What Classics did you see Last Week (June 9-15)?

The Ballad of Flower-eaters & Rebels...

I never read the books the original films, or this one, were adapted from. Consequently, I was somewhat lost at times and it almost felt as though this prequel needed its own prequel since characters acted like/referred to things as if we should know WHY they acted that way/what they were talking about. This is where book-readers will have an advantage over non-book-readers, as they’ll *know* why certain characters are acting the way they do with others, etc. Of course, the downside to being a book-reader is that you’ll no doubt be overly critical about every little detail, things you imagined differently, changes made, and things left out or added in. The benefit I had was judging this movie solely based on its own merits, coming into it fresh and with little idea of what would be happening (other than seeing the origin of how Snow turned evil).

The movie’s broken up into three parts titled ‘The Mentor’, ‘The Prize’ and ‘The Peacekeeper’. Tom Blyth as a pre-Donald Sutherland version of Coriolanus Snow proves himself a capable leading man, as his character goes through quite the journey in the film and he rises to every occasion, playing all the different facets of Snow’s personality in his early life. He starts out as someone whose main motivation is a monetary prize, but then this 'rebel' (who's referred to as such on more than one occasion) becomes invested for more personal reasons in the survival of the tribute he’s selected to play mentor to: Lucy Gray Baird (Rachel Zegler). I feel some have been unfairly critical of Zegler’s performance, letting the things she’s said in interviews (that’ve rattled some feathers...but have absolutely nothing to do with how she plays her character here) colour their judgement. I personally thought she held her own against Blyth’s Snow admirably. As Lucy Gray describes herself, she’s ‘not made of sugar’, and this becomes abundantly clear during her introduction when she drops a snake down the back of a girl’s dress. Then later, during Lucy Gray's first meeting with Coriolanus, she eats a petal off the white rose he presents her with (which definitely leaves an impression).

People have complained about ‘too much singing’ in the movie (but it's RIGHT THERE in the title: ‘The BALLAD of SONGbirds & Snakes’), but don't be scared of the singing...the movie's not a 'musical' like some have made it out to be. While Zegler certainly puts the ‘song’ in ‘songbird’ by providing the majority of the film’s soundtrack, it’s part of her character (and actually an important plot point). Plus, she can really hold a tune...so why the complaining? It’d be one thing if she sang BADLY, but she gives the songs her all, putting emotion/feeling into every one (and it’s not over-polished, which is appreciated). The film rests mainly on these two actors’ shoulders, and I personally found their scenes together to be the most compelling parts of the movie. Lucy Gray starts out not trusting Coriolanus, but he shows her on more than one occasion that he isn’t without heart and gradually she grows to trust him, as they work together to ensure her survival in the Hunger Games.

Another stand-out in the cast is Jason Schwartzman as Lucretius "Lucky" Flickerman, weatherman and aspiring magician (who bears an uncanny resemblance to Stanley Tucci’s Caesar Flickerman from the original films), as his reporting the weather while kids are dying in the arena provides some morbid humour at one point (really, he’s the only source of ‘humour’ in the film). Head Gamemaker, Dr. Volumnia Gaul is a frightful sight (her makeup’s seriously unnerving) and you can’t help but wonder if the reason everyone’s so hungry is because Viola Davis keeps devouring all the scenery. Her rainbow of snake muttations are a colourful way to take out the stragglers when there is only a handful left. Speaking of, I remember the acting for the tributes who weren’t Katniss (whose name I was surprised to learn the origin of in this film) or Peeta in the original films was pretty sketchy...and it hasn’t really improved this time around. Other than one or two who make the most of their limited screentime (that we either feel sorry for, as they're practically Dead Meat Walking, or are shown to be more three-dimensional than they first appeared), the majority feel barely above CW teen drama levels in the acting department.

Much better are other supporting characters such as Dean Casca Highbottom (Peter Dinklage, continuing to play characters who drink and know things…that is until the end when he doesn’t know something, which proves fatal), Sejanus Plinth (Josh Andrés Rivera, playing a friend of Coriolanus and a fellow mentor who won’t stand for the Games’ barbarity...which also proves fatal) and Tigris (Hunter Schafer, playing cousin to Coriolanus...or ‘Coryo’ as she calls him, who I found particularly interesting to watch and really enjoyed her scenes with Blyth’s Snow). Something this movie has definitely stepped up from the previous films is the brutality of the Games, as there’s no shortage of death (so don’t get too attached to anyone). I also found the themes explored in the movie felt more ‘mature’ and there was a complexity that you might miss the intricacies of if you’re not paying attention.

Although it may seem like the film loses some steam in its third part, it’s necessary to show that things aren’t all fine and dandy after the Games are over with. The relationship between Coriolanus and Lucy Gray is not one that’s wrapped up in a nice neat little bow. There’s an open-endedness that may frustrate some people, but the important thing is that by the film’s end...The President Snow of the future has been born/created. On the whole, I found the movie held my attention throughout (not a small feat considering its runtime) and I liked it better than the first, third and fourth previous films. Only the second film, Catching Fire, would I rank higher than this one.

Arf...

Gory, gory hallelujah! This remake of a classic, after being in development hell forever, finally arrived! Admittedly, I became aware of this remake rather late in the game and was unaware of all the troubles surrounding it till close to its release date. I think that if I'd been anxiously awaiting the film’s release as long as others had, I'd have been quite disappointed with the final result. As it stands, this film isn't at all 'bad', it's just that it's not up to the standard I'm sure a lot of people were hoping for.

The performances are all good, though not "outstanding". Benicio Del Toro as Lawrence Talbot is thankfully less mumble-y than he usually is (his accent is questionable, however). He portrays the character well enough, but really comes to life when he gets to let loose the monster within. Whilst not having a lot of character development, he still manages to make Lawrence someone who you can feel sympathy for. The character of Gwen Conliffe is rescued from simply being a damsel in distress by Emily Blunt, who gives the character some real depth/emotion with her performance as the heroine of the story. The scenes between her and Lawerence go a ways towards making you actually *care* what happens with them. While some may think their scenes "slow", I thought they were important, as they helped us get a better understanding of their characters.

Anthony Hopkins, meanwhile, seems a tad bored in his role as Lawrence’s father, Sir John Talbot. While he does give good underlying menace, he doesn't seem to have much 'life' in him (considering he describes himself as “quite dead”, I guess this is fitting). The "secret" regarding his character and the mystery surrounding his wife/Lawrence's mother isn't exactly hard to solve (even if you hadn't already seen the trailers). It's pretty clear early on how this film will play out. I can't say there were too many surprises story-wise (although there's quite a few surprises in the 'jump-scare' sense). Inspector Aberline (portrayed by Hugo Weaving and his muttonchops), sounding rather Agent Smith-esque in his line deliveries, is the only character in the film to provide anything approaching 'humour'. Suffice to say, this movie is virtually ALL seriousness.

This brings me to one of the film's flaws: the use of CGI. Although everybody was probably mostly concerned with how the transformations from man to wolf looked (they're not too bad), the misuse of CGI mainly comes in the form of ordinary animals. There's a dodgy-looking CGI bear (who I felt sorry for, since it unfairly receives blame for all the grisly deaths) and deer (that is used as bait, but thankfully appears to escape…though the humans who tied it up aren’t so lucky. HA! That’ll teach ‘em for trying to serve the werewolf venison!), and given what lengths this movie went to in conveying a sense of 'realism' (as much as a werewolf movie can have, anyway), it's a shame to see rather laughable CGI’d animals used in place of real ones. Then there’s 'Wolf Boy' from the trailers who looks like a poor-man’s Gollum.

The werewolf transformations themselves are well-done, and Rick Baker's excellent makeup does a good job of turning Del Toro into a monster (Anthony Hopkins, on the other hand, kind of just looks like an excessively hairy old man). As for the violence, gorehounds should be satisfied, as all manner of torn limbs and guts are on display. The film’s opening attack sets the mood, the one at the gypsy camp shows just how frightfully effective a killing machine such a beast is, there’s some nice build-up during a scene at a mental asylum (with at least one very satisfying kill) and a chase scene across rooftops makes for some nice visuals. When Wolfy gets hungry, it’s quite exhilarating, and once the attacks are over, you’re left with a sense of uneasiness, as you don't quite know when something's going to suddenly lash out (whether it be in dream sequences or for real).

Thanks to the directing, the mood/atmosphere goes a long way towards lifting this film from mediocre. It *looks* great with good use of shadows (although it could have done with a little less blowing out/lighting of candles). The end credits were visually interesting and the music used throughout added a LOT to the film’s overall feel. Where it's let down, I feel, is in the script. A quick word on the 'Director's Cut' of the film which I bought on DVD: I feel this is the 'better' version of the movie, as it feels like it gives things more time to 'breathe'. There's a different introduction to the characters of Lawrence and Gwen (who meet earlier in this version of the film when she actually goes to visit him when he's performing onstage. I liked this first meeting between them and getting to see Lawrence in 'actor' mode. The only problem it creates is with continuity as later Lawrence refers to a letter she sent him...which, I guess, she still could've done, but it's made redundant by her visit in person). There's also a nice cameo by Max von Sydow who gifts Lawrence with the infamous silver wolf-headed cane.

Some other extra moments scattered throughout were welcome additions, I thought. I also wouldn't have been opposed to some of the deleted scenes included on the DVD extras being restored (especially the one involving a blind opera singer and Lawrence's wolf-y self walking amongst the audience, being enchanted by her and not attacking until some bozo makes the mistake of touching him and winds up having his head become a chew toy). This 'Collector's Edition' of the movie is the best version to watch if you get the chance, in my opinion. While the 'Theatrical Version' is by no means a terrible, it could've been better with a few changes made. Still, despite its flaws, it is one of the 'better' werewolf movies in quite a while.