The Hunger Games - 3/5 stars

“May the odds be ever in your favour”… It’s the mantra of the Hunger Games, which hit theatres last week with a $155 million bang. But does the movie adaptation of the three-novel set by Suzanne Collins stand up to the hype? I wouldn’t bet on it!

For those who don’t know the premise, it goes something like this: A long time ago Donald Sutherland kicked everyone’s ass and now as punishment, the losing rebels, or “districts”, need to send two teenagers to fight in battle to the death for Donald Sutherland’s amusement. Teens are picked based on how much food they take from Donald Sutherland. Each time they take Donald Sutherland’s food, their name is entered into a lottery form which the tweens, or “tributes”, are chosen. Hence the name: Hunger Games. If John Goodman were in Donald Sutherland’s position, humanity would have ceased to exist, as they would have starved to death many moons ago. As if it’s not bad enough that 50% of the developed world is obese while the rest of it goes hungry, now we’re writing books about how our future will lead to starvation? Africa would kill for this political structure!

As is the case with most popular artistic (and scientific) creations, Hunger Games stands on the shoulders of giants (no, not Donald Sutherland’s shoulders). The concept of adolescents battling to the death isn’t new to literature or cinema. Lord of the Flies, Japan’s incredibly popular Battle Royale, and of course, the Mess Hall at fat camp.

The movie falls into the classic “book movie” trap, where dialogue goes out of its way to explain things that the non-book-reading audience (such as myself) couldn’t possibly know. “He’s our mentor, you know he’s won this thing?” says one character. The mentor role is awkwardly played by Woody Harrelson (Cheers, Zombieland), who in the beginning is a belligerent drunk, but inexplicably transforms into a compassionate teacher as the movie progresses. Now I know what Robin Williams did in preparation for Good Will Hunting.

As for the main characters, they’re acted by a slew of newcomers and up-and-comers. Most notably, Jennifer Lawrence (X-Men: First Class’s Mystique) plays the role of the main character Katniss—a self-sacrificing young women who was forced to raise her little sister after her mom went into a despondent Whitney Houston phase. Liam Hemsworth, plays Gale, the strongest and most villainous of the children in the arena. However, he has some catching up to do after his older brother helmed the bridge of the Starship Enterprise, and saved the world as the Norse God of Thunder in Star Trek and Thor respectively. The aforementioned Sutherland and Harrelson round out the A-list star power, and even Lenny Kravitz stops by as the empathetic trainer. Surprisingly, the singer-songwriter shows more heart than most of his more experienced cast-mates.

Overall, the movie falls flat on some fundamental character development lines, and it exploits its audience by introducing some inexcusable plot holes that will undoubtedly view this film through rose coloured glassed. It’s less imaginative than Harry Potter, but more refined than Twilight (thank God!), so if you’re looking for an “in between” movie adaptation from an epic aimed at the minds and hearts of teens, this one’s for you. Either way, the odds are ever in its favour that this franchise will be back for more.

Mission Impossible 4 - Ghost Protocol

“Your mission, should you chose to accept it…blah, blah, blah… this message will now self destruct.”

Every Mission Impossible movie and most episodes of Inspector Gadget start this way. I’ve always found it odd that no one has ever refused the mission. Wouldn’t it be hilarious if Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise, Days of Thunder, Oprah’s Couch) just said no, went home and chillaxed for once? Then you would have Mission Impossible with no impossible mission. What do you get when you take out all the action, danger, explosions and thrills out of a Tom Cruise film? Vanilla Sky, that’s what.

It’s hard to believe this is the fourth silver screen installment in the MI series. John Voight (Mission Impossible, 1996), director John Woo (Mission Impossible 2, 2000), and character actor Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Mission Impossible 3, 2006) have made their mark in past installments. Now, after 15 years, writer/director J.J. Abrams (Star Trek, Super 8, LOST) has taken the helm of the franchise and got the most anyone possibly could have out of it.

MI4 follows the story of super agent Hunt (Cruise), some forgettable token hot chick (Paula Patton), and William Brandt (Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker). In terms of comic relief, Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead) reprises his role as tech geek Benji. Thankfully, he’s funny in a funny way and not in a British way.

The movie follows four rogue agents whose firm, the Impossible Mission Force, has gone “Ghost Protocol”, meaning it has officially shut down and all of its agents are considered liabilities. I guess that’s what you get when the name of your employer is “The Impossible Mission Force.” Their last mission, which they did choose to accept, was to stop a doomsday scientist trying to usher in a new golden age by first wiping the slate clean with World War III.

What’s best about this movie is that it doesn’t take itself as seriously as previous installments did. Characters rightfully admit that their missions are absurdly impossible, which humanizes them a bit. One of the most stunning scenes is when Ethan scales the side of Dubai’s Burj Khalifa (the tallest building in the world), which made me more than a little anxious. Renner excels as the team’s newest super agent, and heir apparent to Hunt’s lead role.

Given that Cruise is pushing 50, one would have to think that his days of being an action star are over. Still, Cruise has fared better than fellow Top Gunner Val Kilmer, who these days looks like Chaz Bono. On that note, if you have any desire to see a solid action-thriller that does not involve Michael Bay, you would be remised if you missed Ghost Protocol. It’s about as good as these movies get.

4/5 stars

Hangover 2

“I can’t believe this is happening again”.

These were the words of Ed Helms’ character, Stu, in this summer’s comedy blockbuster sequel The Hangover 2. These words came to haunt me, just as they will come to haunt you.

In its defence, this movie is exactly what it says: the story of a second hangover. But any adult can tell you this is a dumb idea. The first movie was great because it was the story of the first hangover, which is a rite of passage into adulthood. The second hangover and every hangover afterward is nothing but a reminder that you’re irresponsible, shallow, and desperate. And this is what the Hangover 2 is and why it sucks.

Reprising their roles from the original are the same mischievous morons: Ed Helms (The Office, Cedar Rapids) as Stu the risk-averse dentist; Bradley Cooper (Limitless, and the sexiest man alive!) as a repressed fratboy family man and the unforgettable Zach Galifianakis (Between Two Ferns, Bored to Death) as Alan, the eccentric stay-at-home son. This time the setting is in Bangkok, Thailand (or “thye-land”, as Alan sees it), where the crew are celebrating Stu’s wedding to his attractive Thai fiancé. Unfortunately for him, she comes packaged with a disapproving, demanding father (not an Asian stereotype at all). The story is as follows: Stu gets drugged, wakes up, convolutedly puts together the previous night and then returns to wedding just in time to get married and tell off his father-in-law. Meh.

This movie falls victim to the same things most re-packaged blockbuster sequels do: a lack of original content concealed by an overuse of gimmicky hooks, an over-reliance on formula and a lazy, rushed script. In the industry, they call this the “Transformers Effect”. The cast was beefed up, the stakes were raised, but the premise and script were unchanged. The movie cashed in financially, but failed to deliver on any comedic or artistic level. Note to hipsters: there’s an art to making a good movie, and it doesn’t even have to involve Ryan Gosling, consignment shop clothing, or a summertime scarf.

Without a doubt, the most redeeming quality of this comedy is the hit-or-miss one-liners from Alan. He confuses a Buddhist monastery for a PF Chang’s, claims he is a nurse that just isn’t registered, and likens a med student’s future to the eventual sexual orientation of Doogie Howser. Supposedly, Mel Gibson was originally meant to play the tattoo artist, but was pushed out by the cast and crew amidst his spousal abuse allegations. Apparently a racist, religiously fundamental, ill-tempered actor was too low-brow for a movie that blasts your face with a tranny’s genitals and features man-eating woman-abusing Mike Tyson as a happy-go-lucky singer.

Overall, this movie was an Adam Sandler-calibre effort that bored more than it amused. Take solace in the fact that all of the main characters are now married (well… except Alan, but realistically who would marry Zach Galifianakis?), which means the likelihood of another bachelor party is extremely low. But trust me on this: to cure The Hangover 2 you’ll need Tylenol 3s.

Oh yeah, there’s a monkey in it.

1.5/5 stars.

The Expendables

Here are some sinfully delicious foods: ice cream, pizza, fried chicken, chocolate and cheeseburgers. Don’t they all sound good? Now throw them all into a turbo-charged ninja blender and drink the toxic sludge that results. This taste is the taste of The Expendables, a movie that fearlessly but foolishly blends superstars from different eras and subgenres into a single ensemble. Be prepared for bloody and explosive diarrhea.

While this film did well financially, I know it’s a bad movie, and I never give a bad movie a free pass. My biggest problem is actually the film’s biggest hook: the cast. Aside from Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren (remember him from Rocky IV?) and Mickey Rourke all play major roles. Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwartzenegger cameo but not star (contrary to promotional material) while Terry Crews and Randy Couture star but not act (celebrity diss, feel free to light up my twitter).

When we were kids these guys kicked ass. But we are now adults and our childhood heroes are seniors heading towards their golden years. Given the precarious situation the cast was in, writer/director Stallone had a unique opportunity to look at aging in a whole new way (for reference at previous attempts, see the following list). Such a focus could have made a compelling story (as in The Wrestler), or at least some ripe comedy (like Murtaugh in the Lethal Weapon series). After all, the movie is about a group called “The Expendables”, so you have to figure these guys are used up, chewed up and spit out. But what could have been a fertile premise is instead an insult to the intelligence: the filmmakers try to maintain the illusion that these senior citizens are still sexy rebels, but sadly only the actors seem fooled. Did I mention that Steve Austin is also one of the villains? Thankfully, he only talks with his fists in the film—just like in his home life.

This movie’s plot is pretty straightforward. Stallone leads a mercenary band to a job on an island in the Gulf of Mexico, which is inexplicably controlled by a South American dictator. General Garza (Dexter sad sack David Zayas) rules the island with an iron fist, but is himself no more than a pawn controlled by an ex-CIA American ‘entrepreneur’, who, you guessed it, is into the production and distribution of illegal drugs to the U.S. I won’t ruin the ending for you, but suffice to say, his business model didn’t factor in explosives and throwing knives, and Sly’s continual fascination with being a white underdog fighting against people of different colour and culture.

For most people, this is a so-bad-its-good movie (though for me it’s just so bad). If you see this movie, you’re seeing it for the actors, not their characters or their stories. Owing to its ancient cast, the film has a nostalgic effect even though it’s not even two years old.

If you missed this movie a year and a half ago when it came out, consider it missed and move on. I’ve played video games with crisper action and better storytelling, and I mostly just play Mario Kart. But brace yourself, you’ll get a second chance: The Expendables 2 is due in 2012, and my review shortly after. For a switch, the third Expendables the film might consider utilizing washed-up writers/directors instead of just washed-up actors. I think M. Night Shamaylan, William Shatner and George Lucas might be willing to sign up – what else they got going on?

1.5/5

Captain America

Captain America is Marvel’s latest installment in a series of sure-thing comic book cash cows. Somehow, it was preceded by Daredevil and Elektra, but far be it for me to question Marvel’s priorities. Although this is a well-rounded, palatable film, let’s not ignore the truth. Captain America is basically a two hour trailer to 2012’s blockbuster Avengers movie, which will star Ironman, Thor, the Cap, Hawkeye (who has yet to have a movie!) and Nick Fury. For those of you who don't know, Nick Fury is going to be played by Samuel L. Jackson. Good ol’ Sammy has yet to turn down any movie role, he’s like the black Nicholas Cage.

The story revolves around an ambitious man who wants to fight for Uncle Sam in WW2 but can’t because of his diminiuative size and medical history. That’s right, it’s your typical “white boy underdog” story. Things change for our unlikely hero when a German scientist offers to make him a subject in a radical experiment that will turn him into a super soldier (indisputable proof that Americans have been using performance-enhancing drugs since at least WW2). The procedure is a success, because it’s always a success. Our hero is taller, faster, and stronger than ever before, which works out incredibly well, at least if you’re looking to represent the American ideal. I sometimes wonder what kind of hero Captain Canada would make…cleaner, politer, and more culturally harmonized than your average man? Let’s not even get started on what Captain Mexico would be like, because we all know that will get out of hand.

The villain, played by Hugo Weaving (The Matrix, V for Vendetta, Transformers and Lord of the Rings), was subjected to the same experiment years before. But instead of just attaining new physical gifts, he lost all of his hair and his head turned red. My manager does the same when I discuss deliverables with her.

As is typical for a comic book movie, a bad love story is forcefully infused into the plot (in Thor-esque style). Unfortunately for us, we don’t have the Natalie Portman this time around. Best to ignore this romance entirely and concentrate on what the movie does well. The visuals are as good as these movies can get and the pacing of the action is honestly great. It’s a shame there was no room in that multimillion dollar budget to makeover Tommy Lee Jones. Both halves of his head are starting to look like the evil side of Two-face (see Batman Forever).

Much like in Thor and Ironman, the excitement builds, almost explodes, and then suddenly drops off and nothing gets resolved. You kind of feel like your secret little house party is just getting started when your mom arrives in the driveway and starts honking the horn.

While the experience was fun and the summer comic book movie void was filled in the process, the film lacks a true sense of accomplishment. Maybe I’ve been spoiled by The Dark Knight. Or maybe I’m just never impressed with anything after the tragedy that was X-Men 3. This sense of “longing for more” may have been by design as it sets up next summer’s “sure thing”; nevertheless, this viewer was left a little unsatisfied.

3/5 stars

The Switch

You’re probably wondering why I am reviewing this movie now, almost a year after it came out. You’re also probably wondering why I even watched it. The answer is simple: I was really bored on Friday night and it was free to order on TMN.

The Switch is a terrible Trojan horse of a movie. On the surface, it looks like a comedy because it employs Jason Bateman (from the brutally aborted series Arrested Development series that's never quite as funny as your friends keep telling you it is). But male viewers beware: beneath that ‘funny’ veneer is a treacherous romantic comedy of the 10^th degree that will ambush you about 10 minutes in. All the classic ingredients are present:

1) it’s terrible;

2) the plot is nonsense;

3) there’s a happy ending;

4) it’s terrible; and

5) it stars Jenifer Aniston.

I know I repeated terrible twice. But the writers of this movie clearly put forth no effort, so why should I? In fact I don’t even think I’ll spellcheck this blog.

Anyway, this movie follows a male-female set of friends pretending to be in their late 20s, looking like they’re in their late 30s, being played by actors in their 40s. Aniston, recognizing that the biological clock is ticking, decides it’s time to have some offspring (one could argue this is not really acting at all?). So, she does it the old fashioned way—with a sperm donor and a turkey baster. Through some ridiculous sequence of romantic comedy slapstick, Jason Bateman, her best friend, switches the sperm donor’s sperm with his own. Because, you know, we all leave our sperm in an unattended bathroom in a small plastic cup that is easily accessible to a drunken Arrested Development star. Aniston got lucky, think what would have happened if it were David Cross in the bathroom instead.

The plot muddles forward, Aniston has a kid, Bateman realizes the similarities to himself, he admits to Aniston that it’s his sperm she inseminated herself with, she gets mad at him and before we know it, all is forgiven and the movie is over. The movie drags on worse than that run-on-of-a-sentence. Sorry if I ruined it for you. I usually don’t ruin movies for people, but if you are not able recognize which direction this movie is going in, you’re probably not smart enough to navigate the internet and find this article anyway.

Free was the right price, but I‘ll never get my two hours back.

1.5/5 stars