The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

Which came first, Lady Gaga's fashion sense or the styling of Panem's residents in The Hunger Games?

Picking up shortly after their win in the Hunger Games, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) are about to take their victory tour of the districts.  However, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) warns Katniss that her actions have been seen as an act of defiance against the Capitol and have inspired many to rebel.  She better convince everyone that her relationship with Peeta is real, or else.  As the tour continues, civil unrest continues to escalate, and eventually Snow and new Head Gamemaker (Philip Seymour Hoffman) decide that Katniss needs to go.  They throw a wrinkle in the next Hunger Games that the tributes will be picked from the existing pool of past winners.  None of the past winners are wild about this and don't hide their unhappiness with the situation.  As many of the past winners are older or have been out of the game for a while, alliances form as their best chance to survive in the games.  If you've ever watched a season of Survivor, it's pretty much just like that, except with better hygiene.

When we do eventually get to the action, there's thankfully no shaky cam this time.  One of the things that bugged me, and many of my friends, about the first was that many of the action sequences were ruined by shaky cam to the point where it was a little nauseating.  I watched The Hunger Games again just a few hours before seeing Catching Fire to see if I was remembering it correctly, and it's definitely there.  I have to give credit to director Francis Lawrence for this improvement over the first.  The effects were a definite step up, too.  With almost double the budget, you can tell a lot of it went towards improving the visuals.  One scene that stood out was where the tributes face off against a pack of baboons that looked much more convincing than those rubber dogs from the first.  Those things looked like the bad, mutated dogs from Ang Lee's Hulk.

It's a not a flawless affair though. The first hour's pacing is a little too slow.  I liked the politics and story that was being set up, but more than a few times I felt like they needed to hurry up and get on with it.  Also at 2 hours and 26 minutes, it's still way too long. This could have easily been edited down a good 10-15 minutes and not lost much of anything.  It's not like I was bored, or was desperate for a bathroom break by the end, but these issues are really apparent considering that the structure is pretty much identical to the first film.  In fact, if hadn't enjoyed Catching Fire as much as I did, I would have walked out of the theater saying, "I enjoyed Catching Fire much more the first time I saw it, when it was called The Hunger Games."  It makes me a little nervous when I see that the final book is being split into two films.  I know that's the cash grab these days, but I hope it's being done because there's actually enough material there, rather than stretching out the running time.  Overall, I liked Francis Lawrence's direction and think the series is in good hands for the upcoming films.  Anyone want the over/under at 5 hours for the total runtime?

The performances were a big improvement across the board as well.  Josh Hutcherson seems to have matured a bit since the first film, and Jennifer Lawrence keeps getting better and better.  I'm a little biased though, as Lawrence is one of my favorite female actors, period.  An observation I had after the film is that while Hutcherson appears roughly his age, Lawrence feels much more mature than her age or appearance would indicate.

Woody Harrelson's Haymitch was much funnier and overall Harrelson felt more invested in the role.  I thought that Elizabeth Banks showed a little more range with Effie, as you saw how she'd grown to care for Katniss and Peeta.  I was a little bummed that Lenny Kravitz didn't get more screen time as he was one of the surprises of the first film for me.  The PSH is always great, but we didn't get to see one of his trademarked outbursts.  I also enjoyed Sam Claflin as Finnick, as based on his poster I wasn't sure what to make of his character going in.

Two of the biggest scene stealers were Stanely Tucci with his campy and a little creepy return as Caesar Flickerman, and Jena Malone's sarcastic and sexy turn as Johanna, a former winner who never passes up the opportunity to tell you, or show you, exactly what she's thinking.  Malone and Tucci seemed like the two actors that were enjoying themselves the most.

Poor Liam Hemsworth.  He's still suck in third wheel mode while his brother gets to swing around Mjolnir.
If there's any issue I had with the cast it was that Thad Castle (Alan Ritchson) didn't have more screen time, and at no point did he mention the need to bone some sloots.  Such a waste...

On a side note, I know I complained about this in my Hunger Games review, but I still have a little bit of a hard time taking this seriously as I should with all the goofy, made up names given to these characters. There are guys named Gale and Peeta.  Other characters with names like Haymich, Cinna, Katniss, Beetee, and Mags.  Are these call signs from Top Gun?  Where are all the Johns, Daves or Jennifers?  I guess in the future, the winners were the people that name their kids stuff like Gunnar, Apple and Rumor.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is one of the rare examples of a sequel that's better than its predecessor.  It's an obvious comparison, especially coming from me, but this felt like the Empire Strikes Back of The Hunger Games series. With the exception of its length and some pacing issues, it's a definite improvement over the first.  Fans of the first film should be very pleased with what they see this time around.

4 (out of 5) Death Stars

Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters (2013)

I guess I spoke too soon about August surprising me so far.  Here comes a sequel nobody was asking for to a movie that barely anyone remembers.  I honestly almost forgot there was a first Percy Jackson film.  I can barely recall a single detail about it, other than I didn't care for it.  You might wonder why I even bothered seeing Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters.  Well, what else am I going to do on a Wednesday night?  Plus I'm a nerd for any kind of fantasy film.  I still went into this with an open mind, 'cause you never know, it might be a pleasant surprise.  Sometimes a sequel can be an improvement, especially when the first wasn't that good.

Sea of Monsters figures the audience didn't remember the first Percy Jackson film either, as there's a brief narration that sets the story up.  However, if you're going to open with someone narrating, you might want to encourage the lead actor to not read it like he's bored, which is how Logan Lerman sounded.  Better yet, get Anthony Stewart Head to class it up by reading it, since he plays Chiron.  I don't remember "Giles" being in the first film, and it turns out he wasn't.  Chiron was played by Pierce Brosnan last time.  Outside of the primary trio, I don't think there's a single returning actor from the first film, which is a shame because if you go back and look at the cast list, it's star-studded.

This is going to be spoiler-ridden, by the way...

We come back to Camp Half-Blood to catch up with Percy and friends.  There's some weird "capture the flag meets king of the hill" game they're playing that only seems to establish that Clarisse (Leven Rambin), daughter of Ares, is extremely competitive with Percy.  She's practically a bully, but Percy tries to take the high ground with her.  I don't think it's any coincidence that Percy is very similar to "pussy".  Anyway, Percy is introduced to his half-brother, Tyson (Douglas Smith), who's a cyclops.  Tyson kind of looks like young-Brendan Fraser in Encino Man, which was all I could think about anytime I saw him.  I guess being a cyclops is bad because Annabeth (Alexandra Daddario) hates him with a passion simply because he is one.

After an attack on the camp by a robot-bull-transformer-thing, they learn that the tree that protects the camp with a magical force field has been poisoned, leaving the camp vulnerable.  However, since nobody seems to have been seriously hurt in the attack, this doesn't seem like that much of a threat.  The only thing that can heal the tree is the Golden Fleece, which is in the Sea of Monsters, otherwise known to us as the Bermuda Triangle.  There's a prophecy that Percy is destined to either save or destroy Olympus, so he, Annabeth, Tyson and Grover the Satyr (Brandon T. Jackson) embark on a quest to recover the Fleece.  Another demigod, Luke (Jake Abel, who might as well be called young-Kevin Bacon), who I guess was presumed dead, also wants the Fleece.  He needs it to resurrect Kronos, the father of Zeus, Hades and Poseidon.  You still with me?

One thing I couldn't get out of my head at the beginning of the film is that this camp is full of the half-blood children of Olympian gods.  Are they all deadbeat dads?  They just go around spraying their seed everywhere and then ditching the mothers.  Classy.  A running subplot in the film is that Percy has been trying to communicate with his father, Poseidon, only to never get any response.  Later in the film when they catch up with Hermes (Nathan Fillion), he reveals that he's Luke's father, but not that he's Darth Vader, which would have been awesome.  He tells Percy to tell Luke to apologize for not being around and not to be angry at the world for his mistakes.  Hermes is too busy to tell him?  Later on, even Luke asks why Hermes couldn't tell him directly.  So yeah, the Olympian gods are terrible fathers.  Fillion's appearance was the highlight of the film though, and I would have totally given the whole thing a pass if anyone would have called him "Darth" as a joke.  "Will you deliver this message to my son, Luke?"  "I'll be sure to let him know, Darth."

I said earlier that the protective shield going down didn't feel like that much of a threat, and that's probably one of the biggest problems with Sea of Monsters.  There's no urgency at all to this quest, and you don't feel that there are any real stakes.  Any mistake is immediately corrected, and nobody dies or sustains any permanent injury, so it never feels like there are any consequences.  Finally, we reach the climax and Kronos swallows a character whole.  For a second I thought things were about to get real, but then a good guy is swallowed and you already know that they're both going to come out okay.  Plus, the power of the Fleece was to heal anything.  Moments later, Annabeth is stabbed while they are still in possession of the Fleece, yet they still go through the exercise of pretending she dies?  We know the Fleece is going to bring her back.  It's all pointless.

While on this quest, they always seemed to be winging it without any distinct plan.  There are a few times Percy leaps into action only to quickly find that he's backed into a corner without any way out.  How do you plan on getting out of this, Percy?  He always does though, sometimes being saved by some random object or character that you had no idea was anywhere around.  Then you see that Percy has really powerful control over the ocean, and I had to wonder why he didn't just lead with that.  If you have that kind of power, why not use it right up front?

Based on the acting, it didn't seem like anyone cared about the film.  Everyone feels like they are going through the motions.  Then again, there's no real depth or growth to the characters, and they are generally uninteresting.  Percy spends much of the film wondering if he's good enough or strong enough, but this is just kind of glossed over with any defining moment.  Besides Nathan Fillion, the other bright spot was Stanley Tucci, but he's always great.  He has a running gag of forgetting everyone's name, which was the only thing I found humorous about the movie.  Then again, maybe he forgot everyone's name because he didn't want to be there either and didn't bother memorizing them.

I can't blame the cast for not being all that invested when having to recite such awful, lifeless dialog.  This is some of the worst dialog I've seen in a while.  All the attempts at humor fall flat, and it's irritating because there were times where you could hear a funnier version of something said in your head, or imagine that a slightly different character reaction would have made all the difference.  I wonder how long ago Marc Guggenheim wrote this screenplay and why they didn't bring someone in to try and punch it up.  There's nothing clever or witty about it at all.  This is the guy that wrote Green Lantern though, so that might tell you something.

The special effects varied from decent looking to really awful.  The budget was around $90 million, so I guess it's passable for what they had to work with.  Some of the visual effects were for things that had no real point.  The aforementioned bull seemed to only exist in the movie because they really wanted to have a Transformer for the kids.  Some of the centaur and satyr effects were painful to look at.  There's a giant cyclops at the end that looked like something that would have barely been passable in a TV movie, or something that came out ten years ago.  I'd say the best effect were how unnaturally blue they got Alexandra Daddario's eyes to look, but those are all hers.  How is she not a bigger star?  Would someone please put her in something decent?

Ultimately, this is a kid's film and I could see my nephews really enjoying it.  I'm just disappointed that this didn't strive for something more.  You can make a fantasy film that appeals to more than just kids.  Director Thor Freudenthal (yes, Thor) has only directed kid's films up to this point and you can tell.  There are parts of the film that I can't imagine any adult enjoying, like the cab scene, which I found extremely irritating.  It's mercifully only about and hour and forty minutes, so I wasn't completely bored with it or caught myself checking my watch.

It's not so bad that I was angry, but Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters is a dated, lame movie that felt like something that should have gone direct to video or would have been better suited to TV.  The story and characters give you nothing to care about, and I can't recommend anything about it.  It's harmless, but little more than eye candy for kids.  I'd advise you to pass it, but it's safe enough to rent for your kids at some point.  Don't waste your hard earned money to see this in the theater, or you might encourage them to make another, and they teased another sequel at the end.  Don't do it!

1.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

The Company You Keep (2013)

The company you keep, you put yourself above.  I'm on to you!  I still have a soft spot for Hurricane...

Not that the hair-band Hurricane has anything to do with The Company You Keep, the latest Robert Redford directed film, based off a Lem Dobbs screenplay, which was based off the (presumably boring) book of the same name by Neil Gordon.

I might have just played my hand with the previous paragraph, but that pretty much sums up my thoughts on the film.  It's boring.  The Company You Keep is one of those films where they've assembled a great cast of pros (it's well acted at least), then setup a what appears to be a nice thriller/mystery, only to have it play out extremely slowly, with each reveal having no real impact.  This, again, is compounded by the fact this poorly paced film is over two hours.  BROKEN RECORD!  Hey, who said that?  At first glance, when you see the people involved in making the film, and the great cast, you think it might be an early Oscar contender.  Unfortunately, that isn't what we got here.

The Company You Keep begins with Sharon Solarz (Susan Sarandon) being arrested.  We learn that she was a former member of a radical group wanted for a bank robbery and murder of a bank guard nearly 30 years ago.  Local reporter Ben Shepard (Shia LaBeouf) investigates and finds that Sharon was about to turn herself in anyway, and through friends tried to get a local lawyer, Jim Grant (Redford), to take the case.  Grant wasn't interested in the case even though it seemed like something in his wheelhouse.  Shepard presses on, only to find that Grant was also involved in the radical group, and was a suspect in the same bank robbery.  Don't worry, this isn't a spoiler to tell you this.

Grant goes on the run, contacting estranged friends and family in the effort to find Mimi (Julie Christie), a former partner of Grant's.  We aren't sure exactly why Grant is so desperate to find her, but upon seeing that Grant is wanted by the police, she goes out on her own to find him.

This is where The Company You Keep let me down.  You've got all these threads going on with Grant and Mimi, then The Beef (that's what I call LaBeouf) investigating, and the FBI (led by Terrence Howard) hot on their trail, but there's never any urgency to it.  Plot threads and characters are just dropped without any resolution or given much development.  It felt like a TV series that was meant to stretched into a season long arc, but was streamlined to only be two or three episodes.  You might think that means it has a frenetic pace with all the things going on, yet we got the opposite.  It's so slow that I actually had to fight off falling asleep for much of the the last third of the film.  Plus, the conclusion is so anti-climactic that you're left wondering why you bothered sitting through it all.

I'm not sure if this was an issue of the book not translating well, or maybe having to condense too much of it to fit into a movie.  There isn't even an entry for the book or author on Wikipedia, so my research is limited.  From what I can see on Amazon, the book's synopsis seems to have a much different setup than how the movie was, so perhaps too much was changed for the sake of adapting it.  It's shame because I really like Lem Dobbs as a writer, but it looks like he really misses working with Steven Soderbergh (they've done at least three films together).  I don't even think Robert Redford did that bad of a job directing, as he did a good job with the actors, and managed to make it interesting enough in the first half.

It is really well acted though.  Redford is great, as well as Julie Christie.  As hard as I am on The Beef, I actually thought he had the right blend of arrogance, mixed with an honest drive to uncover the truth.  The supporting cast is fleshed out with actors like Stephen Root, Nick Nolte, Brit Marling, Stanley Tucci, Chris Cooper, Anna Kendrick, Richard Jenkins, Sam Elliott and Brendan Gleeson.  When you have such notable actors in smaller roles, you tend to think their characters may be more significant to the actual story, and are disappointed when they aren't in it more or aren't fleshed out enough.  It's just a shame to not see these people get something meatier to work with.  It makes me wonder if Redford just called in a bunch of favors to fill out his cast, or the actors just really wanted to work with him.  Can't say I blame any of them though.

The Company You Keep is yet another well-acted film with a star studded cast, but unfortunately the story comes up way short with its slow pacing and disappointing resolution.  It's not a bad movie, but it is pretty forgettable.  I actually saw this over a week ago and forgot that I never got around to posting my review.  This is not something you need to rush out and see, and has rental written all over it.

2.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Jack the Giant Slayer (2013) - Movie Review

What if I told you that Obi-Wan Kenobi, Al Swearengen, Beast from X-Men: First Class and the Dad from Easy A were all in a movie together?  Slam dunk, eh?

Actually, that's not totally respectful to Stanley Tucci, but I couldn't think of his character's name from The Hunger Games.  Could anyone though, except for you nerdy book-readers?  I'm kidding of course, as I'm actually reading The Hunger Games right now.  What the hell was I talking about again?  Oh yeah, Jack the Giant Slayer.

Jack the Giant Slayer is the latest in the re-imaging of classic fairly tales, combining elements from both "Jack and the Beanstalk" and "Jack the Giant Killer".  This is one of the times where I felt the expansion on the existing tale worked well.  You get a little more backstory about their world and then they added more typical fantasy elements. It's done in a way that felt natural to the story.  It still manages to not be all that deep, so I didn't feel afterwards that this was a world I wanted to visit again.

The basic premise hasn't changed.  Jack (Nicholas Hoult) is an orphaned farmboy living with his uncle.  He's sent into town to sell off a horse and cart.  The cart gets stolen right away, and then a monk dupes him into trading the horse for a small pouch of useless, 'magic' beans.  Yes, Jack is kind of a screw up.  Jack does (unsuccessfully) try to defend the honor of Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson), so at least he's a nice guy.  It turns out Isabelle is a princess who is expected to marry Roderick (Stanley Tucci), but she's not having it and wants to have adventures of her own.

This leads to her getting lost and finding Jack's house.  While taking shelter from the rain, one of the beans gets wet and a giant beanstalk grows upwards rejoining the human and giant realms.  Isabelle is carried away to the giant realm, so the King (Ian McShane) orders a small group of soldiers, let by Elmont (Ewan McGregor) to rescue her.  However, the giants haven't forgotten the humans (the humans have forgotten all about them) and how delicious they taste, so they are anxious to get back down to the human realm for some snacking.  It's up to Jack, the nice screwup, and Obi-Wan to stop them.

The main issue I had with Jack the Giant Slayer was that I felt it was all kind of lifeless.  There's no zip at all to the dialog, and not much chemistry between any of the characters.  I think it's the same problem the Star Wars prequels had in that there's so much CG that the actors don't react naturally to what's going on around them since nothing is actually there.  I will say that the CG is good, actually great in a few places, but I still got that sterile feeling I get from movies that use too much of it.  It's like The Hobbit, where sometimes you feel like you're watching a video game cutscene.

Another issue I had was that you have this great cast, and then don't really get to do much.  I was hoping that Ewan McGregor would get to show his swashbuckling, Jedi swordplay chops (even though I still hate Obi-Wan for what he did to me), but he doesn't get much of a chance to fight.  He actually loses his sword pretty early on in the movie, and then in the one hand-to-hand fight he has it's with Stanley Tucci, who's holding his own against him, despite not being a trained soldier.  You'd think a trained soldier would be able to beat the crap out of an aristocrat in like two seconds.  Stanley Tucci plays 'obviously evil guy' and has a creepy henchman (Ewan Bremner). They were about as generic as villains can get.  I was disappointed that there wasn't much to Ian McShane's character either.  There's just not much for him to do other than deliver his lines.  He seemed kind of bored with it.

I did like Nicholas Hoult and Eleanor Tomlinson (who reminds of me of a young Rachel Weisz), even though I didn't think there was a ton of chemistry between the two.  They are attractive and easy enough to like, but again, there's just not that much beneath the surface of their characters.

I'm going to harp on the dialog again.  It's actually not bad, but it's disappointing that there wasn't anything really clever about it.  Most of the humor came from fart jokes, and I only heard kids laughing at those moments.  There's this scene at the end (it's in the trailer, but maybe I'm remembering it wrong from the film), where the main giant catches Jack and he goes, "Who are you?"  Jack replies defiantly, "It's Jack!"  As if the giant knows who Jack is, or that should mean something to him.  Dialog really fails when it's just for the audience, and not for the characters in the film.  It would have been great if the giant replied, "And that means 'what' to me?"  The screenplay by Darren Lemke, Dan Studney and Christopher McQuarrie (never a good sign when there's three writers), really needed some punch up.  I'm surprised especially with McQuarrie's involvement, as he has written some great stories in the past.

When I heard Bryan Singer was involved, I took that as a mark of quality, as I figured he was just producing.  I was very surprised to see he actually directed it, as I didn't think he would have made something that's so clearly a kids film.  There is a lot of action and with the effects being as good as they are, that aspect of the film is entertaining and it's biggest strength. Jack the Giant Slayer isn't boring and well paced for a two hour film.

Even though this is PG-13, I didn't think there were any particularly scary images, and I didn't see any of the kids in the audience covering their eyes.  It'll depend on the kid, of course, but it might be a little too much for kids under 5.  The whole movie I thought about how much my nephews (8 and 5) would like it.  Contrast this with both X-Men and X-Men 2, which were both PG-13, and while also not bloody, both films felt so much more adult.  There are a lot of deaths in the film, but the film was largely bloodless or the camera cuts away at the point of impact.  Most of the deaths are of the video game variety, and involve disposable 'red shirt' characters.  The characters are so disposable that they didn't even bother with giving them decent names, if they were given names at all.  One of the guards name was "Bald".  Yes, he was bald.  I kept waiting for "Four Eyes" and "Porkins" to show up.  Anyway, I really think they could have gotten away with giving this one a PG rating.

Jack the Giant Slayer is sometimes fun and has really good effects, but ultimately a little too flat to be considered great.  They assembled a great cast, but then didn't give them much to do or anything interesting to say. If there had been a little more wit about it, then I think this would have had a much broader appeal, but it's ultimately a kids film. If you have a kid in that 5-12 range, then I think you can take them to a matinee and won't be too bored yourself. For anyone else, this is a rental.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars

The Hunger Games - Movie Review

In the future, poor kids will kill each other for our entertainment.  Sure, I'm over simplifying, but that's essentially what the Games from The Hunger Games are.

As always, this will likely be a shorter review, as I'm going to try to avoid spoilers as much as I can.  Also, as someone who has not read the books, I won't be doing any comparisons between the two or complaining about stuff left out.  Although, I will say that after watching The Hunger Games, I'm interested in reading them and that's a good thing.

Set in the distant future, how distant I don't think was stated in the movie, The Hunger Games are about a society that developed after some kind of uprising or war.  The victor of this conflict is now an elite class.  They live in a completely different world as far as luxury and technology and rule over the lower classes.  The losing side was divided up into different districts to be what appeared be worker classes for the elite class.  They live in broken down houses, dress like they are from the 1800's, and always seem to be on the verge of starvation.  The elite class look like something out of a Katy Perry video.

To commemorate this failed uprising, each year two teens from each District are picked to compete in the Hunger Games, a televised fight to death where only one comes out alive.  The winner is promised fame and fortune.  From District 12, you have Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), who volunteers when her younger sister is initially picked, and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson).  One thing that doesn't seem to have changed in the future is giving kids weird names.  Katniss and Peeta, and Peeta is a boy's name?  When pronounced in the movie it sounds more like 'Peter', but seeing Peeta on paper looks like a girls name to me.

Anyway, after being picked, they are groomed and trained by several people who explain to them that the best way to win is get sponsors, who can send you aid during the games.  This leads the characters to do things down the line that they do more to appease the audience watching, than out of their own desires.  After a short time of training, they are thrown into the Games, which are supposed to last about two weeks, unless someone kills everyone else first.

The Hunger Games is a slow burn.  It takes a bit to get out of the gate, but they use that time effectively to establish the leads and the world they live in.  Once it really gets going, I got lost in the movie.  You really feel the tension once the Games begin.

What makes The Hunger Games stand out is it's successful balance of so many different elements.  You have a little bit of class warfare, a dystopian future, reality TV and even a love triangle.  Plus, you have a strong central character in Katniss.  What I liked about Katniss is that despite the events around her, she felt very grounded in reality and willing to do whatever it takes to win.

I do have some minor complaints about the film though...

I didn't mind the shaky cam work when there was running, but there's a particular scene where there are lots of close cuts and you really can't see what's going on.  You know what's happening, but I think it would have had more of an impact if you could truly see the brutality of it.  I understand they likely had to tame things down to have a PG-13 rating and reach a broader audience.  Considering how brutal I heard the books were, I was just kind of surprised they didn't go for it a little more.

I would have liked to see a little more development of some of the other kids involved in the Games.  I don't know if they were fleshed out in the book, but when these kids die, it would have more of an impact if you actually knew something about them or had a reason to care.  In the movie some of these kids feel disposable because of that.  It's similar to the whole 'Red Shirt' thing where the character that gets no screen time, dialog or character development is probably going to be the one to die first.

Also, it felt like there were many things about the world that were glossed over or barely explained for the sake of time.  I know not all the details from the book can make it into the movie, but I just would have like a little more explanation of a few things.  It didn't ruin my enjoyment of the film though, as it didn't cause me to be confused about character motivation or the basic plot (I'm looking at you John Carter).  These minor details are something that I hope might be fleshed out in an extended or director's cut.  At 2 hours and 22 minutes, I don't mind a few things being cut here and there so I'm not the theater for 3 hours, but I wouldn't mind a longer version once it hits Blu-Ray/DVD.

The ending was a little flat and felt like too obvious of a setup for a sequel.  This is clearly going to get one at this point, but making a movie assuming there will be a sequel can sometimes undermine the storytelling and having a self-contained movie.

As far as comparisons go, I felt there was a lot of The Truman Show in here, more than it was like The Running Man (although there are comparisons there as well).  I actually thought the way the story was told and the pacing actually reminded me of A New Hope in that you spend a good portion of the movie getting to know Katniss before stuff really starts to happen.

The performances are great, but this is Jennifer Lawrence's film.  There are many times in the movie where the look on her face tells you everything you need to know about how she's feeling at that moment.  It was very effective.  I enjoyed a lot of the supporting roles.  Elizabeth Banks was unrecognizable, but funny.  Stanley Tucci looks like he had a lot of fun playing the blue-haired TV host.  I got a kick out of Woody Harrelson as their mentor as well.  The guy that actually surprised me the most was Lenny Kravitz.  While, he only plays a style consultant, I felt like he cared very much about Katniss.  He gave a pretty good performance, for a musician.  Liam Hemsworth (Thor's brother), the forgotten man in the love triangle between him, Katniss and Peeta, seemed underused as far as making for an effective love triangle.  Perhaps this was explained better in the book or is expanded on in the sequels.

With so much going on here, I am impressed they managed to make it work.  I credit the direction of Gary Ross for successfully pulling it off.  He shared writing credits with Billy Ray and Suzanne Collins, who was also the writer of the novels.  I think in this case, having her involved in the screenplay was a smart choice.  Another cool thing, and maybe this was me, but I felt like the movie's score was very sparse.  They let the characters and situations speak for themselves, rather than manipulate you with a sweeping score.

Overall, I thought The Hunger Games was a very entertaining movie.  It struck a good balance of action, emotion and even social commentary.  It's a little more mature than your typical 'young adult' movie, and because of that I think it has a very broad appeal.  I strongly recommend checking it out this weekend.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars.