Mockingjay

Written by: Suzanne Collins

Depending on who you ask, "Mockingjay" is either the worst book of the series or absolutely amazing. I tend to fall in line with the latter.

And, please be warned, there have been spoilers lurking these paragraphs ahead.

After being dramatically rescued from the nasty Quarter Quell edition of the Hunger Games, Katniss finds herself part of the rebellion against the Capitol. Unfortunately, in the chaos of the rescue, her sometime-lover Peeta was left behind and is now a prisoner of the Capitol. Katniss struggles to find her place as part of the rebellion: she is important as a symbol and a figurehead, but President Coin of the rebellion is wary of giving Katniss too much power. As the rebellion begins its final assault on the Capitol, she struggles to keep herself and her family safe while also leading the way to a better, brighter future for all.

I think most of the criticism of this book stems from the fact that this book is, by far, the most cerebral of the novels in the series. This time, we spend a significant amount of inside Katniss's mind, in place of the action which dominated the earlier books. Katniss is a much weaker character in this book; she has been broken and beaten down too many times. Rather than driving the action of the plot forward, she is much more of a passive observer (especially in the early part of the book). She spends much more time thinking "deep thoughts" about the nature of abstractions like power and violence, good and evil (and, yes, a few moments thinking about Gale/Peeta dilemma). It is not until the final few scenes that the strong-willed Katniss returns.

This departure from the standard established in the first two books is a turn-off point for many readers, who were hungry (pun intended) for more of what they got before. I actually appreciated this change, though. It always felt like there were bigger philosophical issues hidden underneath the plot, but that those issues were always neglected in favor of keeping the story moving forward. But, if Katniss were as intelligent as she showed herself to be, these things must have crossed her mind at some point, and, finally, in this book, we get the chance to get her opinion.

I appreciate the fact that, when the assault on the Capitol begins, the action of this book is strikingly different than the last two. Whereas the first two books took place in the Hunger Games arenas and the violence was mostly limited to participants, the violence in this book takes place in cities and pretty much everyone is a fair target. (And, trust me, there are a few surprises as to who gets hurt and / or killed in this book.)

I will say that I was slgihtly disappointed in the "Epilogue." Frankly, I didn't need it. I've voiced my opinion about these types of "gift wrap" endings before to anyone who would listen. I can't stand it when the author (or screenwriter, or director, or whomever) decides that the audience needs everything spelled out and resolved for them. Granted, I appreciate that not everything worked out perfectly for the characters: Katniss and Peeta are both ruined human beings, and several key figures are dead. So, I don't hate this ending as much as I usually hate endings like this, but I'm not terribly happy with it either.

Overall, the entire "Hunger Games" trilogy was a decent read, and I'd generally recommend it. Anyone going into it should realize that the series is not "classic literature." That being said, the books are fun to read, and well written enough to hook readers in with lots of twists and cliffhangers.

The Town

Directed by: Ben Affleck

Written by: Peter Craig, Ben Affleck, Aaron Stockard (screenplay); Chuck Hogan (novel: "The Prince of Thieves")

This film came with a lot of word-of-mouth acclaim, but I ultimately found it mostly disappointing.

The plot itself is so thin that it's hard to summarize meaningfully. Suffice to say that, in the midst of a bank robbery, Affleck falls in love with a hostage (Hall), which upsets Renner because it puts their entire robbery gang at risk. Affleck, influenced by Hall, decides to quit the robbery game for good, agrees to one super-dangerous last job breaking into Fenway Park's vaults.

This film just felt helpless, like a fish flopping on the deck of an aircraft carrier. The normally charismatic (or, at least charming in most cases) Affleck falls totally flat in his attempt to pull double directing-acting duties. Both Renner and Hamm are excellent actors, but their roles are so limited and static that neither one has the opportunity to shine. Frankly, Hall's character existed merely as a plot device, and I don't even remember Lively even being in the film.

In the interest of honesty, I spent most of this moving wishing I were re-watching "The Departed" instead. This movie's settings and themes really set it up for comparisons to "The Departed." Unfortunately for Affleck, Scorsese' s film is actually really good, while "The Town" turned out more like an ugly cousin. (Does that make sense? Probably not. Oh well - no turning back now. I'm not going to waste valuable brain cells revising a review for a movie as poorly made as this one.)

To give Affleck credit, there are some amazing parts to this movie: namely, the action sequences. Each and every one of the heist scenes was well designed and shot. (The Fenway Park scene didn't need to be set in Fenway for any other reason than to emphasize "Hey, we're in Boston!" But I digress.) This movie would have benefited significantly from a couple more good hold-up scenes and a lot less "Ben Affleck-looking-tortured-and-brooding" scenes. They were the highlight, and the only redeemable reason to watch this movie.

I'll tell you now, don't waste your time with this movie. Go watch "The Departed" instead, regardless of how many times you have already seen it.

Sunset Boulevard

Directed by: Billy Wilder

Written by: Charles Brackett, Billy Wilder, D. M. Marshman Jr.

"Sunset Boulevard" is one of the great films of yesteryear, and I'm so happy I had the opportunity to see it on the big screen at my local Classic Film Wednesday.

Joe Gillis (Holden) is a down-and-out screenwriter who, while trying to avoid the repo man, stumbles upon the decaying home of silent film great Norma Desmond (Swanson). Gillis finds himself struggling to remove himself from the deluded machinations of Desmond and her loyal butler Max (von Stroheim). Too late, he finds himself tied down to her and caught up in her schemes to return to silver screen glory.

So much can be said about this film (and much of it already has, elsewhere and better).

To start: Gloria Swanson's portrayal of Desmond's descent into total madness is one of the greatest performances of the era, if not of all time. The audience, like Gillis, is captured by her spell. She makes the climactic moment absolutely unforgettable, and delivers several classic lines that have been quoted (and parodied) ever since.

The way the story is told is also incredibly well done. We see everything almost exclusively through Gillis's eyes, which enhances the dark and mysterious atmosphere of the film - quite literally, we don't know what will happen next. Only at the end of the film, when the last key element revealed, is the audience able to see from a greater perspective.

I'm sure there is a lot to say about the film's subtext (or, perhaps not-so-subtext) regarding the changing winds of Hollywood, and whether or not that topic can still be applied to the modern film industry. Unfortunately, I just don't have the will to talk about it here. But, come on - think about it. Do I have to explain everything?

Something I noticed in this film that is worthy of discussion is the set design. A significant amount of the film takes place in Norma's grand and decaying mansion. There are several small details, like the missing door locks, which are perfectly executed. The mansion itself becomes a reflection of Desmond - once great, now diminished - and the set helps create this effect. The rooms are vast, but mostly empty. There is beautiful ornamentation and evidence of massive conspicuous consumption everywhere, but it has obviously been neglected for some time: the pool being the perfect example.

I could gush on and on about this movie. It's near perfect in most ways, and it's hard for me to criticize it in any meaningful way. I kind of want to watch it again right now...

The Spanish Prisoner

Written and Directed by: David Mamet

For years I had heard the name David Mamet mentioned in hushed and reverent tones. Nothing I overheard gave me any insight into the man or his work, beyond general acclaim. Then, at some point, I saw a trailer for "The Spanish Prisoner," made the Mamet connection, and had been on the hunt for this film ever since.

Joe Ross (Scott), an up-and-coming engineer, runs across wealthy financier Jimmy Dell (Martin), who earns his trust and promises to help him out of an unpleasant work situation and bring him into ranks of the wealthy elite. Ross quickly realizes that Dell is actually a con-man and turns to the FBI for help. But trying to con a con-man brings Ross deeper into Dell's web of deception.

The plot of this film resembles something from Hitchcock at his best. There are layers under layers and twists within twists, and major reveals which only lead to more complexities. With so many unpredictable turns, "The Spanish Prisoner" manages to be an edge-of-your-seat thriller without requiring much action. Some cliché twists are used, but not in any predictable way or for any conventional purpose.

The noir-style dialogue (often delivered weakly) does not seem fit well with the modern setting, though it does add a bit of texture to the story. The acting is not terribly strong, although the weakness plays a major role in the overall effect of the film: when everyone is acting, it becomes much harder to tell when a character is telling the truth and when they are being deceptive (or even when they are intentionally trying to reveal a deception to hide some other truth).

I absolutely enjoyed this film. Despite its few but noticeable weaknesses, "The Spanish Prisoner" stands out as quite unique. It hearkens back to a time when intrigue and plot were king in films, and the actors were key players in delivering the story.

What We Talk About When We Talk About Love

Written by: Raymond Carver

I picked up this book on a whim while at Powell's bookstore in Portland. I'd heard a lot of praise about Raymond Carver's writing, and after reading this, it was well deserved.

Carver's prose is stark and brutal, but also crisp and clear. He doesn't waste words, nor does he include a word unless it is absolutely necessary. (To make an annoying comparison - his writing is reminiscent of Hemingway's, but more like Hemingway-to-the-extreme.)

The stories themselves are short and too the point. They are stripped down and, in their brevity, incredibly powerful. Carver doesn't beat around the bush at any point.

I highly recommend this book.

The Tree of Life

Written and Directed by: Terrance Malick

Few films in 2011 arrived with such praise and such controversy as Terrance Malick's "The Tree of Life." Opinion on the film was relatively divided. Many critics hailed it as genius, while popular opinion was mixed. Many theaters had to post their refund policies for this film, as many people demanded their money back after seeing it.

In terms of plot, there isn't much to say. A middle aged Jack (Penn) receives the news that his brother has died, which sends him flashing back to his childhood and reflecting on his parents (Pitt and Chastain), with a not-so-brief tangent tracing the creation of the universe and the development of life on this planet.

To start: This may be the most beautiful film I have ever seen. The visuals are stunning and powerful, especially with the ominous music behind it. Not a single frame of film was wasted.

I understand the complaints that there was no story. But, I don't feel that a story is necessary for this film. The purpose wasn't necessarily to tell a story, but to evoke an emotion and to make the audience think.

To fully appreciate "The Tree of Life," you should consider it a work of art rather than a "movie" in the traditional sense. There is little dialogue, little action, and few obvious connections between the scenes. The movie challenges to viewer to put together the puzzle pieces for themselves and come to create their own understanding of the film. (And, frankly, I love it.)

I've come to my own conclusion about what the film means, but I am also the first to admit that I do not have a complete understanding of the film. There are a few obvious biblical references - Job being the most clear - but there are definitely a lot more that I was not able to necessarily get my head around. Like a Rorschach test, what each viewer brings with them to the film can affect their interpretation.

Please go see this movie. Right now.