Movie Review: "Inside Llewyn Davis" (2013)

I’m hard-pressed to say that Joel and Ethan Coen are some of the best filmmakers currently in the industry. Not because they haven’t turned out great or outstanding work, but because they often find themselves falling into the same hole that makes it difficult to crawl out of. 

Their problem is that their characters are, more often than not, pathetic losers with little to no redeemable qualities to them or just assholes who only seem to exist to torment others. Sometimes both within the same character. 

Now, don’t get me wrong, pathetic losers can be sympathetic and relatable characters, but only if the filmmakers give you a reason to care about them. To latch on to them and want to see their journey. The Coen Brothers rarely seem to do this. 

Films such as “Blood Simple,” “Miller’s Crossing,” “Burn After Reading” and, to a lesser extent, “Barton Fink” never beg for the audience’s attention as they mostly meander from scene to scene, with characters who just go with the flow, uncaring about anything that happens. 

If the plot and characters don’t care about what occurs, then why should we care?

The Coen’s movies that stick out are the ones which have optimistic, hard-working yet flawed characters, who show that even in a world full of greed, arrogance and stupidity, that there is a light of hope and kindness. 

Whether it is a loving and always smiling Margie from “Fargo,” the determined and clever Llewelyn Moss from “No Country For Old Men,” to the feisty and hard-spoken Mattie Ross from “True Grit,” or just the Dude from “The Big Lebowski” who wants his rug back, these characters amplify the film and its world and gives us a reason to watch. 

This is why I feel the Coen brothers newest film, “Inside Llewyn Davis” falters and becomes another film that wants to be taken seriously, but ends up being uncaring and cold. 

The film follows folk singer Llewyn Davids (Oscar Issac) in 1960’s Greenwich Village, as he tries to make a living off of his singing and performances. He often finds himself on the couch of friends, giving money to those whose lives he screwed up, and getting over the death of his folk singing partner. Try as he might, but Llewyn just can’t seem to catch a break, as more of life’s troubles just keep staking up around him, boxing him in until he can’t take it anymore.

The first question I often find myself asking about any movie is, “Why should I care? Why does this movie deserve my attention? Why should I keep watching it?” 

Usually, the movie has this question answered within the first few minutes. “Inside Llewyn Davis” never answered this question. 

There is a non-existent plot line in this movie. Events will occur, seemingly at random, with no connection to previous plot points, then move on and hardly ever be mentioned again. In fact, the film seems to go in a big circle, with very little changing. This would be fine if there was some substance to story, but each event is as dull and forgettable as the last. 

Well, a tedious plot line that goes no where can be forgiven if the characters are likable and make the journey worthwhile. Unfortunately, the characters of “Inside Llewyn Davis” lack all charm or wit and come off more as assholes, especially Llewyn.

By the end of the film, I hated Llewyn. The man does next to nothing over the course of the movie, other than stare blankly at most of what he witnesses. The only time it seems he breaks out of this is when he insults others, such as the professor and his wife who lend Llewyn their couch or John Goodman’s character who allows him to get to Chicago. 

To me, that is an unlikable and boring jerk of a character.

Part of the film seems to lie in the many folk songs that served as inspiration to make “Inside Llewyn Davis” in the first place. While the songs do fit with the tone and presentation of the film, they hardly make up for the lack of story and character. 

Not only that, but they’re completely at ends with how folk songs actually work and the people who created these inspiring melodies. 

For example, Suzanne Vega, a folk singer who has been playing her music since the 1970s and a huge fan of the Coen brothers, saw “Inside Llewyn Davis” and absolutely hated it, due to the films’ poor understanding of what made folk singers want to be folk singers.

Vega believed the film missed out on two important factors. One was the civil rights movement, which was the moment that caused folk singers to become so popular, yet is never mentioned in “Inside Llewyn Davis.”

The other is the films’ lack of optimism. 

“The possibility that something will happen,” said Vega. “Whether it’s that you’ll run into someone you know when you go in for a drink, or that you’ll fall in love, or someone will love your new song, or you’ll get the Wednesday-night opening slot, or the Saturday headlining gig: that keeps you going back for years. Those top notes are missing from this movie.”

Some might say that this was the film’s intention. That it is ironic to be about folk singing, an often upbeat and optimistic brand of music, and yet the film is such a downer. I say that doesn’t make the film anymore desirable. 

If I were to describe “Inside Llewyn Davis” in a few words, they would be “sad” and “ironic.” But considering the time period and material of this film, that is far from a good thing. In a film like “12 Years A Slave,” being sad or depressing can go a long way and help to amplify the horrifying imagery. But here, it is sad because of the lack of optimism and Coen brothers charm. It makes for an unpleasant experience. 

Vega added, “Without the unrelenting faith that something is going to happen — it’s a crazy belief — all the despair just drags along with nothing to contrast it to. If the scene had been as brown and sad as all that, why would anybody be drawn to it?”

Final Grade: D+

The Hopper #7

As we approach the end of the best movies that 2013 has to offer, I should say that this has been a very good year for films. While I’ve yet to see a film that stands out above all others, this year has been consistent and continually provided good film after good film. 

“47 Ronin” (2013)

Keanu Reeves has an interesting relationship with Hollywood. Once the poster boy for many action films and comedies, due in large part to his success with “The Matrix” and the “Bill and Ted” movies, Reeves has now decided to follow the route of Ben Affleck and become a director.

Unfortunately, unlike Affleck, Reeves only seems to understand how to make one type of movie: Asian action pieces. Not even very good ones at that. 

His first attempt was “The Man of Tai Chi.” If you’ve never heard of it, then count yourself lucky. A bland and forgettable kung-fu film that has maybe one or two lines of laughable dialogue that becomes what you remember the most about the film.

Which brings us to Reeves’ newest film, “47 Ronin.” A film that tries so hard to be taken seriously, yet never seems to get past its laughable premise and in the end becomes an unremembered work directed by the “Constantine” guy.

In Feudal Japan, a young boy by the name of Kai (Reeves) appears out of the mysterious forest where the magical and deadly Tengu dwell. Kai is taken in by the shogun leader of the nearby town, but is shunned by everyone but the shogun and his daughter for not being full Japanese.

One day though, the emperor comes to visit the village, when the leader is possessed and attempts to assassinate a visiting Lord Kira. The shogun is killed shortly after by his own hand, but his replacement suspects that witchcraft was behind it all. The emperor then orders that Lord Kira become the new ruler of this village, and that the replacement shogun be sent to prison and Kai sold into slavery. Now it is up to the new shogun, Kai and 45 others to take back their land and defeat the evil Lord Kira and his magic wielders. 

The main problem of this film comes from there not being enough attention on that which deserves attention. For example, in films like “Seven Samurai” and “13 Assassins,” both of which are Japanese and focus on a struggle to take back land from a warring faction, you get to know every one of the samurais and assassins. You know their quirks, strengths and why they’re on this mission. “47 Ronin” however never takes the time to tell us the names of each of the ronins, let alone their personalities. 

How are we supposed to care about this brave and courageous group of misfits fighting to take back their homeland and their pride, when I have no idea who even five of them are?

On top of that, it falls into a trap of explaining everything instead of letting the characters develop personalities. Many characters speak only in exposition, relaying information on the plot to the audience, rather than telling us how they feel. Entire scene will go by between Lord Kira and his magic wielders where they talk about the enemy advancing, but not what they think about any of that. 

Is it really too much to ask for Kai to say, “I feel like this is a bad idea?”

An interesting note that I was unaware of until the films’ end was that this film is based on true events. Not that there were actual magic Tengu warriors or shapeshifters that could turn into dragons, but that there were 47 warriors that stood up to an actual Lord Kira. There is even a graveyard of these warriors which still stands today in Sengaku-Ji, Japan.

In that respect, I feel like “47 Ronin” is a watered-down “300.” Supposedly based on true events, but have taken artistic and thematic liberties to add elements of fantasy and make-believe to their work. 

The difference between the two films though is that “300” embraced its silliness and never attempted to be serious and was kind of fun to watch in that regard. “47 Ronin” on the other hand takes itself far too seriously, and is so bogged down in explaining events and exposition that it doesn’t have time to enjoy the situation that it presents. 

Overall, “47 Ronin” attempts to be like many films, including “300,” “The Matrix,” “Princess Mononoke” and “Seven Samurai” but is never able to get off the ground from its own premise. Keanu just can’t catch a break, can he?

Final Grade: D

“The Wolf Of Wall Street” (2013)

Part of me really wants to hate this film. Another part of me adores this film. I feel like love is winning over hate. 

If you know much about Martin Scorsese or have seen his work, then you know that he really enjoys gangsters and that he attempts to make them look like normal guys who chose this lifestyle, instead of other filmmakers who make them out to be bad guys. His work in films like “Goodfellas” and “The Departed” are a good example of that. 

Now that we’re in the 21st century, the depiction of gangsters has changed drastically, much to Scorsese’s irritation, I’m sure. The humble and soft-spoken days of Don Corleone and Tony Soprano are long gone. The gangsters of old are no more.

Yet it seems like Martin Scorsese has found a way to keep telling those stories, but though a new type of gangster: The stockbrokers. 

Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) owns the largest estate in New Jersey, a yacht that is so huge that it can store a helicopter, the fastest sports car imaginable, can afford $25,000 dinners on a whim, has a wife that has been dubbed “The Duchess of Bay Ridge” yet constantly cheats on her with million dollar hookers and still has enough time to take drugs at nearly every interval in the day. 

All of this because of his illegal business in the stock market. 

The film follows Belfort from his humble beginnings as a call-taker on Wall Street, to his power hungry and money-obsessed moments of success, to the FBI hunting him down and his attempts to evade them at every turn and continuing to live his exuberant lifestyle. 

If you’ve seen “Goodfellas” then you can probably guess why I want to hate the film. Because this is the same movie, even down to the dramatic narration that takes specific care to mention why their lifestyles are so fun and addicting and speaking directly to the audience. Heck, Dicaprio even has a nearly identical voice to Ray Liotta. 

It moves like “Goodfellas,” talks like “Goodfellas,” and has the same life philosophies as “Goodfellas.”

Yet, for that very same reason, I kind of enjoy the film. Since when was it a bad thing to feel and act like one of the best gangster movies of all time?

This film takes the time show us why Belfort would choose this way of life and why it can be so rewarding. Not just the money, because he’s willing to throw that away like garbage, but because of the power. He feels like he could do anything he wanted and get away with it, even bribing a federal officer to get him off his back. 

Like “Goodfellas,” the characters of this film believe that they are in their own little world. That those who live in the “normal world” like us are sad and pathetic losers who are essentially waiting for handouts instead of doing it ourselves. They’re so caught up in what they’re doing that they can’t see anything other than their own ego.

This makes them the best kind of douchebags imaginable. 

The kind that are so self-absorbed that they are fun to watch and keep you guessing on how events will unfold. They’re not relatable or sympathetic, but they’re not supposed to be. They just want as much power as they can get, which is admirable. At the same time, you still want to see them get their comeupins. So it’s the best of both worlds. 

The people in “The Wolf Of Wall Street” are scumbags who rip off those less fortunate than them and don’t care about anyone other than themselves. I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Final Grade: A

“American Hustle” (2013)

I’ll keep this brief: The majority of “American Hustle” went right over my head. Half of the time, I had no idea what was going on. 

It is not because of the period or the plot itself, but because of its execution of the plot and how the characters whisper important plot points and never mention them again. 

The plot revolves around a trio, consisting of an FBI agent (Bradley Cooper) and two con-artists (Christian Bale and Amy Adams), attempt to outsmart a politician (Jeremy Renner) and to find out just how corrupt his office really is. Along the way, they have to face difficulties through trust issues, fellow con-artists, developing romantic relationships and Bale’s crazy and obsessed wife (Jennifer Lawrence) revealing their plans to the politicians. 

Part of the problem might be that the movie has an incredibly fast pace, with some scenes going by so fast that they leave you wondering what just happened. Even worse, the film never attempts to slow down and explain itself, never allowing those who get lost, like me, to catch up and understand the plot. 

So if you miss even one plot point or important factor that effects the outcome of events, then be prepared to stay confused and disoriented. 

This is made even more difficult when Christian Bale feels like mumbling or whispering the majority of his lines. While that certainly builds up his character, it also does not help the story and the coherency of the film. 

To be fair, when the movie isn’t trying to be about corrupt politicians and trying to coax information out of them, the film seems rather gentle and sincere, especially with scenes involving Bale and Adams. The beginning of the film shows the two slowly falling in love and how they feel about each other, with Bale showing Adams that he is a con-man, only to find out that Adams is wonderful at conning as well.

These scenes are simple and straight to the point, which is why they stick out over any other scene. It’s a shame there are so few of them.

This movie might improve upon multiple viewings and with subtitles. Yet with just one watch where the movie moves too fast for its own good, “American Hustle” does not turn out well.

Final Grade: D+

Final Thoughts: 

Even though “47 Ronin” and “American Hustle” left me cold or confused, there were parts that I enjoyed about both them. 

I wish “47 Ronin” opened with a narration saying it was based on true events, because that would be have watching certain struggles of the Ronin against hordes of samurai much more impressive. I thought it was a good-looking fantasy with some neat designs, but then it pulled the “this film was based on true events” card which changed my whole outlook of the film.

As I mentioned, “American Hustle” did well with scenes near the beginning involving Bale and Adams, but also was nearly flawless at replicating the look and feel of the 1970s. This film did not once feel like any other period in time and it was greatly appreciated. 

Still, the clear winner this time around was “The Wolf Of Wall Street,” with its almost satirical look at the lust for power and how far some men will take it. DiCaprio gives it his all in this performance, often screaming at the top of his lungs, and it really does look like he is enjoying every second of it. He is a joy to see whenever he is on screen. 

Movie Review: "The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty" (2013)

I don’t normally get excited for new film releases. I rarely see a movie trailer and immediately say, “I must see this movie. It looks like the best film I’ve ever seen.”

The last work I did that for was “WALL-E” because of its unique and captivating premise and the fact it was made by Pixar, whose films I’m always excited to see. Not only did the film meet my expectations, but it immensely surpassed them and became a gem of filmmaking. 

Since that point, I’ve tried to find films that get me interested like “WALL-E” did, but that has yet to happen. Until the initial trailer of “The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty” came out.

It may seem odd, especially since this film came out around the same time as a new David O. Russell and Martin Scorcese movie, but “The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty” was the film that I was most excited to see in 2013. The trailer did its job of bringing me in without even really trying. There was very little dialogue and presented the basic premise of the film through visuals alone. Not to mention its main character, who seemed to leap out of the trailer, with a personality that felt all too relatable. 

It made it clear that the film would be about a guy with an overactive imagination. Simple, direct, quick to the point and can lead to many creative situations. I was sold on “The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty.”

Unfortunately, the film tends to stray from its unique premise and quickly enters the realm of mundane and average. 

Walter Mitty (Ben Stiller), a normal-every day kind of guy with a normal-every day job of “negative asset manager” at Life Magazine, is given the task of finding the perfect picture for the cover of Life’s final issue. He is given a slate of photo negatives from a Sean O’Connell (Sean Penn), an adventurous photographer and one of the best in the business, but can’t seem to find the “quintessence of life” photograph that Sean spoke of. 

Walter contemplates going to see Sean in person, but realizes that he is halfway around the world. After his imagination runs wild and a discussion with a woman that he’s interested in (played by Kristen Wiig), Walter is persuaded to go out into the world and let life guide him, instead of his imagination. 

There were multiple aspects to the film that worked, mostly revolving around the scenes done in Walter’s imagination and the cinematography. The film makes it rather clear when we are in Walter’s imagination, but not by a specific filter or emitting a certain noise, but by seeing the reactions of those around him. 

Those scenes also convey a wide range of emotions, from the touching moment of Wiig’s character singing “Ground Control to Major Tom,” to an action-packed scene between Walter and his boss (Adam Scott) fighting over his Stretch-Armstrong, to the hilarious sequence of Walter contracting the same disease as Benjamin Button and growing old with Wiig. 

The cinematography never fails to impress, with a wide range of distinct locations. Walter travels from the busy city of New York to the almost alien looking Greenland and Iceland. These scenes are made all the more beautiful when the audience gets the time to notice them through Walter’s eyes. We know that Walter wanted to be travel the world someday but had to put that plan on the back-burner so that he could get a job. These quiet scenes of Walter gazing upon the giant valleys of Iceland speak more than any other scenes.

However, the problem with “The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty” lies in its execution of the imaginative scenes. Notice that, in my plot description, I don’t mention Walter’s imagination until the end. The driving force of the film and what sets it apart from any other movie I’ve seen plays a small and insignificant role in the story. You could literally cut out the majority of these scenes and the plot would be unaffected. 

We hardly even get a reason for why Walter acts this way. There is a backstory involving his father and having to work everyday of his life since he was 17, but it hardly connects with his imagination. We don’t really hear about any of Walter’s big dreams as a kid or if he had always dreamed big, so there are many unanswered questions.

The saddest part of “The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty” is that, while the moments in Walter’s head are imaginative and cover the gambit of emotions, everything else feels so lifeless. The story is forgettable, Mitty’s boss as the villain is two-dimensional and just a bully, Wiig’s character has no real charm or wit and even Walter as a character doesn’t have any definable characteristics other than his daydreams.

I feel like the problem is that there is just too much going on. There are so many plot threads that feel so arbitrary, such as Walter’s eHarmony profile or that Wiig’s character has a kid who is interested in skateboarding. These are not just plot points that add little to the film, but they take away from the more impressive and awe-inspiring scenes. 

Couldn’t this have just been a film about a guy with an overactive imagination?

Overall, “The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty” left a bad taste in my mouth. There was so much potential for greatness and the film even had a few wonderful moments with its cinematography and daydreams. But it seems like the film got bogged down in being more complicated and sophisticated than it needed to be and along the way the film lost its vision and direction.

If you want to see some beautiful shots and sequences in far-off places like Iceland, the Himalayas and Greenland and see some interesting dream sequences along the way, then give “The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty” a shot. If you’re looking for a story about a man overcoming his fears and realizing his passion for life, don’t expect to find it here. 

Final Grade: C

Movie Review: "Saving Mr. Banks" (2013)

Disney has a certain charm to their movies that is often imitated but never fully duplicated. 

A childlike whimsy that appeals to the young and old, where you easily get swept up in the emotional moments. You laugh with the film, your heart breaks with the film. All of this done so effortlessly. Disney is the leader in making films that embrace your inner child. 

This is due in large part to Walt Disney himself, who always took found imagination and fantasy in everything he produced. The man was nothing more than a large child with dreams of sharing that feeling with the world, and we love and appreciate him for always doing that.

Such is the strength of “Saving Mr. Banks,” the newest production out of Disney and the story of how one of the company’s finest works, “Mary Poppins” was created. The movie embraces the whimsical nature of Disney by turning in wonderful performances and a never-ending atmosphere of creativity that will bring a smile to your face.

World renowned publisher, Pamela Travers (Emma Thompson) has finally decided to hand over the rights to her Mary Poppins to Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) so that he can make the film he has always dreamed of. The problem is that Ms. Travers is very selective of what happens to her character and doesn’t want her to be tarnished. This leads her to fly from London to Los Angeles and to oversee the preproduction of the film, only to question every decision made by the creators. 

As always, Tom Hanks is wonderful in this role, even more so than usual due to him playing such an iconic figure. Hanks is lost in this role, to the point where you feel like this is Walt Disney. He speaks passionately about pleasing not only his daughters, but every adult and child who goes to a movie theater, and you believe every word he says.

Emma Thompson plays Pamela Travers as a snob who has lived a difficult life, especially during her childhood. We learn through flashbacks about her relationship with her father (Colin Ferrell) and there is more than enough love, but also lies and hiding the pain. Ms. Travers attitude with the world of Disney is understandable for someone who has shunned childish behavior. 

This is the driving force between Hanks and Thompson. A man who has always embraced being a child and a woman who wishes to forget about being a child. Neither of them are wrong in their pursuits and attitude but they’re both people who wish to dominate and to have everything go their way. 

From the first scene these two share, they both try best one another. From something as simple as what they should call one another (Pamela always wants to called “Ms. Travers” while Walt is always on a first-name basis) to whether there will be animation in the film, which of course Mr. Travers opposes. Scenes like these feel natural, given their characters, but also lend themselves to some of the best dialogue in the film. 

Overall, “Saving Mr. Banks” makes me very happy and leaves a warm feeling in the pit of my stomach. Its a film that manages to capture the essence of Disney and what it means to anyone who has ever gone to Disney Land or watched movies like “Fantasia” and “Bambi.” They don’t try to emulate “Mary Poppins” but instead offer up a companion piece that captures many of the same emotions. 

Whether you’ve never seen “Mary Poppins” or haven’t seen it in a long time, like I have, “Saving Mr. Banks” is one that needs to be seen, if only to watch Tom Hanks disappear into the role of Walt Disney.

Final Grade: B+

The Hopper #6

“The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” (2013)

A have a confession to make: Novels, as a medium, don’t particularly interest me. When it comes to reading fictional stories, imagination is a key component to recognizing what takes place over the narrative. While I can visualize ideas in my head, attempting to do so with an entire story can get me sidetracked rather quickly. I’m much more adapted to a visual medium, where the images are played out right in front of me. 

As such, I have not read many great novels or books. This includes all the works of J.R.R. Tolkien and his work with “The Lord Of The Rings” and “The Hobbit.” I’m not opposed to the idea of ever reading such fantastic stories, just that I’m hesitant to do so. 

My only exposure to the world of Middle Earth has been through Peter Jackson’s ongoing film series, and only recently at that. Over this last summer did I finally sit down to watch “The Lord Of The Rings” trilogy, and it immediately impressed me with its scale and scope of story, hooking me through opening narration alone. 

“The Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey” was the first film in Peter Jackson’s newest trilogy and attempt to bring Tolkien’s other well-known work to life. My complaint with the film is there are many elements that go nowhere and don’t add much of anything to the film, such as every scene with Radagast. Jackson did a wonderful job trimming the unnecessary parts of “The Lord Of The Rings” novels, such as anything dealing with Tom Bombadil. The same cannot be said for his newest film series. 

The next part in that trilogy, “The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug” is more of the same as the first film: A grand sense of adventure, filled with many diverse characters as they face a perilous journey across an unforgiving land where they will face down a foe that all men fear, the mighty dragon, Smaug. 

What I enjoyed more about the second film than its predecessor was how it gave more the cast of twelve dwarves their own character. In the first film, many of the dwarves were interchangeable and by the end of the film I had forgotten nearly all of their names, let alone their personalities. While in this film, they take the time to develop certain dwarves, showing off their strengths and the reasons why they were brought on this journey. 

Kili (Aidan Turner) shows his strength through his determination to completing the mission even after taking a poisonous arrow to the leg, while his brother Fili (Dean O’Gorman) demonstrates his devotion and love towards his family by giving up such a marvelous adventure to protect his sick kin. The elder of the group, Balin (Ken Scott) seems wise beyond his years and would rather remain peaceful, preferring to resolve matters through words. 

But Orcs don’t take kindly to anything that doesn’t involve putting heads on pikes, so he decides to be crafty instead.

Moments like these really make the characters stand out amongst others and really makes you appreciate the film slowing down to develop them and to make us care about their journey. 

However, much like the first film, Jackson seems to indulge himself way too much in his craft and puts in parts that don’t serve any purpose in the story. These types of scenes would work great in an extended cut for the DVD/Blu-Ray release, but not for a theatrical release. 

For example, many of the scenes involving the elves just serve as a distraction from the journey of the dwarves. Ask yourself: What do these scenes accomplish? What do they tell us that don’t already know? Honestly, it is a hard question to answer. 

Does this mean I feel most of the elf scenes should have been cut? Yeah. They not only exist for their own sake, but are merely fan-service. In particular, moments with Legolas (Orlando Bloom). I don’t know about you, but Legolas was my least favorite character in the original trilogy, because he is so perfect and infallible that he becomes boring. You know that he’ll walk out of any situation without so much as one hair out of place that it removes all tension and drama from the sequence.

Nearly all scenes containing Legolas in this film are about him kicking copious amounts of Orc carcass. It may be exciting to watch a CGI-Orlando Bloom flail around the screen, but when you know that he’ll make it without even breaking a sweat, what’s the point?

This isn’t the case for all action sequences in the film though. In a later scene, the team of dwarves are floating down a river in barrels and being shot at by Orcs. There is little that the dwarves can do, and you really feel their helplessness and will to survive. They devise creative ways to handle their opponents and this makes for one of the best sequences in the whole film. 

That is “The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug” in a nutshell: While it may feel like an extended cut filled with fan-service, there are moments of great creativity and brilliance, especially when it focuses on the character moments of the dwarves. 

If you liked the first film, then you’ll certainly like this one. If you didn’t care for “The Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey” then this one will not change your mind on the series. 

Final Grade: B-

“The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” (2013)

One of the most talked about movies from last year was “The Hunger Games” for its unique story, diverse world and the performance of Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen.

I didn’t care for the film at all. While some praised it for the story, I knew I had seen this a dozen times before and done so much better in films like “Battle Royale” which prided itself on developing every one of the children involved by showing just what each of them would do to survive this game.

“The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” on the other hand does not tread the same path as its predecessor. It takes the time to develop its unique and divided world, showing how one act of survival can change an entire nation. While it does eventually get to the titled game itself, the film truly shines when its not focusing on competition, but survival. 

After the events of the first film, Katniss (Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) are now traveling around the twelve districts of their nation as the winners of the most recent Hunger Games. Some of the districts have taken Katniss’ final actions in the games as an act of defiance, while others an act of rebellion, causing riots and anarchy to run rampant. President Snow (Donald Sutherland) has not taken kindly to this and plans to tarnish Katniss’ image as a symbol of hope by whatever means necessary, including putting her into the next Hunger Games.

One thing I’ll give the film is that President Snow and his associate, Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) are quite intelligent at the ways of bringing down Katniss. Through their actions of increasing public executions and media focus on her, they’re making her look as if she’s siding with them rather than with the rebels. They’re not influencing her decisions or hurting those near her. They are simply exploiting her weakness towards helping the helpless.

Lawrence again turns in a stellar performance as Katniss. She makes it clear early on that she only sees herself as “stubborn and good with a bow” but as the movie develops there is clearly more to her than that. In a scene where she meets the other contestants in the games, she takes the time to help out many of them and get to know them, something she despised doing in the first film. Katniss is now a caring person who just wants what is right for the world. 

But the strength of film comes from its moral center, especially compared to the first film. In that, Katniss choose to offered as a contestant to protect her sister, with everything else being an act of survival. To make it back to her sister. 

Now those actions have been twisted. Selflessness has turned to defiance, which cannot be tolerated. Even her sister has begun to think that Katniss’ actions were not to protect her, but so that she could fight and give purpose to her own life.

Now it’s a game of survival, but of a different kind. Katniss’ mentor, Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) summed it up very nicely when he said that there are no winners in the Hunger Games. Only survivors. Now those survivors must continue to do what they can in an unforgiving and brutal world.

Final Grade: B-

“Nebraska” (2013)

If films like “The Big Chill” and “(500) Days Of Summer” are any indication, capturing the full effect of regular life is a difficult task to pull of in cinema. When a story and goals are essentially removed from the picture and the filmmakers focus on just random events that seem to go nowhere but give the film a certain atmosphere, that can be both a good and bad thing. 

“Nebraska” is another film that can be added to that category, as it spends the majority of its time on rural life in the heartland of America, mostly Montana and Nebraska. While there is a story with some soft-spoken yet deeply motivated characters, most of the film is spent on quieter moments with family members around a TV or at a bar sharing a beer. 

Woody Grant (Bruce Dern) is a senile and forgetful old man living in Billings, who gets a letter in the mail that he can win one million dollars. The problem is that he has to ship the letter back to Lincoln, Nebraska and he doesn’t trust the postal service with his million dollars. He also can’t drive. So he’ll walk.

This doesn’t bode well with his son, David (Will Forte) and he reluctantly decides to drive his father to Nebraska. Along the way, they stop at his home town, where he meets up with many people from his past. Word spreads fast in the little rural city that Woody is a millionaire and everyone starts clamoring for his attention and money, including old enemies.

While I’m sure that many people will be talking about Bruce Dern’s performance as Woody Grant, its Will Forte as David that stands out to me. Forte is a mostly comedic actor, but doesn’t get many opportunities to be funny in this role. He makes David a sympathetic yet relatable character by giving his father one last chance to go on an adventure and do something with his life. 

Dern certainly plays the role just fine, but not a whole lot stands out. He mostly just stares vacantly at everything and most of his lines are one or two sentences. This makes sense for his character being a man of few words and forgetful, but this just means he doesn’t have a lot to work with. Meaning his performance is just good, but not great.

If there’s something I had against “Nebraska” it would be how incredibly slow it starts out. It takes quite a while before the film gets up to speed and this is around when most of the townspeople become aware that Woody might be a millionaire. Before that point, scenes will just come and go without much happening in them. 

The problem is that there are some scenes later in the film that do something similar but leave an impact on the audience. For example, at one point Woody and his children visit the house that he grew up in and we learn about how his father built this house and that he remembers his brother dying when he was two years old. 

This scene, while ultimately pointless to the story, gives so much breath and emotion to Woody and the respect that David has for him. While scenes with his family sitting around the television talking about how their feet hurt not only go nowhere but leaves no impact on the audience. 

That’s the problem with “Nebraska.” Not only does it take quite a while before anything interesting happens, but there’s a strange mix of scenes that want to be lifelike with some working and others failing. Once the story gets going though, these scenes are far fewer but they are a major part of the film. They may be an attempt at atmosphere and depth, but there has to be more to a scene than just building the tone and attitude. 

Final Grade: C+