Red Desert is a film that seems to have a lot going for it. It’s made by a filmmaker with a great reputation, it’s impressively photographed, and it’s theme of industrial alienation should be interesting. The only thing missing is a pulse. Perhaps a sense of direction. This film almost seems to me like it would work better as a desktop background than as a film to watch.

Still suffering from the mental effects after an automobile accident, Giuliana (Monica Vitti) wanders an industrial area of Italy, trying to find a grip of herself.  She feels like she’s drowning in the world, and is joined by a man with similar issues.

This is the second film I’ve seen from Antonioni, along with his film Blow-Up (another film reviewed on this page). While I liked Blow-Up considerably more than Red Desert, I feel both films share some qualities. They’re both visually interesting, but left me completely cold. It seems to me that in his quest to identify alienation, he’s alienated me, always pushing me away, no matter how much I try go find something to hold on to.

My attempts to grasp the films through their protagonists has failed before, and continued to do so here. In Blow-Up, I found the David Hemmings character, Thomas, to be so off putting and unlikeable, that I felt Blow-Up was a good movie despite him. Here, our main focus is on Giuliana, played by a staple of Antonioni’s films, Monica Vitti. She’s lovely to look at, and I don’t think she’s bad here, but the character is so dull, it’s hard to keep interest in what she’s doing. It’s almost as if Antonioni simply thought that her beautiful features would fit in with his visual scheme. Perhaps a ray of beauty in a bleak and grey world.

So far, I have enjoyed Michelangelo Antonioni as a visual artist, someone who was capable of showing fantastic imagery to tell his story.  He properly captures the bleak cityscape in tones of grey and brown.  What I doubt is his ability to have an interesting story to tell (or in Blow-Up’s case, being able to fully tell the interesting story he has). In the end, I’d say Red Desert commits my one of my cinematic cardinal sins: Thou shalt not bore.

The Bottom Line:   Red Desert left me feeling like it’s main character, disinterested and isolated.

What separates Jonathan Demme’s film, The Silence of the Lambs, from other films in it’s genre is it’s focus.  Many other thrillers about murderers and madmen focus mainly on the grotesque, trying to unnerve the audience through the vile acts of it’s monsters.  The Silence of the Lambs has plenty nauseating moments, but what makes them different is that they are filtered through what the true focus of the film is: the growth of it’s protagonist, Clarice Starling.  Every unsettling moment we’re put through as a viewer is another test for Starling, who must realize the strength she contains inside.

In an attempt to get some insight on serial killer “Buffalo Bill”, who has been killing and skinning women, Special Agent Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn), the head of the FBI’s behavioral sciences division, enlists the aid of FBI cadet Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster).  She must travel to Baltimore, to meet with the incarcerated sociopath Hannibal Lecter, a cannibal who is also a brilliant psychiatrist, to get assistance on the case.  However, Lecter demands information on her life in exchange for information on Buffalo Bill.

Hannibal Lecter was named the #1 greatest villain in movie history by the American Film Institute, and has become a figure in pop culture.  Everybody knows some of his lines (misquoted or not…).  He projects so much in his limited screen time, we would never guess he was on screen less than 20 minutes.  This is a testament to Anthony Hopkins, who leaves such an indelible impression.  He has said that his inspiration for the role was HAL-9000 from Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece, 2001: A Space Odyssey.  This makes complete sense.  Both Hannibal Lecter and HAL are brilliant, but unfeeling.  Perhaps neither of them are human.  However, Lecter maintains a panache than is undeniable.  We hear about the horrible things that he’s done, and we’ll see horrible things he’ll eventually do, but for whatever reason, we still like him, no matter what he does.  Is it the same morbid fascination that makes people read or watch programs on serial killers?  I think it’s due to the bits of humanity he shows in his conversations with Clarice.

Clarice’s interactions with Lecter are among the most engrossing scenes in the last 30 years in cinema.  Lecter cares for Clarice, because she interests him.  I get the idea that he dislikes most of the people who try to interview him, because they either fear or condemn him.  Clarice speaks to him as a person.  At one point, when Lecter states that he didn’t keep souvenires from his victims, she cooly responds, “No, you ate yours.”  He seems taken aback by her unflinching honesty.  While she is frightened and nervous, she tries to keep her cool in front of him.  In one of the most memorable scenes in the movie, during their first meeting, Lecter effortlessly breaks her life down, cutting her to the quick.  The look in her eyes shows how devastated she is, but she quickly chokes her feelings back to respond.  She waits until she gets to the asylum parking lot before crying.

At it’s heart, The Silence of the Lambs is very much a feminist film.  Clarice Starling is constantly surrounded by men, towering over her, and always looking.  Jonathan Demme decided to have people who talk to Clarice look directly into the camera, while she never does.  This helps put the audience in her shoes, whether they notice it or not.  At many points in the film, her instincts seem to tell her to shrink back, but her strength forces her to push ahead.  The first time she visits Lecter, as the gate to his cell block crashes behind her, she jumps, and looks back.  At this moment, she feels trapped, and seems to want to turn back, but she gathers herself, and makes her way to the monster ahead of her.

The central villain of this piece is the anti-feminist, Buffalo Bill.  He’s a walking contradiction, a man who values women only as objects, but wants to be one himself.  When no institution will allow him to get a sexual reassignment surgery, he decides to go a more grotesque route.  He is an amalgam of three real life madmen:  Ted Bundy, Gary Heidnik, and Ed Gein.  He is everything Clarice is not, and we know that they must eventually meet face to face.  It’s like in a fairy tale:  the knight in shining armor must defeat the dragon. 

This movie was overdue for a review from me, because it holds a special place in my heart.  It’s my favorite film of all time, and contains my favorite character in cinema history, Clarice Starling.  Some people will be turned off by the gruesome elements of the film, but I think they could grasp onto the story at the center of the film.  The growth of the greatest female hero we’ve seen in movies.

It’s always difficult to review a movie that leaves you somewhat speechless. Danish director Lars Von Trier’s first English language movie exists on a strange plane. It just didn’t feel to me like a real movie, more like I was watching life, with all it’s ups and downs. This is one of the most heartwrenching films I’ve seen in a long time, and frankly, I didn’t know Von Trier had it in him. I’ve seen a few of his films before, which are always well executed, but fairly distant and clinical. Breaking the Waves is on a different level, pulling the viewer into the life and struggle of a young woman.

Bess (Emily Watson) is a simple minded young woman, living in an extremely religious small community in Scotland. She marries an oilworker named Jan (Stellan Skarsgard), where she’s introduced to a world of passionate love. When an on the job accident results in a serious injury that leaves Jan bedridden and paralyzed, he asks Bess to find men and make love with them, and tell him about it, feeling that her love will keep him alive.

There are a multitude of issues brought up in this movie, but Von Trier is smart enough to simply tackle them head on. Maybe it would be best for people in the real world to analyze the problems in their lives, and find true solutions, but how often does that happen? Bess is naive and psychologically touched, and doesn’t seem to grasp these issues, namely the idea of doing something wrong if you feel good comes from it, and the difference between a religions beliefs and your own personal beliefs. It’s a movie that will keep you thinking, and I enjoyed the fact that it was separated into chapters, featuring little music breaks, giving me some down time to really think about what I’d just seen.

I can’t get through this review without mentioning Emily Watson’s powerful performance. It is simply one of the most genuine, heart-and-soul performances I’ve ever seen. In fact, I feel a bit disingenuous using the word “performance”. She doesn’t appear to be acting here, she is living the character, a character that watch do the wrong things for what she feels is the right reasons, and maintains our sympathy throughout. She’s brave enough to do these things, but not brave enough to look inward to see how she herself feels about these acts. In the beginning, she says she’s selfish, but we see her drag herself through the dirt for her husband, and we question how he can really ask her to do this for him.

I would also be remissed to not bring up Katrin Cartlidge, who plays Dodo, Bess’ sister-in-law. She manages to walk the line where she is the voice of reason in Bess’ life, without being constantly judgmental. She shows love for Bess, but also pity and fear. She is Bess’ rock, and she’s in charge of keeping Bess grounded. I thought she did a phenomenal job in a supporting role.

I’m so glad I picked this film, as it finally gave me the extra push to watch it. It’s a daunting task, as it’s 2 hours and 40 minutes of what I thought would be simply nihilistic domestic trouble, but I found so much more here. It is upsetting, but it’s so much more, and it’s a movie that won’t be leaving my mind anytime soon.

The Bottom Line:  Breaking the Waves is a brilliant film, led by a once-in-a-lifetime performance from Emily Watson, and Lars Von Trier’s considerable directoral talent. 

I will admit, leading up to it’s release, I was worried about Marvel’s The Avengers (which I will refer to as Avengers from this point on).  To me, it seemed like too many cooks.  I didn’t know how they would be able to give all of these characters equal time, while still being able to tell a strong story, and develop everything.  I now know that they were not quite able to do all that, but I was pleased to see that despite some shortcomings, The Avengers is a very fun movie, and a terrific addition to the comic book movie catalog.

When Asgardian demigod Loki comes to Earth, he proves to be a threat too powerful for the government agency S.H.I.E.L.D., and a group of heroes are assembled to defend the Earth.  Captain America, Thor (Loki’s brother), Iron Man, Black Widow, and Bruce Banner team up to face the threat, but can they learn to work together, or will their differing personalities make it impossible?  Adding to the stress is of course the fact that if Banner gets too angry, he’ll turn into an unstoppable green rampaging monster known as the Hulk.

The film provides plenty of excitement, and some really nice laughs.  I was pleased to see they kept a nice balance here, not falling into the cheese that has plagued so many Marvel films, but also avoiding the heavy handed moralizing that is so prevalent in Christopher Nolan’s Batman franchise.  The best thing I can say about The Avengers is this:  It’s fun.  That’s good, because that’s really what you’re looking for in a popcorn movie, right?  It features some real nice performances, especially from Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner, and Tom Hiddleston as Loki.  It also contains some poor to very bad performances:  I’m looking at you Scarlett. 

At some points, this movie did fall a bit flat to me.  There are some scenes where it was obvious the intention was to show that these people can’t work together.  Scenes where it’s just all the people standing in a room and arguing.  These scenes do not work as character development, just as hammy moments to push each characterization in the audiences face.  I also felt that at some points, the stakes of the film were lessened by a need for humor.  Loki is a great and threatening villain, but at many points, he’s made to look like a stooge in the name of comedy, which diminishes his presence, despite a strong performance by Hiddleston.  I liked the humor in the film for the most part, but at times it seemed like too much of a good thing.  Also, I felt the Captain America character was once again too one-dimensional, which is a shame, because I like the comic book character.

These are small issues I had with an otherwise well constructed and enjoyable summer movie, featuring some extremely good action sequences.

The Bottom Line:  People have been heading out in droves to see The Avengers, and for good reason.  It’s a very enjoyable film.

The Raid: Redemption is touted as a non-stop thrill ride, that is neither non-stop or fully thrilling, despite talented martial arts experts performing well choreographed fight scenes.  The issue here is that I have a limit to my patience when it comes to people kicking each other.  Once that patience wears out, what’s left for me?  A paper thin plot, and characters that are as well developed as the extras.

A team of police officers move in on a run down apartment building that houses a crime lord, and many of his criminal partners.  The building has been the target of attacks by rival gangs, to no avail, and at the behest of their superior officer Lieutenant Wahyu.  Among the group is Rama, a rookie SWAT officer whose pregnant wife is at home.  He has a secret link with somebody in the building.  But as things go wrong in their raid, they must fight their way out of the building that’s filled with dangerous criminals with weapons.

I say that Rama’s wife is pregnant at home, because that’s almost the full extent of his character development.  That way, we’re told that we need him to get out, because we don’t want the kid to grow up without a father.  I guess he looks like he’s a nice guy too.  All the characters in this movie are completely interchangeable, and act almost as martial arts props.  Maybe if they stab enough people, we won’t care about little things like plot.  Well, I didn’t take the bait this time.

I have to wonder something.  If you’re going to take the time to choreograph fight scenes so well, why not let the audience enjoy them?  I was trying to see what was happening, but director Gareth Evans was making it very difficult.  In the future, maybe he’ll learn that the hard work of these martial arts professionals is excitement enough, and he doesn’t need frantic camera movements and editing to try and spice it up.  All that does is make things worse.  I also just wish that if he wanted to just have a non-stop action film, just have the guts to do it.  The breaks in the action were just as incomprehensible as much of the action was itself, the audience you’re targeting isn’t going to respond to them no matter what.  After all, why talk when you can simply have another scene of people swinging machetes at each other?

All that being said, the fact of the matter is that The Raid: Redemption is pretty much review proof.  It’s going to have it’s audience no matter what, even if it clocked in at 0% on Rotten Tomatoes (it is currently at a mind-boggling 83%).  The people who want to see it will see it no matter what, and I’m sure most of them will enjoy it.  The young man in the tank top sitting behind me seemed to enjoy it, as I heard him exclaim about how awesome it was every time something happened.  My question is this: how many times do people have to get stabbed in the throat before it stops being awesome, and just becomes the usual in a movie?

The Bottom Line:  The Raid: Redemption is a mess story-wise, and what should have been the best part (the fight choreography) was dampened by poor direction.  But, if you really want to see it, this review isn’t going to stop you.

Revolutionary isn’t a word that should get thrown around too often in reference to a movie.  It’s one that I’ve seen bandied about in reference to the new horror comedy, Cabin in the Woods.  I will not be using it here.  I will say it’s interesting, inventive, and often times fun, but it’s not a game changer.  It’s not going to reinvent the genre any more than Tucker and Dale VS Evil did recently, another movie that flipped standard horror rules around.  It’s also not as clever or scary as Scream was in the 90’s, which for better or for worse spawned many imposters, most of which didn’t recreate the excitement of Scream.  Cabin in the Woods is what it is: an enjoyable night at the movies, despite its flaws.

Five young people go on a vacation deep in the woods, where one of their cousins has a cabin.  The people are all standard horror archetypes:  The slut, the jock, the stoner, the “nerd”, and the annoying stoner guy (emphasis on annoying).  What they don’t expect is that there’s something waiting for them at their destination that is going to put a damper on the festivities.

That’s all I’ll say, as I know that if I give away even the slightest detail, I’m in danger of being berated.  These standard character types are intentional I feel, playing on the classic horror roles, much like Scream did before.  The characters in Scream were the first horror movie characters we saw that were self aware, having watched all the horror movies that inspired it.  I wonder if the characters in Cabin in the Woods are as aware?  Do they realize how cliché they’re being?  They must not, or else they would have taken the classic horror movie warning at a gas station a little more seriously.  There are many things in this film that are quality writing and original, but the characters aren’t one of them.

On one hand, I was very intrigued throughout the movie to see what new twist was coming.  I wanted to see what would happen next.  Unfortunately, on the other hand, I found myself being disappointed by the twists as often as I was pleased by one.  Every time something happened that really brought me up, there was something around the corner that would bring me back to Earth.  The problem with attempting to be constantly keeping people guessing is that it’s hard to always come up with all the right answers.

One thing that helps is a few good performances.  Kristen Connelly is generally very good and likeable as Dana, the “virgin” character, bringing a touch of kindness and sympathy into a movie that’s generally filled with fairly reprehensible characters.  I enjoyed Richard Jenkins character thoroughly, as the talented actor proves yet again that it’s funnier to play things seriously than it is to ham it up a bit too much like his sidekick, Bradley Whitford.  It cannot be overstated enough how much I disliked Fran Kranz’s portrayal of Marty the pothead, who ranks among the most annoying movie characters I’ve seen in a while.

I feel somewhat bad that I’ve been so rough on this movie this review, as I did like it for the most part.  The flaws in it were too obvious to me to be able to fully get past them.  I usually don’t give a blanket statement to see a movie or not, but if I had to do that here, I’d say see it.  I think pretty much everybody will find something they like in it.

The movie really does go off the rails at the end, which is fun for a while, but once again, this is a horror movie where everything must be wrapped up and explained in the end.  I find it frustrating that this films whole identity is “Don’t read anything about this movie, don’t tell anybody anything about it!”, but then they go ahead and explain every event that happened in the movie.  I enjoyed the aspects of mystery throughout the film, and the explanation for it all left me wanting.

The Bottom Line:   Despite some definite flaws, and a horrible ending, Cabin in the Woods is an enjoyable enough movie, without many true scares, but some good humor and clever plotting.  Just cover your ears every time Marty opens his mouth.

When I gave my picks of some good movies to watch over Halloween, I suggested The Devil’s Backbone, Guillermo Del Toro’s 2001 film.  There are some parallels between The Devil’s Backbone and The Orphanage.  Guillermo Del Toro was involved in both (he was a producer on the latter).  Both take place in Spanish orphanages.  Both are ghost stories.  However, The Devil’s Backbone is the more consistent and rewarding story, although I would suggest checking out The Orphanage.

Laura was an orphan, living at a seaside orphanage until she was adopted.  Now, grown up, she returns to the shut down orphanage with her husband (Carlos), and young son (Simon).  She intends to make it into an orphanage for handicapped children, but the spirits of the past intervene.

I like to be scared by a movie.  Actually, I should say I like to be scared by a movie made by a director that knows how to truly scare.  I do not care for the Silent House’s of the world, movies predicated on having something jump out and scream.  These are shocks, not scares, and it is the cinematic equivalent of a peanut brittle can full of springy snakes.  These filmmakers don’t know the secret of horror:  The fear is in the suspense, in the buildup.  I don’t mind a jump scare or two, as long as it’s earned in a movie that works for my fear.  Luckily, The Orphanage contains both, and is genuinely unnerving, and a good movie.  To a point, that is.

The Orphanage provides good horror, and a good element of mystery, but never fully realizes it’s potential.  It’s a good movie, and extremely well made, but it’s story begins to falter, especially in the third act.  I imagine it is very difficult to write an ending for a horror movie without either a.) having everybody die  -or- b.) having everything wrapped up in too neat of a package.  But I won’t forget the times of the movie where I was genuinely frightened, if just for a moment.

The Bottom Line:  The Orphanage isn’t always successful, but is an effective horror film, basing it’s scares more on mood and tension than jump scares.

“Shall I read it to you?  November 23, 1966, was the most important day of their lives.  That day, at 3:00 in the morning, they were both born, each in a different city on a different continent.  They both had dark hair and brownish-green eyes.  At two years old, when both knew how to walk, one of them burned her hand on a stove.  A few days later, the other one reached out to touch a stove, but pulled back just in time.  Yet she couldn’t have known she was about to burn herself.”

This is a story told in The Double Life of Veronique by a puppeteer.  In a way, it is also the story of The Double Life of Veronique.

The great Polish director Krzysztof Kieślowski passed away in Warsaw on March 13th, 1996, at the age of 54.  He had been retired from film-making for almost 2 years, after the completion of his Three Colors trilogy; Blue, White, and Red, for the colors of the French flag, and the ideals they symbolize.  Another of his great works was made in the late 80’s, The Decalogue.  The Decalogue was made up of ten 1-hour stories based on the ten commandments, and is a work I’ve heard can be analyzed for months without extracting all of it’s meaning.  In between those epic undertakings, he made a smaller film, but one that leads to just as many questions, and my favorite of his works that I have seen.  That film is the beautiful, spiritual, and soulful The Double Life of Veronique.

This is where I usually give a plot description of the film I’m reviewing, but that just doesn’t seem right in regards to this one.  What I’ll say is that Kieślowski, along with his writing partner Krzysztof Piesiewicz (who worked with him on The Decalogue and the Three Colors trilogy), tell a story of doubles.  A young woman in France named Veronique, and a young woman in Poland named Weronika.  In most ways we can see, they appear to be the same person.  They look identical, they both have a heart condition, they both have strong relationships with their father, and they are both happy.  They have an unsure awareness of each other, one from sight, and one from intuition.  “Lately, I feel like I’m not alone in the world,” Weronika says to her father.

Both women are played by the beautiful Irene Jacob, who won the best actress award at the Cannes Film Festival for her performance.  It’s breathtaking in it’s simplicity.  She portrays happiness, sadness, curiosity, and confusion with perfection, never overselling the emotion.  You’re happy to see her happy, and your heart breaks to see her upset.  At times, her characters don’t know why they’re feeling this way.  They simply do.  Why is it that occasionally Jacob’s characters will just look in a direction that seems to have nobody there?  Does she feel a presence at that part of the room?

On the commentary track on the brilliant Criterion DVD release, Kieślowski expert Annette Insdorf speaks on how could almost be a part of his Blue/White/Red series.  What color would it be?  Gold.  The film is saturated in gold tones, leading to a tone of ethereal beauty.  There is a warm quality at work here, as the film bathes over you.  The only movie I’d say matches the beauty of The Double Life of Veronique, in both it’s imagery and it’s story, would be Wim Wender’s 1987 films, Wings of Desire.  Kieślowski was a master at using small details to draw you into the story, to cast his spell over you.  At many times in the film, he uses reflections to create the feeling of doubles, to keep that theme in the viewers mind at all times.  The focus on small items that link the two women is not handles with anything but subtlety and grace.

In the end, what I can really say is that I’ve now seen The Double Life of Veronique several times, and I’m still finding new moments that highlights the depth of this deceivingly simple tale.  I don’t feel I’ll ever fully understand everything that happens in this film.  What I do know is that every time I finish it, I’m in the mood to watch it again right away.  Two of the moments that truly resonate with me are scenes of transcendant joy.  In the beginning, Weronika is singing while rain begins to pour on her.  Everybody in her choir group runs for cover, but she continues singing to the heavens happily.  At another point, as she’s walking down a hallway, bouncing a glass ball, it hits off the ceiling, and a cloud of gold dust seems to fall on her.  She closes her eyes and holds her face up to it, smiling.  Why did she do this?  The beauty of the film is that we ask these questions, but don’t mind the mystery.

There’s a level of mystery at work in Caché that we haven’t seen many other directors achieve.  Austrian filmmaker Michael Haneke is a director of mystery, preferring to play with his audience, not showing them all the cards.  In his terrific film, The White Ribbon (reviewed on this page), we never truly know what is causing a string of tragedies in a small German town.  In Funny Games, we never learn a reason these two young men are terrorizing this family.  But that approach has never been as clearly shown as in his 2005 film, Caché.  It intrigues and it frustrates, never overplaying it’s hand, but keeping it’s audience on a string the whole time.

We see a long opening shot of the front of a home.  A few cars drive by, and eventually, we hear voices.  This is when it’s revealed the view of the home was on a videotape that was dropped off at a married couples house.  It is a video of their home, the first of many, some of them coming with cryptic drawings.  Georges (Daniel Auteuil), the husband and father, knows more about the messages than his wife Anna (Juliette Binoche).  The mystery of who the sender of the tapes is, and why, begins to drive a wedge between the couple.

Haneke brilliantly puts his audience in the role of the voyeur.  Caché is filmed using HD video, features no score, and often consists of long takes.  It seems like we’re watching real people, not movie characters.  The tapes haunt them, but don’t fully take over their lives.  They have dinner parties, go to school events, talk about different things.  At first their curious, then frightened, but then their fear transforms differently.  Georges’ fear is the possibility of having to revisit the mistakes of his past, and Anna’s fear is her husband’s lack of trust in her.

Anna is perhaps meant to be the viewers personal link to the film (if there is one).  She feels what we feel watching Georges.  Both the viewers and her know he knows more about these tapes than he’s showing, and wonder what he could be hiding, and why.  Anna is portrayed by the beautiful and talented Juliette Binoche, an actress of great range and intelligence.  She plays Anna not as a shrill and hysterical woman, but a caring person who wants not only for her family to be safe from the mysterious package sender, but from the events extending from that: the lack of honesty in the family.  Stressful events often lead to other issues getting worse, like so many falling dominoes.

No matter how many times I watch this movie, I’m still perplexed and intrigued.  It’s a mystery, a horror film, a domestic drama, and a thriller all at once, making a film that’s absolutely unique.  I don’t want to say too much about what occurs throughout the film, as I don’t want to spoil all the wonderful surprises contained in Caché.  I’ll just say this:  Keep your eye out for two characters that should not be talking.

I will start this review by saying this:  I did not read the book this film was based on.  This review is based entirely on my thoughts on the movie, with no insight on the source material.  Perhaps the books get into the politics of this world a bit more, but this film serves as very good entertainment, with a few nicely placed barbs at the media.  Our news today is always looking to up the stakes, and the producers of the fight to the death in The Hunger Games are the same way.

In the future, the world is separated into 12 districts.  Each year, a male and a female between the ages of 12-18 are chosen from each district to enter an arena, where they are pitted against each other in a televised fight to the death.  When her young sister is chosen to fight, young Katniss Everdeen becomes the first person to volunteer for the game, replacing her sister.  As she goes through the training process, she learns a bit of the politics that go into being a “star”, and what it takes to survive.  All of her abilities are tested in the fierce competition.

The Hunger Games succeeds for a major reason, and that’s the fact that it plays it straight.  Many of the things in this film could have been cheesy if they winked at it a bit (There are times where that cheese seeps in a bit, as in the 2 commentators that speak up during the games).  But here they tell their story with confidence.  These are dire circumstances the characters are going through, and the material is presented that way.  The script conveys these feelings, but remains light enough to keep up the overall spirit of excitement.  There are times where it gets a bit heavy, but that tends to happen when characters die.

Director Gary Ross tries to present the material both theatrically and realistically, his camera always moving.  He uses a lot of handheld cameras, and shoots his film with a kinetic style that is sometimes a plus, and sometimes a slight downfall.  Where this is an issue is many of the major action sequences, where he tries to film the action in the frenetic style used by a director like Paul Greengrass.  The issue is that Ross isn’t as talented of a filmmaker as Greengrass, and these sequences can be difficult.  I found it difficult to be able to make out exactly what was going on at these moments, but I feel some of it was a decision to lessen the impact of the violence, ensuring a lower rating.

The clamp that I felt kept the film grounded was the terrific Jennifer Lawrence, a young actress that’s staking her claim as the next big thing in Hollywood.  She’s already received a Best Actress nomination from the Academy for her fantastic work in Winters Bone, a role that may have prepared her for this film.  Her portrayal of Katniss is one of strength and determination, just like her turn as Ree in Winters Bone.  She seems to excel at playing characters who rise above the obstacles thrown at her, giving gripping performances.  Katniss is a very good character, and Lawrence gives us a link into the film.  She’s a star in the making, and I look forward to seeing what she does in the future.

I had a few issues with the film, mostly the frantic camera work and some overly-theatrical acting, but I think it’s a very good way to start the summer blockbuster season.  It manages to be exciting, fun, and engrossing, but contains a nice amount of heart as well.  I think it’ll appeal to both fans of the book series, and people who go into it blind.  I had a very good time, and the rest of the people in the very packed theater seemed to enjoy it as well.

The Bottom Line:  The Hunger Games is a terrific start to the summer movie season.  The few issues I had with the film are overshadowed by the overall sense of excitement, aided by an excellent Jennifer Lawrence.