Showing posts with label Elizabeth Banks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elizabeth Banks. Show all posts
The Hunger Games
Monday, April 9, 2012
Directed by Gary Ross
By now I'm sure you're all familiar with what 'The Hunger Games' is all about. I'll break it down briefly for those who don't know. In the ruins of North America, now named Panem, there are 12 districts, each living in poverty and oppressed by the Capitol, a spoiled city. And to reaffirm their control, they hold, annually, something called the Hunger Games, where a one boy and one girl from each district, between the ages of 12 and 18 must fight to the death in an arena, until only one stands. The winner is awarded fame, wealth, and safety. Katniss Everdeen lives in District 12. When her little sister is plucked from the bowl of names to be a tribute, Katniss volunteers in her place. A boy her age named Peeta is also selected, in which she has ties to. And the Hunger Games begin.
I know, this review is a couple weeks late. I had originally planned to see it the Saturday after it opened, with a bunch of friends. We'd pre-ordered tickets and everything, but I got the stomach flu the morning of, and just haven't had time to see it since. Finally, 2 weeks later, I've seen in! I picked up the first book after the urging of my friend around a year ago, during the very early stages of casting. The books weren't a huge deal yet, but it was picking up steam. I read them all pretty quick, and while I wasn't awestruck with the books, they were good reads with a strong message, and knew they would translate to screen a lot better than most things.
First, let me just say all the performances, I thought, were pretty spot on. A lot of people had reservations about Jennifer Lawrence being too sexy, and Josh Hutcherson being too young, or just not what they'd imagined at all. But getting Jennifer Lawrence on as Katniss was a really great move. She's an Oscar nominated actress, and this role is quite similar in nature to Ree, the character she played in Winter's Bone, in which she was nominated. She really embodied Katniss in every way and gave such a real and gritty performance. She had Katniss's strength, but was also able to embody her vulnerability in a real way, and was able to find the balance between that and her strength and stubbornness, which, I'd imagine, is quite tricky. Jenn is a really diverse actress. She had a small but cute role in last year's Like Crazy, she played the sexy and mysterious Raven/Mystique in X-Men: First Class, and debuted in Winter's Bone. Jenn has such promise to be a really great actress, and she doesn't take it easy in this role. She pours a lot of emotion into her character, and draws back enough when needed to draw back. She gives Katniss strength and a ruthlessness. But you can still remember she's just a teenage girl, who has a family to look after. She's not the tough person she appears to be, and Jenn really captures this all.
The supporting cast was great too. Josh Hutcherson was great as Peeta. What I really appreciated about his performance was the subtleties he brought to Peeta. The smiles, and the stolen glances, that you knew he bought every word Katniss said, and that he's really in love with her, and it's not a game to him. He was able to make me feel for his character in a way I hadn't in the book. He made me realize what a tragic character Peeta is, constantly getting the rotten end of the stick. Having an undying and loyal love for Katniss, and not realizing until he's head over heels that it was just a game for her. While he didn't give a heart-stopping performance, he did give a nuanced one, and was quite good if you were really paying attention.
Such as this moment here. Just the way he looks at her, and he just loves her, you can tell. Just the one little glance (and tons more in this scene and throughout the film) sold me. And his reaction to being picked to the Games was great too. Just mouth half-open, hardly believing, and in shock, and even crying. I feel like this is an unpopular opinion since I keep reading people thought his performance was mediocre, but I felt like he really understood his character. It wasn't perfect, nor was it the best in the movie, but he really captured who Peeta is and what he's about. For that I applaud him.
There are plenty of fun performances by various well known actors. Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci gave my favourite supporting performances in the film. Harrelson as the drunken, harsh mentor of the 2 District 12 tributes gave a great performance. He was funny, he was a jerk, and then you saw the side of him where he really cared. And Stanley Tucci, you could tell he was really having fun with his part. The faces he made, his laughter, just the way he carried himself, it was such a fun performance to watch. Other fun supporting actors included Elizabeth Banks as the cooky and colourful Effie, Donald Sutherland as President Snow, Wes Bentley as Seneca Crane and Toby Jones as Claudius Templesmith.
The pacing of the movie, I found, to be balanced quite well. I had wondered how long they would spend on the preparations before the Games. The training and all that. I felt they kept in a good amount. It was long enough that you got the picture, and got enough information about the tributes, and about Haymitch and Peeta, that you needed to know before the Games. It was a good chunk, but it never overstayed its welcome. It was a large chunk in the book, and was a large chunk in the film. It showed off just how much of an event this was to the Capitol, and showed how grotesque it really is, when you think about it, showing the balance between the showing off of the tributes and the dressing up, and the training. The Games were also well paced, though Katniss's time with Rue was very short and could've been extended for a fuller effect. The violence was definitely there, and we got touches of it, but, to keep it to a PG-13 rating, it was scarce and was shown in generalities only, though there is a lot of blood shown.
Additionally, the costuming and make-up were quite fun. They were outrageous and crazy, and were just so fun and playful. I wouldn't be surprised to see this film get either a make-up or a costume nod. Both were well done and were great.
One frequent complaint that I've read is the excessive use of "shaky cam". For the most part, I felt it was well-used. During fight scenes, understandable. Running through the woods, understandable. However, it was used way too much during the first half hour or so, I felt like I was watching the Hurt Locker. But it felt extremely misplaced when in the Capitol and on the train. I felt like I never got a very good look at anyone for the first little bit since it was zoomed awkwardly in some places, and was all very close shots, and hardly any wider shots for the first little while. Use of shaky cam should've been reserved for the Games, and it didn't have much business in the first half of the film, as it took away from the film more than it added to it. Additionally, some of the Visual Effects weren't that great. When Katniss and Peeta was on fire at the tribute parade, I actually chuckled out loud upon seeing. It looked incredibly fake, and phony. I realize they didn't have an enormous budget and it was saved for other things, but this looked pretty bad. Though I forgive them because most of the other things looked quite good.
There were many "added" in things as well, though all were incredibly beneficial to the film. The scenes between Seneca Crane and President Snow, the rebellion in District 11, the television discussion with Caesar Flickerman and Claudius Templesmith, etc. Even seeing more of Haymitch, and what kind of role he played in different things added more to the film that the book wasn't able to with a first person perspective. We get to see the part Haymitch plays behind-the-scenes, and showing him sucking up his anti-socialism, and interacting with the sponsors in order to help Katniss, and just how much he really cares for her, and for Peeta. In a way, I felt the movie portrayed the overall themes and thoughts of the characters better than the book did, because it was less limited to Katniss's view.
Overall, this is one of the better blockbuster films, based on a YA novel no less, that has come out. With an 85% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, this film has done well for itself. Not to mention it had the biggest opening weekend, ever, for a non-sequel and has made a ton of money. This film has a wide appeal for both boys and girls, and it's great to see something the guys can get into as well, after having all-girls things like Twilight.
It's a fun movie, with some violence, some romance, and some fun costumes. It's a great movie, and a really well done adaptation.
8.5/10
OUR IDIOT BROTHER
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Written by David Schisgall and Evgenia Peretz
Directed by Jesse Peretz
Starring Paul Rudd, Elizabeth Banks, Zooey Deschanel and Emily Mortimer
Ned: I like to think that if you put your trust out there, that if you really give people the benefit of the doubt, see their best intentions, people will rise to the occasion.
Paul Rudd is practically perfect as Ned, the title character in Jesse Peretz’s Sundance breakout, OUR IDIOT BROTHER. The ownership from the title belongs to a trio of sisters played by the lovely Elizabeth Banks, Zooey Deschanel and Emily Mortimer. Talent abounds in this quaint, little comedy but the performances are almost lost in the midst of this meandering plot. Fresh from a brief stint in prison for selling pot to a police officer, Ned bounces from sister to sister to sister and teaches each of them a little something about themselves while they let him crash on their couches. Unfortunately, despite all the experience and expertise between them, Rudd and company were not able to teach Peretz anything about structure and timing.
The trouble with OUR IDIOT BROTHER is that it is pretty obvious, or at least it was to me anyway, that Ned is most certainly not an idiot. Peretz goes out of his way to make him look like one during his arrest at the opening of the film. I mean, you have to be pretty darn stupid to sell drugs to a uniformed cop but that isn’t what I took from that scene. I couldn’t figure out why this seemingly good natured, friendly police officer was so hellbent on entrapping this harmless produce vendor. Perhaps Ned is the town dealer but Peretz doesn’t bother contextualizing that at all. Nor does he bother giving us any history on the sisters that shape the film for him. The result is a lot of caricature - from a workaholic to an unhappy housewife to a promiscuous free spirit afraid to commit - and not as much character as a result. The cast easily elevates the material but there is nothing they can do to mask how it will all play out. The question as to who is the real idiot among them is a no brainer from the start.
On the one hand, I commend the filmmaker for not taking the obvious road with OUR IDIOT BROTHER. Peretz could have easily played his game in perfectly constructed episodic segments. Each would establish the appropriate archetype for each sister and Ned would come in and tear it to pieces before anyone has the time to realize it was all for the best. Instead, Peretz tries his hardest to keep things loose and fluid, having Ned constantly moving and always taking us on the scenic route. Given that we end up exactly where we expected to all along though, it seems to me there must have been a more efficient way to get there. Maybe I’m too smart for my own good though.
Black Sheep interviews Paul Haggis
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Haggis These Days
An interview with Paul Haggis
Films remade for American audiences are controversial to say the least. “I figured if Scorcese could do it, so could I,” quips Canadian born film director, Paul Haggis, referring to his third directorial effort, THE NEXT THREE DAYS, a remake of the 2008 French film, POUR ELLE. It’s a bold statement to put yourself on the same plain as an American film master like Martin Scorcese, especially when you’re a London, Ontario native who has only been making films for seven years now. When you consider that Haggis has been nominated for five Academy Awards and won two in that little time though, both for his breakout debut, CRASH, it doesn’t seem like such a stretch anymore. Incidentally, that’s one more Oscar than Scorcese has.
“There had to be questions that I wanted to ask on the nature of love and the nature of belief.” These questions would become the justification for the remake and how Haggis would make the film very much his own. They’re not the only reason he wanted to make this movie though. “I had always wanted to do a thriller, always wanted to do a caper movie.” His eyes light up when he says this. Boys will always be boys.
THE NEXT THREE DAYS is based on the central premise of POUR ELLE, where a teacher must take desperate action when his life has reached a seemingly impossible crossroads. His wife is in prison for murder and despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, he never falters in his belief of her innocence. When her last appeal fails, he sees her lose interest in living and he sees their son heading down the same path. If he doesn’t do something, he will lose what matters most to him in his life, his family.
The solution is to break his wife out of a maximum-security prison and then disappear. Now, that might not be what you or I would do, but if anyone were going to sell this as the only viable solution, it would be Oscar winner, Russell Crowe. Crowe signed on to the project early on and played a heavy hand in shaping his character, John Brennan, a man who isn’t remarkable for anything other than his conviction and commitment. “As soon as he read the script, he knew what I was going for,” Haggis shares when we meet in Toronto the day before THE NEXT THREE DAYS opens in theatres. Despite Crowe’s reputation for being difficult, Haggis insists they explored the internal and complicated nature of John Brennan at length and openly. “We talked a lot. I like when an actor is secure enough to ask questions and challenge you and the director is secure enough to listen and isn’t threatened by that.”
Not only is Haggis able to foster a healthy relationship with a man reputed for unhealthy working relationships, he also pulls an impressive and unexpected performance from his female lead, Elizabeth Banks. “I like taking actors and putting them in roles that surprise you,” says Haggis. “I think if you see actors playing the same roles over and over again, there is no sense in going to the theatre.” And you’ve never seen Banks like this before. As a convicted but potentially innocent killer, she never lets on whether she did or didn’t do what she’s accused of and she does that with great poise. Haggis definitely thinks people will be surprised to see her. “It’s a great gift for an audience to say, ‘Oh, look at her do that.’”
Of course, beyond its solid performances, including brief appearances by Liam Neeson, RZA, Daniel Stern, Brian Dennehy and Olivia Wilde, THE NEXT THREE DAYS is as sharp and as tense as it is because of Haggis’ incredibly grounded screenplay. Haggis, who writes more often than he directs, took an extreme hands on approach to writing this particular caper. He actually placed himself in the position of a prison escapee to plot just how John Brennan would do it. “I just googled how to break out of prison,” Haggis explains, fully serious. Having access to the Pittsburgh prison that is a central setting in the film, Haggis put his internal con man to work. “I got outside the jail and then said, ‘What if I got out? What do I do now?’ And then, ‘Oh look, a train. Will they be waiting at the next station?’” Whether his plan would actually work or not is not the issue. It’s the geographical and circumstantial reality of his plan that makes it believable. “I guess I’m enough of a con to figure it out myself.”
THE NEXT THREE DAYS is Haggis’ third film as director and his first thriller. His approach to direction is still the same though despite the genre change. “I try not to watch any movies when I’m making my own,” he confides. I understand this approach; I don’t read other reviews until mine is written. Who needs outside influence when you’re trying to create? “I really try to stay in that world and let the film find its own imagery and its own voice.”
The voice found in THE NEXT THREE DAYS is a complex one. It is a particularly adult voice and one that Haggis hopes will be heard. “I believe in this kind of a movie. I think there is an audience for it. I think people like to be challenged and I think they like to be entertained.”
Any audience that sees THE NEXT THREE DAYS will see a thriller that is as taut as they come but that still somehow honours love in its purest form, without ever feeling forced or far fetched. “It’s a love story,” Haggis asserts without hesitation. “There is something transformative about believing in somebody that much, even when they can’t believe in themselves.”
Escape from prison, run from the law, risk your life, I guess none of that matters when the reason you’re doing it is love. And after sitting with Haggis for just a half hour, it is pretty clear that he makes movies for the exact same reason.
Author's Note: Mr. Haggis was an excellent interview. I could have easily gone on about our conversation for another 1000 words. Maybe one day, I will.
I want to give a big thanks to the fantastic team at Maple Pictures for making this interview possible. I genuinely appreciate it.
For further Paul Haggis reading, here are past Black Sheep reviews for his films:
(click to read.)
(writer/director)
(writer/director)
(writer)
(writer)
(writer)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
