The Hunger Games (2012)

I didn’t really know what to expect with this. I am a big fan of the 2000 film ‘Battle Royale’, so when I hear about a film where a group of people are forced to kill each other, I always think that it’s a rip-off of ‘Battle Royale’. Okay, I know ‘The Running Man’ came out before ‘Battle Royale’, but that’s not the point.

So along comes ‘The Hunger Games’, where twenty-four teenagers between the age of 12 and 18, are selected (Two from each of the twelve districts) and are forced to kill each other. But what else was my problem going into this? The books are aimed at young adults, and the film has a 12A rating. I didn’t really expect this film to have such a low age rating.

Before I actually say anything about the film, there’s one thing I want to address. Apparently after this film was released, there was this talk that ‘The Hunger Games’ was going to be the new ‘Twilight’, and that Jennifer Lawrence was the new Kristen Stewart. But no. No, no, no, no, no. ‘The Hunger Games’ will never be the new ‘Twilight’, because, unlike ‘Twilight’, ‘The Hunger Games’ is actually good. And yes, I have seen ‘Twilight’. Twice. The second time because of my girlfriend at the time. So I can back up that claim.

 

And Lawrence, who plays the main character Katniss Everdeen, can actually show an emotion, unlike Kristen Stewart. Believe me, Lawrence was brilliant, it’s like she was born for this role. She put in so much work and trained so hard for this role, you can see that it was worth it.

Which makes me wonder what the Hell is wrong with people when they said Lawrence wasn’t going to be any good, because she’s a natural blonde. Yeah, apparently hair affects acting talent. No-one thought back to ‘X-Men: First Class’ where Lawrence played Mystique, with red hair. Apparently some people don’t know how hair dye works. Especially when you consider the fact that the actor playing the brown haired Peeta was blonde, and the actor playing blonde Gale was brown haired.

Granted I do have some questions about the film, including hair. Seriously, the hair styles and colours in this are bizarre. Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks) is dressed as a Georgian, Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci) has a ponytail and bright blue hair, some people have twists and turns in their hair, and clothes fashion ranges from the 1800s to the 3000s. Then on top of that, there’s just things I don’t understand. What’s the Uprising? Why is America a barren wasteland? What’s Panem? Did the country go bankrupt by making one of those flying ships and hovering trains? Why do these twelve districts allow the Hunger Games to occur? Why does the world allow these Games to occur? What the Hell is going on?!

I assume the book, which I haven’t read but now have, explains these things better, and the film does actually explain some details as well. Well, the film explains that the Uprising was when the twelve districts rebelled against the wealthy leaders (Residing at the Capitol), and that the Hunger Games is a way to keep them in check. Why did the districts rebel? I dunno. I’m guessing it’s the old ‘poor vs. rich’ scenario. Again I’m sure the book explains things better.

 

Anyway, after that little tirade about hair, the film is really good. While I was worried about the plot, it was very well pulled off. The flow of the film was brilliant, there were no distractions, there were no abrupt cuts, it was great.

The acting was terrific. Lawrence I’ve already gone over, but we also have Banks, Tucci, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, and legends Donald Sutherland and Woody Harrelson, they were brilliant. The supporting cast was great as well, most of which are also teenagers, and you know how I feel about child actors. But we had some great performances, including Isabelle Fuhrman, of ‘Orphan’ fame and Amandla Stenberg who gave a brilliant performance in her short amount of screen time. And it’s because of the actors, that the characters are so interesting, they are brought to life you can’t help but fall for them.

 

Effects wise, I expect more gore. But that’s pretty much because of ‘Battle Royale’ and ‘The Running Man’. This was one of the prime examples of ‘less is more’, and where you can still have one of the most horrifying deaths in film history. In fact most parents seem to have complained that this film was too horrific for kids. I can see what they mean with the premise, but what did they expect?

But essentially, this film is brilliant. The acting was superb, the plot was great, the characters are fantastic, there’s really no reason not to go see this film. It’s certainly one of the best this year.

The Devil Inside (2012)

I don’t like exorcism movies. Well, okay ‘The Exorcist’ was an okay film, but that’s only because it was effectively the first. Every single other exorcism film after that is essentially a rip-off with bland characters. ‘The Devil Inside’...was better than expected. But not by much. Granted it was most likely because I went into it having very low expectations.

The premise of this film is that Maria Rossi (Suzan Crowley) killed three people during an exorcism. Her daughter, Isabella (Fernanda Andrade) is investigating with cameraman Michael (Ionut Grama), and priests Ben (Simon Quartermain) and David (Evan Helmuth), as to whether what happened would happen to her.

 

Firstly the pace of the film, well, it was, boring if I’m to be honest. Seriously, I struggled to keep my eyes open for most of it. The only other time that has happened, was when my mates and I were planning to watch films for 24 hours, and I started falling asleep at three in the morning whilst watching ‘Batman & Robin’.

Actually, I should have said this first. The film starts off with an intro card, stating that the events were based in real events and that the Vatican doesn’t endorse the film. Gee, you think? Of course the Vatican doesn’t really care if you see it or not, it’s just that do you really expect us to think that a film about exorcism was ever going to get on the Pope’s good side?

 

Then again, what religion would get behind this? Well, apparently one did since a trailer showed the producers managed to get an audience to watch it IN A CHURCH. Then again there was another trailer which showed a woman’s terrified reaction to the film, but it didn’t help that the guy sitting next to her was laughing at the film.

Now that I think about it, that’s probably why I found the film boring, because the trailers literally showed every single scare that was in the film. Yeah! It actually did, one trailer actually showed Isabella being possessed and her spine being bent backwards, as well as David being possessed. Thanks for the spoilers.

But it wasn’t just the trailer which ruined the film. Back to the pace, it followed the same pattern, which was ‘talk, talk, talk, scary moment! Talk, talk, talk, scary moment!’, rinse and repeat. There’s also the possessed women doing the high pitched screaming, which, as you probably guessed from my ‘The Woman in Black’ review, is a cheap means to get chills, as all this does is annoy the viewer, not scare them. But essentially the film moves along at a slow and predictable pace. I suppose it allows some kind of character development, ah who am I kidding, the characters are as forgettable as...something forgettable.

Not that it’s the characters fault mind you, it was down to the acting. Helmuth and Grama were okay I guess, but Andrade had the acting range of a piece of wood. Okay, I’m being a bit harsh as the acting got better about twenty minutes towards the end, but I’ll get back to that in a bit. Quartermain however actually gave a solid performance throughout, while Crowley was pretty good as a crazy woman. Not entirely sure if that’s a compliment or an insult.

While the film didn’t really have that many scares, it did still manage to creep us out. There was the scene when the crew go to see the exorcism of Emily Rose. I mean, Rosalita (Bonnie Morgan). This was essentially the scene where the possessed woman pops her shoulder out of her socket. That’s always going to be effective. Then there’s the scene where David attempts to drown a baby. Sorry, I couldn’t not give it away without saying ‘then there’s a scene involving David and a baby’, it sounded wrong.

Now, that scene was when the film started getting interesting. You see, they performed the exorcism on Maria, but the characters started getting a little dark. David becomes ominous, Michael gets all serious, Ben starts to worry and Isabella becomes a bitch. I didn’t notice at first until the scene involving David attempting to drown the baby, but essentially the four demons that were possessing Maria, weren’t exorcised, they just got the power to transfer from body to body via touch.

Yeah, this is the point where the film gets interesting, where paranoia and uncertainty sets in, at the 60 minute mark. And as the film starts to get interesting, the film ends. Yes, it’s the infamous ending which you’ve probably heard about. I can see why the film ended where it did, but again, the film was actually getting interesting, where it was becoming eye-catching, where it was becoming fascinating. And then the film just...ends. It was definitely sequel baiting, but it is one of the worst endings in cinema history.

I wasn’t the only one to think so, everyone else in the cinema essentially went “What?!” when the end credits began. Any enjoyment was effectively destroyed at that moment. Especially since we’re then told to go to a website to learn more, which in a good way does actually exist, but why should I go to a website for “more information” when I have gotten all the information I need from the film? It seems patronising, especially now when I think that I could’ve gotten the same information I got from the film, FOR FREE.

And there are the many small bits which didn’t make sense; such as Maria killed three people in America and was transferred to Italy for no real reason which was never explained (The makers of the film only wanted to set it in Italy to relate it to the Vatican...then again they could’ve just said that Maria did her killings in Italy), David shoots himself but the film had to make it about Isabella again a second later, oh, and you know that nun on some of the posters? You know, the one where it appears she’s possessed and it implies she has a big role in the film? Yeah? She’s blind, the characters drive past her, she’s only in one scene, and she only appears for three seconds.

So yeah, terrible acting, awful pace, bland characters, and predictable scares make this one bad film, and it’s even more infuriating when the film abruptly ends after the film finally starts to get interesting fifteen minutes towards the end. In its defence the film does have creepy moments and some pretty decent effects for a low budget production, but is it enough to save the film? To me, it isn’t.

The Woman in Black (2012)

I will give Daniel Radcliffe some credit, he is doing other films in order to distance himself from the ‘Harry Potter’ films. Not that the Harry Potter films are bad, they’re really good, it’s so that he is remembered for something other than being the Boy Who Lived. Then again looking at the tagline on the poster, I couldn't help but think that Radcliffe should start believing in ghost stories, as he's in one.

But the first thing that comes to mind, is that Radcliffe, who plays Arthur Kipps, isn’t the right character to play a father. I suppose he was the only one at the end of ‘Harry Potter Part 7.2’ to actually look normal, whereas Rupert Grint and Emma Watson looked weird and Tom Felton looked hilarious. But here, well, okay Radcliffe looks fine I suppose, with his hair and sideburns, as well as the fact that he has a shaven beard and goatee, but he still sounds like...well, that he still goes to Hogwarts. He doesn’t sound right for the part.

 

Thankfully that’s about it for his character, which is good cause I do like the guy. I do think Radcliffe is one of the best actors of this generation. He does do a great job throughout the film, which makes you easily forget about. As does mostly everyone else in this. Ciaran Hinds does a brilliant job as a supporting character, and I do have to say that Liz White does give such depth to playing the Woman in Black.

That being said, there are some minor characters who could’ve been better, it’s a cross between over the top, and not giving it their all. Sophie Stuckey did an alright job as Stella Kipps/The Woman in White, but she wasn’t in the film that much. Which is understandable, she is dead.

The acting of the children though was really good. Yes it’s odd that I, who did the ‘Worst Child Actor Performances’ list, found the child acting in this really good. What comes to mind is the opening scene, where the three girls jump out the window. That was done brilliantly; it was creepy and gave a great introduction to the film. The kids actually gave about half the scares in this film, because kids are fricking scary! The fact is that they’re suppose to be pure and innocent, they haven’t been corrupted by life yet. This means that it’s scarier when they’re on screen; it’s either more terrifying that a child is in danger, or they’re scaring the Hell out of you.

Oh yeah, this film is actually quite scary, especially since it’s a 12A rating. The film successfully sets a great tone with the dark lighting, the sense of feeling alone, and the fact that you need to watch for the little things. Seriously, there’s the point where the Woman in Black is sneaking up on Kipps, and if you look in the top left corner, you can see a mirror with the Woman in Black’s reflection.

There’s also a point where Kipps is looking around Nathaniel’s (Ashley  Foster) room by candlelight at night, and the light is reflected on a toy monkey’s eyes as Kipps moves across the room, making it look like the monkey is watching every step Kipps takes. This was a surprisingly effective piece of cinema; it was creepy, yet ingenious.

On top of that, the film does goes go more for the chills, rather than gore, which is pretty rare for a horror film nowadays. From the hanging to running around in the fog to the lights going out. Granted, for a horror enthusiast, like myself, the scares can be lacking, and I don’t really find high pitch screaming scary, it’s more annoying and irritating.

The story wasn’t just a standard horror, there were some actions scenes, such as Kipps running into a burning building to try and save a girl, or Sam Daily (Hinds) forcing the villagers to get out his way when he drives towards them. The ending was also surprisingly well concluded; it was an emotional scene and actually left it at a good point.

That being said, there were some bits which confused me or annoyed me. I mean, should a film that is primarily a horror have comedic aspects? Because it was funny when Elizabeth Daily (Janet McTeer) said that the twins (Or something like that) are coming to dinner, and it turns out they’re cute dogs.

There’s also the point that if Nathaniel’s body is recovered and laid to rest and placed with the Woman in Black’s corpse, then she will stop. Since I haven’t read the book, yet, I had no idea what was going to happen. I had the feeling that Kipps was going to be her son, but I was also getting the feeling that that wasn’t the end of it. I won’t say if it was, but it was a nagging feeling I had which hampered my enjoyment of the film.

Also, a bit of a plot hole I guess, but if someone seeing the Woman in Black causes her to go and manipulate children into killing themselves, then, I don’t know, move out of the village? Seriously! If it’s that easy for children to kick the bucket, then move the Hell out of the village, she doesn’t seem to go beyond the borders of the village.

But anyway, it appeared that the film was going to be good, and I’m glad to say it was. The acting is good, the effects are good, the plot is good, the scares and tone of the film are surprisingly great. It certainly was a great film to enjoy.

Jack and Jill (2012)

Now, let me start this off by saying that I do like Adam Sandler. Kind of. I first saw him in ‘Happy Gilmore’ back in school during a ‘last day of the school year’ sort of thing, and I did like that film. I thought it was funny, I thought the characters were well rounded, and it was wonderfully acted. Of course, if I look back now I’ll probably hate it, just like most of what he’s done after ‘Happy Gilmore’.

Don’t get me wrong, I do like ‘The Waterboy’, ‘The Longest Yard’, ‘Anger Management’ and I even sort of liked ‘You Don’t Mess with the Zohan’, but Sandler does effectively play the same character over and over and over again. And I also hate ’50 First Dates’, ‘Grown Ups’, ‘Spanglish’ and ‘I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry’. Hell I can make a drinking game based on the clichés Sandler now puts into his movies.

But, now that Sandler has his own production company, he can just continue to spit out these films, keeping his buddies in work. Oh, and giving himself main character status in about half his films. So what can we expect from ‘Jack and Jill’?...Adam Sandler in drag...I’ll let you think about that for a second.

Let’s go before the film even starts and look at the poster, because, like ‘The Dilemma’, you can tell this film is going to suck. Seriously, take a look at it.

 

Wow. I mean, look at that. The first thing we see is that the credits take up almost two-thirds of this poster, it just shows how much imagination was put into this poster. Then we see Adam Sandler at the top left corner...you know what, I don’t even know what the expression is. Seriously, what is that expression? Is that annoyance? Is that a forced smile? Is he angry? What the Hell is he doing?! We then look to the bottom right corner where...oh dear God. That’s the thing that will dominate my nightmares for the next few years.

So let’s get to the plot. We follow Jack Sadelstein (Sandler), his wife Erin (Katie Holmes), his daughter Sofia (Elodie Tougne) and his adopted son Gary (Rohan Chand). And the only reason why I think they said Gary was adopted, was because no-one would believe that he was Sandler’s biological son. Anyway, they have to contend with Jack’s twin sister Jill (Also played by Sandler), as she initially stays for Thanksgiving, then forever. This culminates in the family trying to find a man for Jill, where she then gets stalked by Al Pacino (Himself).

Yeah, Al bloody Pacino is in this film, where we see him lust after Jill. That isn’t just embarrassing to watch, but humiliating for a man of Al Pacino’s status. He does give a decent performance, though I wouldn’t blame him if he didn’t, and does give us an emotional scene, but it still doesn’t excuse why he’s in this. Though when Pacino sees the donut advert he was roped in, he says “No-one can see this” and that “all copies must be destroyed”. I like to think that he was talking about the film in general rather than the TV advert.

But Al Pacino isn’t the only big name to be in this. With the exception of Katie Holmes, whom I’ll talk about in a minute, we also have Shaquille O’Neal losing what’s left of his dignity after ‘Kazaam’, martial arts adventure actor Billy Blanks, and Johnny Depp. Yes, Johnny Depp is in this film. What the Hell is he doing in this piece of crap? Did he have some fines he needed paying? What made him think that having a cameo in a film where Adam Sandler dresses in drag was a good move? Then again I’m pretty sure I didn’t see his name come up in the credits, so he wanted his name stricken from the records.

Oh, and of course, Sandler’s friends pop up. Rob Schneider is in there and, oh God David Spade. Why? Why would you do this? You actually have a pretty decent career, why the Hell would you play an obese unbearable woman? Well done, you’re career is now over.

Now, the acting. It’s bad, really bad. I really don’t know what to say apart from that. Katie Holmes basically looked bored and had no idea what she was doing. Any supporting actors were underwhelming, particularly Eugenio Derbez who, like Sandler, not only played a guy, but played a female family member too.

Sandler himself was just awful, so awful that at this year’s Razzie Award ceremony, he’s been nominated not only for Worst Actor, but Worst Actress. Even though we know the premise of the film is to see Sandler in drag, even though we’ve seen it on the poster, when we first see Sandler in drag at the airport in the film, it still made my jaw drop to the floor.

Sandler’s portrayal of Jill is just downright insulting to the female gender. In its defence, any male portraying a female is an insult to the female gender. Don’t believe me? The ‘Big Momma’s House’ franchise, as well as David Spade in this film. Jill constantly whines, has a really stupid voice, doesn’t at all act like a member of the human race, let alone a girl. She constantly insults others, she has a toddler tantrum if she doesn’t get her way, and then she overstays her welcome. The second she appears in the film I mean, not when she refuses to leave Jack and his family. And she wonders why people/the audience don’t like her.

And then we have the kids, and yes, this was their first film, and it shows. Tougne wasn’t particularly bad, per se, but Chand, I really wanted someone to punch him in the face. Remember my ‘Top 10 Most Annoying Child Actor Performances’ list? This kid is the new number one, he’s that abysmal. So congratulations to Mackintosh Muggleton and Imogen Poots, you two resulting in the deaths of Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Africa is better than dealing with Chand.

You know what? Everyone is upstaged by the guy who stands in the cruise toilets and alters Jack’s/Jill’s boobs. And he’s only in the film for about a minute! For two scenes! He was the best thing this film had.

Bizarrely there was this point where Jill wasn’t getting any dates off the online dating site, so Jack posts a link to Craig’s List. And the film, lead by Chand, seems to think this is a bad thing. Not really, all Jack does is advertise Jill’s profile to a more widespread audience. I can’t even think of a reason why this was a bad thing. If it was because of weirdoes using Craig’s List, yeah, I’m pretty sure there aren’t any weirdoes who use online dating sites.

And the bottom line for this film is; this film isn’t funny. I have never been to see a comedy at the cinema, and not heard the audience even giggle. I’ve seen loads of comedies which are bad, which still managed to get a giggle, the only laughs that were heard when I saw the film, was when myself and the Whally openly, and loudly, mocked the film.

Some of these bad jokes involve the ‘one twin feeling the pain of the other’ theory, where Jack manipulates Jill into slapping herself, until Gary punches her in the face.

Gary: “Did you feel that Daddy?”

Jack: “I did feel something, pride in my son,”

Me: “Violence from children. We condone it!”

Then there’s Felipe’s (Derbez) catchphrase of sorts; where he effectively says some random thing like “My family illegally crossed the border” or “We’re gonna rob white folk” before saying “I’m kiiiiiiidiiiiiiing!”. And he does this about ten million times throughout the film. For the love of God, that joke IS NOT FUNNY!

And the film seems to think that racist attitudes against Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Indians, and the whole human race in general is funny. No. No it isn’t. It’s gravely offensive. And toilet humour is funny...back in 1977. They also seem to think that incest is funny. No seriously, the film gives that impression during the opening when a younger Jill gets jealous when Jack is getting attention from other girls, and Jill's really creepy expression when she gets too close for comfort when Jack is sleeping. Look at the photo and see for yourself.

 

So, yeah, this film is complete and utter garbage. The characters are either bland or infuriating, the plot is stupid, the acting is abysmal, and the jokes just aren’t funny! I’m expecting this film to win in every category at the Razzie’s, and if it isn’t the worst film I see this year, something went terribly wrong.