FILM: The Hunger Games (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
I had never heard of the Hunger Games series prior to the film coming out, proof if needed that I'm obviously not a 'young adult anymore! the other half came in with this the other day so I gave into the hype and gave it a go.

What's it all about?
Set in a fictional American dystopian future, a new nation called Panem is divided into 12 distinct districts and controlled by the powerful and rich Capitol. As punishment for an uprising some years before, The Capitol organise a yearly competition known as the Hunger Games where each district must send 2 competitors, one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18, known as tributes. The children are left to fight until the death until only one survives and is declared the champion.  

Should you watch it?
I was largely non-fussed by The Hunger Games. Having not read the books I've no idea how the adaptation compares but as a standalone film it wasn't bad but it wasn't too great either. The story borrows elements from The Truman Show, Running Man and Blade Runner among others. I should plead ignorance in having not yet seen Battle Royale, but I'm aware that the plot is remarkably similar. The point being that the plot is not awfully original.

The directing and editing in the districts did not work for me. The shaky camera work and chop editing might have been selected to create a sense of disorganisation and panic in the districts during tribute selection but I found it too much. Another gripe I had was the use of flashbacks by Gary Ross. Flashbacks of unseen footage provide the viewer with an opportunity to see what has previously occured and can be plot aids but why did Ross choose to show flashbacks of scenes we had already seen, one in particular several times over. I clearly missed the importance of the scene.

I felt the film was dumbed down in places, definitely in terms of violence, which I can understand with this being a Hollywood production with children involved but also with some of the script. A prime example being at the end when the game organiser announces that the rules are being changed spontaneously again, It is so obvious what the rule change is going to be but yet the characters are made to listen to the full announcement with a few more seconds afterwards to digest the rammifications.

There are decent performances from Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Allen so its far from all bad.

TV: The Wire (S1) (10/10)

Why did I watch it?
I usually only review films or shows I've not seen before but in the case of The Wire I had to make an exception. I've already seen the first two seasons and having bought the box-set sometime ago, it was time to go back to the start and enjoy it all over again.

What's it all about?
For those not in the know, The Wire is set in Baltimore and each season focuses on a different area of life in the city. The first season revolves around a hastily put together police detail tasked with investigating the little known Barksdale drug empire. Led by Lieutenant Daniels (Lance Reddick) and the dedicated Jimmy McNulty (Dominic West), the detail are under pressure to make a minimal amount of low level charges quickly, however work is slow and painstaking difficult and the detail fight their superiors for more time to build a case using electronic surveillance.

Should you watch it?
The great thing about The Wire is....well, everything. The scope of the show is immense, the characters range from judges, DAs, police chiefs and detectives on one side to those encompassing the whole structure of Anton Barksdale's gang, from right hand men and enforcers to low level dealers. Each is involved in the story as it plays out slowly piece by piece. The line between good and bad is blurred at best, the police force is riddled with incompetence and those only concerned with self-preservation while the dealers are a well-organised mixture of cold-blooded killers and morally conflicted teens who know no other way of life. Not to mention Omar (Michael K. Williams), the gay stick-up man who terrorises local drug stash houses.

Who's listening?

The Wire is the ultimate definition of a slow-burner but with hour long episodes the plot begins to unravel soon enough and rewards are plenty for those patient during the initial episodes. Fans of David Simon's other works like Treme will have no problem adapting to the pace.

Did I mention that the acting, script and music are also top notch? Best line..."If you come at the king, you best not miss".

I am a huge fan of both The Soprano's and The Shield, and the first season of The Wire comes very close if not better than the best moments of these two. It deserves all the credit it receives and more. 

FILM: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
My other half came home from the shop with this the other day. I was looked forward to watching it mainly because of the fantastic British cast, Oscar nominations for adapted screenplay and best actor and the fact that John Le Carre's book has long been on my list of books to read.

What's it all about?
Tinker Tailor Solider Spy is the first feature length film adaptation of John Le Carre's well respected spy novel of the same name. Set in the early 70's, in the midst of the Cold War, the film follows retired spy George Smiley (Gary Oldman) as he is tasked with uncovering a suspected mole in the British spy fraternity known as 'the Circus'.

Should you watch it?
Following the press the film received and with the ensemble British cast (Oldman, Hardy, Firth, Hurt, Cumberbatch)  I had high expectations for it. I'm sad to say the film fell somewhat short. Although a spy film, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is the complete polar opposite to Britain's most famous member of Her Majesty's Secret Service. Given what James Bond gets up to, it is therefore more than likely a far more realistic take on the world of government intelligence, in particular considering the era. This was not a problem for me, I love realism in stories but Tinker is too slow, too deliberate and too ponderous.

Spying 70's style - glasses, coats, tweed and briefcases

Granted that the standard of acting is high, as you would expect from the cast and Gary Oldman is captivating with his quiet and understated performance as Smiley. The production also deserves credit and these two pluses carry the film a long way.

I'm sure that a lot of the detail of the book could not be squeezed into a two hour adaptation. The film is a slow-burner, which is usually my favourite type of story, but once the final act arrives it lacks any really punch and I could not recall any twist or even being led in any particular direction with my suspicions. Not what I would expect from a 'thriller'.

Worth watching to see the all round strong acting performances and production but I will definitely be reading the book in the hope it delivers a stronger story.

BOOK: Life of Pi, Yann Martel (9/10)

Life of Pi - despite appearances not a children's book!

Why did I read it?
I was really impressed by the trailer for the upcoming Ang Lee film adaptation and realising it was based on a best-selling novel decided to borrow the book from a friend. I'm never sure which is the best way round to read book or watch adaptations but there is no going back now.

What's it all about?
Life of Pi is a fantasy adventure about an Indian teenager named Pi, who finds himself the sole survivor of a shipwreck on-board a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger, a chimpanzee, a zebra and a hyena for company. It sounds surreal but the first half of the book describes a credible back story. Pi's father is a zoo-keeper and the family decide to sell the zoo and relocate to Canada, hence the voyage across the Pacific with a ship full of dangerous animals. 

Should you read it?

The upcoming film poster

The book takes its time during the first half to set the scene with the tale of Pi's upbringing at an Indian zoo, his experiences with animals and also his take on spirituality but once his ordeal starts its clear why Martel dedicates so much print to the back story.

In terms of Pi's detailed account of his practical approach to survival the story is similar to the real life survival of Aaron Ralston in 127 Hours (minus the tiger).

A word of warning, Martel doesn't hold back in graphically depicting the demise of the boat's occupants and I'm not normally affected by violence in films but when related to animals, in particular during a week when my cat was badly hurt, it was almost too much to take.

The book is a fascinating combination of religion and animal psychology and a harrowing tale of survival at all costs that I couldn't put down. I have very high hopes for the film.

FILM: Apollo 18 (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
Being a bit of a sci-fi and closet horror fan, I was suckered in by the trailer and the interesting premise of a disastrous secret moon landing ending the NASA Apollo missions.

What's it all about?
Apollo 18 is a found-footage type film marketed as being made up of footage recovered from a top secret NASA moon landing in 1974. The Apollo 18 mission is cancelled publicly, however the mission secretly still takes place under stewardship of the Department of Defence. One astronaut stays in orbit while the other two land on the moon and begin their mission of deploying detectors to monitor Soviet activity.

Should you watch it?
First of all, Apollo 18 owes a lot to other found-footage films like Blair Witch and Cloverfield. One difference however, is that the events are shown from a variety of cameras, handheld, inside the lunar module and from cameras on the outside of the module. The editing is very choppy and often switches between the various cameras as you imagine a security guard would. While this never gives the audience a chance to rest as you find yourself scoping out all the shots for any movement it becomes tiresome and interrupting. Coupled with the 'interference' to the footage and the grainy nature of some the shots, its all a bit too realistic but difficult to watch. The same applies to majority of the dialogue, radio transmissions are authentic but not employed with the viewer in mind.

The director creates suspense on occasions by using the vast and isolated yet claustrophobic setting of the moon and also the cramped safety of the lunar module coupled with a cabin fever mentality. I won't deny that on occasions the film succeeded in building uneasiness and made me jump a few times. The technique of using intermittent light flashes to illuminate pitch black environments, in Apollo 18's case moon craters, has been used previously in Saw and is not employed anywhere near as well here.

The main thought I had following the film's ending, which I won't spoil, is how on Earth (no pun intended) was the footage found? Based on this it had me thinking, was the found-footage approach really necessary? Did cost negate a traditional approach? Films like Alien prove that suspenseful sci-fi horrors work minus the novelty.

Will appeal far more to horror genre fans than traditional sci-fi fans.