Critic Watch Blog #2: The Hunger Games- Catching Fire- Sean Cooper

Critic Watch Blog #2: The Hunger Games- Catching Fire- Sean Cooper

My critic watch blog entry follows Rex Reed’s slaughter-like review of The Hunger Games-Catching Fire. Reed starts his assault on the film right out of the gate with the following opening sentence,” Stale special effects won't lift this sci-fi thriller out of mediocrity”. I have not seen the film nor do I intend to. Not because of Reed’s review, but I’m not that moved by the franchise.

Reed makes clearly states his disdain for the film. There is no hint whatsoever of holding back what he thinks. As I stated in my first Critic Watch Blog, he is part of an older generation and his reviews are somewhat curmudgeon-like. In his review he uses terms such as “over-produced” and “utterly pointless” to describe the movie and refers to the original trilogy of novels as overrated.  He also explained that seeing in this film in IMAX was a better experience, but it didn’t help the movie at all.

Perhaps in an effort to stop the bleeding, Reed reminisces about how much he liked the original Hunger Games. He briefly goes over the premise leading up to where we are now in the second installment and restarts his assault on “Catching Fire”.  After explaining that Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) won the 74^th Hunger Games in the first movie they return home, but are told to return the start the 75^th Games and of course this all a trick by the evil President Snow, played by Donald Sutherland, to have them ultimately killed. Why? Reed writes it’s never really explained in the films narrative.

When I wrote about Reed’s take on Gravity, with Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, he wrote about the special effects and CGI. In that film he explained that he liked it, but it just wasn’t a blockbuster. The CGI in Catching Fire seems to really aggravate him. His descriptions are curt, lending nothing to the imagination or even appreciation for 1. The fact that CGI is a symbiotic art form holds some major weight in the films of present day and 2. This is a science fiction movie.  

Since I did not see Catching Fire, I can’t say whether it was good or bad. At the same time, I have a hard time believing Reed’s take on every aspect of the film. He junks the premise, the CGI, 3-D, describes the acting as “uniformly awful”, and also laments the fact that there is a third installment in the works. This review is somewhat comical. I appreciate his success and realize he’s built his persona, though not entirely, on his witty sarcasm. I am looking forward to the next review.

Sean Cooper  

Critic Watch Blog - Review of 12 years a slave by Susan Wloszczyna

The critic I chose was Susan Wloszczyna from Rogerebert.com.

The review I read was for “12 years a slave” directed by Steve McQueen of Great Britain. Wloszczyna gave the movie a score of 88 out of 100 on meatcritc.com and 3 ½ out of 4 stars.

Wloszczyna seems to like the movie, but is not completely sold on the entire story. She says that 12 Years a Slave “is a somber, meditative, almost poetic film that delivers the horrors of bondage stripped down and head-on.”

However, she found the wife of the second slave owner to be too one dimensional and found it hard to believe that the free and refined Solomon Northup would ever have been tricked into travelling with two white men and then wake up (after being drugged) a slave on his way to the south.

I have to say after seeing the movie with my family that I disagree somewhat with her review. Wloszczyna seems disturbed, even offended by the horror that unfolds in 12 years. The scenes of slaves being whipped, one where the flesh is ripped off, seems too graphic for her taste. She says “Even Mel Gibson, whose unbearable 5-minute whipping scene in "The Passion of the Christ" set the standard for such graphic cinematic punishment, would be aghast if not envious of how British director Steve McQueen ensures that the audience palpably feels the flesh-ripping agony of every lashing and beating on screen.”

The brutality and cruelty of slavery is a truth that is depicted in the film quite realistically and often gut wrenchingly. I was hard to watch, but as a friend of mine said, I owe to my ancestors to watch. The nudity in the film was necessary to show how the slaves were dehumanized and not thought of as people, but property and things.

Although the reviewer gave the movie a relatively good rating, I think that her desire to make the feel less “harsh” is a self-serving position. It would be feel better for the film to be “easier” for us to watch, but that’s what makes 12 years so incredible, the honesty of it and that it’s not easy to watch.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/12-years-a-slave-2013

Critic Blog Watch: How I Live Now_Rex Reed

Critic Watch Blog: Rex Reed’s review of How I Live Now

I chose Rex Reed of the New York Observer. After reading his review of Gravity for our first assignment (Critic Watch) I appreciated how he, unlike many other critics, did not give Gravity the high marks that so many others did. Mr. Reed, who is 77 years old, maybe experienced at this craft, but he is also from a different era and perhaps, such high marks in film reviews do not come easy from this veteran reviewer. The chosen film here is: “How I Live Now” starring Saoirse Ronan. At the start, Reed highlights the film’s background and how Ronan, playing Daisy, a rebellious and Goth teenager, was transplanted from a very dangerous New York to the English countryside to live with her cousins. Reed paints a dysfunctional teenager uprooted from a modern, fast-paced life to the rural confines of a clutter-filled farm far away from her home. Reed also mentions the origin of the script, a 2004 award-winning novel by author Meg Rosoff, while explaining how the film is essentially divided into two parts: “Idyllic and lush” followed by “dark and terrifying” as the remaining government encapsulates the survivors of  nuclear war. Before Reed ends the review he gives examples of how the kids in this film (there are no adults in starring roles) must learn to survive and look after one another. It seems Reed is not necessarily enthralled with this film. Rather, he appreciates Ronan’s characters evolution illustrated by the sense of responsibility and determination she develops. This review is more about Ronan’s performance than the film itself. And while Reed agrees with the dangers of nuclear war and its environmental effects depicted in the film, he is more concerned with the trajectory of Ronan’s career.  

     

Throughout the review Reed portrays the main character and how she fits into the films story with her cousins. Though he is biased in favor of Ronan’s role he does give notice to her costars and the relationships they all develop. Another positive is that Reed tells his readers the story’s literary origin by giving credit to the author of the award winning novel, Meg Rosoff. By doing this he is concisely praises the authors work while reviewing the films adaptation of her novel. It is often said film adaptations are not always held in high regard or for accuracy. By doing this, Reed then goes onto explain what he dislikes the most about the film: That it leaves more questions than answers and an overall bleak picture is developed. But what’s cool about this review is this: You get a sense that Reed latches on to what he does like about the movie. He has high hopes for the career of Saoirse Ronan, an Oscar nominee at 13 years of age for her work in Atonement (2007). He parallels his high hopes for her career with the development of her character in How I Live Now. 

http://observer.com/2013/11/love-and-squalor-saoirse-ronan-is-a-luminous-presence-in-an-otherwise-gloomy-how-i-live-now/

 

Critic Watch Blog

My critic of choice is Richard Roeper, I will discuss his review of 'Thor: The Dark World'

Richard found the movie to be enjoyable but not breath taken. He was not overly impressed by Chris Hemsworth performance as a lead. He felt that he is better of as a co- hero because he doesn't really have anything other than being Thor going for him. He does like the costars in the film performance. He felt that they gave the film a little spunk with punchy one liner provided by Kay Denning's character. He also liked the Loki character played by Tom Hiddleston, Richard felt that Loki's antics helped give the movie a few needed laughs. In all I don't tink he hated to the film, I just think he expected more from it and was a little disappointed. 

After seeing this film last night, I can agree with Richard that this just helped give Thor a voice/ story in the Marvel world. Since he is an Avenger he does need is own story to move us to the next Avenger movie. I can also agree that the costars gave life to a movie that Thor could not. In this movie Thor is more level headed than in the first and by being so made him a little boring. The film as a whole to me was great. But Thor could have been a little more less serious. But I guess this would defeat the purpose of the movie. The plot was okay to me and the acting was what is expected in a Marvel movie. All in all I did like the film and I film Like Richard Roeper, Thor needs to play 2nd lead in order for him to shine in a movie.

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/thor-the-dark-world/critic-reviews

http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/movies/23557555-421/thor-the-dark-world-this-avenger-not-so-mighty-as-solo-act.html