The Interview (2014)

Feeling defeated after the Detroit Lions lost to the Dallas Cowboys, I watched “The Interview” (2014). It’s something I don’t feel amazing about. I had a rather morbid curiosity with the film after the media made it the center of a controversy superstorm. Nobody was expecting a masterpiece, so despite the hype, the film had a very low bar to reach. It’s a Seth Rogen/James Franco movie – that’s not to say it’s bad, it just means – well you know… You need to be ready for a certain kind of stupid.
In this regard, “The Interview” met my expectations of  being a big dumb movie. The characters are quickly defined as soon as they’re introduced. Rogen’s character has perhaps one of the least interesting character motivations… ever? He’s a entertainment-news producer who’s celebrating his 1000th episode. He bumps into Anders Holm from Workaholics (a show I dislike) who’s a producer for 60 Minutes. They throw insults at each other about their respective shows, and Rogen’s feelings are hurt. Now Rogen is motivated to make his tabloid show more newsworthy. It’s the kind of slow start to a comedy that’s hard to watch. And the slow stuff just keeps coming. For the first twenty minutes or so, I had lots of regrets about renting “The Interview.”
Things pick up, and I laughed at a lot of things in this movie. Mostly Lord of the Rings jokes, which I didn’t see coming. I’ll say another thing I didn’t see coming was racist humor? I’m sure it doesn’t come as a shock to many people that a bunch of white guys made jokes at the expense of Asians. I just honestly thought we were past the point when a movie could come out in 2014 where a white guy goes “Me so sorry.” It just feels so tired, on top of being wrong. I get that Rogen and Franco’s characters are idiots, but surely they can be funny idiots who aren’t also racist, right? Those types of jokes aside, well, funny things happen in “The Interview” and I don’t feel like doing them an injustice in text. Despite the frequent stupidity which I can’t stomach, there was plenty of stupidity that was right up my alley. Amazon’s reviewers have given “The Interview” a three-star rating out of five-stars. I couldn’t agree more. “The Interview” is the epitome of an “okay-to-average” movie which will forever be remembered because of a most bizarre controversy.

Office Space (1999)

I watched Office Space for the first time last night, and I thought I’d give my general impressions of the film. Though the category is called “movie reviews,” I don’t think these should be considered as such. What I’m doing, and what I think I’ve always done with my reviews, is try to express what I felt and took away from a particular work; not rating, ranking, or suggesting that something is or is not worth watching.

What I got out of Office Space was mostly a good time, an anti-establishment, rebellious blip of a movie that’s fun but not exactly deep. It plays out like an alternate history version of Fight Club (which came out the same year) wherein the nameless narrator finds peace at work, rather than group therapy sessions and street fights. Peter, hero of Office Space, is basically hypnotized into taking it easy at work, and finding the confidence to ask out Joanna the waitress (played by Jennifer Aniston). I had absolutely zero idea that hypnotherapy had anything to do with the core concept of Office Space, but it’s really just a means to get Peter to become rebellious through acting in his own interests. That he doesn’t come around to making this decision on his own, but rather through an unfortunate hypnotherapy accident, was something I expected to come up at some point in the movie. Peter’s office-disturbing antics, perfectly set to Geto Boys’ “Damn It Feels Good To Be A Gangsta” (1992), are richly therapeutic, and fun to watch, but all a result of hypnosis and not a personal decision – so while Peter’s fun to root for, he’s not a great character.

While I’m on the subject of not-great-characters, I want to talk about Joanna. Introduced as the pretty girl that steal’s Peter’s heart (but he can’t ask her out because he might be in a relationship already, with a woman who gives off a might-be-cheating vibe), Joanna never moves past the point of being an object for Peter to win. Joanna and Peter both hate their jobs, and they both like Kung-Fu movies, and that’s the extent to which they’re a good match. Joanna has dialogue for when Peter wins her over, when she’s talking to her male boss at the restaurant, when she’s defending herself from Peter who rudely yells at her for sleeping his boss (years ago), and for when she (of course) accepts Peter’s apology. Joanna and Peter’s relationship is otherwise fit into to the previously mentioned “Peter is a rebel” montage.

Office Space is better than decent, it has a great 90’s hip-hop soundtrack, and there are some really great laughs to be had (Diedrich Bader’s character is gold every brief second he’s on screen), but the core “I got hypnotized into becoming a likeable rebel” premise, and the incredibly shallow stapled-on romance plot leave the film short of what I’d consider a great comedy.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

On December 22nd 2013, I saw The Hunger Games: Catching Fire at 3:15 PM Matinee. Catching Fire is a much better film than the first, though I’m not sure whether or not this has to do with the change in Directors, or the shift in source material. I don’t particularly remember the first movie doing a great job of explaining the circumstances of the post-apocalyptic Panem, and I thought the film wasted a lot of thematic potential. I remember thinking that too much time was spent explaining how important sponsors were, making the children from districts 1-4 seem straight-up evil, and milking the death of one particular child for all it was worth. I was frustrated at the end of The Hunger Games, because it wasn’t as good as I thought it could have been and to be clear, I haven’t read the books, my high expectations were completely born from my interest in the premise of the world itself.

At the end of Catching Fire, I was again frustrated, but for different reasons – but I’ll get into that later. Catching Fire spent about 2/3rds of its time outside of The 75th Annual Hunger Games, and I really loved that. Outside of the games are where the conflicts between the Districts and The Capitol really shine. I felt like the first movie rushed through this time to build thematic interest, and glorified the games perhaps a little too much. In steps Catching Fire, which paces itself oddly, I’ll admit – but in a way that I really liked. All of this build-up and dread leading towards the games; you understand that the stakes are higher – The Hunger Games mean more than just another gesture of power this time around – it’s about eliminating the rebellious victors. The action of the games is shot better, no more shaky-cam, and the games end in a pretty dramatic and surprising fashion that I never saw coming.

I still don’t understand why a love triangle was written into these books, at all. At all. Really, when people’s lives are at stake, when we’re on the brink of war, why am I supposed to care about whether Katniss loves Peeta or Gale? When Katniss gives Peeta a kiss on the beach, during a moment of peace during The 75th Hunger Games, an entire row of pre-teen-to-teen girls gave “oh’s” and giggles. How reductive is that? Lives are at stake and there’s a entire audience of Hunger Game fans who can only think in terms of “Team Peeta” or “Team Gale.”

I love Jennifer Lawrence as much as her next fan, though mostly for work in Silver Linings Playbook (2012) and Winter’s Bone (2010), but her performance isn’t the best of the film – and that probably has more to do with what Katniss is given to do in this movie. When Katniss is reduced to a pawn, and lacks control of her fate, is then any surprise that the actors who walk away with this film are the ones playing characters with power? Philip Seymour Hoffman, who’s Plutarch Heavensbee steals every scene he’s in, a suspicious, seemingly devious imp with something up his sleeve at every turn. Stanley Tucci’s Caesar Flickerman who’s delivery of the words “Hunger Games” rings forever in my ears, who’s fanboydom for Katniss is at once cute and ironic, in that she’s bringing down the very games he loves, and who’s world starts to crumble around him – as even his circus ringmaster tactics can’t stop the victors from showing their strength against The Capitol. Woody Harrelson’s Haymitch Abernathy, Donald Sutherland’s President Snow, and oh my goodness, Jena Malone’s Johanna Mason. Why isn’t Johanna the star of The Hunger Games? Unhinged, wild, rebellious, brave, committed; she got out of her Hunger Games alive and isn’t happy about the Quarter-Quell rules that forced her back into the games, and she isn’t afraid to let President Snow and the citizens of The Capitol know the full extent of her fury.

So at the end of Catching Fire, I’m frustrated for a few reasons, spoilers obviously. In Katniss’ biggest moment of the film, and maybe of both films up until this point – she chooses not to kill Finnick – a character she had little reason to trust, has seemed shady the entire movie, and had not entirely trusted before  – all because he tries to remind her who the real enemy is. Great acting from Lawrence here, as an internal argument inside of Katniss leads to a hard decision to let her guard down, and to release her arrow once pointed at Finnick, towards the sky. In doing so, Katniss destroys the arena made to host The Hunger Games, and her barely conscious body is air-lifted away; in a twist I honestly didn’t see coming the air-lifters turn out to be Plutarch, Haymitch, Finnick, and Gale. There had been a conspiracy all along to free her from the games, because Katniss is key to the revolution… somehow. I suppose she’s a symbol of rebellion, but here’s where I’m frustrated. I don’t think this is what Katniss was exactly going for, ever – she was turned into a symbol for rebellion, even forced into one.  I’m excited to see where it goes (ended on one hell of a cliffhanger) though I’m not stoked about the third book being split into two movies (which is the worst trend in Hollywood). Thank goodness Katniss vents some anger at Haymitch because, my god, she has the right to. Can somebody tell me why she couldn’t be in the loop for this whole, let’s break Katniss out of The Hunger Games plan? The girl has PTSD, and she could have killed any number of her secret allies if she wasn’t so quick to trust. I thought it was a great plot twist and all, but a little cheap, right? The wool was pulled over our eyes because Katniss is who we follow and if she’s kept in the dark, so are we – but was she only kept in the dark so that there could be a twist ending? Wouldn’t it have made sense to keep her in the loop?

Catching Fire isn’t perfect, but it’s better than the first – but both entries in The Hunger Games series of films right now, don’t always make a lot of sense all of the time. There’s a solid idea at the core of the series, perhaps ruined by sloppy premises and not entirely water-tight world building done by the books’ author.