The Hunger Games

I wasn't planning on doing a review for this movie until I saw it again (hint of what's to come: I just said I was planning on seeing it again) but, I feel now that it needs to be done before then.

I read the books. I own the books. I will read the books again. That being said, there is only so much a screenwriter can do when it comes to extraneous details. But, alas, I'm getting ahead of myself!

The Hunger Games
Directed By - Gary Ross
Written By - Gary Ross, Billy Ray, & Suzanne Collins based on the novel by Suzanne Collins
Top-Billed Cast - Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, & Stanley Tucci


This movie is set in Panem, a futuristic country located in what used to be the United States (and parts of Canada) right before, during, and right after the annual Hunger Games. The Hunger Games are, basically, a form of punishment from the Capitol to the rest of the districts for rebelling against them back in the day. Each year, two "tributes" from each district meet in an arena and fight to the death; only one tribute comes out alive.

On to the good stuff!

Pros - 

* Let's start with the set. This movie was filmed in the Appalachians and you can tell. No offense to my Canadian neighbors but when a book is supposed to be set in the Smokies and they make the movie in British Columbia because it looks "the same"...no bueno. Not only was the location well scouted, the sets themselves were pretty darn incredible. I believed I was looking at a coal mining town and could have been looking at one from the 1930s. The extras were perfectly cast (extras are extra important for me) and it just looked and felt exactly as I had imagined it.

* Speaking of the 1930s, those costumes...awesome. From the simple blue dress that Katniss wears to the reaping to the fiery costumes of Cinna's design to the extras in the Capitol, the costume designers here got it right. I'm really looking forward to seeing the next two movies just for this factor alone.

* Since I brought up Katniss, let's spend some time talking about Jennifer Lawrence. Playing a character that narrates a book is hard. Playing a character that narrates a book that also has tremendous inner turmoil is even harder. Playing a character that narrates a book, that also has tremendous inner turmoil, AND admittedly shows no outward signs of that emotion? Extremely difficult. Jennifer Lawrence, I salute you. It's not that Katniss was a stretch of a character, really, or that another actress couldn't have done it (I actually thought a young Natalie Portman might have been perfect for this role but time travel won't yet permit it), but Jennifer Lawrence was cast and Jennifer Lawrence nailed it. Subtlety is an art.

* I can't have a pros & cons list and Stanley Tucci on the bill without giving one asterisk to him. Caesar Flickerman might be more of a minor character in the books but Tucci makes him memorable and carries his extra duties well.

* This movie is really pretty. There are moments that I didn't agree with the choices with the cinematography (and, believe me, I'll let you know where) but for the most part...loved the look of this movie. The TrackerJacker sequences were just gorgeous.

* For being a young adult, non-sequel, book adaptation, this movie got a lot of screen time. Two and a half hours. I've read some reviewers who felt that this was too long and others who felt the story was too rushed. What do I say to this? Text-to-film is never going to come out perfectly on the time scale, you make time for what you feel the audience needs to see in order for it to resonate and get them to A) see it again B) tell their friends to see it and C) get them into the next movie. You can't have a 7 hour movie of this type; young adults (or people like myself) just can't handle that. I thought the things that were dropped were relatively unimportant compared to what was put in there. For instance, as I mentioned earlier, this book is narrated first-person by the main character and you just can't have an actress talking to herself for an entire movie OR show things that I really felt would have been missed had they chosen to do it that way. I won't delve as I don't want to spoil but for those curious, feel free to comment.

* There is a reason the soundtrack for this movie jumped to #1 the day it came out. That is all.

Cons

* As of this movie, I am not a fan of Lenny Kravitz's portrayal of Cinna. It felt...off to me. Especially the last scene we see him in.

* I was really worried that the first five minutes of cinematography was an indication of what the rest of the film was going to look like. I get motion sick very easy and I was not a fan of the Blair Witch homage.

* I'll use this single asterisk to discuss text-to-film discrepancies that I didn't like. I understood getting rid of Madge and I appreciated the way they "fixed" that. I'm a tad worried about Peeta's...health at the end of this movie but I have confidence that that will be fixed.

* I'm not yet convinced that I like Liam Hemsworth as Gale (but that might just be because I'm not a Gale fan, in general).


Now Mother..
This movie is about children killing children. It contains lots and lots of violence (though not as much as one might expect if you've read the book). It is rated PG-13 and does have minor bouts of language (again, very mild considering what passes as "ok" in similarly rated films today). Viewer beware..

Overall, I LOVED this movie. I will own it. I will listen to the commentaries on the DVD. I get that people wanted it to be this blood fest but, really? It's a movie about kids killing kids. I know I don't *really* want to see some little boy's head get bashed in; I can barely tolerate the child zombies on The Walking Dead. I think the use of implied violence mixed with actual violence was perfect. I also hear complaints about how the movie was SO different than the book. I really don't get that. Suzanne Collins co-wrote the screen play and I thought it was one of the best adaptations I've ever seen. I'm a Harry Potter fan but some of those movie...atrocities. While this movie could be a stand-alone product, I think that those die-hard fans should, firstly, see the movie again and then...wait for the sequels. There could be reasons why sub-plots were "missing" from this movie and they might turn up or be explained in the following films. I'm a nit-picker and I hate discrepancies just as much (probably more) than the next guy but, I think people are being too harsh on this movie. It's fantastic and you should see it. 4.5/5 stars.

 

"Big Miracle", Little Impact

Ah, a movie about an event that really happened...almost 24 years ago. I remember reading about this as a child; I was really into whales circa 1993.

Big Miracle
Directed by- Ken Kwapis
Written by- Jack Amiel, Michael Begler, & based on the book by Thomas Rose
Top Billed Cast- Drew Barrymore, John Krasinski, & Kristen Bell


Set in Barrow, Alaska, in 1988, this movie centers around the plight of Gray Whales. Adam Carlson (Krasinski) is a reporter that has been working in Barrow for 4 weeks when he stumbles upon the trapped mammoths. With only a small space to use to breath and winter approaching fast, the situation gets international attention as people rush to save the whales.

Pros-
* Because the movie is set in 1988, there are a lot of pop culture references that made me laugh. Walk-Mans, cassette tapes, typewriters, and phones with actual cords just to name a few.

* Krasinski pretty much carried the movie. It's not really that his performance was out of this world but, his character's development was one that was easy to track and actually see.

* While I wish that her character got more in the way of a story arc, Kristen Bell was quite convincing in her role and it brought a lightness to certain parts of the movie that really needed it.

* Wardrobe. I might not have been wearing anything but onesies in the '80s but I've seen enough on TV and family pictures to recognize good choices when I see them.

* The animatronic whales were pretty good. Nothing on Free Willy but, sufficient.

Cons
* While the homage to all things 1988 was good..I felt the film relied too heavily on archived footage. In some movies, they'll sprinkle bits of real feed in with what they shoot and that works really well. The movie then feels authentic without looking cheesy. In this movie, I felt like I might as well have just googled "Tom Brokaw coverage, 1988 Gray Whales" and watched the same exact thing without the $10.50 price tag.

* I don't like when movies involve past Presidents. I understand that it was necessary to include the fact that Ronald Reagan was involved in this rescue but I heartily disagree that they had to use a "look-a-like" (I guess he looked like him..we only really saw his profile) for two seconds before cutting to real footage of him doing a press conference.

* There's a few parts in the movie where Drew Barrymore's character pretty much saves the day. I'm not going to specify which part I'm referring to but, let's just say...I've never seen a knife cut so quickly or a person so dexterous in that weather.

* I dislike rabbit trails in movies. If it doesn't matter for the end game, please don't make it seem important.

Now Mother..
This movie is rated PG and pretty clean. I can't actually recall anything that would make me want to caution anyone. This movie does talk about death and killing so be prepared to discuss the ways in which other cultures live. Viewer beware..

Overall, I really just didn't care. Sure, the movie had a couple emotionally stirring moments but, for the most part, it was just middle of the road. It certainly didn't evoke the same feelings that Free Willy did and I felt a tad disappointed by that. I didn't hate the movie but I also didn't love it. I could take it or leave it at 3/5 stars.

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

This movie...I'm not quite sure what about it made it so good. I'll save my summary for the end on this one but I'll preface the Pros & Cons with this: I have not read the book. I tried to listen to it on CD while driving once...I got car sick so I decided against further literary pursuits.

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
Directed By- Stephen Daldry
Written By- Eric Roth and based on the novel by Jonathan Safran Foer
Top Billed Cast- Thomas Horn, Tom Hanks, & Sandra Bullock 


This movie is about a young boy who lost his father in the attacks on 9/11. You are taken on a journey narrated by Oskar Schell, the boy who was "tested once for aspergers...it was inconclusive". Colorful imagery, painful memories, and heartwarming tales of kindness abound. This movie, though, is not a lighthearted walk through the park; it has moments of great pain and can be tough to watch.

Pros
* When a movie is going to be narrated, it should be done very carefully and start at the beginning. If there's one thing I hate, it's hearing a random's voice 10 minutes into the movie and having to wonder who on earth is talking and why. This movie did it right. While Thomas Horn's voice was woven in and out of the story from beginning to end, it was not done in such a way that annoyed or brought you out of the world that was created.

* The cinematography on this movie was awesome. Even though I can't see those shots-to-make-life-look-miniature without having CSI flashbacks...I still enjoyed the moments of reminiscence. The scale was done perfectly, the feeling of largeness or tightness perfectly mirrored in the shots.

* Movies with good sound are like the dark chocolate covered raisins of cinematic wonder. What? You don't like dark chocolate covered raisins? Then you probably didn't notice how perfect the score of this movie was anyway. It's my blog, I can make that leap. Sound. People take it for granted way too often. The powers that be on this film, however, did not and it was a thing of beauty. Trust me on this.

* Casting...it's an art. Honestly, I wasn't too sure about the casting on this movie. I had never heard of Thomas Horn and while I like both Hanks and Bullock, I wasn't sure how I would feel about them in a movie together. I knew from the moment the movie started, though, that Horn was made for this role. While I've not read the book (merely listened to about a page and a half), I still feel that his timing and delivery were spot on with the character. I believed him and that was very important for this movie.

* Speaking of Bullock. At first, I was not so sure what her role in this movie really was. The story revolves, mostly, around Oskar and his father's (Hanks') relationship which puts Bullock's character in the shadows for the first half of the movie. Once her character comes more into focus, though, wow. I enjoyed her performance very much and am really kind of confused as to why only one actor got an Oscar nomination out of this movie.

* I've read some people thought the movie moved slowly and I really have to disagree. I think I can see where they might have felt that but, to me, the pace was perfect. There were times I was really frustrated that there seemed to be no one on this kid's side and really just wanted him to have some help but, at the reveal (which I'll touch on next) it became extremely clear why this feeling of isolation for the character was necessary. We, as the audience, need to feel the same desperation that Oskar feels, the isolation is necessary for the coming together at the end.

* Ah, the reveal. That moment in a movie when everything makes sense. When all the actors and directors have been working towards, happens. Some movies have massive :O moments while others hint at the ending throughout. This movie didn't have an M. Night twist or anything, and yet, I felt the reveal almost as powerful. It was a pleasant surprise, not only in the way it was done but also in the information it gave us.

* The one actor that got nominated from this movie is the same actor that did not utter a single word the whole time he was on screen. Max von Sydow played "The Renter" and his portrayal of this beaten down, ashamed, man was brilliant. One does not have to speak aloud to say important things.


Cons
* I feel it's important to have at least three cons in every review.

* There was one...creative choice...that I disagreed with. I absolutely hate when a movie goes to a black screen before the movie is actually over. If that black screen lasts more than 2 seconds, it's too long. It draws me out of the movie and my little ADD brain can't take the switch. I've started thinking about all the previews I saw before the screen goes back to the movie and it just takes me too long to get back on track. I understood the purpose and can respect the decision..I just didn't like it.

* This last con is one that I can't even really talk about as it will spoil the movie. I'll just say this: I don't like loose ends and there was a rather large one in this movie. For something to be such an integral part of the story line, something repeated again and again, one would think that there would be resolution. Sure, one can assume that it was discussed and maybe, in some deleted scene, it was. But why was that scene deleted? Why take that part out of the film if it was indeed scripted to begin with?

Now Mother..
This movie is rated PG-13 and talks about lots of heavy subjects such as: self-harming, terrorism, aspergers, & suicide. There is a fair sprinkling of language but the rating is mostly due to the emotional toll it will take on you. Viewer beware..

Overall, I loved this movie. I cried. I don't cry often in movies. It's a movie that is definitely heavy and not for everyone but, if you can make it to the reveal..it's so worth it. The performances in this movie mixed with the cinematography and direction just create this awesome package. I can't really even put my finger on why I liked the movie so much and I really can't understand why other critics did not. Perhaps if I read the book I would feel different? 4/5 stars.

"Joyful Noise" was noisy, alright

Ah the musical. From a very early age I was one of those children that pleaded with the others to allow us to fast forward through the dance/song numbers in classics like "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" and "Mary Poppins". I was the one that really only made it through "Newsies" because I had been in a theatrical production of it and therefore felt connected to the songs some how. I think the only reason I loved the Disney classics so much is because I was basically imprinted with them from such a young age that the endless songs were the only choice; there weren't that many non-Disney movies that I watched as a child so they were normal.

Point being: I'm not exactly sure why I always feel the need to challenge this long standing dislike for movies with a large number of song and dance numbers. Sure, we all laughed during "Sister Act" and yeah, "The Muppets" were cute but, honestly, I can barely even handle those. And they had plot! To be fair, "Joyful Noise" did have a plot..it was just SO slow moving that at some points I felt like they forgot the point of the movie and were just filming stuff to fill time. On to Pros and Cons!

Joyful Noise
Directed By- Todd Graff
Written By- Todd Graff
Top Billed Cast- Queen Latifah, Dolly Parton, & Keke Palmer


Ah the age old tale of the choir competition. Yes, it's basically the same plot as both "Sister Act"s minus the witness protection program but plus a few other angsty bits thrown in.

Pros
* It wasn't the vocal performances that turned me off of this movie; actually, the vocals were pretty good. The music wasn't something to write home about but the lip-syncing was good (only noticed somebody being really off once!).


* The very last number. If you could fast forward through the majority of the movie and just arrive at the very last song/dance bit, this movie might just be worth it ("it" being the $1 RedBox rental, of course).


* I'll put this in here just because I feel bad for only having two Pros. The quick quips between Dolly and Queen were quite funny. Most of the time. When you could hear the whole line.


Cons
* Casting. I understand that low budget films needing singers/dancers/actors have to scour the ends of the agents' lists for the right fit. However, I feel that there just has to be willing talent in Hollywood more capable or fitting than the cast selected. It's not that they were terrible, really, it was more that most of them just didn't seem believable for their individual roles.

* Speaking of casting, let's just go ahead and name some names (feel free to imdb these names for a full understanding of this point). Angela Grovey & Roy Huang do not fit. There is no way that I, as the viewer, buy that they found eternal bliss with one another in a relationship. It's not that either one was bad..it just was NOT a good match.

* I mentioned the movie being slow in the intro but I didn't mention how long it was. This movie is LONG. There are some films where, upon leaving, you think "man, has it really been two hours already?!". Not the case here. At about one hour in I checked my clock to see if it was almost over. It wasn't. At two hours in, I checked my clock again and got excited. I shouldn't have.

* Those quips I put in the Pros section? Sure, they were funny...but there was such a lack of comedic timing in their delivery that half of the jokes were missed over half of the time. If you, the writer, thinks the audience is going to laugh (which, let's face it, they are), then you need to add a pause in the script or something. Now, listen, don't go yelling at me that that is the director's job...in this instance, the director and the writer are one & the same so he should know how to properly advise his actors.

* Handheld flashbacks. Granted, there was only one, but it was so bad. I can't even take it. Not only were these flashbacks shot instagram style with what was probably a flip camera (no offense to the camera), but they chose to fade to black for an entire 3 count before they brought it back to the actor flashing back. Badly placed and poorly executed.

* Chemistry. There's one scene where G.G. (Dolly) is singing a duet with her grandson (sort of, there's parts where she sings it with her dead husband, but we'll get to that), and at the end I honestly had a moment where I though they just might kiss, and not in the familial way. With other actors, this problem was completely the opposite: no chemistry and they were SUPPOSED to kiss.

* Ah the duet with the dead man. Reminiscing is fine but please don't make me watch over three minutes of it. Waltzing on a poorly lit sound stage singing the same chorus over and over and over again does not endear me to the character or her loss; it makes me hate her and reminds me to never buy the soundtrack.

* Speaking of repetition, repetition. Jokes were warn out and songs over sung. Just because you're highlighting a different angle of an actress on this chorus does not mean I need to hear it all again. Maybe they only had one or two cameras for the whole movie so they had to reshoot every thing from every angle? I'm not sure but man did those songs get old and FAST.

* This next bit may seem out of line and I apologize if I'm wrong here but, in my experience, aspergers is not something cured over night. Not that the person affected in this film was "cured", in so many words, but there were scenes where having another actor "call him out on his excuses" seemed to bring about a very fast change. He went from not wanting to be touched, isolated in facts, aversion to strong lights and loud noises, to singing/playing the piano in front of an entire theater full of people. It just seemed like a very abrupt change.

* If you thought this movie was a wholesome good time for the whole family..you would be incorrect. From using the same swear word six or seven times in a row to using God's name in vain to pre-marital sex to physical violence...I could go on. I didn't realize it was a PG-13 when I went to see it so imagine my surprise during some of those scenes. It wasn't necessarily that bad but it was considering what I thought it was about.

Now Mother..
As I just stated, this movie is rated PG-13 and, yeah, it should be. Be prepared to talk about the poor economy and what that might mean for families, aspergers syndrome, "smiting" by God for pre-martial sex, violence as an answer for bullying, plastic surgery, speaking in tongues, and what your beliefs are when it comes to competitions verses being a good example. Viewer beware..

Overall, I did laugh and I did enjoy the final number. However, it was not something I would ever see again (no, not even to make fun of!) or something I would recommend to anyone. 1.5/5 stars.

I don't normally talk about TV but..

I was just thinking. It's a new year, right? So, to me, this means there are things that should be said "goodbye" to and new things should take their place. I think this should apply to TV too. There are shows out there that have, in my opinion, gone beyond their prime and should be escorted out peacefully rather than cancelled with a cliff hanger. Here are a few shows that I think we should say "Adios!" to in 2012:

CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
Those who know me are probably surprised to hear me say this. I've been a fan since the very first season...12 years ago next fall. 12 years is a LONG time for any episodic drama and especially one that was such a front runner in its genre. Crime shows were something of a joke before CSI happened and now, pretty much, that's the only type of episodic drama on TV! I took a season break from the show due to...creative differences...back in 2008/9, I have since returned and remain a loyal fan.

Let's face it: There are only so many prostitutes that can die by strangulation in and around the Las Vegas area. Likewise, there are only so many times one can "replace" the lead character before the audience gets bored of the, seemingly, same arc of character development every few seasons. These characters are people the fans feel like they know, yet, this show likes to hold its characters at emotional stand stills for years at a time. When one finally starts moving forward they're either killed off or written off.

It's been a fun ride, but with Catherine leaving this season and the execs set to replace even her...I think this spring would be the perfect opportunity to park this classic show in the vault and let it rest in peace.

Fringe
Admittedly, I don't watch this show currently but I did watch it when it first came on and for a couple seasons after that. I've heard that Fox is looking to move the sci-fi drama to a new network. In my opinion, it would be better to end the show now than to risk a dismal failure on a new network with a new time-slot competing against newer shows with newer audiences.

Grey's Anatomy
Probably will get a lot of "boos" for this one but...really? I would have thought that the sing-along disaster of last year would have been the end but apparently I was wrong. How many more attractive doctors can be killed off while saving other attractive doctors' lives in extraordinary ways in a single hospital? I understand that any time we turn on the TV we agree to suspend most forms of reality but...really? I tried to watch this show way back when but all the people drama was just too much. If I wanted to watch a soap opera, I would. Where CSI might have too little character development, I feel that Grey's has too much. I think a nice wrap up and go might be the perfect end to this TV season.

The Office
I'm sure there are still laughs to be had here but I just don't see the show surviving much longer. It had its day and that day was incredible. Losing the, basically, star of the show had to be tough and I know it tries to over come that every week. I just think, again, it would be better to end on the writers' terms than the execs', don't you?

How I Met Your Mother
I can't believe this show has lasted this long. I really have never liked it...ever. I've watched a few episodes and, granted, there were funny parts but on the whole I was just really frustrated with how little information was given. Fans have gone SEVEN seasons without knowing who the mother is? That's intense. Bravo to those of you that have made it but don't you feel..I don't know..a bit cheated? I can barely handle the suspense of a single episode of some shows, I really don't get how you all have gone that many seasons without real answers. Wrap it up and move it out!

Two and a Half Men
What really is there to say here? There is no "half" man anymore; kid grew up and Charlie Sheen is out. Are we expected to watch the kid go off to college? Or maybe Ashton Kutcher? Either way..this is another show I've never liked and I think it would be kinder to the show to put it out of its misery rather than draw it out with dwindling viewership.

Anything "Real Housewives"
I don't watch these shows but I feel the concept is tired. At least there should not be any new ones introduced this year. Poor Bravo.

Survivor
As much as it pains me to say it...this upcoming season of Survivor should be its last. The good ole days of starving people, devastating injuries, and heli-flights out of the game for good are over. This new regime of "just survive on this island by yourself without having to do any real social work" is just not entertaining. There is a chance that the show can reclaim some former glory, sure, but there are drastic changes that need to be made in order for that to happen and I just don't see the show going that way.

American Idol
They proved that even with new judges, they can still bring in the fans and talent. I get it. We all get it. There are TOO many of these type shows on TV and I think it's only fair for the first to go, well, first. The auditions used to be funny, but now that everyone knows what it takes to get on TV they are either really contrived feeling or just too bad to even laugh at. Very few of the "Idols" of the past have gotten what they signed on for anyway. Bow out, AI, please.

Now, what do I think should make it to next season?

Once Upon a Time
This is here on a probationary period as I really feel that there has not been enough answered compared to the number of questions posed. But, alas, this is not the time to critique the show so I'll just say this: if they get on track and start answering real questions (and improve their graphics a bit..), I think this show could make a nice addition to the fall line-up.

New Girl
As probably most people reading this know, I don't do half-hour comedies. With that said, I have really liked what I've seen of this show! Granted, it's rather light and has no real...plan, so to speak, but it's fun and hasn't annoyed me yet.

Criminal Minds
I know, I know, typical Abby to put a crime show in here. Get used to it, people! While the character development needs MAJOR help, I just can't turn off an episode of this show. They are very smart with the scripts and story lines. I like it and I hope it sticks around for at least another season.

Bones
Ah Bones. Like with CSI, I took a hiatus from this show for a season and I'm not ashamed to admit it. The writers seem to enjoy taking HUGE risks with the characters and some times they don't end well. I'm bummed that there are a limited number of episodes this season so I hope it gets picked up for an 8th. Whether or not the show needs to continue after that remains to be seen but, for now, I'm on board.

Big Bang Theory
It wouldn't be fair not to put this show in here even though I don't watch it regularly. Creative story lines, fun characters, and actual character development set this half-hour comedy apart and I applaud it for that.



There are a lot more shows that I could put in each category, and I might add more later. I feel that in order to keep TV interesting and fresh, those shows that have been around long enough to be able to wrap up nicely, should, so that the new shows can get a chance to shine.

A Grand Adventure? "We Bought A Zoo"

Did you ever see "August Rush"? No? You should watch it. Why am I bringing a movie about a musically gifted orphan on a post about a widower buying a zoo? Because, they felt very similar to me. In both good ways and bad. Let's take a look, shall we?

We Bought A Zoo
Directed by- Cameron Crowe
Written by- Aline Brosh McKenna and Cameron Crowe, based on the book by Benjamin Mee
Top Billed Cast- Matt Damon, Scarlett Johansson, and Thomas Haden Church

This movie has all the makings of a feel good classic: cute kids, animals that need saving, financial risk, fast-approaching deadline, and the beginnings of a romance. Benjamin Mee loses his wife, leaving his two kids Rosie and Dylan motherless, six months before the start of the film. We find them functioning, but barely. Dylan, at 14, is in constant trouble at school and his father isn't sure how to communicate with him. Benjamin, *never* "Ben", sees the only way to move forward is to move away and decides to take his family far away (9.2 miles from the nearest Target, to be exact), to start a new adventure. 

Pros-
* The score to this movie, much like that of  "August Rush" though not quite as innovative, was great. The music was distinct but not over powering and is memorable without taking away from the movie.

* Maggie Elizabeth Jones. If you don't know who she is, I have a feeling you will soon. She plays the youngest Mee, Rosie, and she is incredibly cute. While she doesn't really do anything overtly profound or mind blowing, she has this presence and draw that makes even those of us that don't really find children all that appealing, start to reconsider that notion.

* Subtlety. I can't quite put my finger on it but something about Johansson's performance in this movie struck me as intriguing. The best way I can think to describe it is to say that she spoke small. Not that her lines were short or clipped or sounded choppy...just that she said almost as much, if not as much and more, in between lines as she did during them. Her performance, overall, was very different than any of the other things I've seen in her in before. In a good way, I suppose.

* Cinematography. This is actually a pro and a con because though a LOT of the shots were really pretty and well executed, there were a few that could have been nicer if not for the massive CHEESE fest that happened to be stationed near by. More on that below.

* There are some actors in some movies that are able to properly convey emotions without the utterance of a single word. This movie had a lot of moments where silence spoke louder than roars. And, believe me, there were lots of roars.

* I'd like to take this opportunity to discuss make up. I mentioned subtlety before and I'm going to mention it again. I only really noticed make up twice in this movie...well, by this I mean I noticed it in scenes that one might not should really notice make up. In other words, I liked not noticing it very often. Mascara and eyeliner have their place and their purpose but this movie was not about pirates or princesses, so I was glad it was left at the trailers.


Cons-
* While I thought Johansson's performance was quite interesting, I almost felt like we didn't get to see enough of...something. I had hoped that the epilogue might explain some things but either her character was not one that actually existed, or she was based off of somebody no longer in the picture. Either way, something was missing.

* I almost put this in the Pros section but...just couldn't. The animal selection for this zoo, I just wish we had a better idea of what all was there from the start. While the animals highlighted from the beginning were VERY consistent and props for, at least seemingly, using the same Tiger in every shot, there were some parts where it seemed like they were saying "oh yeah! we have a serval and some warthogs and hundreds of different species of snakes and..." with no real thought to scale given.

* I understand that this movie is based off of a book which is based on a true story, so I understand that there are parts to this whole thing not explained in a 2 hour movie. Still, I do expect some bit of reality in respect to the number of snakes one can "lose" in a scene. What struggling zoo, funded only by an inheritance of a limited nature, orders a shipment of what looks like *hundreds* of varying species of snake?? If they couldn't even afford to feed the grizzly bear, which I will come to in a moment, how on earth do they expect to maintain that many habitats? I was just confused.

* On to the grizzly. In one scene this bear is, apparently, wandering through town? And the very next shot he's back on zoo property but still loose. I was confused as to how he traveled that distance, you know the "9.2 miles to the nearest Target" that was drilled into your head through the whole movie, in such a short amount of time. Upon reaching said bear, Mee is disarmed of his tranq gun for a full minute at least before a shot is heard and the bear goes down. All other characters who were off screen when this shot was fired congratulate him on shooting him...I guess he used magic?

* Have I mentioned yet how far away they lived from the nearest Target? 9.2 miles. Have I stated that they bought a zoo? They did. Both of these things were repeated throughout the entirety of the film. Funny the first time, cute the second, annoying the third, and obnoxious the fourth, fifth, sixth....There's a long running joke and then there's over used quips. While some might find these bits endearing, it annoyed me. Having at least two entire scenes devoted to, basically, a single line is kind of annoying.

* Maybe if I read the book this bit wouldn't bother me but I'm a firm believer in making films enjoyable for readers and watchers alike. I think that if you have time, which the copious amounts of wind/sunset/raindrop/etc shots indicate that they do,  then it is your duty to show developed characters. I honestly believe there was one character who never said a single line and at least two others that only uttered a minor thing in one scene. If we are expected to like these people, expected to enjoy their triumphs and feel their pain...we need to know them. I do not enjoy being expected to know a person's thoughts by the way the light reflects off their hair. It's pretty, but it isn't practical.

Now Mother..
This movie is rated PG and is fairly clean. It does deal with death, both animal and human, so be prepared to talk about grief and how it effects different people in different ways. Viewer beware..


Overall, I enjoyed the experience of the movie. I loved the score and, I think, Johansson's performance was interesting enough in and of itself to see it again. It's not a movie that is necessarily outstanding on any front but it does it's job and it does it well. You are transported, briefly, to this world and you want to see it work out. The struggles aren't necessarily original and the path to success has certainly been traveled more times than we can count, but the journey is still worth watching. Cameron Crowe does not disappoint with his way of connecting shots and breathing life into seemingly lifeless scenes nor do the performances, though mostly silent, of the supporting cast. 3/5 stars.

Wondering about "War Horse"?

It's been a while...a LONG while, actually, but I've decided to try and revive this ol' thing! I've seen a few movies since the last post, but nothing all that amazing or horrible. Today I saw War Horse. It was good.

War Horse
Director- Steven Spielberg
Written by- Lee Hall and Richard Curtis; based on the novel by Michael Morpurgo
Top Billed Cast- Jeremy Irvine, Peter Mullin, Emily Watson, & David Thewlis


This story is structured very much like the classic "Black Beauty" in that we start with the birth of a horse and follow that horse from home to home throughout the film. Horses in war are not allowed to choose sides; they can't decide to only fight the "bad guys" and it is no different for the hero in this story set during World War I. Though he has many names, and struggles through many challenges, this "war horse" keeps his wits about him and touches countless hearts in the process.

Pros-

* This movie is pretty. I'm not sure if they filmed it all/most of it on location in France or if they used another country, whichever it was...it worked. There are countless shots in the film that are just brilliantly executed.

* Remus!! Ok, sort of. David Thewlis is in this movie but he's kind of a bad guy so while I like him enough to put him here based on performance in this movie, let's be honest it's really because I love "Harry Potter".

* As a dog trainer, and one that has worked on sets before (small ones...but still), I always give props to trainers that make it work. Whatever group was hired to supply the horses to play the two main horses in this movie, I give them MAJOR props. While, yes you do have to suspend disbelief a bit, and I'll touch more on this in the Cons, overall these animals did an incredible job. Horses can't bark, they can't whine, they can't really convey emotion with a tail wag or eyebrow twitch like a dog can, and yet, you feel like these horses could. They worked brilliantly together and gave the audience something to root for.

* Stunts. Honestly, running full out on a horse carrying a sword while side by side with other people running full out on horses carrying a sword...that's intense. Add in a few hundred more horses, hundreds of infantry men fleeing said horses, and a fully equipped camp and you have yourself a recipe for disaster. Disaster did NOT strike, though! I love watching battle scenes because it's such a great way to judge a movie. If you can see hesitation, see the actors waiting for a cue, you know it's probably not that great of a movie. A good battle scene is like a dance: calculated and coordinated to the minutest degree but flowy and beautiful and seemingly effortless. War Horse was like a Broadway dance number mixed with an Olympic ice skating final: it was superb.

* Either they had THE most realistic animated horse I've ever seen or the best trained stunt horse I've ever seen. Either way, there's one scene that is so painfully well done that I'm still trying to figure out how they did it. I won't spoil anything but I think you'll know it when you see it.


Cons-

* I realize that it's a period piece and that it's set in England where people have varying degrees of accents and what not. I also realize that this movie was made by ACTORS, people trained to do different accents while enunciating. Apparently, if you do a period piece, set in England, that stars a horse...you are no longer required to speak clearly.

* This movie is about a war. Wars, typically, have two sides and those two sides, typically, are pretty easy to identify based on outfits and language and what not. I got lost in this movie. Yeah, it's a family film so everybody needs to speak English but...if we're all speaking the same language with, sometimes, the same accent, can we at least have totally different colored uniforms? Hats? Something? At the start, it was REALLY easy to tell and I appreciated that immensely. Perhaps it was Spielberg's intention to make it harder and harder to tell the difference as the story progressed, I don't know. I personally did not enjoy not knowing who to cheer for.

* Resolution. I won't go too in depth here for fear of spoiling but there's a few things left unsaid that I thought should have been. Nothing major but I had a few questions after it was over that I would love to know the answer to. Perhaps I should read the book?

* While I praised the cinematography in the Pros section...I can't say the same for the last few shots of the film. I'm sure they shot it in front of a green screen or just "touched" up the background after they shot it at one time of day with another time of day. Either way, the sunset...I suppose that's what it was...was just, ugly. It was either too bright or not bright enough, I can't be sure. I was not a fan.

* If you're doing a movie about animals and you're going to need more than one (which, they all need more than one), PLEASE do your homework! I get that you need one horse that stands, one that runs, one that limps, etc etc...but can you at least keep them all the same type? We went from Paso to Warmblood, to Thoroughbred, to who knows what else. Body type matters! Gait matters! Continuity matters!

* Most of the CGI was great..and for me to compliment CGI is a big deal. There was one bit though that I just can't get to stop replaying in my head. It's not that it was horrible or anything and the transition back to live-action was almost seamless. It's just that..horses don't bend like that. Or if they do, they don't get up and run away from it.






Now Mother..
This movie is rated PG-13 and can be hard to watch at times. There are lots of scenes involving dead horses and dead soldiers. Be prepared to discuss World War I and the people of the day's views on animals as more of a tool than a pet. I don't recall any cursing but there could have been a few mumbled words that I missed (see the Con regarding enunciation). Save for the violence and death, it really is a good family movie. Viewer beware..


Over all, I liked this movie. It might seem that I was a bit harsh on certain aspects of it but it is a film I would see again. Not too gory with a lot of heart. 3.5/5 stars.