Now You See Me

            Now You See Me was on my radar for several months.  I like magic because I like being entertained.  Burt Wonderstone didn't do much for me because it was kind of a mess, albeit a harmless one.  So I have not been truly mesmerized by a 'magic movie' since The Prestige.  I was hoping this weekend would shake that up a bit, but alas I still have not been mesmerized by a magic movie since The Prestige.

           

            On to the review!

            The problem with Now You See Me is not in its plot or actors.  Both aspects may be a bit underwhelming but there's nothing offensive there.  No, my biggest problem is the cinematography.  You see, when I watch a movie I do not expect to be nauseated.  Neither The Blair Witch Project nor the Bourne films bothered me at all, yet I left the theater on Friday with a headache and an angry stomach.  My theory is that directors of photography Mitchell Amundsen and Larry Fong are terrible people. 

            No, not really.  What they are, however, are directors of action.  Just look at their background.  300, Sucker Punch, Watchmen, Pearl Harbor, The Bourne Supremacy.  Those are action-packed films that also have dizzying camera effects.  Unfortunately this time they went overboard.  When the camera should sit still, it goes crazy.  When it could get away with being crazy, it sits still.  Oddly enough, the only time the cameras calm the fuck down is during portions of the magic act.  Otherwise they are everywhere.  I'm pretty sure some of the fight scenes were filmed by some dude wearing those little glasses cameras people use on prank TV shows.

            In short, the camera work is a sloppy, distracting mess.  Which is a real shame, because the movie really isn't all that bad.  Basically, four magicians team up out of nowhere and start putting on ridiculous shows, during which laws may or may not be broken.  This of course attracts the attention of the FBI, who send Agent Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) and Interpol Agent Alma Dray (Melanie Laurent) to interrogate the 'Four Horsemen'.

            If you have seen the trailers, you already know that the Four Horsemen are Jesse Eisenberg as The Lover, J. Daniel Atlas, Woody Harrelson as The Hermit, Merritt McKinney, Isla Fisher as The Priestess, Henley Reeves and Dave Franco as Death, Jack Wilder.  Individually they are all uniquely talented magicians, but together they seem to be an unstoppable force that is always several steps ahead of any and every Federal Agency that tries to stop them.

            Throw in Morgan Freeman as a magician who lives to expose other's magic tricks and Michael Caine as the rich financial backer of the Four Horsemen, and you've got yourself an amazing cast.  To me, this more than makes up for the slightly muddled plot.  Yes, there are so many damn people on screen that nobody really gets fleshed out, but it was nice to have a film where you really won't know who the bad guys are until you get to the end...or until you figure it out. 

            That's the other slight problem I had.  While the film does a fine job of not telegraphing who is what when how and why, there are enough not-so-subtle clues that will allow you to figure out the ending with a good 30 minutes left in the film's 115 minute run-time.

            So there you have it.  A movie that is nowhere as good as it could have been and certainly not as good as it should have been.  The characters are interesting if not deep and the plot is just good enough to keep you entertained, but it's nothing special.  Oh yeah, and if you do see it, sit in the very back of the theater or you might throw up.

The Hunger Games

            Let’s just assume for the moment that you’re one of the 15-or-so people who haven’t seen The Hunger Games, read it, or even heard about it in some form or another.  Let’s also assume that you are aware of Battle Royale and constantly compare the two. 

            Please know that I mean this in the nicest way possible:  Shut the fuck up.  You think BR was the first time anyone ever asked ‘why don’t we have teens kill each other for sport?’  Watch both movies and get your head out of your ass.  Or at least do the latter, because the way you waddle around is just embarassing.

On to the review!

            TheHunger Games is a movie based on a book based on an idea that is based on being awesome.  It follows Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) as she’s forced to make horrible decisions and hope for the best outcome.  It also promises a strong female character with actual depth and emotion.  Last year’s Hannah lacked the character depth, and apparently Twilight lacks the character emotion -- or any emotion, judging by the internet’s constant barrage of hatred.

            The movie is based on the undated future, after some sort of apocalypse wiped out a large majority of the world’s population (I’m going to go with worldwide swarms of honey badgers).  North America is now Panem, and it is broken down into the Capitol and 12 (formerly 13) Districts.  Each District is responsible for one type of export, such as electronics, seafood, grains, etc.  Katniss’s District handles coal.  So yes, Jennifer Lawrence is already typecast as a woman who can only grow up in West Virginia.

            Due to a civil war several decades ago, one boy and one girl aged 12-18 from each District gets selected to go to the Capital and fight to the death for everyone’s amusement and to remind the Districts to behave themselves.  This year, Katniss’s sister, who has quite literally a 1-in-10000 chance of getting selected, is chosen as the female tribute.  This unfortunate turn of events forces Katniss to become District 12’s first ever volunteer.  It also causes her to get into a shitload of ‘holy shit I’m gonna die.’

            Now, the best news is that you do not have to have read the books to understand and enjoy the movie.  The bad news is that you have to not be a total douchebox to enjoy the movie.  I genuinely understand that not every film is for every person.  I don’t like most romance films, because I find the circumstances and the character mentalities to be strange.  It’s as if the men in romance movies have never farted in public.  I don’t understand this, but it’s cool if other people like it. 

            It’s totally cool if other people don’t like a teen action movie based in a future dystopia.  What’s not cool is if you don’t like it and then nitpick the dumbest details you can find.  One review in particular caught my attention.  The critic wrote about the fact that there were just too many unanswered questions about how the future world came to be.  That’s cool; I can totally understand how an inquisitive mind could be driven nuts by the fact that you just have to accept the world as it is.  No problem.

            He then went on to write an entire paragraph about the clothing, expressly complaining about how nobody wore jeans.

            Are you serious?  Just shut the hell up.  When you predicate your dislike of a movie over their lack of denim, you are just an asshole?  This is why I wrote about critics dying out.  It’s because of shit like this that nobody takes you seriously!

            Anyhow, back to the movie.  The Hunger Games has also perfectly cast everyone in their roles, from the always-awesome Stanley Tucci as Caesar, Elizabeth Banks as our ‘fashionable’ Effie, and Donald Sutherland as President Snow.  The only odd casting choice for me was Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, but that’s because I always imagined him as bigger and more ravaged by alcohol.

            The movie itself is a bit long, but it needs to be.  It does a fantastic job of fitting in most every plot point from the book.  The only downside is the pacing.  Due to the nature of the story, all the action is crammed into the second half.  The first hour of the movie is a lot of talking and pacing, building and tying together everything needed to make the Hunger Games work. 

            My major complaint with the movie is the camera.  The action scenes are all over the place, and it’s often hard to follow what’s going on.  I have a feeling this is really going to tick off those that didn’t read the books and who aren’t sure who just did what to whom. 

            Other than that, the special effects could have used work in a few places, but it’s pretty acceptable considering how much CGI had to go into this movie.

            The acting is superb and the movie follows the plot of the book so well that I doubt any fans with any sense in their heads will complain.  There are a few new scenes thrown in to help piece things together, but they all work well together.  All-in-all, it’s a good time.

            In other words, do yourself a favor and check out The Hunger Games.  It’s definitely the first big release of 2012, and it’s the best movie you’re going to see for the next month or three.