The Hunger Games: Mockingjay- Part 2 Review

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Julianne Moore, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Donald Sutherland, Natalie Dormer, Sam Claflin

The epic franchise of The Hunger Games concludes this fall with Mockingjay- Part 2. The choice to split the last book of the YA fiction series is debated, but I think it paid off in the end. Many people consider Mockingjay to be the worst book in the series. I disagreed, and thought it was the best. It's fitting that I feel that the final film is undoubtedly the best of the four films. I was not a huge fan of the first part released last year, for the same reason many hate the book. It had no action, and felt like a cop out that was solely setting up the finale. I was rewarded with this incredible movie. I saw this film at Universal Studios Orlando, in an AMC IMAX theater. Maybe the IMAX contributed to my reaction, but I think it's outstanding, and is worth your time.

I think all of the actors are at their peak in the franchise in this movie. Jennifer Lawrence has never been better as Katniss Everdeen. She perfectly plays the tragic heroine written by Suzanne Collins. She's completely grown as a character since The Hunger Games in 2012, and that is completely because of Lawrence's knowledge of the character, and her ability to create an emotional bond with the characters and audience. Katniss is the "Mockingjay" of the rebellion against the wicked Capitol, and she symbolizes how certain figures are simply thrust into leadership. She owns the movie, but she's willing to give some scenes to Donald Sutherland, who expertly plays the villainous President Snow. Snow has also changed in the course of the series. He's weakening as his country has now fully turned against him. While Snow is weakening, President Coin (Moore), the leader of the revolution is stronger than ever. Lawrence and Moore have a very nuanced conflict that reveals itself in the film's third act. Readers of the book know exactly what I mean, but if you haven't, it comes as a complete shock. But the seeds are sewn early on. Coin wants control when Snow is killed, and Katniss is starting to see that ushering in a new government might not give everyone freedom. After all this time, she still doesn't feel any closer to being free. It's also noted that Hutcherson, Harrelson, and Dormer also give great performances. Hutcherson in particular finally made Peeta a mature character in my opinion. He has an arc, and has been forced to grow up.

In IMAX, this film was amazing. The sound completely surrounds you, and the pictures look crystal clear. The director includes many face shots. There is often a scene that is just Katniss' face, or Snow's face. There's even a nice shot of Effie as she says farewell to Katniss. The camera focuses on her facial expressions, and it has stuck with me days after. The only issue I had with the movie was the ending. I know from the book that there is an epilogue, and the movie used it as its closing shots. I just felt like there were a number of places it could have ended. I felt like it was over, only to be surprised with another shot. This made the film's ending 20 minutes drag on and on for me.

 I also have to address Philip Seymour Hoffman. This is his last film, and he was digitally inserted into the film's final scenes as he died tragically before it could be completed. Hoffman was such an incredible actor. In this movie, he has less of a role than he did in the two previous ones, but he nails his scenes. The last shot of him, showing him simply smiling at what Katniss chooses in the end, says a lot. Hoffman truly is a tragic loss to film, and I encourage you to watch his earlier movies.

Rating:

Spectre Review

Starring: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Léa Seydoux, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes

Spectre marks Daniel Craig's fourth appearance as Agent 007, in one of the biggest movie franchises of all time. James Bond has always been able to get a good amount of interest, but now the stakes are even higher. Skyfall is an incredible act to follow. The 2012 Bond outing made over $1 billion worldwide, produced a hit single from Adele, and won an Oscar. Skyfall was so different from any James Bond movie before it, and reinvigorated an aging franchise. Now there's a new villain, and a new M, and Spectre has a lot to live up to. I can soundly assure you that if you're a 007 fan, this movie will satisfy all of your needs. It doesn't take many, if any, of the risks that Skyfall took. It instead is set up like a classic Bond espionage thriller, that reminds one of the Connery films.

Spectre is about James Bond attempting to find a criminal organization of the same name. After he's put on house arrest, he skips town and goes rogue to try and find and put a stop to the massive corrupt organization that is trying to take over the world. It's classic Bond. You may recall that Skyfall didn't really have a Bond girl. The one they teased in the trailers ended up being killed almost instantly in a twist, and the other one ended up being Eve Moneypenny, Bond's sidekick that had yet to appear in Craig's films. Spectre has a couple of sex scenes for Bond, but Madeleine Swann (Seydoux) definitely makes an impression as the definitive Bond girl of the film. She is a sexist trope at times, but she's also able to transcend that fight with the guys. The villain is Christoph Waltz, who is always amazing. I can't spoil his character, but if you're a fan you'll see it coming. Waltz is unlike the Bond villains of recent films. He's solely a malevolent force, and nothing more. This truly channels the campy old movies, but connects it with the new. He's not a fleshed out character at all, but he's still very dark.

Here's what I don't like about Spectre. There isn't much, I really enjoyed this movie. First, it is far too long. I can't say that I hate long movies, I've sat through a couple that I truly believe could not be shortened. But Spectre could have been 30 minutes shorter, and it would have made the movie seem more compact. Early scenes seem forced and unneeded when the final plans of Waltz's villain are revealed. And it takes away from the really good scenes. I also criticize the Bond franchise for not doing more with the leaps and bounds that Skyfall achieved. Skyfall truly crossed over into a new medium, and I wish Spectre continued with that momentum.

 I do admire director Sam Mendes attempt at making a classic Bond film, but I think audiences my age will not enjoy it. The sexism and cookie-cutter bad guys are fun for the old fans and the cinephiles, but I have a hard time believing Spectre will do nearly as well as Skyfall. Look at the box-office, and you can see it opened millions below, and isn't even faring well overseas. It's a shame, because it is a nice and entertaining film. I just don't think audiences will be talking about it for long.

Rating:

Bridge of Spies Review

Starring: Tom Hanks, Mark Rylance, Amy Ryan, Alan Alda

Two-time Oscar winner Steven Spielberg (Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan), directs two-time Oscar winner  Tom Hanks (Philadelphia, Forrest Gump) in a historical drama written by two-time Academy Award winners Joel & Ethan Coen (Fargo, No Country for Old Men). Is there any possibility of that being the setup for a bad, or even mediocre movie? Bridge of Spies certainly has the talent behind it, and everyone succeeds. The untold true story of Rudolf Abel (Rylance) is a fantastic one, and one that desperately needs to be recognized. Rudolf Abel was the name of a Russian spy seized from his home in New York. The whole country wanted to see him burn in hell, as these events took place at the height of the Red Scare and Cold War. An insurance lawyer, James Donavan (Hanks) was assigned his case. Donovan faced the hatred of his peers and the entire country to give this man the fair trial that every man deserves. In his pursuit of justice for Abel, he discovers the bigotry of America, and ends up learning more from this supposed "monster" than he thought possible. Bridge of Spies is a slow burn, but the story is one that is very important.

The best thing about this movie is undoubtedly its acting. Tom Hanks gives his usual, which is a fantastically layered performance. Hanks proves that he can do just about anything, and cements a place in my book as one of the greatest actors not just of his time, but of all time. The greatness of his acting really shines in his ability to give a scene to Mark Rylance, who plays the spy in question. Rylance is an older actor who's spent most of his career in theater, so he's a new face to most viewers. Yet he appears to steal every scene from Hanks, or is it that Hanks is giving them to him? I'll be surprised come February if Rylance doesn't win Best Supporting Actor. His performance is so nuanced. He says very little, but whenever he does, it suddenly grabs your attention, and pulls at your emotions. A fantastic screenplay by the Coen brothers really drives home Spielberg's message.

This is a shorter review, because I know people who like this type of movie will see it or have seen it, and that it's hard to convince others. If you're looking for a spy movie, this is not James Bond. This is the real deal. If you enjoy historical dramas, this is deeply rooted in fact. Also, I was surprised at how much Bridge of Spies delves into German history with the Berlin Wall construction, as well as a lot about nationalism and what makes us all Americans. The one flaw of Bridge of Spies is its terribly slow pacing. While it's not one of Spielberg's best movies, there's no doubt it's a great movie.

Rating: