Followers

This Movie Guy Headline Animator

Showing posts with label Stanley Tucci. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stanley Tucci. Show all posts

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Movie Review: THE HUNGER GAMES

THE HUNGER GAMES
2012
PG-13


"May the odds be ever in your favor."
-- Effie Trinket


The Hunger Games is a 2012 dramatic action film directed by Gary Ross that serves as an adaptation of Suzanne Collins' novel of the same name. In a dystopian future amidst the ruins of what was once North America, where the nation of Panem has arisen. After suffering a massive civil war, the leaders in the Capitol decided on a punishment for the twelve outlying districts that rose up against them. From that time, each year would see an annual "Hunger Games," in which each district would send one young man and one young woman between the ages of twelve and eighteen to be trained in combat and survival before fighting one another to the death as part of a show for the residents of the Capitol. The time has come for the 74th Annual Hunger Games, and we meet our heroine, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), who finds herself as one of District 12's "tributes" to the Games after volunteering to take her sister's place. She and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), the other tribute from the district, make their way to the Capitol to receive their training before entering the arena against twenty-two other young people, all of whom are desperately trying to survive.

I think I have to start this review by stating that I have not read Collins' source novel in its entirety. At the time I saw this film, I had not read any of it, but in the time since, I've managed to secure a copy and have started to read a little bit here and there. Therefore, most of my relationship with this story comes from the film, which I've already begun to realize stays relatively true to the source material, but as with any adaptation, it also has its differences. So all that being said, let's get on with the review, shall we?

Because I wasn't all that familiar with the novel itself, I can't say that I was terribly excited when I heard about the film's adaptation. I had heard all the buzz from the fans, but seeing as I didn't have any prior knowledge, I couldn't seem to wrap my head around all the fuss. As the film's release date grew closer and closer, the buzz increased tenfold, and when the film opened to stellar reviews, I knew I had to see it as soon as I could. Joined by my fanatic of a girlfriend, I ventured down to the local theater and quietly watched as the reel started to roll.

What I saw was a beautifully-crafted film that managed to pull on heartstrings and leave you desperately wanting for more. I suppose I'll start with the film's screenplay. Now, I've heard from a number of fans that this film is one of the better novel-to-film adaptations that they had ever witnessed, stating that the movie follows so closely to the book's storyline that its almost a little uncanny. Not being able to distinguish this myself, I merely had to follow along and keep up as best I can. There were two things about the screenplay that truly stood out to me. First, I liked the fact that it jumped right into the action. We don't waste any time getting to the "Reaping," where the tributes from each district are chosen. By throwing the audience into the fray immediately, it almost catches us a little off-guard and forces us to stay engaged with everything that's happening, and I thought this tactic worked well here. Second, I thought the film explained the events very clearly, which was a huge help for someone like me who was unfamiliar with the storyline. These two things gave me the opportunity to enter the story and keep up with it throughout the film, and for that alone, the screenplay should be applauded.

One of the biggest differences between the book and the movie, however, is the point of view. The novel is written in the first-person, giving us her thoughts and her actions through her own eyes. The film, however, has to take a third-person approach, offering the viewer a slightly different perspective. For example, once she's in the arena, Katniss could only know what's happening in her immediate surroundings. In the film, we're able to see beyond the arena and into the minds of the people watching and hoping and praying that she makes it out alive. Even based off the little bit of the novel I've read, I think that this added a little more depth to the film, only making its story all the stronger.

Luckily, we're also getting a stellar cast to bring the film's characters to life. Jennifer Lawrence has been all the rave since the film was released, and there's definitely a reason for it. She plays her part to the tee, and despite her already above average acting credentials, this has been the performance to spring her to superstardom. I first saw her talents in 2010's Winter's Bone, and I knew then that she could act. Her performance in The Hunger Games only cements my previous thoughts on her abilities. Hutcherson also does well in his performance, but I felt he was a tad bit overshadowed by Lawrence. We're also getting a fantastic supporting cast that includes the likes of Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks, Lenny Kravitz and Donald Sutherland. All in all, I'd have to say that the casting department did a fine job here.

We're also getting a great musical score from the likes of James Newton Howard, who always knows how to set the tone of a film with his compositions. The music always seems to fit into the storyline, and it greatly aids the overall movie-going experience.

At the end of the day, I thought The Hunger Games was a fantastic film that managed to strike a chord with both fans and non-fans alike. It's always rare for a film to drive me to read the source novel, but this has definitely been one of those cases. If a movie can impact me that much, then there must be quite a bit of merit to it. It's just a truly well-made film, and it deserves all the accolades its receiving.



Movie Review Summary
Grade: A-
2 Thumbs Up

Friday, July 22, 2011

Movie Review: CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER
2011
PG-13


"A weak man knows the value of strength, the value of power."
-- Dr. Abraham Erskine


Captain America: The First Avenger is a 2011 superhero action film directed by Joe Johnston that serves as the final singular film leading to the mega-Marvel mash-up, The Avengers, due out next summer. We open on Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), a scrawny young man with a series of medical defects, as he tries to enlist in the Army to fight in World War II. Because of his size and stature, however, he is constantly denied by the military. One evening, however, a German scientist named Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci), who's working for the U.S. government, meets Rogers and finds him to be ideal for a special project on which he's working. He convinces Colonel Chester Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones) to try a procedure that will make Rogers into the first of a series of super-soldiers. The procedure succeeds flawlessly, but a Nazi agent deliberately destroys the lab, leaving Rogers as the only super-soldier to be created. Rather than being sent to the front lines, he's left in the States to help sell war bonds, but on a morale tour through Italy, he learns just how much of a joke he has become with the men in the ranks. While there, Rogers learns of the disappearance of a friend's battalion and elects to rescue them. With the help of Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) and a young Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper), Rogers is able to do just that, but he finds himself wrapped in an even deeper conspiracy involving one of the Nazi's leading men, Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving), who presents much more than meets the eye.

Now, I'd have to say that of the two Marvel films to be released this summer, Captain America was the one I was more excited to see (as evidenced by its inclusion on my 2011 Summer Movie Preview). While I correctly predicted that Thor would be a tad so-so, I had high hopes for this one after seeing Chris Evans steal the show in 2010's The Losers, a movie only watchable because of his presence. Add the fact that it seemed like most of the rest of the film community was also expecting Captain America to be the superhero film to beat this summer, and I felt justified in my expectations. After seeing it at midnight last night, can I say that it delivered on those expectations? Well, sorta.

The problems with the film don't necessarily start with the acting, which is solidly good throughout the entire film. I did expect a little bit more out of Evans, but he's definitely a legitimate presence on-screen, both physically and comically when the time calls for it. I can't think of any other actor today who could've done a much better job than he with the role, so I suppose he should be applauded for that. We get some good performances from the likes of Atwell and Cooper as well. Tucci is drastically under-used, but his moments on-screen are some of the funniest and, at times, the most heartfelt. Jones brings a level of comedy to the screen that I haven't seen him bring in quite some time, so it's a breath of fresh air to see him journeying down that path again. And I found Weaving to be a very convincing villain this time around, although I've never truly had any issue with Weaving's level of acting. He brings such a force to each of his characters that it's hard not to like him.

No, the real issue I had with the film involved the screenplay itself. Now, there's nothing wrong with the story. I found it to be engaging and inviting, and it kept me hooked and wondering until the very end. My problem was that it all seemed a little too fast-paced. Now, hear me out for a moment. I realize that it's a big-budget action film, and it needs to move quickly in order for it to remain exciting, and I'm probably criticizing the screenplay a tad too much, but there's only so much I can take with one particular film. My problem was that they tried to insert a bit of character development, but the filmmakers tried to rush it, so it all felt a little bit forced, almost as though they were trying to squeeze it in to distract from the constant acting scenes. I got the emotion they were trying to convey with certain characters, but I think the film would have benefited from slowing down for a few scenes here and there to emphasize that emotion. I'm not sure if that even begins to make sense, but I just wanted the film to slow a few times to expand on the character development. I guess we can't all have it our way, though.

Still, there's a lot to be admired about this particular comic book adaptation. Because we're getting a superhero from back in the 1940s, one of the challenges the filmmakers had to face was making it true to that particular era while still bringing a 21st-century liveliness to it all. In that regard, I think Captain America can be considered a smashing success. As Rottentomatoes.com, the online critical review aggregate, has surmised, Captain America presents a "pleasantly retro vibe" that conveys wonderfully across the screen. At the same time, we get a very good musical score from Alan Silvestri, although I thought I heard some moments that sounded eerily similar to a track from Star Wars, but I won't hold it against him.

All that being said, Captain America: The First Avenger is a solid superhero film that's definitely worth seeing as a popcorn-munching romp of fun. The performances are strong enough to keep you engaged with the characters, and the action sequences are spectacular enough to keep you sitting in awe. Is it changing the game? Of course not, but that doesn't mean it doesn't serve as wonderful summertime entertainment. Isn't that what seeing movies is all about?

Oh, and please don't forget to stay past the credits. I can assure you that you won't be disappointed!


Movie Review Summary:Grade: B
1 Thumb Up

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Movie Review: ROAD TO PERDITION

ROAD TO PERDITION
2002
R



Road to Perdition is a 2002, Oscar-winning dramatic film directed by Sam Mendes. It's an adaptation of a graphic novel of the same name. It tells the story of Michael Sullivan (Tom Hanks), a muscle man for a big-time bootlegger named John Rooney (Paul Newman) in the 1930s. When John's son Connor (Daniel Craig) makes a mess of a hit with Michael's son Michael Jr. (Tyler Hoechlin) secretly watching, both the older and younger Sullivan's are sworn to secrecy; however, Connor doesn't think that the boy will keep his word. While Michael Sr. is out on a job, Connor goes to the Sullivan home and kills Michael's wife (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and his youngest son, Peter. Both Michael Sr. and Michael Jr. find the bodies of their family and quickly leave town, fearing for their lives. They travel to Chicago in the hopes of gaining the protection and the good graces of Frank Nitti (Stanley Tucci), an under-boss in the Rooney organization. However, Nitti remains loyal to the Rooneys, instead employing a sociopath hitman (Jude Law) to kill the Sullivan men. On the run from the only profession he's ever known, Michael Sr. takes it upon himself to protect his remaining son and exact revenge on the man who killed his family.

The first thing you'll probably notice about Road to Perdition is the massively strong cast. Between Hanks, Newman, Law and Tucci, we have a total of eighteen Oscar nominations with three wins (two for Hanks; 1 for Newman). Add to the mix our current James Bond (Craig) and a very talented young star in Hoechlin, and you've got the makings of a fantastic ensemble cast. Hanks is steady as usual, delivering a performance a little unlike ones I've seen in the past. To be fair, I haven't seen a ton of Hanks' work, but I've seen enough of his real-life outgoing and manic personality that I know how different this role actually is. Hanks drew it back for Road to Perdition, bringing a very quiet performance despite the fact that he's essentially a hitman for the mob. It fit the tone perfectly. Newman is fantastic as he has always been and actually garnered one of his Oscar nominations for his role in this film. Craig continues to impress me more and more. Before his star-making turn in the most recent Bond films, I hadn't really heard of him aside from his appearance in 2003's Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, but he actually has some quality acting chops, as shown here (for another look at his acting range, you should check out 2005's The Jacket, where he has a small role). I also can't say enough about Jude Law in this flick. I know a lot of people who don't necessarily care for his brand of acting, but I've always rather liked him. He's not the greatest actor I've ever seen on-screen, but he holds his own. However, this may be a career-best performance, at least in my opinion. The character he brings to the screen is sufficiently creepy and definitely haunting, and Law presents the warped psychology quite well. I was thoroughly impressed.

To add to the fine acting, the audience is also given a fantastic story to follow. Road to Perdition could have easily become your average tale of revenge with Michael Sr. hellbent on destroying Connor Rooney. However, the addition of Michael Jr. to his plans alters Michael Sr.'s overall plan. We learn throughout the course of the story that Michael Sr. was always harder on Michael Jr. because he reminded him too much of himself, and that scared him. He didn't want his son to follow in his footsteps, and that fundamentally changes how Michael Sr. goes about everything in the film. We get to see the bonding of father and son as they forge the relationship that the boy had always wanted, even if it's under such straining and pressing circumstances. This side of the story keeps the film from becoming a rote and predictable film. That being said, I did see the finale coming from a half-mile away (I'd say a mile, but it wasn't quite that far). That might be the only thing keeping Road to Perdition from being an "A+" film, but my knowing in no way took away from the power of the ending. It's the way the movie has to end, so I hope you can see that for what it is.

I also have to give major props to Thomas Newman who composed an excellent (and Oscar-nominated) score for the film. Considering the amount of action and bloodshed that occurs throughout the movie, he could have crafted a heavy-hitting, action-like score; instead, he went with thoughtful, hitting more on the father-son bonding aspect of the story. It's quiet and beautiful and fits the film's tone absolutely seamlessly. Embedded below is a little piece of the score - I hope you like it!



All in all, Road to Perdition is a fantastic film that's worth watching for its story and for the fantastic level of acting brought to the table. If you're a consistent reader of this blog, you'll know that I give out my own film awards at the end of each year (here's the awards for 2010, for example). I have not posted my awards for 2002 - I may at some later date - but you should know just how big of a splash Road to Perdition made. (Side note: my personal awards are constantly changeable depending on films I continue to see; that's why this film could make the nominations for its year). After careful consideration, this film stole ten nominations in the awards for 2002, taking the wins for six, including Best Actor (Hanks), Best Dramatic Screenplay, Best Drama and Best Picture of the Year. If those own personal accolades aren't enough to sway you towards watching this film, I'm not sure what else to tell you.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: A
Current All-Time Rank: Best - #85
2 Thumbs Up