, high-stakes kitchen scenarios may accurately portray behind-the-scenes action at the world's finest dining establishments, but the drama seems plain silly (is it *such* a tragedy if the scallops are a bit overdone?), and the rest of the story is so done-to-death you won't care about any of it for a single second. Bradley Cooper swaggers his way through the film like an actual rock star, and, to his credit, makes the dull exercise almost watchable. 

 

Daniel Bruhl is terrific as Jones' supportive and long-suffering friend, and Matthew Rhys is outstanding as his top rival. Sadly, though, fantastic performances can't save a lame premise that's predictably executed.

 

Burnt runs 101 minutes and is rated R for "language throughout."

 

Much like the pretentious dishes whose preparation it depicts, Burnt is far more interested in collecting awards than it is in actually satisfying anyone. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Burnt gets four.

 

Until next time...