Out of the Furnace (2013)

Out of the Furnace opens and closes with a nondescript Pearl Jam song.  It sounded like a slower version of "Elderly Woman Behind the Counter in a Small Town" combined with "Dissident", only with more Vedder mumbling.  The credits listed it as "Release", and twice for some reason.  Were they different versions of the same song?  Is this something that only the most detailed-oriented Pearl Jam fans would notice?  My friends that are fans will probably be mad at me for saying so, but was their music always so generic and depressing?  Am I remembering their early stuff wrong?  I had to do some research to find that "Release" was a hidden track from Ten, an album that I still own, but I guess I don't have a version that has "Release".

Look at that, one paragraph in and I'm already way off topic.  I bring this up because the song really seemed to set the tone for the film, and not in a good way.  Out of the Furnace is a film I've been looking forward to for a while though.  The cast alone intrigued me, but this is also the next film from Scott Cooper, whose directorial debut was Crazy Heart, a film I enjoyed a great deal.

Russell Baze (Christian Bale) works in a factory in a very small town in the Northeast.  When I first heard his name, I heard it as "Blaze", which would have been so much cooler.  He's close with his younger brother Rodney (Casey Affleck), who's on active military duty, but also appears to have a gambling problem.  They have a sick father that they both look after as much as they can.

One thing that struck me as a little odd was that based on the town, the cars, and overall look of the film, I thought this took place in the 70's.  Even the very opening scene is set in a drive-in (where I didn't recognize the film playing as The Midnight Meat Train).  You then see a TV broadcast from a Democratic primary referring to electing Obama, so that would mean this is more like 2008.

While driving drunk, Russell hits a car that's backing out of a side road.  Now I'm not condoning drunk driving, but the way the accident was presented, it seemed like the kind of accident that could have happened to anyone, especially late at night when you take your eyes off the road for a second.  Russell is sent to prison, and here's where I started having issues with the film's concept of time and glossing over things.  We see no trial, and I don't think a single mention of the length of his sentence is made.  We jump straight from the scene of the accident to him already being in prison.

Once in prison, he keeps his head down and tries to get back on track.  For some reason, another inmate decides to pick a fight with him, but there didn't seem to be any purpose to this.  It wasn't the start of a string of fights, or something that forces him to join a gang.  There's no consequence to this, so you watch it and think, "Okay, that's something that happened."  In pretty much the very next scene, he's out of prison already.  We still don't know how long he was in.  Many details like this throughout the film are skipped without any explanation or development.  It as if Out of the Furnace was originally intended to be a much longer film, and then had to cut a bunch to get it under two hours.  In fact, this would have been an interesting series on TV, where you could have spent more time developing the characters, time with Russell in prison, Rodney's military service, their relationship with their father, etc.  It felt very underwritten as is.

Anyway, Rodney's military service is done, but is having problems finding work, so he turns to the shady world of underground fighting.  You'd think that this was something that Russell could have gotten involved in, as he also might've had a hard time finding work after prison, and sometimes inmates take up boxing.  Instead, Russell urges Rodney to get a job at the factory and not get mixed up in that world.  Against his friend John Petty's (Willem Dafoe) judgement, they take a fight ran by Harlan DeGroat (Woody Harrelson), a psychopath you don't want to find yourself owing money to.  Rodney goes missing and when it appears there's not much the authorities can, or will, do, Russell goes looking for him.  At this point, you think the film is finally going to pick up and become some kind of revenge thriller, but it builds no tension at all.  That's really the biggest problem with Out of the Furnace; it's slowly paced and doesn't go anywhere satisfying.  The entire tone of the film is very dour.

Out of the Furnace does have a great cast and is well acted though.  Christian Bale is great as he always is, but this is slow pitch softball for someone of his skill.  Casey Affleck as also good, as is Sam Shepard and Willem Dafoe.  Zoe Saldana is in the film briefly, and shares a very emotional scene with Bale after Russell is released from prison.  I heard many people crying around me during the scene, but I had no emotional connection with the characters at this point.  This is mainly because Saldana's character is not developed at all beyond being "the ex-girlfriend."  You see very little of their relationship before Russell goes to prison, and by the time he's out, she's already moved on and now hooking up with the local police chief (Forest Whitaker).  One of the best and bright spots of the film was Woody Harrelson, whose inspired performance make him feel like a rabid animal.  It's a reminder of the rule that it's more fun to play the bad guy.

Out of the Furnace is a gritty looking film and dependably acted, but its plodding pace and lack of tension prevents it from having any real effect or impact.  It simply fizzles out and unfortunately ends up being something very forgettable.  It's not the worst thing in the world, but better saved for rental.

2.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

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

Now You See Me (2013)

I actually saw Now You See Me several days ago, but I had a detour in Las Vegas, where money magically disappeared from my wallet.  While in Vegas I thought about the last movie based on magicians I saw, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, which was set in Vegas, whereas Now You See Me varies the locale throughout the film.

Despite having a few days to reflect on the film, I find I don't have that much more to say about it, or that my opinion has changed all that much.  I did, however, realize that despite that Now You See Me wasn't a comedy, I actually laughed more than I did while watching Burt Wonderstone.

Now You See Me is an example of a movie that I was expecting to be so awful that I'm probably giving this a little more credit than I should simply because it wasn't a disaster.  The setup alone was already something that was making me cringe a little.  Four magicians of various skill sets - played by Jesse Eisenberg, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco, Woody Harrelson - are brought together by an unknown benefactor.  A year after meeting they perform in Vegas rebranded as "The Four Horsemen".  During their performance, they are able to rob a bank in Paris, giving the money back to the audience in attendance.

FBI Agent Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) is brought in to investigate along with Interpol Agent Vargas (Mélanie Laurent).  They aren't able to make anything stick to the Four Horsemen, and charging them with the crime would indicate that the FBI now believes in magic.  Knowing there's an explanation for all of this, Rhodes and Vargas meets with Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman), and ex-magician that makes a living by exposing the secrets of other magicians.  Bradley explains to Rhodes how they pulled off the first trick, but that the Four Horsemen have been planning for a long time and will likely always be a step ahead of the FBI.

You'll find that the story spends more time focusing on Mark Ruffalo's and his Keystone Cops antics than the Horsemen.  His character also seemed to be excessively angry at times, although some of that made a little sense by the end of the film.  Overall, the plot gets little muddled as it goes on and inconsistencies pop up.  I felt like resolution of the film wasn't very satisfying and a few things were left unanswered.  Oddly, this didn't bug me that much, and that's probably due to the fact that I had enjoyed the movie so much up until that point, that a few inconsistencies weren't enough to ruin it for me.

The main reason why I enjoyed the film so much is that the dialog is actually very snappy and funny.  I was really expecting a much more serious film, so the humor was a pleasant surprise.  The pace of the film is also very brisk with more action and chases than I expected.  I didn't realize going into Now You See Me that it was directed by Louis Leterrier, who's directed films like the first two Transporter films and Unleashed.  It looks like he went into his bag of tricks to add some action elements and it served the film well.  You know what I just realized?  Louis Leterrier directed Edward Norton's The Incredible Hulk, and directed Mark Ruffalo in this film, who was The Avengers' Hulk.  Does mean we should expect Eric Bana in Leterrier's next film?

Another really strong element of the film was that there's great chemistry between the Four Horseman.  The cast, especially Woody Harrelson, seemed to be having a lot of fun together and you really feel that on screen.  Despite the good chemistry, there's not a lot of character development.  At the end of the film, we really don't know nothing about this group of people. Again, I wasn't terribly upset by this, but fleshing out the foursome would have been nice.

Now You See Me is a surprisingly entertaining film, that has a great pace, funny dialog, and a good cast that plays well off each other.  The story is definitely the weak point, but I think you'll have enough fun with the film that you won't notice or bug you too much.  I think it's worth a matinee.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars

Seven Psychopaths (2012) - Movie Review

When it comes to movies, psychopaths are just more interesting, and this movie has seven of them.  Seven for the price of one!  But, wait, there's more...

Marty (Colin Farrell) is a writer that's struggling to finish a screenplay titled "Seven Psychopaths".  It's an example of coming up with a great title before you've figured out what the story is.  He hasn't even figured out who all of the seven psychopaths are going to be.  His best friend Billy (Sam Rockwell) desperately wants to help Marty write the screenplay and tries to inspire him any way he can.  Billy also runs a dognapping scam with his partner Hans (Christopher Walken).  Hans is using the money to pay his sick wife's hospital bills.

Things escalate when they kidnap the Shih Tzu of a local mob boss, Charlie (Woody Harrelson).  Charlie will stop at nothing to get his dog back and goes on the warpath tracking them down.  It doesn't take too long before he figures out who's behind the kidnapping, but finding them is a different story.

Seven Psychopaths is a good example of when the trailer does a good job of not revealing too much about the movie or even cluing you in as to what kind of movie it is.  I'll try not to spoil it for you, but forgive me if I give too much away.  The movie has a very meta quality to it.  As it's a movie about a guy writing a screenplay for a movie of the same name, you get that whole movie within a movie thing.  There's lots of discussion between the characters about the movie, and you think that Marty should be able to draw inspiration from all the craziness around him.  You may wonder by the end if you're watching the actual movie Marty has written, or is the movie just about him writing it.  I'm more in line with the second, but the movie has enough ambiguity to allow you to make your own decision about it.

Written and directed by Martin McDonagh, who also did In Bruges. It shares that same offbeat, violent style.  It even has a bit of a noir feel to it.  The dialog is extremly funny, zany and clever. With it's darkly hilarious and bloody, hyper-violence it evokes similarities to Tarantino films. Martin McDonagh is quickly becoming one of my favorite writers and directors, and hope we don't have to wait another 4 years for his next film.

Sam Rockwell has long been a favorite actor of mine, and this is one of his finest performances.  He's brilliantly nutty.  I know comedic roles don't generally get a lot of love at Oscar time, but I think it's worthy of consideration.  I would not be surprised at all to see him get some Oscar or Golden Globe love soon.  Every scene he's in he's just so energetic and commanding.

Colin Ferrell gives another great performance in another McDonagh movie, and is mainly the counterpoint to Rockwell throughout the movie.  It's interesting that the trailer calls Marty 'the seemingly normal one'; keyword there being 'seemingly'.  He's an alcoholic and often does not remember things he did the night before.  Even Billy thinks he needs to quit drinking, but like all alcoholics, Marty doesn't think there's an issue.  He's normal relative to the others in the movie, but not normal compared to 'normal'.

I've always loved Christopher Walken and his deadpan delivery, and this is him at his Walkeniest. What else can I say about him.  Walken is the man!  As the movie progress, you learn more about his dark past and why he's now the 'non-violent' one.  His character is the most sympathetic.

Woody Harrelson also very funny as the mob boss.  He's another actor that seems to be enjoying a career renaissance lately, and he gets to play a character that initially starts out as extremely violent, but then seems shocked by the psychotic actions of those he's dealing with.

Tom Waits also has a great thread as one of the psychopaths.  He answers an add placed by Billy looking for stories for Marty's screen play.  His story doesn't really play a part in the main plot, but it's a great little short story.  There are lots of little short stories throughout the movie that just kind of keep the movie interesting, and gives it an unusual pace.

Although they are listed as two of the psychopaths, Abbie Cornish (who I effing LOVE) and Olga Kurylenko are barely in it, and didn't really fit into the mold of a psychopath.  However, there's another meta part in the movie that explains their roles to a T.

I was a big fan of In Bruges, and McDonagh's Seven Psychopaths is an even better follow up.  It's dark, violent, insane, hilarious and features some of the better performances I've seen this year. This is one of my favorite films of the year and one that I think you'll want to watch multiple times.

5 (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.