Ender's Game

*** out of ****

Be warned, all you haters of science fiction: Ender’s Game is steeped in the genre and will not give you an inch. That’s why I like it. This is a movie with a rather abstract futuristic setting, mostly humorless expositional dialogue and is more about ideas than action. While I have never read the Orson Scott Card novel, on which this film is based, I get the impression that the movie is a faithful adaptation and sticks to its guns in regards to its vision of a militaristic society that exploits children as the ultimate weapon.

Half a century after an alien attack on earth, the world has united to prepare for another. The military has learned that it takes very high-tech weapons to fight the enemy and values the developing minds of children to control them. I don’t need to research the author’s inspiration for this idea, when I consider that it was written in 1985 during the early videogame boom, which turned kids into champions of a thing that adults of the time could barely grasp.

This exploitation has potential to disturb an adult but excite a child, particularly boys. Kids are quite often dished out movies about child characters being given an exciting adult responsibility. In this story, the “Spaceman Spiff” fantasy is taken to a dark extreme with the unsettling idea of kids being conditioned as an essential instrument of war.

The main character, Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield from Hugo), a brilliant young student has demonstrated great potential, is recruited by Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) for battle school. Ender is a troubled soul whose emotions are buried from a life of trying to prove his worth. Being a third-born in a family that was supposed to be limited to two children, gives him the pressure to succeed where his disturbed older brother (Jimmy 'Jax' Pinchak) and his kind sister (Abigail Breslin) did not.

Graff admires the kid’s mind but wants to put it to the test. Placing him in battle school in a station orbiting the planet may be a big advancement in training, but Graff chooses to put Ender in situations that will provoke antagonism from the more arrogant students, much to the dismay of Major Anderson (Viola Davis), who often debates the morality of their tactics. Ender continues to overcome aversion proving to have leadership qualities, which only encourages Graff to continue toughening him up.

The movie is essentially, military school in space. Every situation is about the main character understanding the value of strategy and the kind of individual spirit that one must grow to be a leader. The inner-turmoil of Ender is displayed in many ways, as he fears that he may be a monster of war. When defensive, the damage caused is more than he intended.

When Paul Verhoven made the famous movie of Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers,” he put a spin on its fascist implications for a satirical effect. This upset many fans of the original material -at least the ones who understood what he was doing. Maybe they felt judged. Gavin Hood doesn’t do anything like this with Ender’s Game, but I was still reminded of it for the portrayal a militaristic future with a sense of awe and excitement. However, there is a thought-provoking plot twist in store. You may feel a chill when the child-like perception of war shifts to the bitter consequences of it.      

This was a story worth making into a movie. Like all great science fiction, it will provoke discussion and debate over what it meant rather than how cool it looked. 

Blue Is The Warmest Color

*** out of ****

This year’s Palm d’Or winner at the Cannes film festival is Blue is the Warmest Color, loosely based on a French graphic novel about a lesbian love affair between two young women. It follows a high school girl who realizes she prefers for the company of women, when it comes to intimacy. Maybe this is because she went on a movie-date with a guy and saw Gaspar Noé’s Enter the Void (Not a good date movie). In passing, she sees a masculine looking college-age girl with dyed blue hair, for whom she seeks out, finds at a lesbian dive bar and begins a relationship.

To watch the movie makes its graphic novel origin kind of surprising. Almost everything on the screen looks like it was invented along the way, rather than mapped out. This is a compliment to the raw emotion and naturalistic strength of the film and its players. It is a movie with some very heavy scenes of sexuality that are supposedly simulated, yet a carnally explicit display of what lovers do when they are going to town in their most private environment.

It seems pornographic but when you think about it, most pornography is very aware of its exhibitionism, which these characters don’t seem to be. We see every clumsy detail of their fun time, making us voyeurs of what looks like a genuine sensual experience. Is this a good thing? I don’t know.

The sex, memorable as it may be, is one of many elements in this coming of age story that are portrayed in such a truthful way. The movie is naked in more ways than one. There’s a lot of unflattering imagery of people eating in close-up, awkward private moments and everything in life that typically gets filtered-out by the unspoken glamor agenda in the filmmaking process. According to IMDB, the film’s director, Abdellatif Kechiche, shot 800 hours worth of footage for the film and utilized a lot of unguarded moments from the actors between takes in order to capture their natural behavior.

The two leads, played by Adèle Exarchopoulos and Léa Seydoux, have been praised for their undeniable believability. While I have total respect for everything they must have undergone, I am sometimes curious how much skill was involved. Some directors invent circumstances, which provoke great performances from almost anyone. The congratulations we give their actors are really about the endurance test it must have been to commit to such intense circumstances.

I have respect for this film, but for some reason, I want to nit-pick at it. It has the tendency to dwell on elements of the character’s lives that don’t feel connected to the plot. It’s boldly, yet aimlessly, about a lot of issues, but focuses on them in a personal way, rather than being a social critique.

At its 179-minute running time, I was also surprised that it didn’t do very much to convey the years that are passing by in the story. There is no music score and very few stylized shots or cuts. In separating itself from the artifice of cinema, the movie made me more aware that a cameraman is there intruding on the business of others. This is a movie reserved for the more hardcore filmgoers, open to experimentation.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

***1/2 out of ****

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is an honorable sequel. I’m not sure that it is a better movie than the original. I just know that it is tonally different from the first one. What I am sure of, is that this movie was shot better -but lacks the editorial pace of the original.

The new film has a more interesting story to tell. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), the winner of the 74^th Annual Hunger Games -a battle-to-the-death game in a future totalitarian society- is suffering the consequences of her defiant victory. The fascist President (Donald Sutherland) - of what is known to remain of human civilization - pays the young victor a visit in her coal-mining district. He communicates his dismay for rebels and he feels that her actions have provided hope to the all the districts surrounding the capitol, which have been under oppression for generations following a war. He fears that another war is brewing.

Katniss is due for the Victory Tour of all of the districts and is threatened by the President that she must do what is necessary to sway the masses from another revolution or he will make sure that the people she loves the most, will suffer a terrible fate. Katniss is terrified, but with no ability or will to control the animosity she has awoken in the people against their rulers, she starts to take desperate measures to save the ones she cares about.

Meanwhile, a new Gamemaker (Philip Seymour Hoffman) advises the President with strategies to undo Katniss’ influence. She was the only one to ever win the game alongside another tribute. This tribute was Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), and they won together by pretending to be in love. While Katniss has another suitor, Gale (Liam Hemsworth), with whom she shares a deeper connection, she is forced to play out the charade of the romance that conquered all. Peeta, who really is in love with Katniss, does his best to respect and honor their partnership as survivors.

With the help of their alcoholic mentor, Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), Katniss and Peeta must plan for a new strategy in response to a terrifying announcement made by the President, about the upcoming games… and who will be in them.

When I saw the first Hunger Games movie, I was delightfully surprised that the genre of dark dystopian science-fiction, of which I hold so dear, was making a splash with young adult fiction. At the time, I had not read the books. Some disappointed people, in regards to the movie, were big fans of Susanne Collins’ novels.

I liked the movie so much, that I read the book and it made me appreciate the movie more for not trying to replace the book. Considering that the three books are written from a first person narrative, I have a lot of respect that they did not try to emulate this in the movies with voice-over narration. They left these characters and their mysterious future world up to interpretation for a fresh audience. I also thought that the pace of the film was very respectful of the characters’ emotional passages.

In Catching Fire, the second installment of what is now a four-part movie series (based on a trilogy), Jennifer (Louisville loves you too) Lawrence continues to be a tremendous asset in bringing these books to the screen. Her professional ability to apply herself in a genre, that some actors might not take seriously, gives us a hero to root for. She’s really good.

While Gary Ross did a very good job on the first film, I prefer any kind of series to have variety. Changing directors can do this. Francis Lawrence, who did a great job directing an incredibly flawed script in I Am Legend, has thankfully been given a good project, with which to apply his visual talents. His aesthetic approach, through cinematographer Jo Willems, is much more grounded in smooth well-composed shots. The drama is strong and the action is damn intense. There are some pretty great-looking CGI apes too. Ferocious apes always make me happy.

Now that I have seen a Hunger Games movie after reading the book on which it was based, I can sympathize with the complaints that the hardcore fans have but not enough for me to call it a poor adaptation. While many passages feel distractingly overstuffed with essential information, there are so many important elements of suspense missing from the story. Hopefully, they will use the extra time they have afforded by turning the third part into two films. Maybe they will finally explain to the movie audience why the Mockingjay is so significant!

Thor: The Dark World

** out of ****

Gone, is the rich visual splendor of Kenneth Branaugh's surprisingly entertaining first entry for this Marvel Avenger. Most of this movie's stylization is driven by post-production, which makes everything feel less real. As much fun as this new movie attempts to have, it lacks the hammed-up melodrama that made me feel like a kid on the first outing. This one has more action, more jokes and yet, it's so damn bland. 

There was no element of hope in my system after the first fifteen minutes. This wasn't the same experience as watching Iron Man 2 where the movie started off on a pretty good roll, only to go way off course by the middle. With Thor: The Dark Stool, I was simply glad that the movie didn't get any worse.

Natalie Portman's Jane Foster character, who was the least interesting in the first film, as an audience surrogate/forced love interest, is mistakenly given just as much if not more presence in the new movie. This is one of those "get'em all back together" sequels where the producers have no interest in what made the previous one work or what could be improved. Granted, it's a very different animal of a movie -but it feels so much cheaper.

The plot involves a group of dark elves with plans to take over the universe (boring), hidden portals between worlds (which remind me of the haunted warehouse short in The Animatrix) and the recruiting of Loki for entertainment convenience. While Tom Hiddleston makes him fun, it feels like an abuse of a good character to be in such dull circumstances.

Maybe I'll elaborate more later. At the moment, all I remember was a big digital turd with a laugh track built in.

12 Years a Slave

**** out of ****

12 Years a Slave is based on an 1853 memoir written by Solomon Northup, a born-free African American who lived in New York and made a fair living for his family as a carpenter and violinist. The story recalls his kidnapping and the mortifying years that followed after he was sold into slavery in Louisiana.

There is an undeniable power in telling a story of slavery from the point of view of a man who knows freedom. Early in the film, his initial protests are countered with such cruel and intense inflictions of pain that our dread of what is in store for him is overwhelming. It’s the most painfully identifiable scene in the film because we are watching a man, who is not accustomed to such suffering, howl and weep as every lash is a symbolic denial of the loved and respected gentleman that he is.

The display of savagery in this film is necessary. When making a living being your property, there is no comparison to what is entailed with a human. Human beings are not a submissive species in the way that cattle are. We require life-threatening injuries and every other inhuman treatment it takes to destroy our spirits if we are to live against our own will in favor of someone else’s. The very fact that slaves required such harsh treatment should have been proof to their masters that they were not animals. This is a film that is rich in quality from just about every angle but I will hesitate to see it again anytime soon. It’s not a popcorn movie.

This film could have easily been an exploitation of physical suffering but that is only its surface impression. It is really about psychological survival. Before our hero, Solomon Northup, finds his exodus, he is on the very brink forgetting who he truly is.

In every step of the film, Chiwetel Ejiofor, as Northup, displays a level of descent in his adaptation to slavery. Ejiofor has been in movies for a long time now and this is a role that may elevate his popularity up to the “A-list,” whether he’s comfortable with that level of fame or not. I first saw him in Stephen Frears’ Dirty Pretty Things, as a Nigerian doctor living in East London, disturbed by a black-market organ dealing operation, which preys on desperate illegal immigrants. He’s proved to be great in just about everything for which he’s been cast. Even the hilariously abysmal 2012.

The film’s director, Steve McQueen (not the dead actor), has a body of work involving character studies relying on physical expression, rather than verbal explanations, to convey what the character is experiencing. In this one, there is an incredibly long static shot of Solomon outdoors staring distantly until his eyes make contact with the camera lens before returning to something off-screen once more. No words. No music. It’s such a real moment. Its meaning is up to interpretation but I thought it was absolutely beautiful in all its simplicity.

Another thing worth noting about this film is the screenplay by John Ridley, which dares to use period dialects that the players convincingly deliver. The cast is swelling with famous talents, such as Michael K. Williams, Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Dano, Alfre Woodard, Brad Pitt, Paul Giamatti and Sarah Paulson.

The amazing Michael Fassbender, a McQueen regular, portrays the monstrous master of a cotton plantation. The majority of the film is about the agonizing years Solomon served this man, while helpless to protect a horribly abused slave woman his master used and tormented to the point of pure despair. This is an unusual role for Fassbender and shows off even more of his versatility. While I am used to seeing him in sinister roles, they are usually of disciplined and rational men. Epps is a drunken hotheaded character normally reserved for the likes of Woody Harrelson or Walton Goggins. Fassbender delves headfirst into this man's loathsomeness.

Historical comparisons to Tarantino’s Django Unchained are inevitable, but I would be quick to disregard them. Tarantino’s movie displayed the horrors of slavery with the controversial cushion of B-movie escapism -which drives his artistry. He never set out to make an important film like 12 Years a Slave. Django is simply more compatible with repeat viewing.

I think by the time of awards season next year, a great amount of the nominees will be films of terror and survival. Most of the quality movies I’ve seen this year have been about these things. Gravity, Captain Phillips, and the newly released All Is Lost are all about perseverance. I am sure that 12 Years a Slave will be widely regarded as the leader in this area.