The Thin Red Line

Directed by: Terrence Malick

Written by: James Jones (novel); Terrence Malick (screenplay)










It's not often that the words "beautiful" and "war film" go together.  But, if ever they were, it would be in regards to "The Thin Red Line."  Malick brings his unique visual style and vision to a genre which is rarely ground-breaking and is more often stale.

Although the movie loosely follows the American invasion of a pacific island during World War II, it's hard to point to any central plot beyond the general invasion.  There are recurring themes and inter-personal conflicts, but characters come and go in an almost arbitrary fashion.

Woody Harrelson's performance is absolutely fantastic and is worth noting here.  His part is small, but powerful.  It's also emblematic of the film as a whole - small and excellent parts which come together in a fantastic whole.

"The Thin Red Line" is not your typical war movie.  But Malick is not your typical director.

There's not a whole lot else I can say.  It's quite an experience to see a film like this, which stakes its own territory in the world of cinema and sets itself apart.

The Hunger Games

Directed by: Gary Ross

Written by: Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins, Billy Ray (screenplay); Suzanne Collins (novel)









An adaptation of the hit YA distopian novel, featuring just about as many stars (and up-and-coming stars) as could be crammed into a modern feature-length film.

Overall, it was a pretty well-made adaptation.  In fact, some of the criticism has been that it was too close of an adaptation and lacked any originality.  I agree, to an extent.  The visual-effects were very loyal to the way everything was described in the novel, revealing things basically the way everyone imagined them.  It might have been nice to see a little creative license taken with some of the way things were presented or perhaps in the way the story unfolded.

There were a few kinks in the novel-to-film transition: mainly, a few things were glossed over or awkwardly inserted.  The stand-out example of this was the "tracker-jacker" explanation - the regular narrative stopped, pulled back to a sports commentary style to explain what the insects were, and then returned back into the regular narrative.

I enjoyed this movie very much.  But I'm not sure if I actually enjoyed it, or if I liked the original "Hunger Games" concept.

2012

Directed by: Roland Emmerich

Written by: Roland Emmerich, Harald Kloser

With the Mayan calendar fast approaching its end in 2012, it was inevitable that the film industry would try to capitalize on people's fears of mortality. In this case, disaster film expert director Roland Emmerich was picked to put together perhaps the ultimate catastrophe movie.

The end of the world-as-we-know-it begins when a solar flare sets off some kind of chain reaction which will cause the earth's crust to shift dramatically. International governments (including the American president played by Danny Glover) decide not to tell, but instead begin a secret project to attempt to save the human race. Meanwhile, most normal people (including John Cusack cast, oddly enough, as a chauffeur) begin to notice that weather disasters, such as tornadoes and earthquakes, are happening more frequently and with more intensity. Eventually, the civilized world begins to crumble as a chosen few desperately try to reach the international safe-haven in China.

There is a lot that goes wrong in this movie (and I'm not talking about the disasters), but let's start with the good.

Woody Harrelson. Woody Harrelson plays a back-woods government-conspiracy fearing lunatic radio broadcaster who tips off John Cusack's character that there may be more going on than meets the eye. Harrelson's character is by far the most fun and interesting, and it's unfortunate that he ends up with so little screen time.

Now on to what's wrong with this film - everything else!

To begin, the movie is entirely too long. Coming in at over two and a half hours, the movie is unnecessarily bloated and drags on far to long at many points. Some suggestions on how to cut? Start with the absurdly large cast. There are too many characters that the film tries to follow, and by the end the audience doesn't really care about any of them. For example, the entire subplot about the Russian billionaire's mistress having an affair with his pilot could be cut - it adds nothing to the film whatsoever, but consumes at least ten minutes of screen time. The same with the subplot about the scientist from India - not sure what he's doing in the movie at all.

Now, usually, when one goes to see a disaster movie, they expect to see some whopping special effects. Usually. Apparently Emmerich (who otherwise has a pretty good track record) missed the memo on this one. The special effects were underwhelming and unimpressive, and, after a while, repetitive. There are only so many "giant earthquakes toppling skyscrapers" sequences that a person can see before they lose their meaning. (One highlight, though, was the scene in which Cusack's car is being chased by a collapsing LA freeway - instant classic moment!)

The movie seemed to overlap and repeat itself too many times. It's easy to lose track of how many times someone says "It's happening sooner than expected" (or something along those lines). And there are three - literally three - scenes at an airport in which a plane has to take off in the midst of disaster on the runway. Sure, they happened at different airports, but a little variety in the disaster drama might have gone a long way.

Typically, I enjoy these types of movies for what they are. But in this case, I'd just had enough by the end of the movie. I'd only recommend this movie if you can't see any of Emmerich's other epic disaster movies. For what they're worth, "The Day After Tomorrow" and "Independence Day" give a much better bang-to-buck return. Sorry "2012" - maybe you'll be more exciting next year, but I'm not holding my breath.