Now You See Me (2013)

If you've read me before, you know how I feel about Mark Rufallo. Well, if you read my discussion of a movie he'd been in. I don't normally talk about him. Really. Not even that one time., 'cause what I actually said was, "Hark! Buffalo!" Because while you were busy looking at me, I was looking at you and right behind you walked this 800 pound bison and I was just trying to tell you. I;m sure you remember that.
I'll make this short and to the point and will never mention it again. Mark Raffalo does not drag down every movie he is in or make the room you are in stink every time he appears on screen. Because every would include his whole body of work and he didn't bring down this movie or make the room stink just because he was on screen. That was the cat. The last bit that is.
What do you need to know about this movie? There are two things, but only the first one is essential to getting the most for your viewing dollar, which in my case was $0.00 because I got it from the library and it was worth every penny, and the fact of the matter is that you only need to pay attention to the first item as the second one is just an observation I made. First, listen to the voice over at the beginning. It will tell you everything you need to know to fully appreciate this movie. Everything one of the mains says to anyone else regarding magic or the nature of magic is directed at you, the audience member. The second item, is French women are hot, but you probably already knew that and so did they.

Now You See Me on IMDb

Seven Psychopaths (2012)

I wanted to not like this movie. The last several movies recommended to me by the recommender of this film have totally sucked. And a couple of them, he admitted when I reported to him how much I disliked them, that he told me to watch them to confirm if they were as bad as he thought they were. What the fuck is up with that? It's one thing to recommend a movie to another and they end up disliking it. You might even offer a suggestion with a caveat of, "this might not be for you" or some such. You could even suggest a film with the warning of, "this movie sucked, but you might get a chuckle at a couple of the scenes." But to give a bad movie recommendation knowing it was bad and not give a warning...that's just wrong. I guess I'm spoiled by having one friend that is a good movie recommender.
I don't like Christopher Walken in most movies. The films where he has bit parts, they're okay as he's not on screen enough to bother me. I've mentioned before, but I'll say it again because I like the imagery - I think Walken would loose an "act off" against William Shatner. With that said, he was tolerable in this film. Not good. But tolerable.
Colin Farrel is one of those actors that I think is genuinely talented, but who I also think is a big enough wanker in real life that it sometimes bleeds through into his characters. *cough* *cough* Bullseye in the Daredevil film *cough* *cough* This is not one of those films. He plays a script writer who almost consciously fills the stereotype of writers and of the Irish, just so in the later half of the film he can have the break through of finally believing something and breaking the stereotype of the movie. I mean that he does, not that the movie breaks the stereotype.
Woody Harrelson and Sam Rockwell complete the cast of mains and are two of the seven psychopaths, well actually three, but I won't get into that. They both play quirky killers with aplumb. Harrelson plays the cold-hearted mob boss who will do anything for his dog, whom he loves dearly. Rockwell decides to become a killer to help his friend get ideas for a screen play. These are another two that toy with stereotypism so they can exploit later in the movie, though in ways that fit with how you think the movie will go, which is a bit of stereotype.
This film is very meta. It's about a man writing a screen play called Seven Psychopaths. The movie is the story of seven psychopaths, and some of the tales are made up while some are related to the writer as true while some are occurring both in his life and as stories related to him. They take the time to deconstruct several of the stories in depth. They talk about stereotypical roles in movies about killers and especially the stereotypes of women in these kinds of movies. There aren't a lot of women in the film and those that are there get very little air time, the one with the most on-screen time is the topless hooker. It's a bit of a slap in the face to spend so much time talking about how women are so much more than a victim or a bitch as they are portrayed in these movies, only to have all the female characters match the stereotypes that they say women are type-cast into.
The look of this film is a bit of a hodge-podge. It runs with one style for the first half an hour or so, and then changes, slowing way down for act II, and then picking back for an action-packed ending that is stylistically different from the beginning. We get started off with a Quentin Tarentino feel of fast cuts and graphics overlays, move into a Wes Anderson-like discussion of the higher morals of humans and end with a Sam Raimi goofy action flick, with all the predictable twists. Oh, and it's explosively violent, which means out of nowhere the film becomes graphically violent for a couple of moments and then goes back to it's mostly non-violent state.
This is a movie that you borrow, not buy. It has it's moments amd almost achieves some of it's own self-listed goals of stereotypes to break. Almost.

Seven Psychopaths on IMDb

The Hunger Games (2012)

When you're the fan of a book or set of books, there is always a bit of trepidation when you hear that a movie is coming out based on it or them. Movies are never the book, there is just so much you can't do in a movie, though there is some argument that a mini-series (if done properly) can do justice to a book, but lets stick to movies. Sometimes, they get it very right like Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy and the first Harry Potter movie. Sometimes, they get it wrong, like with the Golden Compass. Thank god this is one of the former.
I watched the previews and ads along with everyone else before this movie hit the theaters, and then I tried to block it out since then, as I didn't want to hear any reviews, especially the internet forum type of thing where people listed what was left out or what was changed. There is time for that after you've seen the movie and decided for yourself if it was good or not. Before the release, I read that Suzanne Collins was very happy with how it turned out. And the only review I listened to after it came out was from the friend who had turned me onto the books, and she loved the movie. Both of those were good enough for me.
And I was not disappointed.
First the props - casting was amazing. Jennifer Lawrence, Stanley Tucci, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherlin, Lenny Kravitz, Elizabeth Banks were all perfect for their roles and in fact looked very much like how I imagined the characters while reading the book. I expected Snow to be a little thinner and Haymitch to be a little heavier, but that was quickly forgotten. Interestingly, I imagined Snow as being Donald Sutherlin while reading the books. Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth did not look at all how I imagined Peeta and Gale, respectively. But you know what? That's okay. Both of these young men put in performances that made me forget about my preconceptions.
The special effects and costumery were top notch. The fiery outfits for Katniss and Peeta were great, as was Katniss's interview dress, they were all toned down from the descriptions in the book though. But they still worked.
Now the cons - there are really only two that I have, and they're both small nitpicky fanboy kinds of things, well maybe more movie fanboy than Hunger Games fanboy, you be the judge. Caesar explaining tracker jackers as being genetically engineered wasps seemed out of place. They could have gotten by just fine with explaining the effects and showing the insects and let us work out what it was, which they did do the animal pack at the end. The other issue were the boys hair-dos for the guys from the 'professional' districts. They all looked very 2010, which is around the time they would have been preparing to shoot and I think they're going to look dated in a couple of years. I think if they had allowed for some variety in these four or five boys it would go a long way towards stopping this potential datedness.
As you can tell I'm very happy with what I saw and should not be surprised to hear that I'm eagerly awaiting the sequels. And I'll make sure and thank my friend the next time I see her, for turning me onto these books and suggesting that I will love the movie, too.

Hunger Games at IMDb