The Odds are in Favor of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (4 out of 5 Stars)

Directed by: Francis Lawrence (I am Legend, Water for Elephants)

Written by: Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire), Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine)

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Woody Harrelson

There are only two recent series of young adult books, which are loved by both audiences, and critics, and they are the Harry Potter series, and this one.  The first in this series was decent, Academy Award nominated writer Gary Ross, directed and wrote the first film.  Ross directed and wrote Seabiscuit, Big, and Dave.  Ross and his shaky camera had about half the budget of Catching Fire, and created a solid start to this series.  With double the budget and the charisma of Jennifer Lawrence there is a reason this film franchise works for everyone.

 Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Hutcherson) won the 74th Hunger Games, an unprecedented task.  As the two make their victory lap they realize their rebellious win has started an uprising in many of the districts causing people to stand up to President Snow played with maliciousness by Donald Southerland.  As President Snow notices this rebellion begin he enlists his new games master Plutarch Heavensbee (Hoffman) to put the girl on fire in her place.  A year after the 74th games happen it announced that during the 75th year, or the Quarter Quell, contestants for this Game will be picked from past winners, and Peeta and Katniss end up in the arena again.

What makes the sequel better?  The direction, and style of film making has improved.  The first film was criticized for its use of shaky camera style to give the Games that realistic feeling, it only made people nauseous.   This time director Francis Lawrence who will return for the next two films (the third book is being broken down into two films) maintains some of the guerrilla style directing with close ups, but loses the off putting camera work of the first.  I think Lawrence's extreme close-ups on the emotion of the characters is a bit forced at times, let the action and emotion of the characters speak for themselves.

The second film also sharper more emotionally impactful writing.  Take away one Oscar nominated screenwriter (Ross) and add two winners Simon Beaufoy, and Michael Arndt, and you get a deeper connection with every character.  This film is better at connecting you to everyone rather than a surface-level connections to the tributes, and supporting characters in the first film.  At the moment my only complaint with the script is the explanation of the lore of District 13, the land demolished by the Capitol, the book explains this well, and builds up the lore while the film misses the mark on the set-up.  Arndt and Beaufoy still improve upon the nature of the first script.

While there are still minor hiccups with the directing, and writing, the film is massively emotional, and entertaining.  Most of that entertainment comes from the films star Jennifer Lawrence, who is a beacon for younger actresses working today.  Lawrence is a natural; she fits so well within the role of Katniss, and it is nice to see a different type of women represented on film.  Lawrence has a magnetism in this role, and is the glue to the success of this franchise.

Catching Fire is a great sequel, the script advances the character development, the increased budget has allowed for better visual effects, the new writers and directors have patched up the flaws of the first, but at the center is an interesting character, who is both strong and vulnerable.  Katniss/Lawrence is a force, and I wish all audiences a "Happy Hunger Games."

Source: http://www.hypable.com/2013/09/12/hunger-games-catching-fire-us-premiere-date-location-win-tickets/

Academy Award Week (2013): Best Supporting Actor....Are you Sure you are in the Right Place?

Throughout the years of Academy Awards performances are placed in acting categories by studios, the options are clearly lead vs. supporting.  Over the years people have bemoaned category fraud, and this year there are two specific cases of that extreme category fraud, Christoph Waltz in Django Unchained, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman in The Master.

Before I look at this year I am going to talk about this category, and category fraud over the years:

2010-Geoffrey Rush in The King's Speech has an equal amount of screen time as lead contender and winner Colin Firth.

2008-Robert Downey Jr. was in most of the scenes in Tropic Thunder, but you could argue the "ensemble rule."  Phillip Seymour Hoffman was a central part in Doubt, and was by no means a supporting player.

2007-Casey Affleck in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was in more of the film than Brad Pitt how he was considered a lead is one of the biggest pieces of category fraud.

2005-Jake Gyllenhaal was a co-lead in Brokeback Mountain, the film was about both Ennis and Jack.

These are just a handful of the different elements of category fraud in the last few years, and while there are still several men who should be considered supporting, the true "supporting" players never seem to win.  One could argue that many of the past few winners Christian Bale in The Fighter, and Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men could be considered lead performances.

So why does this happen?  Studios want to pack on the number of nominations, would these men have beat out any of the leads to get a nomination? Probably not meaning films would potentially have less or no nominations meaning some films would have less consideration to be viewed.by less people, think The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. People often also have this notion that you need more acting nominations to be successful.  Think Brokeback Mountain, but for some reason the critics out there have not had the balls to correct this category placement.

Who are the men guilty of this category fraud crime, why the Weinstein Company's Christoph Waltz from Django Unchained, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman (once again) from The Master.  Both of these performances while not the center of their films are part of the central journey.

Django was obviously a story about Django (Jaime Foxx) and his bounty hunter companion Dr. King Shultz (Christoph Waltz), the two were in the majority of the film. At the earliest part of award season Waltz was placed in the Supporting Actor category.  On November 8th the website goldderby.com reported Waltz would be campaigned in the lead category instead.  After the lead race became crowded the Weinstein Company switched Waltz back to supporting. 

Hoffman was guilty of category fraud for another Weinstein film four years ago, and he is back.  This is a simple case of them wanting to get as many nominations for this smaller film as possible.  Like with Doubt all three central characters are nominated, and ironically both have Amy Adams, and Hoffman.  This is not a case for just the Weinstein's, Warner Brothers, Focus Features, FOX are also guilty of this fraud.  Let's focus on this year's nominees and who may win the top prize.

And the nominees are...

Alan Arkin-Argo

Robert DeNiro-Silver Linings Playbook

Phillip Seymour Hoffman-The Master

Tommy Lee Jones-Lincoln

Christoph Waltz-Django Unchained

This may be one of the tougher races to predict.  Phillip Seymour Hoffman took the early lead winning at the BFCA; he also won many critics groups awards.  Waltz gained momentum with a win at the Golden Globes, and BAFTA.  In the middle of Waltz's wins Tommy Lee Jones won SAG.  I think the power of Harvey Weinstein will guide the winner here, and my prediction all along has been Waltz the lead performance that steals the show.  Many are citing that DeNiro has the heart behind his performance and he has not won in years so he has more on his side, but he has not won a single award prior to this.  Maybe a James Coburn type deal?  Jones sour puss could also take the stage if they decide to throw more at Lincoln, but I think Lincoln seems a bit forgotten.  My gut is to go with the lead in supporting actor clothing.

Will Win: Christoph Waltz

Spoilers: Robert DeNiro, and Tommy Lee Jones

Oscar Roundup 2012: Category Fraud Strikes Again!

Last night I saw the new Tarantino flick, Django Unchained.  Django was obviously a story about Django (Jaime Foxx) and his bounty hunter companion Dr. King Shultz (Christoph Waltz), the two were in the majority of the film.  At the moment Waltz was nominated in Supporting Actor category at the Golden Globes.  At the earliest part of award season Waltz was placed in the Supporting Actor category.  On November 8th the website goldderby.com reported Waltz would be campaigned in the Lead category instead.  After the lead race became crowded the Weinstein Company switched Waltz back to supporting, and if you look at the poster you will see him being campaigned in supporting category.  This Oscar placement, or category fraud has gone on for years on end, but there are a couple of cases this year, which may take things too far.

Over the years the process of category fraud has occurred on many levels, supporting performances competing in the lead category, and lead competing the supporting categories.  Sometimes these have happened when an actor has two great performances in one year.  Most recently Jaime Foxx from Django was part of this form of category fraud.  Foxx had two great performances in 2004 for Ray, and Collateral; he was a lead in both, but nominated in supporting for Collateral.  This happened with Jessica Lange in 1982 as well; she was nominated in the Lead Actress race for Frances, and supporting for Tootsie, her role in Tootsie was the leas role in the film.  Julianne Moore also has two brilliant performances as both similar as repressed housewife in the 50s, in the films Far from Heaven, and The Hours; she was nominated for both, but in supporting for The Hours.  All of these happen, but they are not the most common, nor are they the first instances.

Some of the first instances of category fraud occurred based on age.  Tatum O'Neil won for a lead performance in Paper Moon (1973) at the young age of 10.  One could argue that during the same year Linda Blair was a co-lead in The Exorcist; she was 14.  This trend continued throughout the years Justin Henry in Kramer vs. Kramer in 1979 (8 years old),Abigail Breslin in Little Miss Sunshine (10 years old), Haley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense (11 years old), Hailee Steinfeld in True Grit (14 years old), Patty Duke in The Miracle Worker (16 years old), Sal Mineo in Rebel Without a Cause (17 years old), Timothy Hutton in Ordinary People (20 years old).  While these are not all of the cases these are a majority of the cases where younger people who were leads in their film were moved to the supporting category because of age.

Over the years this has changed slightly but mainly will change because of the competitive nature of campaigning, and the odds of getting a person a nomination, Keisha Castle Hughes bounced around different categories, but rightfully ended in the Best Actress category for Whale Ride (2002).  Hughes was in supporting at the Screen Actor's Guild, but the Oscars play by their own rules and did not follow the crazy campaigning from the studios.  This happens sometimes, for example Kate Winslet in The Reader, but the Academy often does listen to the FYC (for your consideration) ads, and previous awards.

The major example of award shows (and most likely the Academy) buying this lead player as supporting this year is with Phillip Seymour Hoffman in The Master.  While The Master does focus on the lost soul Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) the film is also about the journey of Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman).  Hoffman has been a victim of category fraud twice now, the other time was his portrayal of Father Brandon Flynn in Doubt.  Why campaign this great actor (who has won in the Best Actor) in the supporting category twice.  This year the lead category is incredibly crowded, and they want the film to get as many nominations as possible.  The year Doubt was nominated there were also a lot of strong performances, but I suspect if they "worked" hard enough Hoffman could have received a nomination in the lead category.

The big question in the case with Hoffman is why does such a well respected actor get pushed down?  This is not typically the case, most of the time these lead performances in supporting categories are for lesser known or actors trying to get their first nomination: Jake Gyllenhaal in Brokeback Mountain, Jennifer Connelly in A Beautiful Mind, Marcia Gay Harden in Pollock, Casey Affleck in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, and Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls are just a few recent examples.

The problem with rampant category fraud is that the Oscars have become more of a game, or political strategy rather than a true test of defining the best in film.  Yet the game is becoming too much, with criticism all over the board from David Cronenberg, Joaquin Phoenix, and past winner Anthony Hopkins, with a win from The Silence of the Lambs.

Hopkins win is also seen as category fraud by many as well, during The Silence of the Lambs. Hopkins was in the film for less than 30 minutes, but won the Oscar for Best Actor, because of his commanding performance.  While most people do not argue about this win, this would still be considered category fraud.  Other instances within this type of situation could be Patricia Neal in Hud, Reese Witherspoon in Walk the Line, Louise Fletcher in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, David Nivens in Separate Tables, and Nicole Kidman in The Hours.  Together all of these roles have a large impact on the meaning of their film, but largely could be considered supporting players.

If the Oscars continue to remain a game, or about the politics of a film getting more nominations then these instances of category fraud like Waltz and Hoffman will continue to happen.  Both of these men are clear leads, and are both excellent in their films, their work should speak for itself.  When you have clear leads like Casey Affleck getting a nomination in a film where he is the star in the supporting category there is a problem.  Here is to hoping the Oscars work on this problem.

The Master Should be Worshipped as Quality Film Making at its Best

The Master (4 1/2 out of 5 Stars)

Directed and Written by Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood, Magnolia, Boogie Nights)

Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and Amy Adams

I may have found a new spiritual film God in Paul Thomas Anderson.  All jokes aside, the concepts of self-worth and faith are at the center of The Master.  This film will get a lot of attention because of the comparisons to Scientology, and its found L. Ron Hubbard, and there are numerous similarities.  This film is more than just a comparison to the modern day cult with followers like Tom Cruise, and Kirstie Alley. This film is about the journey of a lost soul and his master.

The film centers on the tragic and disturbed Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix), a navy vet from World War II who is looking to find his own place in society.  Quell attempts to find solace in making his "hooch," with numerous jobs, and in the hope that "his girl" will wait for him.  As Freddie stumbles onto this boat party one night he finds himself getting lost in the world Lancaster Dodd (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) the master of the group called the Cause.  Dodd and his wife Peggy (Amy Adams) travel around with their family to the homes of their followers helping folks find the connection to things like the cure or Lukemia through the science of exploring their past lives.

Sounds like a cult right?  There are numerous connections between the progression of Scientology by Hubbard, especially the way his work was an outgrowth a book he wrote Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health.  Yet there is something brilliant about the way Anderson constructs this film to not be a bio-pic of Hubbard, or an expose on this real life cult.  Although some of the practices are apparently similar.  Anderson uses his incredible screenplay and direction to make this a film about so much more.

One of the brilliant aspects of this film is the way Anderson focuses on Phoenix's Quell and the disillusionment he faces in a post World War II society.  Most people always painted the 50s as this golden era of family values, the husbands/men came home from the war they got their plot of land in Levitttown, settled with their "girl" and led a happy life.  Anderson uses the concept of this lost soul and the newly developed "religion" which takes advantage of those people had no place when they came back from the War.  The one flaw is that film has a bit of a slow start, and while it does not take off right away, the film sets an intense pace once the three leads take the stage.

Anderson and his casting team created one hell of a trio.  Phoenix who plays this shell of a disturbed man makes you lose yourself in his character; he is effortless, which is almost frightening.  Freddie is someone who has always been repelled from the establishment yet he joined the Navy; he has gone from place to place, and abandoned all institutions, but he is drawn into the world of the Cause, but as Lancaster and Peggy both question, is this man beyond help.  Phoenix needs no help, he all but disappears within this role, and gives one of the best performances of his career; he is a true chameleon.

I could go on and one about the performances in this film, namely because they add such great depth to the script.  While Phoenix disappears, Hoffman as usual is another frighteningly believe able actor.  Is Dodd a villain, no because Hoffman never takes him to that place.  Even as Lancaster Dodd steals from his members of the Cause, goes to jail, you still believe in almost as though you are a member of the cult.  This proves just how talented Hoffman's acting skills are, and if there were a ever a year where there could be a tie in the Best Actor race at the Oscars I would it to be for these two men.

The ambition of the performances from these two men, and the supporting work of Amy Adams proves to be on of the films strongest aspects, but the film is also a technical marvel.  Anderson shot this film with the larger 70 mm technique, and hats off to the beautiful cinematography done by Mihai Malaimari Jr.  The visuals of the camera are so gorgeous you can find yourself getting lost in the visual imagery.  The visual marvel combined with outstanding score from Johnny Greenwood makes this film one of the best films of the year.

I was hypnotized by this film as though I was sitting on the couch hoping Lancaster Dodd would help me connect my past lives in order to make sense of it all. Paul Thomas Anderson has created a film that explores the concept of of religion/spirituality/faith/cults without being heavy handed; he never shoves his message on the audiences, and in a post Summer haze it's nice to go to the movies and be shown a film that does not intend to brain wash me, or did it?

The Oscar Season Begins with an Almost Masterful Sweep at the Venice Film Festival

The Paul Thomas Anderson film The Master almost had a clean sweep at this year's Venice Film Festival, the only reason the film lost Best Picture was because of a technicality stating no film can sweep the major awards.  The eventual Golden Lion award for Best Picture went to Kim-ki Duk for The Pieta.  Imagine winning this prize on a technicality.

The Master did quite well at the festival, Paul Thomas Anderson took home the prize for Best Director, and Joaquin Phoenix, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman tied for the Best Actor prize.  Some will argue that this hurts Hoffman's supporting actor nomination chances, but I think this helps him, after all there is no supporting actor category at Venice.

What does this mean for this early contender?  How has the Venice Film Festival impacted the Oscar races the past couple of years?  Last year Michael Fassbender won the Best Actor award last year for Shame; he did not get an Oscar nomination (robbery).  In 2010 the Golden Lion went to Sofia Coppola's Somewhere, but that film was nowhere to found after this festival.  In 2009 Collin Firth won the prize for Best Actor playing A Single Man; he was nominated for an Oscar but did not win until one year later.  2008 proved a strong comeback for Mickey Rourke, his film The Wrestler took home The Golden Lion.  The Wrestler did not grab a Best Picture nomination, but the film grabbed two acting nominations.

The most traction a film got was in 2005 when Brokeback Mountain won The Golden Lion, the film should have won the Best Picture Oscar, and was favored to win throughout the entire award season, but lost to Crash.  Helen Mirren is the biggest success story; she won the Best Actress prize in 2006, and she has been one of the few people in recent history to go on to win the Oscar.

Venice has launched some successful starting off points, but has never been a real launching point for major winners.  I think The Master has a great shot at taking home some major wins this year, especially within the acting, writing, and directing categories.  The film feels a bit dark to be a Best Picture winner, the most recent winners are hug-able films like The King's Speech and The Artist. Only time will tell.

The other two major winners from the festival were as follows: the Grand Jury Prize went to Paradise:Love, and the Best Actress award went to Hadas Yaron for Fill the Void.  Let the festival season continue!

Moneyball is Home Run!

Moneyball (4 out of 5 Stars)

Directed by Bennett Miller (Capote)

Written by Steve Zaillian (Schindler's List) and Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network, The American President)

Starring: Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill

I wanted to see this movie when it was out in theaters, but no one would go see this with me.  They missed out!  I do not know why this film was not a hit.  The story is about America's past time, baseball, and it stars Brad Pitt.  While I am a baseball fan, I am a Yankees fan, and I honestly did not know or remember the story of the 2002 Oakland A's and their General Manager Billy Beene.

Moneyball is the story of the Oakland A's and their General Manager Billy Beene.  In 2001 the A's lost in the postseason to the New York Yankees,I remember being happy.  This was post September 11th and the Yankees winning was a symbolic win.  At the time of this playoff game the A's had three clutch player Johnny Damon, Jason Giambi, Jason Isringhausen.  After the A's lost they lost each of these players-Damon to the Red Sox, Giambi to the Yankees, and Isringhausen to the St, Louis Cardinals, because each player was a free agent.  After the season ended the A's General Manager Billy Beene (Brad Pitt) went to Cleveland to try and negotiate to get a stellar team.  The problem is that unlike the New York Yankees and many other ball clubs is that the A's do not have as much money to spend on players.  While in Cleveland Beene meets Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) a Yale educated economist who convinces Beene to use a different strategy to beat dynamic in baseball.  Beene and Brand's strategy is met with a lot of opposition, including head coach Art Howe (Phillip Seymour Hoffman).

Bennet Miller's precise direction makes this more than a film about a team or even a specific baseball game.  This film tackles an issue the plagued baseball for many years, teams that paid for their teams so they could be winning ball clubs.  Like within his film Capote, Miller uses autobiographical material to tell an intricate tale about a man who works to understand things on a deeper level.  Miller's direction is complemented well by the brilliant screenplay from Zaillian and Sorkin who weave real life images into their work.  These men are two of the best screenwriters working today, and it is no surprise that their collaboration has yielded one of the best scripts this year.

The words on the page are given life but strong performances from Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill and Phillip Seymour Hoffman.  Pitt has grown as an actor throughout the years, and as he takes on roles like this one, and The Tree of Life it is great to see him flex acting muscles he has never shown before.  Hill always plays someone who provides cheap laughs, but in this role he not only makes you laugh a little, but his acting grounds Pitt.  This is the best role Hill has ever had and I am glad to see him challenging himself.  Pitt and Hill have a terrific dynamic on screen, their teamwork appears effortless.  I would like to see them work together more.  Hoffman, who has worked with Miller before; he won an Oscar for his starring role in Capote, displays, albeit brief, an evolution of understanding the game of baseball.

The film made me smile, laugh, cry.  I hit every emotion in the two hours.  There is something to be said about how infectious this film can be.  The movie uses sports as a metaphor for life, and knocks it out the park with a grand slam.