Image by Marco-willy from Pixabay Over a decade ago, Lionsgate kicked off the “YA dystopian” craze of the 2010s wherein film studios sought to make hundreds of millions of dollars off of teenage moviegoers wanting to see their favorite young-adult novels adapted for the silver screen. From Gavin Hood’s Ender’s Game and Phillip Noyce’s The Giver to the Divergent and The Maze Runner franchises, this formula seemed to bring moderate commercial success (yet mixed critical reception) to studios willing to fund these efforts.
And yet, more than ten years later, only Lionsgate’s original effort remains part of the cultural zeitgeist: The Hunger Games! After four box-office hits based on the trilogy of novels by Suzanne Collins, this sci-fi action series is back with a big-screen take on the 2020 prequel novel “The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” this weekend. As such, what better time to re-examine The Hunger Games movie franchise to see how well it holds up? So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! The Hunger Games (2012) Admittedly, I haven’t seen most of the contemporary successors to the first film in The Hunger Games series (only Ender’s Game, which I didn’t love). So, I lack much of an accurate metric to measure it with against the rest of its genre. That being said, I firmly believe that the first entry in this franchise, directed by Gary Ross (Seabiscuit, Ocean’s 8), is a pretty good movie. But not great. Perhaps the biggest strength of 2012’s The Hunger Games is how the competent worldbuilding does not overwhelm audiences or drag down its central narrative. By relying on production design and dialogue to give the viewer enough information to feel emotionally invested in the titular battle royale, Ross’s directing manages to keep the story first and the franchise-building second. While this more stripped-down, simplistic approach keeps the film from achieving greatness, I think it was necessary to introduce those unfamiliar with the books to the dystopian society of Panem (and how our protagonist’s life fits within it) by minimizing the political machinations at this point in the overarching story (fortunately, that comes in the sequel). All of these movies (but especially this first one) rely on the talents & chemistry of its cast to elevate the material to something greater than what one might expect from a YA novel. As the heart of this particular story revolves around the burgeoning romance of charmless fighter Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and the reliably charismatic Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), I found myself more invested in their growing bond than I figured I would be. While Hutcherson does a good enough job making Peeta sympathetic, I wasn’t necessarily drawn to his performance. Lawrence, on the other hand, is a powerfully magnetic actress whose casting as our reluctant heroine is about as perfect as you can get. Not only does she effortlessly pull off Katniss’ more badass moments, what she arguably does best here is engross the viewer in her story in spite of how standoffish her personality can be at times. That is a testament to her incredible talents, and how she plays off of Hutcherson (mostly) makes up for how the more political aspects of the story centered on the behind-the-scenes manipulations of President Coriolanus Snow (Donald Sutherland) are set dressing in this movie. Of course, Katniss and Peeta’s traumatic love story is the focal point of the titular battle royale-turned-bloodbath involving teenagers pitted against one another in a fight to the death. Aside from Lawrence and Hutcherson, I think the standout amongst the child actors is 13-year-old Amandla Stenberg as the mischievous tree-climber Rue. The female tribute from District 11 and a foil for Katniss’ younger sister Primrose “Prim” Everdeen (Willow Shields), Stenberg injects some much-needed humanity during the height of the Games while also helping to make Katniss more likeable by bringing out her nurturing & protective self. And, of course, Rue’s tragic death is a very memorable catalyst for (arguably) the rest of the series as it’s the inciting event which motivates Katniss to do more than just survive the Games but to prove (alongside Peeta) that the tributes refuse to die simply for sport. Amongst the adult cast, Woody Harrelson kills it as the alcoholic mentor Haymitch Abernathy that you love too much to truly ever hate. Obviously, he has charm emanating from every ounce of his body whenever he’s in a scene. But, more importantly, his character feels real enough in that he gives solid advice to Katniss and Peeta and somewhat redeems himself during the Games while always remaining true to who he is deep down: an asshole. 😊 Aside from Harrelson, though, I have a massive soft spot for Cinna (Lenny Kravitz), Katniss’ main stylist who has a big old heart by seeming genuinely upset that he has to be the first one to apologize to Katniss for the situation she’s found herself in. Ultimately, its all of these actors (just to name a few) who keep the plot-heavy narrative from being too bogged down with boring exposition or mindless action sequences. Overall, The Hunger Games is a fairly solid start to this film franchise. To be clear, not all of the younger actors pull off what Lawrence and Stenberg can (although I mostly blame it on some of the writing). However, its handful of weaknesses are largely overshadowed by its sheer entertainment value & endearing potential to become something greater than the sum of its parts. Simply put, rewatching this film made me even more excited to dive into the sequels. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) After Gary Ross decided not to direct the sequel to his film The Hunger Games due to scheduling conflicts, Francis Lawrence (I Am Legend, Water for Elephants) takes the helm of the rest of the franchise (much like David Yates did for the Harry Potter series). And I think it’s hard to argue (having not yet seen his newest addition, The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes) that his first outing adapting Suzanne Collins’ novels remains his best. Simply put, Catching Fire is not just a great Hunger Games movie. It’s a great movie. Say what you will about Lawrence’s direction in the later films, but he does damn good job at pacing this 2013 sequel with an effectively apt balance of intense action & poignant character moments. Furthermore, he fully takes advantage of the more mature narrative from Collins’ middle entry in her original trilogy by relying on his very talented actors to invest the audience in this increasingly political drama. Maybe not everyone liked this turn, but I found myself fully enthralled by how much Catching Fire expanded upon the straightforward “teen battle royale” of the first movie. Instead, the Games themselves (just like pretty much the rest of the narrative) serve the larger story about planting the seeds of revolution while keeping our heroine completely in the dark about it. Much of the engrossing nature of Catching Fire comes from the tense, yet oddly & mutually respectful, dynamic between Katniss and President Snow. From there first scene together, Lawrence & Sutherland elevate one another’s performances to shine in different yet equally compelling ways. Whereas Sutherland’s decades of experience as a thespian allow for a smirk or look utterly terrifying (and thus sufficiently villainous), Lawrence really comes into her own as an emotionally intimidating character whose fiercely principled nature causes her to butt heads with virtually everyone in her life. And that makes for some great character drama. Even more impressive, though, is that this twisted, subject-ruler relationship remains some of the most enticing character-driven fodder in the entire franchise. Of course, the first Hunger Games flick had pretty good lead actors, too. Unlike its predecessor, however, Catching Fire lets most of the supporting cast really shine. Coming off of being “whelmed” by Josh Hutcherson in the first movie, I was pretty impressed by how much better he was at injecting genuine tenderness into Peeta to match the natural charisma that he emanates in the role. Certainly, his intentional performance helped invest me even further in his burgeoning romance with Katniss (which makes where their story goes in the latter two films even more devastating). Of course, Woody Harrelson is as reliably entertaining as ever despite being a little more restrained in his performance than in the previous film (although that move makes sense due to his changing dynamic with Katniss & how deceptive he is the whole time). I didn’t mention Stanley Tucci at all when discussing The Hunger Games, and that was wrong of me. 😊 He KILLED it, and continues that stride here as the Capitol’s mouthpiece & prime entertainer Caesar Flickerman. He uses just the right amount of cheese to pull off the heightened nature of his character as emblematic of the Games’ “reality TV” elements. But another returning cast member that I ended up liking even more the second time around was someone who, in my humble opinion, was underused in the first movie: Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket. In Catching Fire, she nails the handful of emotional moments she gets (namely, when she pulls Katniss’ name at the Reaping and her emotional apology the night before the Games). By doing so, Banks strips away the character’s synthetic façade & makes Effie feel like a real person despite her seemingly shallow personality. And I have to give praise to Lenny Kravitz once again in his, unfortunately, final appearance as Cinna. Like Banks, Kravitz does as much as he can with his minimal screen time by remaining Katniss’ most ardent supporter. On top of that, though, his raw, brutal & emotional exit just as the Games kick off gets me choked up whenever I watch it. These returning actors alone make Catching Fire the best film of the franchise. But we get even MORE incredible performers for their first appearances in the franchise. Easily, the standout newbie is the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Plutarch Heavensbee, the new Head Gamemaker/double agent for the blossoming rebellion. Perhaps no other actor besides Hoffman (may he rest in peace) could’ve kept the audience seeing Catching Fire for the first time so much on their toes about where his true loyalties lie. Yet, Hoffman gives an incredibly subdued performance that elevates this franchise higher than it perhaps ever deserved to be. Beyond Hoffman, though, I enjoyed pretty much all of the veteran tributes who became Katniss & Peeta’s allies in the Games. Sam Claflin is effortlessly charming as Finnick Odair, not just for his magnetic physique but also how fiercely protective he is of his elderly mentor Mags Flanagan (Lynn Cohen) whose sacrifice was surprisingly affecting. Even more over-the-top, yet deliciously so, than Claflin is Jena Malone as the ferocious & rage-filled Johanna Mason whose emotional shield goes down only a handful of times to tremendous effect. Through her performance, the audience starts to realize just how furious the tributes are at President Snow for forcing them back into the Games. And, of course, I have to shine a spotlight on Jeffrey Wright’s efficient and reserved genius Beetee who does some really good work as a character than can come off as nothing more than a plot device. Need I say more? Catching Fire is an exceptional political thriller that raises the stakes for these characters by leaning fully into Collins’ political commentary about the nature of power. Yet, director Francis Lawrence doesn’t let you forget why the Hunger Games movies are a solid action franchise. If I haven’t yet convinced you that it’s both a sequel that improves upon the original while also a standout young-adult movie of the last decades, I’m not sure what I could say to do so. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 (2014) Very recently, Francis Lawrence expressed regret about splitting “Mockingjay,” Suzanne Collins’ conclusion to her original “The Hunger Games” trilogy, into two movies á la the Harry Potter franchise.[1] I remember seeing both of these movies in the theater when they originally released, and even back then (as a barely-legal adult just starting college lacking any kind of knowledge about the art of filmmaking) I felt the narrative being stretched out between Part 1 and Part 2. Thus, I was concerned about how both movies would hold up upon a rewatch. What I’ll stress right out of the gate is this: the two Mockingjay movies are, in my humble opinion, the worst Hunger Games movies (at the time of writing this, I haven’t seen The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes). That being said, I still enjoyed them & think they’re well-made overall. Let’s begin with the positives of Part 1. While the “battle royale” concept served up some good, old-fashioned entertainment in the first two movies, I appreciated this film’s shift to focusing more on politics & character drama almost exclusively. Instead of the Games driving a good chunk of the plot, Katniss is thrown into the politicking of the underground resistance centered on the ruins of District 13 led by President Alma Coin (Julianne Moore). Furthermore, the intriguing “cat-and-mouse” dynamic between Katniss and Snow remains just as good (if not as front-and-center) as it was in Catching Fire. As always, Jennifer Lawrence gives a commendable performance as Katniss. While I do think her scenes involve just a little too much crying for my taste, she pulls off the conflicted emotions of the heroine by ensuring that Katniss’ vulnerable side shines through more so than in the previous two flicks. In particular, how the narrative relies on humanizing Katniss for political purposes with propaganda & the “commercialization” of war makes for some interesting dynamics between Katniss and the adults around her telling her that they know what’s best for her. Fortunately, however, Lawrence isn’t the only younger actor given some good stuff to chew on here. Without a doubt, the “most improved” in this movie compared to his first two appearances is Liam Hemsworth as Gale Hawthorne. He had his moments at the whipping post in Catching Fire (yet was given virtually nothing to do in the first movie), but it’s in this movie that Gale finally feels like a relatable character & an engaging part of Katniss’ inner circle. I was especially fond of his monologue atop the charred remains of innocent people left in the wake of the Capitol’s bombing of District 12. While I didn’t shed a tear, I really appreciated the focus on Gale’s unique relationship with Katniss being the focus here. It was a refreshing change of pace from the emphasis on Katniss & Peeta’s romance in the first two movies. My final big positive applies to both Mockingjay flicks. I liked that this story (credit to Suzanne Collins) really turns the franchise from a YA survival thriller into a political drama that explores the moral complexities & ambiguities of war and revolutionary change. Is the writing a bit on the nose at times? Of course, but it doesn’t take away from the important questions raised about whether civilian casualties are worth the “greater good” or the irony of propaganda’s artificiality being able to evoke such genuine & powerful emotions from those who consume it. Again, this ain’t no Argo or Lincoln. But it’s a decent political story that remains entertaining on the whole. Unfortunately, this being a true “part one” of a two-part (really three-part) story causes the film to have some significant drawbacks. A big complaint that I have with both Mockingjay movies relates to how big the cast has grown. While most of these characters get a few good moments here or there, I never felt that Julianne Moore got a single scene to fully come out of her shell & inject some life into President Coin as the subversive antagonist of the third act of Collins’ trilogy. Not only does her character lack the dramatic heft of Sutherland’s President Snow (who also feels shortchanged in these movies compared to his magnetic presence in Catching Fire), but Moore’s writing & dialogue comes off as “show, don’t tell” to a detriment. Aside from Coin, however, some other great actors introduced in Part 1 are, in my humble opinion, utterly wasted given the amount of talent dripping from them in other projects. Notably, Mahershala Ali’s role as glorified personal bodyguard Boggs rings hallow (and it’s not Ali’s fault one bit) while Natalie Dormer of Game of Thrones fame is mostly forgettable as propaganda film director/archetypical “tough girl” Cressida (again, not Dormer’s fault). Even many of the returning actors, like Harrelson and Hoffman (who have roles in the main plot), feel shoved aside in favor of shooting Jennifer Lawrence cry a lot. Ultimately, though, the biggest problem of Part 1 is with its pacing. I’m certainly not the first person to highlight this particular issue with the film, but I think it’s worth re-stating here: it’s a rather slow & unengaging story. I personally chalk most of this up to the fact that, once again, it’s the first of three acts. Still, the lack of forward momentum (while helping some of the quieter scenes breathe – notably Katniss singing “The Hanging Tree”) does little to make the start of a full-throated rebellion have much jolt to it. Would I have rather watched a three-hour epic version of the “Mockingjay” book that sped up the pacing & made every scene feel urgent to the overarching narrative of a change in the hierarch of power in Panem? Yup. But, that’s not what we got. And I’ll defend Part 1 as a decent movie, but not all that good. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 (2015) Now we come to the official end of the Hunger Games franchise. Well, at the least the end of Katniss’ story. And, to be honest, it’s a pretty satisfying conclusion regarding how surprising certain story choices are. Yet, it’s also a bit disappointing given how anticlimactic other choices feel. As with Part 1, let’s start with the positives of Part 2. While I still don’t think Julianne Moore ever got a super effective moment (like in Part 1), I found the subplot about President Coin going full-on Machiavellian with her exploiting (and then being intimidated by) Katniss for her own political gains to be an effective subversion of audience expectations. Even if you’ve read Collins’ book, the way in which director Francis Lawrence captures Katniss’ slow-burn realization that Coin is gradually transforming into the “next Snow”—a tyrant in all but name—helps the shocking climax of her death pretty satisfying. Thematically speaking, that along with the continued examination of war’s brutality (while by no means original) helps maintain the philosophical weight of this story & reminds the viewer how much better these YA dystopian movies are than they have any right to be. Speaking of surprising twists, I always really enjoyed the idea AND execution of the 76th Hunger Games. Essentially the Capitol’s way to make literal war out of entertainment, I can appreciate some viewers feeling that it’s a bridge too far compared to the (ever so slightly) more subtle political allegory of the Games being a “battle royale” on national television. However, I find it just campy enough in concept while feeling gritty & grounded in execution to work. I especially appreciate the zombie-horror vibes of the scene involving the “mutts” in the sewers (which gave Finnick a solidly terrifying yet sacrificial death) & the sheer dehumanizing use of the “black goo”. Scenes like this, in my humble opinion, effectively demonstrate the extreme lengths that Snow is willing to go to hold onto his power. Even as it slowly slips through his fingers. Like with the other movies that came before it, Part 2 also has some good character stuff thanks to the actors who know these characters pretty well at this point. Without a doubt, Lawrence remains a great actress as she caps off Katniss’ journey in a realistically bittersweet way. Not only does she remain traumatized by her experiences (which, of course, she would be if all this shit actually happened to her), but the loss of her younger sister Prim & the end of her friendship with Gale fittingly adds to her pretty tragic ending. Yes, she survives the Games and Snow’s machinations. But she will forever be mentally haunted & emotionally scarred by the events of this story for the rest of her life. Not a fairy-tale ending by any means, but that fits this particular story if you ask me. I imagine some people don’t agree with this, but I found Peeta’s ending & use in this film to be pretty fitting, too. While he was mostly contained to interviews with Caesar Flickerman in Part 1, he reunites with Katniss & the others in Part 2 in a way that adds suspense to the mission of infiltrating the Capitol. He remains a ticking time-bomb ready to blow any second for the majority of the second & third act, yet Josh Hutcherson does well enough with the material to keep me engaged with where his headspace is at in any given moment. That being said, I personally think that the way his story ends is one of the less unrealistic aspects of the film’s ending (all I’m saying is…Katniss probably would’ve ended up marrying & having a family with Gale because they lived through SIXTEEN YEARS of life together while having more than shared trauma to bond over. Just my opinion 😊). When it comes to our two political leaders, I liked how the parallels between Snow and Coin were drawn. While neither Sutherland nor Moore ever got much time to shine in Part 2, I appreciated the subtext about how tyranny cannot be supplanted by something like tyranny but rather must be completely stripped away & replaced with an entirely new system if it’s going to have the chance to be permanently eradicated. Unfortunately, I don’t have much more positive to say about Part 2. Like its immediate predecessor (and even the first movie, to some extent), the writing sometimes falls flat here. While I found some of Katniss’ decisions emotionally justified (most obviously her assassination of President Coin), they also feel utterly reckless given the fact that she’s surrounded by several sensible adults (and even younger peers) who could’ve & should’ve prevented it. Maybe they just silently went along with it, but this small detail being overlooked causes the story choice to not feel wholly earned. Furthermore, her completely writing off Gale after Prim’s death because he might have known about it came off as one of the only times in the narrative that Katniss seemed to fit within a stereotypical mold of romantic storytelling. As I hinted at earlier, the sensible and more realistic decision would be to let time heal any wounds with Gale and, ultimately, consummate her love for him. Instead, though, she succumbs to the supposed love she fostered with Peeta as the by-product of shared trauma. This, in my humble opinion, does a great disservice to the character who (in a good sense) never truly felt like a female protagonist lacking agency or intelligence. This resolution to the love triangle, however, is just that. But the biggest sin of Part 2 (but really both Mockingjay films) is how many actors feel wasted in this two-part conclusion to the main Hunger Games series. The veteran actors, like Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks, are shoved aside & get only a handful of scenes to send them off. The tributes we met in Catching Fire, such as Jeffrey Wright’s Beetee and Jena Malone’s Johanna, have no interesting presence in the plot or character dynamics. Like I mentioned earlier, Sam Claflin has some decent action moments as Finnick but that does little to make up for how ultimately forgettable his character is. Even more so, though, I felt virtually no emotional investment in his relationship with fellow former tribute Annie Cresta (Stef Dawson) because no time was really given to it. Once again, Mahershala Ali’s turn as Boggs (even during his death scene) falls flat at no fault of his own but due to how swiftly in the story he’s taken out. And Natalie Dormer’s Cressida survives the war, but has so much exposition-heavy dialogue that she’s more of a plot device than a compelling member of the cast. While I appreciated the emotional moments from Elden Henson (of Daredevil fame) as the mute cameraman Pollux, his brother Castor’s (Wes Chatham) death didn’t hit as much as Rue’s death in the first movie or Cinna’s death in Catching Fire because there was never much attention given to that relationship in the first place. And then there’s the other wasted talent of this cast. In his final film performance, Philip Seymour Hoffman remains understated to a fault (although his smirk in the execution scene was pretty awesome). Stanley Tucci ends his time as Caesar Flickerman with a whimper because, unlike Banks’ Effie, we never get a single moment humanizing him or bringing retribution for his complicity in President Snow’s political games. Worst of all, though, Donald Sutherland’s very minimal screen time in this movie should make his final moments with Katniss & his iconic death preciously impactful. Instead, he seemed like he was over the role & just read some lines to sound villainous rather than the smart, cunning & dutifully honest antagonist that we saw in Catching Fire. I’ll say it again. The two Mockingjay movies should’ve just been a single, epic action flick/political thriller. Imagine a world where the Hunger Games movies were in the conversation of “best cinematic trilogies of all time.” While many people would disagree with such a possibility, I remain sad that we’ll never know how fun that meaningless debate could have been like. Still, Part 2 is a decent enough end to this main story. Now, the question is, can The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes be a return to form for the franchise? The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes (2023) [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes.” You have been warned.] Having read Suzanne Collins’ prequel novel to the “Hunger Games” trilogy of books about a year ago, I went into Songbirds & Snakes expecting an adequately-made blockbuster with a somewhat underwhelming story & an overly long third act. Certainly, some people (critics and general audiences alike) leaving the theater after seeing this movie are feeling that way. However, I found it to work better than I anticipated in spite of its flaws. Thinking about the core of the narrative, Songbirds & Snakes is a well-done example of the villain being the hero of their own story. To be clear, director Francis Lawrence and writers Michael Lesslie & Michael Arndt never really try to make the audience fall in love with its protagonist, the ambitious teenager Coriolanus Snow (Tom Blyth). Much like other stories of this nature (Joker comes to mind), the movie very effectively paces out Snow’s descent by making him feel neither pure good or pure evil but rather just a human being. Thanks to Blyth’s more-than-competent approach to the material, the audience is sympathetic to the plight of Snow and his family—protective cousin Tigris (Hunter Schafer) and patriotic matriarch Grandma’am (Fionnula Flanagan)—due to his underdog story of wanting to use the tenth annual Games to re-establish the prestige of the Snow name. However, as the Games themselves (specifically Snow’s morally questionable methods to help his tribute) unfold, the character’s darker impulses & selfish worldview really start to shine through. Thus, by the time we see his unforgiveable betrayal of best friend Sejanus Plinth (Josh Andrés Rivera) in District 12 in the third act, Snow’s arc feels complete & satisfying without making too many overt connections to or ties with the four Hunger Games flicks that came before. Elevating Blyth’s take on the franchise’s villain made noteworthy by Donald Sutherland, we have our female lead: the female District 12 tribute with a beautiful voice & soul, Lucy Gray Baird (Rachel Zegler). Obviously, she is the “songbird” to Snow’s “snake” in terms of her innocence & moral righteousness that’s sharply contrasted with his ruthless pragmatism. While a bit on the nose, the chemistry (romantic or otherwise) between Blyth and Zegler serves as the heart of Songbirds & Snakes by making Snow’s inability to give up his political aspirations in favor of true love tragic & simultaneously deserved. Furthermore, the fact that Zegler fully embraces how different Lucy Gray is from Katniss Everdeen makes the central story refreshing & unique compared to the rest of the franchise. It helps the viewer delineate the fact that she’s not the main character of this story (albeit an important one), despite being a resilient & intelligent survivor like the “Girl on Fire.” To the film’s benefit, this is Snow’s story first and foremost. Fortunately, Blyth’s performance is surrounded by a top-tier supporting cast with (in my humble opinion) three particular actors to highlight for pretty different reasons. To begin with Viola Davis, whose deliciously evil take on Snow’s morally bankrupt mentor easily makes her the most memorable Head Gamemaker of all the Hunger Games flicks. Not only that, but how she embodies Snow’s limitless desire to remain in the Capitol & embroil himself in Panem politics on his climb up the ladder of power adds substance to his own descent into villainy. Another campy, yet admirable & fun, performance comes from Jason Schwartzman as Lucretius “Lucky” Flickerman (presumably the ancestor of Stanley Tucci’s zany Caesar Flickerman). During the very intense & dour second act, Schwartzman’s pitch-perfect delivery & comedic timing injects some much-needed levity to seeing the tributes mercilessly slaughtering one another in the arena. But the biggest surprise for me (other than Blyth, who I was wholly unfamiliar with beforehand), was Peter Dinklage. As Snow’s antagonist & co-creator of the Games (alongside Snow’s dead father Crassus), Dean Casca Highbottom is a more subdued character than I’m familiar seeing Dinklage play (especially compared to his turn in Game of Thrones). His talents, however, were not at all shocking & I found the slow-burn nature of revealing the reasons behind his vendetta for Snow (as well as his obvious drug addiction) to be one of the most emotionally satisfying aspects of the narrative outside of Snow’s story itself. While there are plenty of good actors doing good work here, I also greatly appreciated the technical aspects & efforts of the crew of Songbirds & Snakes. As his fourth directorial outing with this franchise, Francis Lawrence is as self-assured as ever in fleshing out Suzanne Collins’ dystopian world while also telling a compelling, character-driven story. In particular, the use of the camera by cinematographer Jo Willems (a frequent collaborator of Lawrence’s) was consistently intimate. Profound & emotional during the quieter character moments (particularly scenes between Snow and Lucy Gray) while being inspired & immersive during the combat scenes, Willems made the Games more terrifying than ever before. This approach to the camerawork added to the film’s retro-dystopian production design. Clearly, Lawrence approached the look of Songbirds & Snakes as constructing a historical drama within the context of Panem & the aesthetic of District 12 that was established in the other Hunger Games flicks. From the reliance on constructed sets for the Academy & battle arena to the viewing room with old-school TVs, the world in this film feels fittingly stripped down and raw. The scars of the Rebellion against the Capitol are fresh in the industrial design of the buildings & symbolism of the bombed Games arena. This helps the residents of the Capitol (namely Snow’s social circle & teachers) seem somewhat justified in their fierce defense of the Games continuing and/or hatred of the people in the Districts. Probably the biggest unsung (pun intended 😊) hero of Songbirds & Snakes is the score. While somewhat overshadowed by Zegler’s amazing singing voice, James Newton Howard (another artist returning from the prior Hunger Games flicks) successfully creates emotional & thematic for the story. Yet, it never overwhelms by being excessive nor distracts from the story happening on screen. In my humble opinion, a good score can either be the focal point of any scene or feel almost faded in the background. And Howard’s music in this movie certainly falls into the latter category, which works overall with this kind of dark, character-drive drama. While I don’t think it’s a perfect movie (the third act’s a bit too long), Songbirds & Snakes is a solid blockbuster & prequel to 2012’s The Hunger Games. Having read Collins’ original novel upon which the film is based, I found the story following Lucy Gray’s victory in the Games worked better as the final hour of a two-and-a-half-hour movie than as the last third of a 150,000+ word book. As such, the movie ultimately does what it set out to do: tell a fully-realized & effective story about the creation of President Snow as we knew him in the 2010s. At the end of the day, that’s really all I could ask for going into the theater last night. Overall, what are my thoughts on the Hunger Games franchise? Honestly, I enjoy all of it. Some movies are individually better than others (see my ranking below), it’s a pretty solid series of films overall. Do I need another one anytime soon? No, but if Collins writes another book & we do get another Hunger Games movie in the next ten years, I’m confident that it will be just as good as the rest of the franchise while hoping that it hits the heights of its best flicks. With all that said, here is my official ranking of the five Hunger Games movies:
What is your favorite Hunger Games film? Would you like to see another prequel, a sequel, or nothing from this franchise going forward? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst [1] https://people.com/hunger-games-director-regrets-splitting-mockingjay-two-parts-exclusive-8356372
0 Comments
Without question, Stephen King is one of the most prolific and talented writers of the past century. With many classic novels and short stories to his name, King’s literary oeuvre has been ripe for filmmakers to pluck from since Brian de Palma made the 1976 supernatural horror flick Carrie. Since then, King’s works have served as the basis for some great films: Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining, Frank Darabont’s The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, and Mike Flanagan’s Doctor Sleep. Just to name a few. 😊
With the release of Rob Savage’s The Boogeyman this weekend, more than fifty cinematic adaptations of King’s fictional works have been made. As such, I wanted to celebrate the best of them by giving my thoughts on (some of) my favorite films based on the works of Stephen King. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! The Dead Zone (1983) Admittedly, I’m not the biggest fan of David Cronenberg as a filmmaker. However, there are a handful of gems in his filmography that I really enjoy. One of them is the sci-fi thriller The Dead Zone. Based on Stephen King’s 1979 novel of the same name, the film is a grounded & gripping character study of a man who develops precognitive abilities upon waking up from a five-year coma that he entered following a car accident. The man in question, Johnny Smith, is played by the eccentric and enjoyable Christopher Walken. And, in my humble opinion, Walken gives his best cinematic performance to date (yes, even better than his Oscar-winning turn in Michael Cimino’s The Deer Hunter). Why? Well, if you ask me, Walken sometimes relies too heavily on his outwardly quirky personality to carry his performances. But, The Dead Zone came out before Walken was a major name in Hollywood which I think partly explains why he works so well in it. In contrast to his more eccentric side, Walken makes his character relatable and empathetic by relying more on the way he carries himself to convey the psychological toll that Johnny’s “condition” takes on him. In a way, Johnny is a realistic and dark take on the character of Spider-Man if the web-slinger was a fully-grown man (instead of a teenager). Otherwise, there are some interesting parallels. The most notable of them that having such abilities makes for a lonely existence. In the case of Johnny, however, he chooses to isolate himself because of the impact that using his psychic abilities has on his mental and emotional health. However, doing so means essentially severing his relationship with his ex-girlfriend Sarah (Brooke Adams). This is the crux of Johnny’s tragedy. He realizes that he can use his abilities for good to stop the political ascent of megalomaniac Greg Stillson (Martin Sheen) but must sacrifice everything—including his life—to do so. This makes him a compelling reluctant hero, and Walken excels at pulling off this arc. While much of The Dead Zone rests on the backs of Cronenberg’s direction and Walken’s acting, I think the screenplay by Jeffrey Boam (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Lethal Weapon 2) deserves some praise. For one thing, it’s no easy feat to adapt an (approximately) 150,000-word book into a screenplay that lasts under two hours. And, in my humble opinion, Boam very much succeeds at this task (with some uncredited help from Cronenberg). To his credit, he manages to strip down King’s original novel to its essence and works in tandem with the editing of Ronald Sanders (a frequent Cronenberg collaborator) to maintain the narrative’s deliberate pace without it ever feeling slow. Furthermore, he builds tensions well in both the second and third acts revolving around the subplot of preventing the death of a young boy he tutors and stopping Stillson from becoming president, respectively. Needless to say, by the film’s end I feel satisfied in how Johnny’s story came together. Simply put, that doesn’t work without the writing serving as a solid foundation for the filmmaking. One other creative of The Dead Zone that I want to shout out is composer Michael Kamen (Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Mr. Holland’s Opus). While never oppressing the visual aspects of the film with his music, Kamen subtly injects some unsettling vibes for a tinge of horror while also enhancing the more suspenseful scenes with music that complements what’s happening on screen. Again, Kamen’s work is not the most obviously positive aspect of the movie, but it’s one worth noting nonetheless. Go watch The Dead Zone if you haven’t yet. It’s not an overly long film, and has some great storytelling on display that will please fans of science-fiction, psychological thrillers, and Christopher Walken alike. Stand by Me (1986) When he agreed to direct a cinematic adaptation of Stephen King’s 1982 novella “The Body,” Rob Reiner (The Princess Bride, When Harry Met Sally…) had only begun his directing career. By the mid-1980s, he was known more as a comedic filmmaker with the mockumentary This Is Spinal Tap and the rom-com The Sure Thing under his belt. So, him signing on to make a coming-of-age drama was a bit odd. Fortunately for us, it paid off incredibly well. I’ll just say it: I love Stand by Me. It’s one of my favorite coming-of-age flicks, but it’s more than that. What the four main actors (under Reiner’s direction) pulled off in the movie remains some of the best onscreen chemistry that I’ve ever seen. Many movies like it try to match the dynamic between “Gordie” LaChance (Wil Wheaton), Chris Chambers (River Phoenix), Teddy DuChamp (Corey Feldman), and Vern Tessio (Jerry O’Connell), but often struggle to do even that. Needless to say, most films don’t top what was achieved between these actors (and may never will). The four lead actors here all do a great job in the roles they were given. Unquestionably, Wheaton is a lovable protagonist due to the underdog nature of Gordie’s story. While the narration from his adult self (Richard Dreyfuss) enhances the main story, Wheaton is the person we most relate to in this story as a kid who aspires to do more with his life than his father expects of him but needs the encouragement of his best friend Chris Chambers to feel confident enough to defy those expectations. Gordie also deservedly gets to be the hero in the film’s climactic moments, but Wheaton’s performance by no means outshines his fellow castmates. Both Phoenix and Feldman excel in their respective roles, with the former getting some genuinely emotional scenes talking to Gordie about their relationships with their fathers and about the future. The latter, meanwhile, perfectly encapsulates the superficial machismo of DuChamp while also pulling off the more relatable subtleties of a character with an obvious chip on his shoulder. Arguably, O’Connell does the least heavy lifting as Vern. While not adding to much of the emotional heart of Stand by Me, his presence helps the ensemble feel complete while also being appropriate comedic relief at important times in the move. Not to mention, he’s the center of one of the tensest scenes in cinematic history involving running away from a train on a bridge. 😊 Of course, the actors’ performances are only as good as the writing on the page. Without question, co-screenwriters Bruce A. Evans and Raynold Gideon did a fantastic job bringing these characters and this world to life through the written word. They strip down the narrative to its essence—a tale of four young boys who are friends that go on an adventure one summer—which helps the characters’ actions drive the action and emotion. By doing so, Stand by Me maximizes the audience’s investment in the journey of Gordie, Chambers, DuChamp & Vern within a lean, mean 90-minute runtime. Another notable creative voice I want to shout out is cinematographer Thomas Del Ruth (The Breakfast Club, The Running Man). For such a simply story, I appreciate how straightforward the shots in Stand by Me are. The atmosphere of small-town Oregon in the 1950s is captured vividly in its environments and realistically in its infrastructure. The desolate, post-industrial aesthetic serves the narrative well by showing that these kids have nothing better to do during their summer than head into the woods to find a dead body. While not the most obvious strength of the film (especially compared to the acting and writing), Del Ruth’s eye is unmistakably an important aspect of the magic that is Stand by Me. Which is just what this film is: magic. In terms of the genre it plays within and the story it tells, Stand by Me is one of the best of its kind. In many ways, it remains the standard-bearer for the coming-of-age dramedy (alongside another 1980s classic: John Hughes’ The Breakfast Club). It is funny. It is emotional. It is an endearing and enjoyable tale of growing up, learning, and moving on with life. In other words, it embodies the best of what cinema can be. Misery (1990) Four years after the release of Stand by Me, Rob Reiner took to adapting another Stephen King story for the silver screen. This time, the 1987 novel “Misery” about a successful novelist Paul Sheldon (James Caan) and his experience being the patient/prisoner of deranged nurse Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates) who proclaims to be his biggest fan. Over the course of the film, Paul must play into the whims of his caretake/captor in order to not only survive but also find a way flee Wilkes’ home. In sharp contrast to the more lighthearted and charming Stand by Me, Reiner rises to the challenge of shifting genres with Misery. Rather than rely on the lovable chemistry of four child actors, he fully embraces the novel’s claustrophobic atmosphere and suspenseful narrative to adapt it into a textbook thriller flick. In many ways, it remains one of the go-to best examples of a psychological thriller that—unlike other famous King stories—is incredibly grounded and avoids any temptation to include supernatural elements in creating scares and chills. From start to finish, Misery finds its terror in how (sadly) possible this scenario is. As such, it’s still one of the more effective adaptations of King’s writing in cinematic fashion; Reiner understood the assignment and pulled it off. That being said, Misery is not my favorite movie based on a Stephen King story. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t good. And the main reason for that is the film’s antagonist: Annie Wilkes. Much in the same way that The Dead Zone leans heavily on Christopher Walken’s central performance, this movie simply wouldn’t work without Bates in the role of Annie Wilkes. No disrespect to James Caan as her co-star, but Bates grips your attention from the second she appears on screen. Simply put, she more than earned her Oscar for this performance by singlehandedly delivering what makes the movie as good as it is: it is so stressful to watch. Which is ultimately why I don’t love Misery or care to ever rewatch it. It’s not necessarily a fun time to watch. However, that in no way takes away from the quality of filmmaking on display. Even if you don’t love King’s more typical strain of horror but like thrillers, Misery is more than worth your time. And even if you don’t love the genre, check it out just once for Kathy Bates’ performance alone. Trust me; you won’t be disappointed. Dolores Claiborne (1995) Five years after delivering an Oscar-winning performance in Misery, Kathy Bates starred in another Stephen King adaptation: the psychological drama Dolores Claiborne. Based on the 1992 novel of the same name and directed by Taylor Hackford (An Officer and a Gentleman, Ray), the film sees Bates playing the titular character who tries to reconcile a strained past with her daughter Selena (Jennifer Jason Leigh). All the while, Dolores deals with being the prime suspect in a murder investigation which Selena leaves New York City and returns to their home of Little Tall Island, Maine for. Together, they try to clear Dolores’ name and simultaneously heal the scars shared between them. Honestly, I don’t want to say much more about the plot of this film. If you haven’t seen it, I wouldn’t be surprised. Unfortunately, in my experience it seems to be one of the lesser-known Stephen King film adaptations which (in my humble opinion) is a shame. It’s one of the most thematically rich films based on King’s stories that I’ve seen. While its main plot is a compelling mystery, it’s the relationships that Hackford and his actors rely on to ground the audience in the narrative. Through exploring the dynamics of these characters (primarily, but not exclusively, that between Bates’ and Leigh’s characters), Dolores Claiborne has something to say about the challenges of returning home to confront the truths of your childhood as well as the nuances of mother-daughter relationships. If you’re looking for the same gripping performance from Bates in this movie that she gave in Misery, you won’t find it. And you shouldn’t be looking for it. This movie is better served by her subtler portrayal of a middle-aged, working-class woman who finds herself in the wrong place at the wrong time. Simply put, how different she is in this movie compared to Misery speaks to Bates’ sheer talent and command of her craft. However, when on screen with Leigh (who brings her own strong presence to Selena & her rapport with her mother), the two make a fantastic pair of leading women. That being said, I do think that the acting is elevated by the screenplay for Dolores Claiborne. Penned by Tony Gilroy (The Bourne Identity, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story), the writing deftly balances drama, suspense, and mystery to create a genre-bending narrative. It is well paced in terms of the reveals while ensuring that the timing of said reveals offer impactful emotional punches (especially during the third act with regards to Dolores’ fate). At the same time, though, Gilroy’s writing never comes off as rushed or exploitative. Instead, it relies on deliberate storytelling to make these human stakes very high by investing us in the titular heroine and the immediate support system around her. I don’t want to say anymore out of fear of revealing too much. Go check out Dolores Claiborne if you haven’t yet. If you don’t, you’ll surely regret it. Needless to say, all four of these films are great movies in their own right while also being exceptional adaptations of Stephen King’s storytelling. They are all worth watching (even though I prefer some more than others), and luckily are just some of the great cinematic takes on King’s literary oeuvre. Don’t believe it? Then go check them out for yourself! 😊 What is your favorite cinematic tribute to Stephen King? Which of King’s novels or short stories would you like to see made into a film? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Image by mohamed_hassan from Pixabay Nearly ten years after the release of the sixth (and supposedly final) entry in Sylvester Stallone’s Rocky series, an up-and-coming director Ryan Coogler (of Black Panther fame) ushered in a new era of the “Italian Stallion” and his world by offering a fresh perspective on it through the eyes of the late Apollo Creed’s illegitimate son: Adonis “Donnie” Johnson (Michael B. Jordan). The result? Released in 2015, Creed received near-universal critical and audience praise and revitalized the Rocky franchise for a new generation.
Now, eight years after that, Donnie’s story continues with the highly-anticipated Creed III which officially brings the franchise into its sixth consecutive decade of entertaining moviegoers with stories about underdogs, boxers, and underdog boxers. What better time to dissect each movie in the Creed trilogy as a way to wrap up my overall thoughts on this sports drama series begun by Stallone nearly fifty years ago? So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Creed (2015) When I first watched through this series, I anticipated having mixed feelings about the Rocky movies while liking the Creed movies. However, I was cautiously optimistic due to my lack of love for Black Panther. When the credits rolled on my first viewing, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed Creed. And I was even happier when I enjoyed it just as much on a rewatch. First and foremost, the story choice on the part of Coogler and his friend/co-writer Aaron Covington to make the son of Apollo Creed the protagonist is genuinely inspired. Not only does it give the audience a new underdog fighter to root for, but by shifting the franchise’s perspective to a new family name (and, therefore, legacy), the narrative feels fresh and new without ignoring or disrespecting the history of the Rocky movies that came before. And that protagonist is a pretty good character in his debut. Largely thanks to B. Jordan’s solid performance, Donnie carries on the tradition began by Rocky Balboa (Sylvester Stallone) back in the first film of proving himself in the ring in order to prove something to himself. To do so, he’s driven by his hunger for a shot in the professional boxing world without riding on his late father’s coattails by using his mother’s name rather than the well-respected name of “Creed.” However, once his truth of his parentage becomes public knowledge, Donnie is confronted with the complexities of his father’s legacy while also making sure that he earns the chances he’s been given to prove his worth facing off against the world light heavyweight champion “Pretty” Ricky Conlan (Tony Bellew). Undeniably, there are several aspects of Donnie’s arc that echo Rocky’s arc from his first movie. While this is somewhat unavoidable given the storyteller’s constraints within the formula of a boxing movie, I appreciate that Coogler, Covington, and B. Jordan push those limits in how they tell Donnie’s inner struggle with his own identity that, ultimately, ends up in him embracing the Creed name. It is this angle of the narrative that helps to distinguish Creed from Rocky, helping it stand on its own while simultaneously feeling synchronous with the atmosphere of the franchise of six films preceding it. In my humble opinion, that seemingly effortless harmony largely goes to Coogler’s credit as a director. While I think his distinctive style comes off a little excessive in Black Panther, it feels like there is a certain level of restraint on display. In particular, I was impressed during my rewatch of Creed how well Coogler manages to balance more modern filmmaking sensibilities with seamless homages to the more over-the-top cinema presented in the mainline Rocky series. The mish-mashing hip-hop music with Bill Conti’s classic Rocky themes makes for some compelling training montages. In addition, the climactic fight between Donnie and Conlan embraces more kinetic camerawork from Emmy-nominated cinematographer Maryse Alberti (The Wrestler, Chappaquiddick) in order to invest more effectively immerse the audience in every single block and jab than the preceding films in this franchise. However, Coogler still knows when it’s just the right moment to invoke the classic Rocky theme song to bring forth the audience’s nostalgic love for the “Italian Stallion” and impose it upon their new favorite underdog boxer. Such a well-intentioned and superb balance of love for the past and hope for the future is all over Creed; what more could fans ask for? Well…Sylvester Stallone, of course! 😊 Unlike his turns in some of the Rocky movies (both in his writing & acting), Stallone does anything but phone it in here. Not dissimilar from the heart he brought to the “Italian Stallion” in the first Rocky movie, he fully embraces the supporting nature of his role in Creed to uplift Donnie’s journey while also stealing much of the movie thanks to an Oscar-nominated performance. In short, he builds off of Rocky’s confrontation with aging and mortality that begun in Rocky Balboa to make the audience suitably emotional over the threat of his character dying from cancer. But, deeper than that, he brings such a vulnerable and relatable beauty to Rocky’s initial reluctance to fight the disease by reminding us just how much he’s lost by now (both his best friends and his beloved wife). Together, Donnie and Rocky need each other. They feed off of each other’s fighting spirits to help the other get through some tough times in their lives. The result? An incredible teacher-student duo that continues the Rocky franchise into a new age with an amount of grace and skill that (in my humble opinion) supersedes all the films in the series that came before. Yet, Creed still honors its predecessor’s thematic roots by making the heart and soul of its story about finding family, love, and purpose. What more could Rocky fans ask for? 😊 Creed II (2018) Despite being committed to directing Black Panther, Coogler stayed on as executive producer for the sequel to Creed. Picking up the director’s hat, Steven Caple, Jr. who by then had only one feature film under his belt. Yet, the faith placed in him by Coogler and the studio was proven worthwhile. Joined by writer Juel Taylor, Stallone also picked up the pen once more to co-write the sequel’s screenplay (as he had done for every Rocky movie up to that point except Creed). Together with the incredible cast from the first movie and some new (or not-so-new) additions, this team managed to deliver another great movie in this series with Creed II. This time around, Donnie’s journey begins with him successfully defeating the world heavyweight champion Danny “Stuntman” Wheeler (Andre Ward) and winning back his Ford Mustang in the process. Now the reigning champ, Donnie possesses the confidence befitting such a sports celebrity. Which makes just the right time for a wrench to get thrown into his life in the form of a ghost from his father Apollo’s and Rocky’s past: Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren), who brings his son Viktor (Florian Munteanu) stateside to challenge Donnie’s championship. Despite some pretty absurd storylines of Stallone’s in the previous Rocky flicks, none is perhaps more ridiculous than the “Italian Stallion” himself traveling to the Soviet Union and fighting Ivan Drago to avenge the death of his rival-turned-trainer/friend Apollo Creed who Drago killed in an exhibition match in Rocky IV. On top of that, Lundgren’s Drago is arguably the most memorable antagonist from the original Rocky series. Combined, these factors serve as a direct challenge to writers Taylor and Stallone and director Caple, Jr. to ask the question: “What if the sequel to Creed is centered on a vicarious rematch between Apollo and Drago through their sons?” Only the Rocky series is ballsy enough to make one of the craziest plotlines that spawned the Creed spin-offs the focal point of the eighth film in the franchise. And it shouldn’t work…but it does! 😊 To propel the narrative, Donnie is faced with some adult decisions. Should he just enjoy being champion and focus on his growing family with Bianca (Tessa Thompson), or should he allow pride to cloud his judgment by taking Drago’s needless challenge? While the answer may seem obvious to some, most of us never had the father we never met get murdered in a boxing match by the Soviet Union’s prime fighter. As such, Donnie feels he has no choice but to take the challenge and right the wrongs committed against his father and his name. However, his hubris and overconfidence (in addition to not having Rocky in his corner) cause him to get badly injured in the match with Viktor. Despite retaining his championship due to Viktor being disqualified for misconduct, Donnie’s faith in himself is shattered. Beyond the storytellers’ daring move to utilize the legacy of Rocky IV as the basis for their plot, what I most appreciate about Creed II is that Donnie can only overcome his failure in the fight with Viktor by re-focusing on what matters most: family. While I didn’t say much about it with regards to Creed, I really love the chemistry between Michael B. Jordan and Tessa Thompson. Unlike the rocky (😊) start to Stallone’s dynamic with Talia Shire in the first movie, Donnie and Bianca’s blossoming romance and deep bond in both Creed movies helps ground them in genuine human relationships. Which gets to the subplot of Creed II centered on the Dragos. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that this is the weaker aspect of this film’s narrative when compared to Donnie’s “fall-and-rise” journey. That being said, I appreciate the filmmakers’ ambitions to humanize the Dragos by exploring the effects of generational trauma committed by Ivan against Viktor. Furthermore, this decision produces one of the more emotional moments in the final fight when Ivan, seeing Viktor getting beat up by Donnie, does what Rocky should’ve done for Apollo all those years ago: he throws in the towel to protect his son. Realizing his mistake in putting so much pressure on Viktor to redeem their family name, Ivan reassures him that losing is okay. I don’t think any antagonist in the entire Rocky franchise has ever gotten as much solid writing as Ivan and Viktor did in Creed II. Overall, I think this movie does some things better than the first Creed and some things not as well. One advantage it has, in my humble opinion, over its predecessor is its pacing. While there were a few slower moments in Creed for me, I think Creed II made a slightly more effective use of its runtime with the first act highlighting Donnie’s fall, the second act focused on him rekindling his friendship with Rocky and supporting Bianca through the birth of their daughter Amara, and the third act seeing him train and redeem himself in the rematch with Viktor. Honestly, I think this is somewhat due to Stallone’s involvement in writing the screenplay. Unquestionably, he knows the formula for a good boxing movie (perhaps better than anyone else). As such, his experience telling these kinds of stories shines through in the pacing. On that note, since this is (possibly) Stallone’s final outing as the character, I think it’s fitting that he co-wrote the movie and gave Rocky a pretty good send-off reconnecting with his son Robert (Milo Ventimiglia) and meeting his grandson Logan (Robbie Johns) for the first time. At the end of the day, these are the Creed movies and Rocky doesn’t necessarily need to be in them (at least, I don’t think he does; let’s hope Creed III proves me right 😊). Simply put, I think Creed and Creed II are equally great movies and if I rewatched them both again I could find myself flipping them in my final ranking. However, I personally vibe with Creed II a little more because of Michael B. Jordan’s performance and Donnie’s arc. By the time the credits rolled, it felt like the character found his stride and would be able to carry a third entry in the franchise all on his own. I have yet to see Creed III at the time of writing this, but I hope that it will continue the streak of great moviemaking that these first two Creed movies offered. And with Michael B. Jordan following in Stallone’s footsteps by making his directorial debut in the series starring himself, the sky is the limit! Creed III (2023) [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “Creed III.” You have been warned.] The third time around, Creed finally feels like a film franchise standing on its own two feet without relying on the events of any of the Rocky movies to flesh out its narrative. To do so, director (and star) Michael B. Jordan and screenwriters Keenan Coogler (brother of Ryan Coogler) and Zack Baylin (King Richard) go all in about making Creed III the most personal story for Adonis. And, for the most part, this pays off tremendously. The core of the film’s story has Donnie facing the haunting specter of guilt from his past for (in his mind) abandoning his best friend Damian “Dame” Anderson (Jonathan Majors) when the latter was arrested while saving Donnie from a vicious beatdown when they were teenagers. Without question, this setup allows the filmmakers to offer plausibility for Rocky Balboa’s absence (that and, of course, his heartfelt reunion with his son Robert, Jr. in Toronto at the end of Creed II). Which is greatly needed to tell this particular story about Donnie dealing with events from his past—not Rocky’s. As such, I greatly respect this overarching creative decision for Creed III because it helps the movie stand out from every other in the franchise in a meaningful way. Of course, this is not the only way that Creed III differentiates itself from previous entries. Making his directorial debut here, Michael B. Jordan not only turns in another stellar performance as the titular protagonist. He also carves out a niche for himself as a stylistic director with unique sensibilities (especially when compared to every other Rocky and Creed flick). In particular, the way he shoots the fight choreography for the boxing in this movie is both more dynamic and immersive (perhaps with the exception of Coogler’s work in the first Creed movie). No offense Stallone, but B. Jordan’s approach to directing here felt much more inspired than any of the Rocky flicks that were directed by their titular star. Simply put, I’m not always impressed when actors put on the directing hat for one of their movies. However, B. Jordan earns it with his work in Creed III by exciting me for whatever he directs next (whether it be another Creed movie or something outside of this franchise). If not for a new addition to the cast of Creed, B. Jordan’s directing would be what most people leaving the theater are talking about. Alas, it is Jonathan Majors’ turn as “Dame” Anderson that not only steals the show from the other actors in this movie but also outshines every other antagonist in all the Rocky and Creed movies. Sitting in the theater on opening weekend, I was engrossed with every second of Majors’ performance from the way his smile would disappear to the light-footed, dance-like way he moved in the ring. Even the crook of his brow or flicker of his eyes is so captivating that it’s clear from the get-go how every ounce of his mind, body and soul are wholly committed to making the audience love and hate Damian simultaneously. As much as I liked Majors’ character, however, he also expertly pulled off the heel turn in the second half of the film. As a result, I was (perhaps for the first time in the entire franchise) more invested in how Donnie and Dame would resolve their beef outside of the ring than how the fight inside the ring would end. In my humble opinion, this just goes to show how good of an idea it was to make the story of this movie so deeply personal. With a lesser performance from Donnie’s opponent, Creed III would not work as well as it does. Thankfully, Majors proves how important it is for the audience to be emotionally invested in Donnie’s opponents in order to make these kinds of movies (and particularly this story) work. If I have any notable criticisms of this movie, it’s with the writing. While the three-act structure of its overall narrative works for me, there are some particular choices made by Keenan Coogler and Zach Baylin that hold back Creed III from completely surpassing its two immediate predecessors. First off, I appreciated the time jump between the second and third Creed movies for no other reason than aging up Donnie and Bianca’s daughter Amara (Mila Davis-Kent). Her and B. Jordan have very good chemistry together. That being said, I feel like Amara’s subplot involving her being bullied should’ve either added several more minutes to the final cut or been cut completely. The way it turned out felt both convoluted and underdeveloped, which only adds to the idea that it was a cheap way to force a sequel involving Donnie training Amara to box. Simply put, I think the actress did a good job but her character’s role in the screenplay was a bit awkward. Furthermore, one of the hidden gems of the Creed trilogy is Donnie’s adoptive mom and Apollo’s widow Mary Anne Creed (Phylicia Rashad) who has some of the more emotional scenes in all three movies outside of the ring. However, the way her character’s end is handled in Creed III came off as pretty forced and lacked the emotional impact that I think was intended by the storytellers. In the same vein of Mickey’s death in Rocky III, I just think the way Mary Anne was killed off did not justify the act of doing it. And the fact that her funeral is the one time in the film where Rocky’s absence actually took away from the scene doesn’t help this particular narrative decision. Ultimately, though, these are some minor critiques for what I think is still a solid sports drama. On top of that, the fact that this movie—a second sequel to an eight-year-old film that itself should not have worked—is as good as it is an impressive feat all the same. While I do think that it falls just short of the first two Creed movies, it certainly avoids tainting the increasingly enduring legacy of this subset of a franchise started by Ryan Coogler back in 2015. And, more important than anything, it’s a damn entertaining movie with great acting and directing and some good (but flawed) writing that shockingly makes me excited for a potential fourth Creed flick (and tenth entry in the Rocky franchise). With all that said, here is my official ranking of all nine films in the Rocky/Creed franchise:
What is your favorite Creed film? Would you prefer Sylvester Stallone to appear in a fourth Creed movie, a seventh Rocky movie, both, or neither? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Image by Tania Van den Berghen from Pixabay To close out the year, James Cameron (The Terminator, Aliens, Titanic) and Hollywood have delivered a film more than a decade in the making. Avatar: The Way of Water, Cameron’s three-hour-long sequel to his 2009 smash hit, has a lot to live up to in terms of financial success (despite a brief knock in 2019 due to the release of Marvel Studios’ Avengers: Endgame, Avatar retains the coveted status of being the highest-grossing film of all time with a total box office take of nearly three BILLION dollars).
In weighing the pros and cons of writing this blog now, I considered the fact that I could wait six years when the supposed fourth Avatar sequel is set to hit theaters and do a retrospective on the entire franchise (which I might still do 😊). However, I threw caution to the wind and ultimately decided to dive into Cameron’s majestic, breathtaking, and immersive CGI world of Pandora now as well. Simply put, the time felt right for me to revisit the first Avatar movie before seeing the sequel in theaters. Having seen it back in 2009 when I was a mere pre-teen and then rewatching it at home on DVD multiple times, I have not gone back and revisited the original Avatar film with my matured cinematic sensibilities. Plus, I figured it’d be best to have the movie fresh in my mind before sitting down in the theater for three hours to take in the sequel. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Avatar (2009) For a summary of the production and release of Avatar, click here. Upon a rewatch of a film that I haven’t seen start to finish in almost ten years, James Cameron’s Avatar (in my humble opinion) holds up as one of my favorite films of his. To be clear, I’m not saying it’s one of his best movies. By any inkling of an objective metric that can be used to measure a film’s quality and longevity, I cannot say with the utmost confidence that Avatar is one of the greatest films of the last decade (let alone of all time). But, since I lack any nostalgic sentiment for the Terminator series and his less iconic movies such as The Abyss and True Lies didn’t stick with me after watching them, 2009’s Avatar remains in my top-three favorite of Cameron’s feature films. To get right to the point, Cameron is undeniably a fantastic cinematic storyteller. In crafting his very own fictional universe in Pandora and a dystopian future for humanity, he manages to set Avatar apart from the “shared universe” trend rampant in recent blockbuster filmmaking. To do so, he fills his playbox with lots of exciting and unique creatures, environments, and histories while also leaving plenty of mystery to explore and expand upon in future installments of the franchise. At the heart of Pandora’s eclectic ecosystem are the Na’vi. A humanoid, blue-skinned species that serve as a great foil to the humans of Cameron’s dystopian future for a number of reasons. Primarily, they exist harmoniously with their planet’s environment and everything that inhabits is (at least everything native to Pandora). As a result, Avatar presents a not-so-subtle (but still pressing and narratively relevant) message about the importance of human beings devising a way to exist co-dependently with the natural world to avoid both the destruction of their own species and all others in the process. While this message is not presented in the most sophisticated or delicate manner, Cameron nevertheless makes the movie relevant to a modern audience and a modern world despite its reliance on well-trodden narrative tropes. But, before I get to that, I have to touch on the groundbreaking filmmaking on display in Avatar. Of course, I’m not the first one to say that this movie exemplifies technological breakthroughs in computer-generated imagery and motion-capture performance that continue to influence big-budget moviemaking to this day. Yet, when I sat down to rewatch Avatar only a few weeks ago, I was absolutely stunned how little I noticed anything akin to the visual effects in the movie feeling “dated” in any significant way. While I do have some issues with the film’s CGI of the late-2000s, it remains incredibly impressive given where most movies were at the time. Of course, Avatar was not created in a bubble. Quite the opposite; it built upon the progress made in motion capture used in movies like The Phantom Menace and The Lord of the Rings trilogy with characters such as Jar Jar Binks and Gollum, respectively. However, nobody can deny that Cameron took those improvements and crafted a process of capturing the actors’ performances and crafting a completely digital cinematic vista led by fully-CG characters for the big screen. In other words, very few movies managed to even come close to the achievements pulled off by Cameron and his cast and crew in Avatar for over a decade. But what about the story? Of course, any detractors of the movie constantly point to its derivative narrative as its major weakness and the thing that holds it back from greatness. And, upon rewatching Avatar, I can’t help but largely agree. While I do think some of the critics of this movie tend to downplay its awe-inspiring accomplishments just to tear it down and get attention for such negativity, I understand why some people find the story of Avatar boring or unoriginal. In a sense, it is. While its narrative structure is very reminiscent of other movies like Dances with Wolves and Princess Mononoke (the former of which is far superior to Avatar), such trappings were used for a very good reason: they are effective and powerful. Let’s start with the first act, which admittedly is a bit slow and weighed down by tons of exposition. Some of this is necessary to establish both important bits of world building for Pandora but also set the stakes of the journey of Jake Sully (Sam Worthington)—both physical and emotional—as he arrives on Pandora to fill his twin brother’s shores. Furthermore, the slow-build nature of the first hour of Avatar fleshes out the cultural intricacies of the Omaticaya. Through the eyes of Sully and his increasingly charming interactions with the fierce Na’vi woman Neytiri (Zoë Saldaña), the audience falls in love with the natives of Pandora and, subsequently, becomes emotionally invested in their livelihood and their future. All of this occurs without ever realizing it due to the spectacle nature of the film. This, in essence, is the underappreciated brilliance of films like Avatar. Due to making us care about the Na’vi, we are emotionally heartbroken when the human military goons—led by Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang)—destroy the natives’ sacred place Hometree. All for the financial wealth they plan to harvest from the ground beneath the Na’vi land. In exchange for monetary gain, they burn parts of Pandora to ash. This heart wrenching tragedy that marks the height of the second act is where Avatar (in my humble opinion) is elevated from a good-enough blockbuster to a solidly entertaining and emotional film. From the low point of this loss for the Na’vi, Sully’s journey propels forward as he seeks to right the wrongs that both his species and he personally has committed against Pandora. The result? An action-packed, tense, and altogether awesome climactic battle in the third act that brings both the major story threads and the film’s themes of environmentalism and redemption together in a very effective manner. Again, this narrative structure is by no means new to moviegoers but it remains a highly compelling story structure that provides opportunities for great scenes to show off acting, characterization, and action. In this respect, Avatar excels from beginning to end. All that said, I don’t think the unoriginal nature of the film’s screenplay is what holds it back the most. Largely because most viewers just want to be entertained, and Avatar certainly does that. Ultimately, the major narrative flaw which (in my humble opinion) keeps the movie from achieving the status of a “modern classic” is its reliance on the unsavory (no pun intended) “white savior” storytelling trope. While the film is obviously a fictional tale, the plight of the Na’vi (a blue-skinned alien culture being exploited and colonized by a largely homogenous group of trigger-happy humans) bluntly echoes the travails and tribulations of indigenous Americans that were colonized and brutalized at the hands of European explorers and conquerors. Furthermore, by transcending his own broken human body to earn the trust (and later on defend) the Na’vi by physically transforming into one of them, Jake Sully undoubtedly fits the definition of a “white savior” (despite the movie ending with him rejecting his humanity, and thus “whiteness,” by permanently becoming a Na’vi). In other words, Avatar meets most of the criteria of this device (see the above link to my blog on the subject back in February). To reiterate what I said there, however, a tropey movie can still be entertaining and interesting to watch. But, there is no denying that Cameron’s screenplay for the film is by no means its biggest strength. So, is Avatar a great film? Well, it’s certainly no Titanic. 😊 In all seriousness, the first Avatar movie is a thoroughly entertaining romp that lays a very solid foundation. The breathtaking environments of Pandora and groundbreaking use of visual effects changed cinema forever, and set a new standard for modern sci-fi films that took other studios many years to even come close to achieving (Josh Brolin’s Thanos in the last two Avengers films and Andy Serkis’s Caesar in the modern Planet of the Apes trilogy being successful examples of coming close). That being said, its structural and character flaws hold it back from true cinematic excellence across the board. However, after my rewatch of Avatar, I am far more excited to see the sequel than I was even a few months ago. Can it top Aliens as my favorite James Cameron sequel to date? Even more unlikely, can it surpass Titanic to become my favorite James Cameron film of all time? We’ll just have to wait and see. 😊 Avatar: The Way of Water (2022) [NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “Avatar: The Way of Water.” You have been warned.] Walking out of the theater after seeing Avatar: The Way of Water, I was struggling to process my feelings about it. While I knew that it was a good movie, I was unsure if it met my expectations. And then I thought: could it ever meet my expectations, or anybody’s for that matter? Coming out more than a decade after the first Avatar film, the anticipation for what James Cameron cooked up throughout the mid-to-late 2010s was as high as it could ever be. Particularly after rewatching the first movie, I was very excited for what Cameron would do to craft a more original and compelling narrative while also continuing to innovate the technology needed to make such a film. To start with the biggest strengths of The Way of Water, it unsurprisingly ups the ante when it comes to innovative filmmaking from a technological standpoint. I won’t spend much time on this point because it will undeniably be a universal point in its favor, but Cameron continues to prove his ability to utilize computer technology in designing a visual spectacle. The most notable improvement on display here, in my humble opinion, is the advancements made in motion capture. Not only does it easily trump the first Avatar, but I think it will end up setting a new bar for capturing actors’ performances in this manner due to just how in touch the technology is now with every subtle emotion on the actors’ faces. Simply put, this movie doesn’t work without the motion capture and I think Cameron one-upped himself in that respect. Besides just the visual spectacle of The Way of Water, I personally appreciated Cameron’s willingness to flesh out the tribal cultures and histories of Pandora as proof that this world is potentially rich as a sci-fi fantasy cinematic sandbox. Akin to the Omaticaya’s intimate spiritual connection with their environment and all its creatures, the Metkayina that were introduced in this movie have an even more fascinating emotional bond with the reef and the creatures of the ocean (notably the whale-like tulkun). This serves an important narrative purpose, of course, but I just appreciated how Cameron doubled-down on the strong environmentalist bent of the first film without being as extremely in-your-face about it and making it about these characters connecting with the world. When it comes to the film’s structure and pacing, I definitely have my issues that I’ll get to later. However, I surprisingly found myself embracing the exposition-heavy first act. While most movies that do this frustrate me, I think The Way of Water needed this due to the fact that its predecessor came out thirteen years ago. Thus, it effectively serves to establish the various dynamics of Jake Sully’s family (particularly his and Neytiri’s relationship with their children and the kids’ relationships with each other). But it also does enough to explain away how both Sigourney Weaver and Stephen Lang’s characters are “resurrected” in new forms (with Weaver’s Grace being “immaculately conceived” by Eywa in the form of thirteen-year-old Kiri and Lang’s Quaritch having his DNA implanted into an Avatar like Jake did in the first film). Which brings me to one of the biggest surprises about the movie: Cameron’s use of Quaritch. To be clear, Lang is still very much playing a villain here. However, I think the creative decision to put that character into a Na’vi body is fascinating, and the execution somehow made the idea even better. Not only does Quaritch allow himself to be exposed to the traditions and language of the Na’vi, but his burgeoning protectiveness (and eventual love) for Miles “Spider” Socorro (Jack Champion)—who is Quaritch’s son—ended up being one of the more interesting relationship dynamics of The Way of Water (despite how little screen time it was given). By the end, I’m more interested in how their connection to each other evolves over the next several sequels than many other relationships introduced in the movie. And, of course, Cameron knows how to make his third-act finales epic and action-packed. While the final battle of The Way of Water does not remotely rival the sinking of the famous cruise liner in Titanic, Ripley killing the Xenomorph Queen in Aliens, or even the sky battle in the first Avatar film, it is still a tense and thrilling action sequence that has plenty of fun bits to chew on from start to finish. Primarily, it manages to fulfill the promise of the movie’s first two acts by playing on the audience’s investment in Jake’s family to raise the stakes and put them all in lethal danger. There’s also lots of fun action moments involving the Metkayina and their animals deliciously murdering the human soldiers and whalers; what’s not to like about that?! 😊 I hope it’s clear that I liked a lot about The Way of Water. But there are some notable flaws of the movie that (in my humble opinion) hold it back from surpassing the first Avatar film and from being one of my favorite films of the year. And, unfortunately, a lot of my positives about the movie also have drawbacks to dive into (pun intended 😊). Ultimately, a lot of the things that don’t work about the film for me have to do with its runtime. Simply put, I don’t think Cameron’s screenplay or his team’s editing serves its three-hour-plus length and thus the movie doesn’t earn such a gargantuan runtime. For me, a lot of these problems should have been fixed in the second act by stripping down and shortening the amount of time that Jake’s children spend bonding with the ocean and its creatures. To be fair, some of the most breathtaking sequences in The Way of Water are during this portion of the movie (notably Kiri effortlessly bonding with the reef). However, I just think Cameron could have shortened many of these scenes and cut out at least twenty minutes of the movie to make it a little more digestible to regular moviegoers. Regarding the pacing, there is a lot in the film (particularly the second act) that feels like Cameron just setting up sequels rather than focusing on servicing the story he’s telling in this movie. From the teasing of the truth about Kiri’s origins to the dynamics between Jake’s family and the Metkayina—particularly his second son Lo’ak (Britain Dalton) and the Metkayina chief’s daughter Tsireya (Bailey Bass)—I just think there should’ve been additional passes on the screenplay in order to focus in on specific relationships. Instead, the cast feels bloated and the filmmakers’ efforts to make audiences care about all of them end up falling short. In other words, there is no good excuse Cameron can make to justify me not caring at least a little bit about all of the primary and secondary characters given the film’s extensive length. While all of Jake’s kids get moments, they are not all equally interesting or compelling. Likewise, I felt that other new characters like Tonowari (Cliff Curtis) and Ronal (Kate Winslet) were sadly underutilized (especially given the caliber of actors playing those characters). Again, this is most likely due to Cameron’s desire to set up sequels and thus maybe I’ll be more forgiving of this movie’s bloated cast in a few years. But, right now, I was quite disappointed in my lack of emotional investment in some of these key characters that clearly have more of a journey to go on in the future. When it comes to the film’s narrative structure, The Way of Water is simultaneously less and more derivative of its predecessors. On the one hand, it does not closely follow the “white savior” narrative trope by making the third-act payoff about parents saving their children (which includes Neytiri and Tonowari, both played by actors of color, leading the charge). As a result, it does feel less formulaic by leaning in on the family story. That being said, I was underwhelmed by how much this movie’s middle act so closely copied that of the first Avatar movie. Instead of Jake learning the ways of the Omaticaya by bonding with the forest creatures while falling in love with Neytiri and butting heads with her betrothed Tsu’tey (Lazaro Alonso), it is now Jake’s children learning the ways of the Metkayina by bonding with the sea creatures while butting heads with Tonowari’s sons and Lo’ak falling in love with Tsireya. Ultimately, my hopes for a story that was more unique while equally as emotional as the first film just weren’t satisfied with this sequel. All of this is to say that The Way of Water, while technologically superior in every way to the first Avatar film, still has a lot of the narrative baggage of Cameron relying too much on predictable narrative structure without injecting enough emotion or invoking enough empathy for these individual characters. Furthermore, the zany nature of the human villains (with the exception of Quaritch in this movie) went from tolerable before to a bit ridiculous now. So, do I think that The Way of Water is a better movie than its predecessor? Maybe it is, but I enjoy the first Avatar movie more. Overall, what are my thoughts on James Cameron’s Avatar films? Having seen the first two entries in this blossoming epic science-fiction franchise, I remain optimistic about its future. I think there is still plenty of promise in the world building of Pandora and this “dying Earth” that keeps getting referenced but never shown. Furthermore, I look forward to secondary characters in The Way of Water getting more of the spotlight in the next few movies. However, I worry that Cameron is too powerful for his own good. In my humble opinion, he not only needs a more merciless editing team but also a co-writer (or maybe two) to help him reign in his more novelistic tendencies in order to craft an effective screenplay for the next few movies. We’ll see if that happens, But, for now, we just have to wait and see what comes of the Avatar series. What do you like and dislike about both Avatar films? Are you excited for or dreading the multiple planned sequels? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst Last week, I took a look back at the (mostly) lackluster Jurassic Park trilogy. Despite the first film’s critical success and lasting legacy as a modern classic, its sequels pale in comparison according to most cinephiles. But, since they all made money and since Hollywood cannot leave well enough alone, the franchise was given a “soft reboot” in 2015 with the release of Jurassic World. Directed by Colin Trevorrow, Jurassic World went on to gross over one-and-a-half billion dollars (as of today, it is still in the top-ten highest-grossing movies of all time). Even its sequel, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, earned over one billion dollars despite not being as well received by critics or audiences. Thus, to complete a new trilogy, this weekend saw the release of Jurassic World: Dominion which reunites the three leads from the original film for the first time. How was it? Before I get to that, let’s dissect the pros and cons of the first two Jurassic World movies and then we can put a bow on this franchise (hopefully for good) with a final ranking of all six films. So, without further ado…LET’S GET STARTED! Jurassic World (2015) Maybe I’m biased, but I really enjoy Jurassic World. I remember seeing it in the theaters with my cousin and friends opening weekend fresh out of high school. At nineteen years old, I had not yet exposed myself to the “finer tastes” of the world of cinema and thus was just looking for a good time at the movies. Which made me all the more nervous to ever rewatching it because I knew that initial theatrical experience could not be replicated. But every time I rewatch Jurassic World, I enjoy it for what it is: a turn-your-brain-off blockbuster where you get to see dinosaurs eat and kill people and badass people figure out a way to stop them. So, what exactly do I think helps this movie work on this level? For starters, the film does a surprisingly effective job at acknowledging and embracing the inherent silliness of a movie franchise where the central plot rests on humans genetically cloning dinosaurs for all to see. Whether it’s going all in on the first film’s foreshadowing of a dinosaur theme park or somehow forcing us to buy into the fact that parents would just send their kids to such a park without any actual supervision, the film doesn’t try to convince you to buy into its realism because it offers (mostly) none. Instead, it ups the zany factor (especially in the second half) that comes off as thoroughly more entertaining than Jurassic Park III (let alone The Lost World). Despite upping the wacky antics with genetic hybrid dinosaur clones and watching Navy marine Owen Grady (Chris Pratt) hunt down prey with a pack of Velociraptors while riding a motorcycle, Jurassic World has a refreshingly poignant metacommentary infused into its main plot. The premise of this film is that a dinosaur theme park has been open for over two decades on the island where John Hammond’s original park was supposed to be built. However, according to the park’s operations manager Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard), shareholders want something bigger and badder because apparently kids are no longer interested in just genetic clones of dinosaurs. On its face, this concept is absurd. I mean, how in any reality remotely close to our own would anyone (no matter their age) get bored going to see dinosaurs eat, breathe, and walk around in their presence?! Especially if you consider the two Jurassic Park sequels to be canon with the universe of Jurassic World, how the hell would anybody want to financially support a theme park filled with man-eating beasts after seeing what happened in San Diego in The Lost World? But, after seeing this film three times, I give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt by choosing to believe that this is actual their way of telling Jurassic Park fans to abide the inherent excesses and leaps in logic of the plot in order to sit back and enjoy it. This works for me because, as I said in my original Jurassic Park blog, that first film certainly has some logical inconsistencies that take away the enjoyment factor for me. At the end of the day, it’s a dinosaur movie so just enjoy the ride! Otherwise, what’s the point? 😊 Aside from these quasi-fourth-wall breaks, I do think there are some pretty good aspects of Jurassic World as just a film on its own terms. While I can understand some people’s criticisms of Pratt and Howard as the movie’s leads, I appreciate their chemistry as equally stubborn co-workers whose personalities often clash but grow together and help each other over the course of the film to survive and help those they care about most. While I personally didn’t need the whole romance backstory-to-subplot that took up too much screentime, I found them to be the strongest leading pair in the entire Jurassic franchise since the first film. Howard, in particular, pulls off a pretty unlikeable character in Claire who’s a near-monstrous epitome of corporate excess and emotional detachment who comes to care for the dinosaurs after seeing them through Owen’s eyes. It’s not easy to endear an audience to that kind of character by the end, but I think Howard manages to evoke enough sympathy (and pulls it out in the climax with that flare 😊) so as to counterbalance Pratt’s hypermasculine charm and badassery. Admittedly, Pratt doesn’t have much of a character arc in the movie but doesn’t really need one. He’s basically the smartest person in the park with the most foresight to tell everyone (including Claire) what should be done regarding the Indominus rex from the outset. Which gets to another criticism of the plot of this movie: the park’s utter lack of preparedness for emergency situations regarding their “assets.” Simply put, we see a pretty clear procedure play out when the Indominus rex escapes its pen. First, Claire prepares to close off the nearby section of the park before realizing that the creature tricked her and Owen in order to actually escape. Once it really escapes, Claire and her boss Simon Masrani (Iffran Khan) dispatch a group of the Asset Containment Unit (ACU) armed with non-lethal weapons because Masrani doesn’t want the tens of millions of dollars invested in the dinosaur put to waste by killing it. But once the Indominus kills all of their best guys, Claire relocates all the guests to the main entrance and plaza while Masrani (who does not have a pilot’s license) has a minigun attached to a helicopter and flies it to the Indominus and tries to shoot it down but ends up being killed in the process. And then everything just goes to shit. I get that one of the central themes of this film and the Jurassic franchise overall is the negative impact of humanity’s hubris and overconfidence can have on the planet. That being said, a dinosaur-filled theme park that’s supposedly been running successfully for more than twenty years should not only have a more streamlined process for dealing with an “asset out of containment” but also have way more people and weapons on staff ready to kill any dinosaur if necessary. Sorry about your money, Masrani, but if you want to have a dinosaur theme park you have to be willing to lose the money invested in the animal by ending its life for the safety and security of your guests. But I digress. Much of the problems of Jurassic World can be largely forgiven, because they occur in the first half. Once the Indominus is out and shit hits the fan, this movie becomes a well-paced and tense thriller involving some great set pieces. These start with Masrani’s helicopter crashing in the aviary which allows a bunch of flying dinosaurs to escape and attack the guests. With the park on the verge of utter destruction, the movie gets even crazier when Owen is finally being convinced by InGen’s head of security Vic Hoskins (Vincent D’Onofrio) to let loose his four-member Velociraptor squad, led by the badass beta raptor Blue, to help him and the soldiers hunt down the Indominus. These are two standout action sequences that (in my humble opinion) exceed anything in any of the other films in the franchise. Somehow, it gets even better. The climax of Jurassic World is easily the superior ending to any of the films in the franchise that came before it. Why? I think the answer’s simple: the story focuses on the dinosaurs, who should ultimately be the focal point of all of the action in these flicks. Honestly, watching Blue work with the T-rex from the original Jurassic Park to take down the Indominus evoked similar feelings when I saw the final battle of Godzilla vs. Kong involving Mechagodzilla. It’s such a classic “cheer in the theater” moment from the last decade of blockbuster cinema that works on its own terms, but especially when compared to the contrived San Diego stampede in The Lost World or the anticlimactic resolution in Jurassic Park III. Despite all of these strengths that help make Jurassic World a solidly entertaining summer movie, it certainly has more problems than the ones I’ve already mentioned. While we’ve seen D’Onofrio turn in some great performances, like in Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket, but he unfortunately feels underutilized here and comes off like he’s phoning it in a tad. (Side note: I recently started watching the Daredevil series, formerly of Netflix, and think D’Onofrio is killing it thus far as Wilson Fisk/Kingpin). When it comes to supporting characters in this movie, I found B.D. Wong’s inclusion to be less of a revamping of a tertiary role from the original Jurassic Park film than just a way of justifying this movie’s absurd plot device of a functioning dinosaur theme park. Essentially, they each come off as subpar versions of other characters from the franchise which is sad considering the lack of quality of the many side characters of this franchise. In addition, Jurassic World continues to insist relying on the tired plot device of these movies of having children for the leads to protect. While brothers Zach (Nick Robinson) and Gray Mitchell (Ty Simpkins) are not as bad as Tim and Lex from the first Jurassic Park movie, I simply do not get why the filmmakers and studio executives behind this franchise feel the need to keep including children in the main cast to do nothing more than be protected and saved. Also, the whole divorce subplot involving the Mitchells’ parents was another waste of screentime that could’ve slimmed the movie’s runtime down just a bit to improve it that much more. Finally, while I do enjoy Jurassic World overall, I do think the one thing it does the worst out of any of the original Jurassic Park trilogy is its integration of animatronics and practical effects. Given the fact that it came out in 2015, I understand the reliance on CGI to create the dinosaurs for the big screen. That being said, part of the charm of these movies is knowing that the actors are interacting with something that looks like a dinosaur in real life (without question, one of the better moments in this movie is seeing Owen and Claire comfort the head of the dying Brachiosaurus). I do wish that there would be a more concerted effort to remind us why, when done right, practical effects aided with the right touch and amount of CGI can help movies feel like magic at work. Clearly, Jurassic World has plenty of issues and is by no means a perfect movie. All that being said, however, not only do I enjoy it more than the first film in the series but I also think how it updates the original movie’s themes to apply to corporate excess and the military-industrial complex getting in the way of scientific discovery makes it a (slightly) superior think piece for a modern audience. In other words, maybe Jurassic World isn’t a better movie than Jurassic Park but I enjoy watching it more. Fight me. 😊 Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) In many ways, the 2018 sequel to Jurassic World is similar to the 2018 sequel to Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. They both are sequels to movies that serve as continuations of beloved franchises (albeit in different ways), and they both pale in comparison to their immediate predecessor. And if we’re getting really specific, they have a lot of the same problems: too many side characters that we don’t care about, a contrived plot that builds up to a lackluster finale, and excessive focus on convoluted backstories that feel forced and unnecessary to the main narrative. All that being said, I do think that Fallen Kingdom is a better sequel than The Crimes of Grindelwald because its strengths do a relatively better job at making the movie bearable to watch. What are those strengths? Fortunately, there are several of them. Despite the second half of Fallen Kingdom largely falling flat, its first half is a decently entertaining part of the story centered on the volcanic destruction of Isla Nublar. While the plot contrivance needed to get the characters there is silly, it is an enjoyable, but ultimately tragic, collection of scenes showing Owen, Claire and their crew barely escaping the island as it burns up while the dinosaurs are also trying to flee. And once our main characters get to safety, the shot of a Brachiosaurus wailing as it’s consumed by fire, lava, and volcanic ash is genuinely heartbreaking. I just wish the emotional weight of these creatures suffering because of human arrogance carried through to the credits. With regards to our characters, I was surprised on a rewatch of this movie how much Claire had something akin to a character arc. While not always the most fun character to watch, I think she has clearly reflected and learned a lot from her time running a dinosaur theme park. Her core motivation in the movie—to save the dinosaurs from extinction—is purely charitable and comes from a place of genuine concern for these animals (which she clearly lacked in much of the first film). When it comes to the climax of Fallen Kingdom, I wrongly remembered Claire being the one to let the dinosaurs loose onto the world but, to my surprise, she actually restrains herself. To be fair, this does contradict her character on the surface. However, I choose to view her decision as one of maturity and accepting the reality of the world that she lives in which is one that will be utterly unforgiving of these animals who probably shouldn’t even be alive in the first place. Say what you will about Howard’s performance in either of these movies, I actually think that her character is decently written for what could’ve easily been a helpless damsel-in-distress in both flicks. Our other lead character, Owen, doesn’t really have an arc like Claire but once again doesn’t really need one. Instead, Fallen Kingdom dives deeper into his connection to and admiration for the dinosaurs (particularly Blue, the sole surviving Velociraptor on Isla Nublar) that supports one of this trilogy’s overarching themes of the need to respect life in all of its forms. By seeing how Blue’s relationship with Owen has changed from her younger years to now, she actually feels like one of the movie’s central characters that communicates her emotional state and outlook without ever speaking. This could be very silly, but actually comes off to me as endearing (if only Blue ever looked anything close to a practical effect, but I digress). But perhaps the biggest strength of the movie is what it teases for the third installment in the Jurassic World trilogy: the fact that Earth is now home to wild dinosaurs, and humans must learn to co-exist with them. One of the only things that Jeff Goldblum gets to do for his cameo in this movie is announce to the world that this reality is not only inevitable but has actually come true. Hopefully Jurassic World: Dominion fulfills on the fun-as-hell potential of this concept. 😊 Unfortunately, that is where the positive aspects of Fallen Kingdom end. So, let’s delve into the weaknesses (some of which I’ve already hinted at). To begin with, the sorry excuse for an inciting event of this plot that is Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell), the “silent partner” of John Hammond who helped create the technology to clone dinosaurs. Was this character even mentioned or even hinted at in any of the previous films? No, but the plot of this movie demanded the need for a source of money to fund Owen and Claire’s trip to Isla Nublar while also having a good enough reason for doing so. Thus, we get Lockwood and his treacherous assistant Eli Mills (Rafe Spall) who comes off as such a bland, uninspired, and ultimately forgettable antagonist in this franchise. He’s essentially as bad as Riz Ahmed in 2018’s Venom, who somehow comes off as slightly more memorable than this character despite being essentially the same symbol of corporate greed without limits. Somehow, Mills pales in comparison to the even adequate villains Roland from The Lost World and Hoskins from Jurassic World (let alone Wayne Knight’s iconic antagonist Nedry from the original Jurassic Park movie). But easily the element of this Lockwood subplot that feels the most forced into this movie is Maisie (Isabella Sermon), who is a clone of Lockwood’s daughter and the catalyst for Hammond cutting ties with his former partner. No disrespect to the actress, but this character is so bad for multiple reasons. First off, her inclusion shows that the filmmakers here felt a need to offer some sort of explanation as to why Hammond cut ties with Lockwood prior to Jurassic Park. Couldn’t it have just been that one wanted to have the park isolated from the mainland whereas Lockwood wanted the dinosaurs to be closer to home? Or, better yet, does it really matter why their friendship ended? In my humble opinion, no it doesn’t. However, this can be somewhat forgiven if not for the incredibly pivotal role that Maisie plays in the climax. After Claire ultimately decides to not let the dinosaurs go free, Maisie (a child who apparently is not being supervised by the four adults in the room with her at the time) pushes the button to release them from Lockwood’s mansion. Again, this is such a missed opportunity from a writing standpoint. If the director’s goal is to end this movie with dinosaurs let free in the wild, than why not allow “chaos theory” to play a role by including one small disruption earlier in the film built to a much more drastic problem later on that leads to this same outcome? Wouldn’t that be a more thematically relevant and resonant move to make than including this cloned child who we do not care about whatsoever to do this?! It just feels lazy, and that the writers ran out of time developing the screenplay and thus went with the first draft of his pivotal scene. To be clear, I don’t think movies about dinosaurs need to have the best writing ever. But they should at least make some semblance of sense, but maybe my expectations are just too high for this franchise this late in the game. So, let’s wrap up Fallen Kingdom with the other blatant weaknesses which bring us back to the whole reason we go to these movies in the first place: the dinosaurs. Somehow, this film managed to create an even more derivative dinosaur antagonist than the Indominus rex in Jurassic World with the weaponized Indoraptor. Without a doubt, this creature seems like a better idea on paper than in practice and doesn’t hold a candle to virtually any of the other iconic dinosaurs in any of the previous flicks (except maybe the Spinosaurus 😊). Finally, I want to reiterate that I think the Jurassic World movies’ biggest misfire is largely shunning the animatronics and practical effects that define the heritage and roots of this franchise. Easily, the scene where Owen and Claire draw blood from a sleeping T-rex is one of the standout mini-set pieces in Fallen Kingdom. Which makes it all the more disappointing that it’s the only one of its kind in the film, and while I hope that Dominion fixes this recurring travesty, I lack any faith that it’s going to happen. So, is Fallen Kingdom the worst sequel ever made? Certainly not. However, it’s one of the weaker films in the Jurassic franchise which is an accomplishment given how much I find these movies to be nothing close to great. Will the end of this trilogy (and the “grand finale” of the Jurassic franchise) supersede both of its predecessors? Jurassic World: Dominion (2022)
[NOTE: This blog contains spoilers for “Jurassic World: Dominion.” You have been warned.] After nearly two-and-a-half hours being (mostly) bored sitting in the theater, my audience who just watched Jurassic World: Dominion with me clapped and cheered when the credits began to roll. My first thought was: “Did we watch the same movie?” My second thought was: “Are you f***ing kidding me?!?” I truly didn’t think that it would get worse than Fallen Kingdom. But, I suppose I underestimated the piss-poor writing talents of Colin Trevorrow (thank God he didn’t end up writing and directing Star Wars: Episode IX or else that movie might’ve ended up worse than it already turned out). Without a doubt in my mind, Dominion is one of the worst big-budget blockbuster scripts I have ever seen adapted for the big screen. Not only is it far too boring for a two-hour-plus action movie involving dinosaurs, but every scene is dripping with conveniences, plot holes, and convoluted circumstances for these characters. Unfortunately, I can’t detail all of them here but I’ll try to condense the major ones from here on out. Now, are there some good things about Dominion? They are few and far between, but yes. Simply put, any positive thing that I have to say about the movie has to do with the dinosaurs. The sequence involving the chase scene through the streets of Malta is the standout action scene of the movie, namely because it gets closest to the promise of the trailers for this movie being “Fast and Furious meets Jurassic Park.” That’s really all I wanted from Dominion, so when we finally get it (nearly an hour into the runtime! ☹), it gave me momentary relief and a spark of hope that the movie could be salvaged in the latter half. A more personal action sequence—involving the entire main cast fending off the Giganotosaurus in the third act—is also a standout suspenseful scene because it’s the ONLY time in the film that I was genuinely concerned for the characters’ lives. Furthermore, the use of a practical dinosaur for a portion of this sequence helped lend it some gravitas that echoed scenes in the first two Jurassic Park flicks. Which gets to the only other real strength of Dominion: its use of practical effects. While there’s obviously still tons of CGI dinosaurs, I appreciated how much Trevorrow injected puppeteering and animatronics in multiple scenes. Does it redeem this trilogy’s relative lack of practical effects? Nope, nor does it redeem this movie. But, it was a nice touch on a pile of flaming-hot garbage. That’s basically the only nice stuff I can say about Dominion. In almost every sense of the word “filmmaking,” this movie flops and flounders its way to a whimper of a climax after dragging the audience along like nails on a chalkboard with how boring and stupid it all is. For starters, all three main human plots lack any emotional weight, thematic resonance, or engaging suspense because I never have been all that invested in any of these characters to begin with. I simply don’t get why Trevorrow and his team felt the need to bring back the clone kid Maisie Lockwood. No disrespect to the actress (who has some decent line deliveries), but this plot revolving around Dr. Henry Wu (B.D. Wong) wanting to redeem himself for setting a bunch of Cretaceous locusts onto the Earth by studying Maisie’s DNA to repeat the scientific breakthroughs of her mother Charlotte (Elva Trill) is both confounding and sleep-inducing. Of course, Trevorrow meant for the other two human-driven plots to thrust the story forward. They do only because the script demands it, but neither Owen and Claire’s globe-trotting search for Maisie nor Dr. Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) investigating Biosyn with the help of Dr. Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum) are very engaging storylines either. Only when there’s dinosaur-centric action is involved, which I remind you is sparse considering a movie with the premise that dinosaurs have spent four years unleashed into the wild of planet Earth. These plotlines lacking any drive or engaging threads of character development cause the pacing of Dominion to transcend inadequate and become straight-up insulting to paying customers who gave up their precious time and money to see this pathetic excuse for a summer blockbuster. On top of that, the number of times in the screenplay that characters should die but don’t ends up being so degrading to anybody with half a brain. I cannot stress enough that the premise for this movie had so much potential to be “dumb fun” like Fast and Furious or the first Jurassic World movie. Instead, Dominion fails to achieve even that low standard. At this point, you may be asking yourself: “But what about the actors? Even if the writing is terrible, certainly the actors do their best to make the film watchable?” Unfortunately, you’d be wrong again. While Laura Dern does her damnedest to have fun returning to the role of Sattler, the other two legacy actors fall far below that standard. Whereas Sam Neill simply doesn’t try to be any kind of interesting to watch, Jeff Goldblum resorts to his familiar bag of tricks that—despite giving me some chuckles—is simply not enough to save the movie. But what about the veteran Jurassic World cast? Surely, they try. Well, Bryce Dallas Howard tries too hard and ends up overacting much of the time while Chris Pratt seems to have given up on the franchise entirely and thus holds back any sliver of charisma that he displayed in the first two Jurassic World flicks (let alone in the Guardians of the Galaxy movies). And the new cast, while doing their best to have some screen presence, don’t do enough to stand out. Whether it’s former Air Force pilot-turned-smuggler Kayla Watts (DeWanda Wise) or the Biosyn corporate underling-turned-spy Ramsay Cole (Mamoudou Athie), they try well enough but they can’t make Dominion anything more than bad. However, it is the actor that tries and fails miserably that ends up making the biggest impression. Campbell Scott, who plays this movie’s corporate villain—Dr. Lewis Dodgson, the CEO of Biosyn—somehow does an even worse job than Arliss Howard in The Lost World or Rafe Spall in Fallen Kingdom at the “quirky, evil billionaire” trope. His line delivery is inappropriately awkward and unfittingly off-putting. Honestly, I didn’t think you could do worse than this franchise’s previous corporate psychos, but Scott pulled it off. Good for him, I guess?!? ☹ Even on a technical level, Dominion fails in more ways than one. While the CGI that is used is mostly pretty good, the editing is incredibly off here. There are multiple scenes (particularly the action-heavy ones) that evidently had necessary shots cut out of it which ended up breaking the continuity within a scene. One obvious example is the main cast facing off with the Giganotosaurus in the third act. After a great shot of Maisie running up a caged-in ladder to safety, she is quickly followed behind by Claire while the carnivore is busy spitting out the metal cage. Now, a normal movie with good editing would show how the other several characters still on the ground manage to climb this ladder before the Giganotosaurus can get at them. But Dominion isn’t edited well. Instead, after seeing the dinosaur spit out the cage we cut to the walkway above the ground and everyone has somehow, within a matter of seconds, joined Sattler, Maisie, and Claire. That kind of piss-poor editing happens so many times that it easily takes you out of the experience regardless of the quality of the scene surrounding it. All of these traits make it clear that I didn’t like Dominion, but probably its biggest flaw (in my humble opinion) is just how little stakes there are. No character of note, sans Dodgson and his kidnapping lacky Rainn Delacourt (Scott Haze), are killed. Of course, I didn’t expect the three legacy characters to die, but maybe Owen sacrifices himself to save Maisie or Claire does so in order for Owen to get the baby Velociraptor home to its mother. But no; instead, the few action scenes there are lack genuine thrills or stakes because I’m rarely ever afraid for these characters’ lives. And one more thing—this movie COMPLETELY shafts Blue! The only interesting dinosaur character in the Jurassic World trilogy gets NOTHING to do in this movie. Although, I liked Dr. Grant and Owen working together to catch her baby in the third act. BUT STILL! Dominion loses a whole point because of how Blue is treated. Overall, what are my thoughts on the Jurassic World trilogy? Despite the first movie being mildly entertaining, its two sequels range from pretty bad to atrociously awful. Thus, I feel about this trilogy in much the same way that I feel about the original Jurassic Park trilogy. Not only do I not like these movies, but I will largely never think about them fondly as they are forgettable blockbuster flicks that (for the most part) don’t deserve anyone’s time or energy to watch them. With all that being said, here is my ranking of the six films in the Jurassic Park/Jurassic World franchise:
What is your favorite film in this dinosaur-centric series? How would you like the story of Jurassic Park to continue, if at all? What opinions of mine do you find absolutely ridiculous? Let me know in the comments below. Until next time, this has been… Yours Truly, Amateur Analyst |
Austin McManusI have no academic or professional background in film production or criticism; I simply love watching and talking about movies. Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|