Tomorrowland: A Real Travesty

George Clooney leads audiences on a lackluster trip to a dismal future in Disney’s Tomorrowland.

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): Inspired by the famed Disneyland ride/attraction of the same name, Tomorrowland focuses on a dream–inspired future-topia where people are whisked away, to enjoy all the comforts of a technological paradise where they even get to fly around on personal jet packs. While many of those concepts are derived from the Disney themed ride, the movie attempts to foreshadow a pretty terrific future wouldn't you say Pontificator? 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): Dunno about that Vader. Seemingly an original story wherein a boy-genius all grown up and a scientifically savvy youth must team up to solve the mystery of Tomorrowland, and save the world. Original…except for the recurring theme of the world being saved (once again) by a gifted child (sigh).

CASTING, ACTING AND DIRECTING

AV: George “Gravity” Clooney heads up a pretty ho-hum cast that includes Hugh “House” Laurie and well. honestly it doesn’t matter. Sure, the cast was fine. But ex-Power Ranger Britt Robinson spends so time screaming at 'things that shouldn't be', her character quickly became annoying. The grizzled Clooney is a bit too young to pull off the grumpy old professor thing as he attempts to mentor a gifted young girl through her mundane life. The direction by famed family film director, Brad Bird (The Incredibles, Up, Ratatouille) was competent but also transparent. Pontificator, the acting was near appalling but I did manage to sit all the way through it and trust me, that was no easy task.

TP: I thought the cast was great and the actors presented their characters marvelously…for their target audience. I’m not a huge George Clooney fan, but he didn’t detract from the film. Britt Robertson didn’t get annoying for me and I enjoyed her scenes with Raffey Cassidy. Hugh Laurie made an interesting villain although it’s just hard to see him and not think “House.” The film moved along at a steady pace which helped it since the story was just “meh.” 

ON SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: The visual effects were ok. While breaking no new ground, the effects attempted to do more than they should have. A time-stopping freeze gun is a great idea that is used in a toy store and then never heard from again. A rocket ship hidden within the Eiffel Tower is a great idea, until you attempt to execute it. Then, it’s just a dumb, forgettable visual dud. The rocket jet packs had a moment but once you’ve seen the Rocketeer (1991) you’ve seen what you needed to see from that particular piece of technology. P-Man?

TP: Seeing this film in IMAX 3D was a great decision. Disney is certainly dependable when it comes to special effects and this film did not disappoint. In fact, the effects were another high point that helped it along and kept it interesting.

TAKING A CLOSER LOOK

AV: Why on Earth this film was ever green-lighted is far beyond this mere mortal. Things happen that aren't explained, like the distribution and use of special pins that are the key to Tomorrowland are introduced but aren't explained. So you get one that's rare and then you go places. Huh? 

And while there are tons of sci-fi nods to Star Wars, The Day The Earth Stood Still (the classic one) and a host of others–these props do little more than complicate an already confusing string of events. A pedestrian screenplay, lack-luster cast, downright mediocre script and characters too dull to even mention (Tim McGraw, I’m looking at you m’man) I found that the most redeeming quality of this film was the end-credit graphics. Fun and engaging, they are everything the movie is not.

TP: Well…I could get really deep here with all the subliminal nuggets and real world foreshadowing, but instead let me just say that the commentary given in this film about the state of the best humanity has to offer is a message no child should be subjected to. I think it’s disturbing given the message Disney just sent with Avengers: Age of Ultron (remember Ultron was on the internet for five minutes and decided humanity had to go the way of the Dodo). In this film the commentary continues as to why Ultron would think that as the best minds of humanity have managed to screw up “paradise” and in so doing, doomed the planet whom they view as in need of destruction anyway! It all works out in the end, but that doesn’t change everything we had to go through to get there. 

ON SEQUELS

AV: No reason for that. 

TP:They could… but probably shouldn’t. This film was fine for what it was, but should stay in “yesterday” and avoid “tomorrow.”

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates Tomorrowland: Swing and a miss, Disney. If you’re looking for a way to siphon 90 minutes from your life that you’ll never get back, then Tomorrowland is for you. This movie tries to matter–it really does, but in the end… it just doesn't. A huge disappointment despite the reported size of Clooney’s payday. I was barely able to strap on two (2) Busted Blocks as jet engines to jettison the sleep-inducing snooze-fest called Tomorrowland into the heavens, never to be seen or heard from again. 

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Tomorrowland:  Good performances (for the target audience) and great special effects made this a very enjoyable film to watch. The lackluster story though, prevented this film from being better than it was. In the end, this movie traveled into tomorrow and only returned to today with six (6) busted blocks.

Tomorrowland – 4 Busted Blocks

Is She Or Isn’t She?

Ex Machina Raises Eyebrows And Questions About The Singularity And The Nature Of Man And Machine

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): A mostly original screenplay from sci-fi director/writer Alex “28 Days Later” Garland, Ex Machina explores a complex world of human/AI relations. While not directly emulating any existing sci-fi story this film feeds Hollywood’s almost morbid fascination with The Singularity, Garland’s sterile, almost asylum-like portrayal of a future AI development program is eerie and compelling. Thoughts, Pontificator. 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): Ex Machina is an original take on a very old science fiction theme of man playing God through replicating the creation of life. Although not the first film to touch on this subject, the delivery is unique, entertaining, and downright creepy at times. There is a lesson to be learned here that it seems the hubris of man will never allow to be learned.

CASTING, ACTING AND DIRECTION

AV: With a minimalist cast that works seamlessly, led by frontman Oscar “Inside Llewyn Davis” Isaac (also soon to be fully sci-fi indoctrinated in the upcoming Star Wars: Episode VII), who portrays the visionary/whack-job mad scientist Nathan who is out to create the next stage in AI evolution… the perfect human-like woman. Let talk direction for a moment, though, Ponty. I was blown away but the subtlety of this film and the minimalist environment of this film. In truth, the sci-fi/fantasy genre could use a whole lot more of this kind f storytelling. P-Man? 

TP: The casting was well done here Vader. I have taken a liking to Domhall Glesson ever since his performance in “About Time” and he doesn’t disappoint here as Caleb, the unsuspecting patsy used to test Ava (played by Alicia Vikander). Vikander also delivers in her role of a machine being tested for true sentience that keeps us guessing if she really does. Oscar Issac is Nathan, a genius billionaire recluse with alcohol issues and a god complex. He sells the roll convincingly and without a doubt, the unique direction of the film was pivotal in the delivery. 

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: As always my friends, the best visual effects are the ones you can barely identify, if not, that are down-right invisible... as Ex Machina excels at subtlety. The subterfuge of this movie is in concealing whats in plain view, women (“fembots” if one remembers THAT obscure reference) who are manipulative because they are fighting for their place in the world that turn out to be closet (literally closeted) psychopaths. With interchangeable body parts like layered skin and removable appendages, the visual effects are top notch and are subversively threaded throughout the film. 

TP: The special effects were outstanding! Without the need for big explosions or massive amounts of CGI, this film presented Ava as a real machine built on the cutting edge of technology. Although no new ground was broken, the mastery with which all the old tricks were used was absolutely breathtaking.

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

AV: I was discussing this film recently with a friend of mine and one of his statements properly sums up the overall impact of this film. Hollywood needs more films like this. Not since 2014’s ‘Her’ has a film taken such a personal approach to the relationship between man and technology. Very soon–if not all ready the case–mankind will have a profound, evolutionary convergence with his technology. This film is deeply disturbing and exhilarating all at once. Just like the subject matter. Such a smart, next-level movie has done surprisingly well at the box office which makes me think our intellect is at least partially intact. Maybe we won’t be such easy pickings for the Robo-master race we are creating. If this is the face of sci-fi for the foreseeable future—then bring it on! 

TP: There was quite a bit going on in this film. I don’t know where to start… the question of what life truly is? The folly of man whenever he chooses to play God? The vulnerability of human nature when given cause and reason? The stagnating view of the role of women in society as seen through the insanely rich and eccentric? The power and drive of sexuality? The example humanity sets by the observance of such on the internet? This film has so many points of further discussion I could literally write a complete post about all the various subjects it touched upon. What I can say, with certainty, is that a film such as this that forces you to think and consider so many important aspects of our society is a rare gem worth watching intently. 

ON SEQUELS

AV: If we are at all lucky, this movie will be a stand-alone story. As most should be. This story has been told with no need for follow-up. Its predecessor should be a film of a completely different voice, of the same calibre. 

TP: There could certainly be a sequel to this film if they so desired, but like many classics.…this installment alone can stand on it’s own merit and by leaving us with some questions to Ava’s ultimate fate, we are forced to ponder the film long after the end credits finish.

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates Ex Machina: For those who like their sci-fi filled with explosions, lame one-liners, over-the-top CGI, laser swords and giant, galaxy-spanning spaceships, would do well to avoid this film. However, if you’re of the ilk that likes intelligent, introspective and engaging films that keep you guessing and offer simple but smart dialogue, then Ex Machina is a must-see. If you’d like a glimpse of what Sci-Fi as genre is capable of and what expert story-telling can do, put on your artificial skin cover a full ten Busted Blocks for this surprisingly intelligent movie. 

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Ex Machina: Although a bit slow and more story–oriented than action focused, this was an excellent film filled with tension and mystery. Most of the fun in watching was spent not only trying to figure out Ava, but also Nathan and the effect their machinations were having on Caleb. In the end, this film escaped to the real world with seven (7) busted blocks.

Ex Machina: 8.5 / 10 Busted Blocks

Trying To Put The Surge In Insurgent

Another teenage girl threatening to save us all? Say it isn’t so! 

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): Following in the foot-steps of the first in the series installment, Divergent, Insurgent furthers the tale of super-special super kid, Tris who’s out to save the world (wonder if her room is clean). I get the sense these days that having a successful movie means establishing a franchise then hammering the idea of the movie over and over and over until moviegoers cry ‘uncle’ and just go. This is the distribution tactic that drives Insurgent. What did you think, Ponty? 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): When talking about a film adapted from a novel, there will always seem to be continuity issues Vader. This film is no exception as it took several liberties in retelling events in the book, from making major characters minor to leaving characters from the books out of the film altogether. Despite the many changes from that page to the screen, some might even say outright departure from the literary source, this film managed to get where it was going.

CASTING, ACTING & DIRECTING

AV: The cast from Divergent returns to Insurgent (Duh). Shailene “Tris” Woodly and Theo “Four” James reprise their roles and B-Listers Kate Winslet, Jai Courtney, Ashley Judd, Mekhi Phifer and Zoe Kravitz all come back as the story blunders in a society divided by walls, mistrust and deceit based on the division of the five virtues. The idea is ok but the execution is kind of hoo-hum. Neil Burger’s direction is compelling and the film is a joy to watch cinematographically. 

TP: Shailene Woodley and Theo James return to their roles as Tris and Four and deliver what was expected of them as the story progresses along with their relationship. There was no surprise, or disappointment. Kate Winslet continued to be the film’s villain and I thought she was very.…villainous, in the role. The roles of Jai Courtney and Mekhi Phifer were little more than cameo’s this go round and there really isn’t much to say about the few glances the film took in their direction. Overall, the film rolled right along and didn’t get bogged down with a lot of filler.

ON SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: With no shortage of visual effects to try and amaze the audience, Insurgent is a good looking movie that puts you in the thick of this selectively post-apocalyptic future-gone-wrong city of Chicago. Sure it looks great but nothing we haven’t seen before, Pontificator. Sci-Fi effects, as we have discussed in other reviews, has matured to an impressive standard and these flicks all look good. Really good actually, but that said, these rocking visual effects are so good, we are desensitized to their awesomeness. But what does that say about visual effects–and a movie–that is just this side of forgettable almost as soon as I leave the theater? 

TP: The special effects were very good in this film. As is my custom, I always see a film in IMAX 3D when available and such a decision usually only enhances the special effects and moviegoing experience. This film took advantage of the medium, especially during the simulation sequences where there was a lot more latitude to use them. Overall, the effects enhanced the film and while nothing ground breaking was done, they didn’t drop the ball either.

TAKING A CLOSER LOOK

AV: Hard to know when us movie-goers will get to see a decent original story in our beloved sci-fi and fantasy space but until then, we have these franchise money grabs. I am not qualified to proclaim the legitimacy of this films and their place in the cultural tapestry. I am qualified to let you know if I like them or not. I don’t. While I do hold a special place in my fan boy heart for all things Sci-fi and fantasy, these do not count among them. This is not an example of the hero’s journey that is particularly interesting or inspiring in any way. 

TP: Well.…the plot of this film could have used a little more attention. It didn’t make much sense that nobody else in the Erudite faction thought to even question the motivations and decisions of Jeanine given they didn’t always seem logical or the intellectual thing to do. It also didn’t make sense that the box that was supposed to reveal the true purpose of their society killed the very people it deemed most important if they failed to open it. It would have made more sense for Jeanine to simply kill the failures and anyone else that questioned her (after having someone question her) to both make sense and really drive home how villainous and driven Jeanine really was.

ON SEQUELS

AV:  I am sure the story of how Tris “saves us all” needs to be wrapped up with a pretty little CGI bow and brought to conclusion. We need that, we want it and dozens of vaguely compelled teenage girls are clamoring (somewhat) for it. So by all means Hollywood, give us more. 

TP: Well… if the box office numbers are large enough, we will likely see a film adaption of the third novel in the trilogy, Allegiant. I do, however, like how that this film ended in such a way that if a third film is not coming, the story can stand as is.

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates Insurgent: In all fairness, I didn’t hate this flick (I know, its not like you’d ever know it by my crit), but the disingenuous story, grossly overacted characterizations and safe and predictable screenplay didn’t suck all the life out of what could have been an incredible story but it didn’t do anything to help it either. This franchise feels like a great CW (tv) series waiting to happen. With that, I grab my Divergent buddies and bust five (5) Busted Blocks for Insurgent in glass-shattering slow-motion. 

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Insurgent: A good film to fill a Saturday morning, I found it entertaining and fun, even if it didn’t blow me away with it’s storytelling or effects. Everything about this film was just “good” and thus busted six (6) blocks on it’s way to remake society.

Divergent – 5.5 / 10 Busted Blocks

Birdman soars high

Arguably the first true ‘film’ of the super hero genre, Alejandro González Iñárritu’s Birdman looks at the triumph, tragedy and awkward redemption of a man who would be hero. 

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): In today’s world, the term hero seems to take many meanings. Hollywood continues to look for new angles to our beloved super-hero genre. In Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtues of Ignorance) [full title], Riggan, a has-been actor who once played an iconic superhero onscreen works to overcome his own inner voices fueled by an emotionally unstable ego while side-stepping dysfunctional family turmoil as he angles to make a big theatrical comeback with a critically acclaimed Broadway play in hopes to reclaim the past fame and notoriety he sorely misses. The film boasts an original screenplay that spins a super-charged original screenplay. 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): Birdman is an original and offbeat story of a superhero actor trying to gain relevance by making it on Broadway. His journey to discover his place in the world of acting, after being a celebrity, is dogged by his troubled relationship with his daughter, rocky interactions with the other actors, and resistance to the ever present voice within himself screaming to be a hero once again… for real (or not).

CASTING, DIRECTING & ACTING 

AV: Pontificator, I can’t think of a better actor to portray the trails of a used-to-be super hero film great than Michael (“I’m Batman”) Keaton. The beauty of this film is the plethora of acting talent that reads like a who’s who of superhero film acting talent. Talent like, Naomi (King Kong) Watts, Emma (Mary Jane) Watson, and of course Ed (Hulk) Norton. Damian (Unbreakable) young with Zack (Hangover) Galafinakis. The director’s vision was potent, so unique so incredible, it is I would argue, the most important storytelling component of Birdman, wouldn’t you say Pontificator? 

TP: The tone of this film being one long gigantic take was refreshing and kept the story rolling along at a steady pace Vader. The acting was tremendous with stellar performances by the lead Michael Keaton, and supporting cast, Edward Norton, Zach Galifianakis and Emma Stone. Actors playing actors is always fun (especially when it’s Ed Norton playing the kind of actor he is known for being like in real life), but the delusion of Keaton (or not) is superb… as is the dysfunction of Stone (while recovering from, but getting, stoned).

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: The real ‘hero’ of Birdman is no actor though, Ponty. It is–by far–the visual direction and cinematography of the film. As the entire film presents itself as one continuous moving shot, I can honestly say I have not seen a movie like this before. The camera work is so flawless, there were times I actually caught myself looking for scene transitions where the editor’s could make cuts form one shot to the next. This is some the most inspired filmmaking I’ve ever witnessed. While this movie came in–reportedly–at a modest $22 million budget, it feels like it cost so much more. The end sequence features some stunning CGI and flying effects that are so seamlessly integrated, the viewer is immersed without knowing it. A real triumph of modern moviemaking, would you agree P-Man? 

TP: I’ll tell you Vader, this wasn’t a big budget special effects summer blockbuster film…but the little bit of effects it did have were absolutely awesome! The brief scene of Birdman and the giant bird destroying the city easily stands with other summer film effects and although the story was great with superb acting, I could’t help wishing there were more Birdman scenes in the film…purely from an effects point of view.

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

AV: It was a stroke of genius to have Michael Keaton in the starring role of Birdman. For the obvious reasons of his status in Batman and Beetlejuice, but also because he is an amazing actor. His comedy typecasting and family-movie roles from the 1990’s may have shrouded his real acting chops from the majority of movie-goers but Keaton’s portrayal of the lost Riggan cuts to the core of Keaton’s iconic standing. In truth, this movie–if we’re lucky–is the beginning of a whole new take on where movies take audiences in the super-hero arena. 

***SPOILER ALERT***

TP: From the very beginning this film has you questioning what is real and what is not. Riggan (Keaton) starts the film off levitating in is dressing room and continues with small and private displays of telekinetic power. This was fantastic.… except if you really pay attention, there are a plethora of clues to suggest he really doesn’t have any power at all, except the power to see and experience things and events that are not there or going on. This makes the story that much more interesting as Riggan’s struggle for relevance and self actuation through the desire to put on a broadway play, is really a struggle with his ego and coming to terms with how he has been defined by Birdman. The demise of Riggan has led to many theories, specifically at what point did he actually pass (assuming you are of the opinion that he did, and really didn’t suddenly gain real powers) and I have yet to settle on what exactly I believe… giving this film even more value as it continues to tantalize long after the screen goes dark.

ON SEQUELS

AV: To put it bluntly, this movie would be destroyed by a sequel though I for one do hope it is the beginning of a deeper exploration of the super-hero genre as a serious, viable realm of more serious super storytelling. Kick Ass, Watchmen and Sin City have all been (solidly successful) franchises that go there–with an honorable mention to Chronicle. We can have stories of super powered people that aren’t simply re-visited comic book content but tales that offer fresh new perspective on the modern vision of the hero’s journey. 

TP: I can’t see a sequel to this film… simply because the film doesn’t really leave any room to continue the story, just loads of room to ponder what was already given.

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates Birdman: A surprisingly charming film with a spot-on cast that would make any geek proud, Birdman will delight every movie goer. With some of the best original cinematography I’ve seen since District 9, this movie is an instant favorite of yours truly as it shares a very human perspective on the effects of stardom, fame, the fallibility of man and the road to redemption, no matter how awkward or unorthodox that everyone of us can relate to. Gripping, gritty and unpretentious, Birdman with delight anyone with half a brain and full love of experiencing the human condition. For that, Birdman hatches a solid nine (9) Busted Blocks and I cross my fingers at the hopes of more films like this in the near future.

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Birdman: A great film with superb acting and plenty of material to have you discussing it into the wee hours of the night, this film is profound as it is entertaining and delivers seven (7) feathery delusional blocks to take us soaring.

Birdman: 8 / 10 Busted Blocks

Catching Fire is Hot!

Politics, power and performance propels The Hunger Games: Catching Fire into a must-see end-of year epic

ON CONTINUITY

ARTH VADER (AV): Hot on the heels of the highly acclaimed—and super successful—Hunger Games, based on the incredibly popular book series of the same namesake; The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is the series follow-up to what is shaping up to becoming an epic set of films. Character progressions are portrayed powerfully and the story progresses as well onscreen as I'm sure they do in the novels (definitely on my to-read list, Ponty!). A new set of twists, takes our heroes in challenging new directions but it is the storytelling that will leave you breathless. 

THE PONTIFICATOR (TP): There were some minor changes from the page to the screen, but nothing that detracted from the film being something great to watch. Gale’s whipping, for example, didn’t go exactly the same way in the film like it did in the book, but the change in circumstances that caused the incident actually worked better for purposes of having a more profound impact on the theater audience.

CASTING, DIRECTING AND ACTING

AV: With a healthy array of recurring actors, THG:CF is a captivating directorial experience. With the momentum-paced camera work and just downright impressive cinematography, Jennifer "Catniss" Lawrence and Josh "Why was I in the Red Dawn re-boot" Hutcherson have plenty of worries left in the post-victory world of Hunger-Games. The powerful vision of director Francis Lawrence keeps viewers engaged and enthralled in a well-paced and entrenched story. What's more, while I do feel the roles of the primary actors in this movie are all 'dialed-in' (except for Catniss) the personalities of the actors are so strong that nothing is lost. 

TP: All the usual suspects are back, Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci…and they all deliver as well, if not better than they did in the first film. Enter new cast members making a splash onscreen and in our memories with excellent performances: Jeffrey Wright as the tech wiz Beetee, Philip Seymour Hoffman as the new game master Plutarch Heavensbee, and Jena Malone as the scene stealing (every one she was in) Johanna Mason. Excellently cast and well directed, although I did find myself restless at times Vader.

SPECIAL EFFECTS

AV: The visual effects of today's big budget films is expected to leave the audience bewildered, dazzled and speechless. Does this happen in this movie? Does the film warrant it? The answer is; kind of. While the story–and world–of THG:CF is enormous, the SP/X are appropriately compelling. Make no mistake, the sweeping CGI cityscape, the backgrounds and environments are eye-grabbing. But what this film does well is give us visual effects that are polished but don't overwhelm the scenes. This is a very hard balance to strike and this movie does a remarkable job giving the visual effects the right balance of immersion. 

TP: Agreed Vader, as with the first film, this movie did not really go giant larger-than-life effects to advance itself. That said, it had wonderful special effects that moved the story along and were, at times, so very subtle as to not be noticed at all. The best effects to me where the ones that gave you a sense of what the conditions were like in other districts… especially District 11. The CGI effects as the train entered were awesome and really gave gravity to what it was like to live in a district under siege.

TAKING A DEEPER LOOK

AV: I must confess, I wasn't looking forward to this film, Ponitifcator. I'm not a fan of the story content and do not condone the premise of children killing children–the inescapable reality of the many district "Pledges" in the world of the Hunger Games. I have no problem bearing witness to the blight of human conflict but watching 12 and 13 year-olds getting butchered by 17-and-18 year-olds is beyond gut-wrenching and a hard pill for me to swallow. Once you're past that though, there is real substance here. 

While this is far from a perfect film (there are some sequencing and story-transition issues as well as holes in the dialogue which actually deflate the impact of the President's –Donald Sutherland's–villainy). However, this is such an good-looking movie with an enduring message, it is easy to skip over those minor pitfalls, wouldn't you say old friend? 

TP: Well Vader, I was expecting the same shock value the first film delivered with regards to the issue of children killing children. Shame on me for not taking an empty cup with me as this film was very different in this area. Obviously with the advent of former tributes being thrown back into the ring, the whole child violence dynamic changed, but I was surprised at what degree the whole level of personal violence was toned down. I must admit it was somewhat pleasant to concentrate on the intricacies of the hidden agendas and forming relationships of the characters rather than the usual gratuitous violence. Of course, the statement the first film made with regards to our current society’s issue with classism continued in force, literally and underscored the reality of a world we all could soon be living in if we are not vigilant.

ON SEQUELS

AV: This series will keep on trucking from here, Ponty. Deep down in it's genetic code, The Hunger Games was engineered to be a multi-movie exposé that gets us (ahem!) fired up—a good thing, too. 

Since today's "I can't remember what I did five minutes ago" culture needs to be cattle-prodded into returning to see something we think we remember we liked. This movie could have easily been a three and a half hour epic and while I certainly left the theater wanting to see more, that's exactly how a good movie-going experience should leave you. The third book, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay (THG:MJ) is going to be given to us in two more films. Unlike how I was going in to this one, I'm super excited for those next films, P-man. You? 

TP: Without question, there will be more films before this ride is done, and like you Vader, I look forward to Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 (2014) and Part 2 (2015). Now, if only I could remember what I did five minutes ago… LOL!

RATE IT!

ARTH VADER rates The Hunger Games: Catching Fire: To put it in easy terms, I really liked this movie. In fact, much better than I had originally thought I would. Thoroughly captivating story, great screenplay and a powerfully familiar cast help make Catching Fire a great holiday blockbuster and a great way to spend some of your end-of-year film-going dollars. With that, I draw back my compound bow and let a flaming arrow fly to ignite eight (8) busted–but very flammable–blocks. 

THE PONTIFICATOR rates Hunger Games: Catching Fire: A great film with excellent casting and acting that blend together to present a very interesting and suspenseful story, adapted from the best selling trilogy for which it’s named. I was thoroughly entertained, and that’s what this is all about. Let the revolution begin, here, with eight (8) hunted and shattered blocks. 

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire  8  / 10 Busted Blocks