Silver Linings Playbook review

 Number 420 on the top 1000 films of all time is David O'Russell's romantic comedy-drama Silver Linings Playbook.

Patrizio Pat Solitano Jr (Bradley Cooper) is sent to a mental hospital after he beats his wife's lover half to death. In hospital he is diagnosed with Bipolar disease. Upon his release, he returns to live with his parents Pat Sr (Robert De Niro) and Dolores (Jacki Weaver) all while scheming to win his wife back. Part of his scheme involves entering a dance competition with the unstable Tiffany Meadows (Jennifer Lawrence.) Chris Tucker also co-stars as Pat's friend Danny Mcdaniels.

Any film that focusses on mental illness will be a tough watch and Silver Linings Playbook was no exception. It was intense with most of the characters suffering from some type of mental illness: Pat Jr has bipolar, Pat Sr has OCD, Danny and Tiffany both have undeclared illness, with the latter theorised to have BPD. On a number of occasions, tempers frayed as the characters spoke over and screamed at each other. But if that's what it's like in real life, can you imagine what it would be like inside their heads?

Silver Linings Playbook was released in 2012 and, even then, mental health wasn't as well understood or respected as it is now. There is still some stigma attached, but it was much worse over a decade ago. And when you don't fully understand something, it is easy to misrepresent or mischaracterise it. It's all too easy to have characters defined by their mental illness rather than characters who happen to have mental illness. Granted, I don't have mental illness, so I don't know what it's like, but I think Silver Linings was very respectful to all involved.

Pat has bipolar. He is erratic, intense and unpredictable. Yet he is also scared, vulnerable and anxious. And that was down to Bradley Cooper's very nuanced portrayal of him. He brought the character to life rather than making him a caricature. Similar Pat Sr has OCD and requires everything to be in the perfect place. But he truly does care for his son, helping to turn him into a real person.

The same applies for Jennifer Lawrence as Tiffany. Although it's never confirmed, it's generally believed that she has BPD. From her volatile nature to her blunt way of talking to how she goes quiet when things become heated, Lawrence captures the mannerisms perfectly. She really earned the best actress Oscar. Just like Bradley Cooper, she brought a sensitivity to the role without reducing it to a gross parody.

If I were to criticise the film for anything, it would be the amount of time spent on American Football.  This was a personal preference and I know playbook is in the title, but I didn't care at all. All of the weird schemes and gambling that bookmaker Pat SR was involved in, went right over my head. As this comprised a large part of the film, I did miss a lot. I know that American football is like a religion to most Yanks, but I'm a Brit who hates most sports, including regular football, so I didn't care for it.

Overall, I did enjoy this film. Sure it was intense with lots of shouting, but the two leads performed admirably. Just less American football, next time, please.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire review

Number 324 on the top 1000 films of all time is Francis Lawrence's science fiction, dystopia: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.

After Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutchinson) win the previous Hunger Games, they become unlikely celebrities. However, they also become symbols for a rebellion as the 12 districts of Panem begin rising up against the capitol.

Just like its predecessor, I have not read the Hunger Game books so this review is based entirely on the film itself. I really wanted to like this film. It had so much potential. It could have been better than the first, and while it was, that's not really saying much. However, unlike the original, I actually have some positive things to say so let's start with those. 

On the surface, it seemed that director Francis Lawrence had learned from his predecessor's mistakes. There was far less shaky-cam and the villains were more than men in black hiding behind curtains. Donald Sutherland was menacing as President Snow. I particularly liked the scene with him and Katniss. He warns her that she needs to toe the line on her victory tour otherwise everybody in her district will die. I felt the malice from here. It was nice to have an actually threatening villain unlike the first film. Shoutout also goes to the always great Philip Seymour Hoffman as the morally duplicitous gameskeeper: Plutarch Heavensbee. He was much better than the campy Seneca Crane and he worked well together with Sutherland. There was even guns in this film! Although why they were present here and not in the original is beyond me.

Sounds good right? That's what I thought. The first hour of the film felt markedly different from the original. I was actually invested. I was excited to see a rebellion or even a civil war play out and for Katniss and Peeta to undergo reluctant hero arcs but then the film took a complete nosedive.

Worried that Katniss' defiance could lead to full-blown revolution, President Snow organises another Hunger Games where the contestants are former tributes - a plan that is beyond ridiculous. If you want to kill Katniss, why would you submit her into a competition where she could die as a martyr for the revolution? Oh no, says Plutarch: when the audience see how she betrays and kills her friends and allies, they'll turn against her. Great plan, but why even risk the chance? 

Also, what are the chances that there would actually be 2 victors from each district? It would make sense if there was a severe imbalance in the number of tributes that each district could provide. Districts 1 and 2 always produce the Careers - i.e the strongest, fastest and cleverest tributes. It would be logical if they won most of the previous tournaments and thus provided the most tributes. What if some districts had never won the tournament and thus couldn't produce any victors?

 And then we come back to this volunteering nonsense. Katniss is the only female victor from district 12 and so she is picked (again, what if District 12 had never produced a female champion or any championbefore) but Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) is picked as the male victor. However, Peeta volunteers to take his place. I do not believe that a despotic, totalitarian regime would be okay with tributes volunteering in the place of others. They just wouldn't. The whole point of this tournament is to punish Katniss and Peeta for their defiance. But yet they're fine with other people breaking the rules! It makes no sense that they would allow Peeta to volunteer. 

Granted at least the other tributes were a little more interesting as the film actually took time to develop them. Katniss and Peeta quickly ally themselves with playboy Finnick (Sam Claflin) and older contestant Mags (Lynn Cohen) - also it was stupid that she was allowed to volunteer for another contestant. This is a televised tournament and Mags is way too old to take part. How would it be entertaining to see her compete? Anyway, we also have Joanna (Jena Malone,) who is not the happiest about being forced to take part again, and computer nerds Beetie (Jeffrey Wright) and Wiress (Amanda Plummer.) These supporting characters were much better defined than in the last film. I was actually sad when they started inevitably dying. Case-in-point, when a killer fog arrives, Mags sacrifices herself as she is slowing down the others.

What was interesting was that the curve balls that the Gameskeeper threw in were made into canon and not randomly thrown in. This film had killer fog and killer monkeys and killer waves which was just as stupid as in the first film. Fog or monkeys or waves don't discriminate. They'll kill everybody in their path. What happens if they kill all the tributes? Katniss and Peeta were prepared to both kill themselves at the end of the first film and the tournament was stopped with both being crowned as champions. 

Finally, we've come to the stupid Katniss and Peeta love story which continues to make no sense. Although the two of them seemed very cosy at the end of the first film, Katniss has lost all interest in Peeta, by the time Catching Fire starts,  with no explanation why. In fact she's with her boyfriend from District 12: Gale (Liam Hemsworth) but she promptly forgets about him. In fairness, he's pretty forgettable. I forgot that he had appeared in the first film. 

 To prevent rebellion, President Snow orders Katniss and Peeta to make the people believe that their romance was real. On their victory tour, they embark on a sham relationship ending with a sham marriage. And all of this is in spite of Peeta still having feelings toward Katniss and Katniss still being apathetic toward him. But for unexplained reasons, upon entering the arena, they hook up properly. And it doesn't make sense. Outside of the arena, Katniss has shown very little interest in Peeta. But in it, she's suddenly in love with him. Ur Katniss? This is the guy who betrayed you to the Careers. He almost got you killed. Yet she doesn't care about that. And despite all of her initial apathy, she is suddenly concerned about keeping him safe. As Haymitch remarks, Peeta really doesn't deserve her.

And I didn't deserve to watch this. Granted it's better than the first film, but it was a really low bar. Thank God, I don't have to watch Mockingjay.

The Hunger Games review

Although the Hunger Games is not on the top 1000 films of all time list, its sequel Catching fire is, so it was only logical that I went back and watched the original first.

The City of Panem holds annual Hunger Games contests where 2 members from each of the nation's 12 districts are selected to fight to the death. 24 enter but there can only be 1 winner. When Katniss Everdeen's (Jennifer Lawrence) sister is selected, Katniss volunteers to take her place. Competing along aside her is baker's boy, Peeta (Josh Hutchinson.) Woody Harrellson, Elizabeth Banks and Donald Sutherland all co star.

To preface this review, I have not read the Hunger Games books so my comments are based on the film alone. Although this film is 10 years old with the books being even older, I've never had any interest in the Hunger Games. Having finally watched it, I can understand why. It was like watching Young Adult fiction. During the whole film, I was asking "is this it?" By " it, " I mean a film with a half-baked romance, generic villains, an undeveloped cast and a plot holier than swiss cheese.

One thing that irked me through the whole film is that there are no guns. I didn't get it at all. This isn't a medieval fantasy; it's a futuristic dystopia where they have genetically engineered wasps, tracking implants and holographic interfaces. The tributes are fighting to the death in a televised tournament. Wouldn't it increase the entertainment factor if they had guns too? It would definitely raise the tension especially if some tributes guns and some didn't.  But would that make things too easy? I don't think so. Katniss would have some big obstacles to overcome if she has a bow and arrow and her opponents have guns. Even when Rue dies and her district riots, the riot police don't use guns. They use water cannon. It doesn't make any sense. 

Speaking of Rue, she was an example of the severely underdeveloped supporting cast. She had the potential to be a really interesting character if she wasn't on screen for fifteen minutes. She saves Katniss from the Careers and the two ally with each other. Ten minutes later, she dies in a trap set by the leader of the Careers, Marvel. Her death causes her district to riot. Do I care? I should do, but I don't. Later on, when Katniss is being attacked by another of the Careers, Clove, Thresh saves her life. Thresh is also from Rue's district and killed Clove to avenge Rue. He then dies off screen. Again, I don't care.

Then we come to the group of tributes called the Careers - AKA, cliched public school bullies. Marvel, Clove, Glimmer and Cato ally together because they're the biggest and the strongest. But they were all too meh to present any real threat. While they all die one by one, they were too indistinguishable  for me to tell them apart or to care about their deaths. Plus calling the strongest, fastest and most handsome tribute 'Marvel' is way too on the nose. To be honest, the only interesting, well developed character was Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), a previous winner and mentor to Katniss and Peeta. He begins as apathetic and jaded but soon starts to care about his trustees.

I would argue the premise of the film was flawed. Katniss only becomes tribute because she volunteers to take her sister's place, but what if she wasn't allowed? What if this was against the rules? What if Prim had to fight anyway? We wouldn't have a film then. Although the Gameskeeper Seneca obviously don't care about breaking rules. They throw in lots of curve balls to make things more interesting. And by interesting, I mean stupid. Katniss spends the first part of the tournament hiding at the edges of the arena. To drive her into action, Seneca starts a forest fire. Katniss is driven up a tree by the Careers who camp underneath, prepared to wait her out. she is only saved when Rue points out the nest of genetically engineered wasp nest hanging from a tree branch over them. Katniss breaks the branch and the wasps kill Glimmer.

 Thresh later dies when the organisers release some demonic big cat things. Sure this creates more drama and tension, but it's also stupid. Fire is fire, Wasps are wasps. Big cats are big cats. They don't know who they're killing. What if they kill all the tributes? Then there wouldn't be a champion. President Snow (Donald Sutherland) explains the reason they do the contest is so that the people will always have a spark of hope. But what hope can they have, when they know that the odds will never be in their favour? President Snow was obviously supposed to be the big bad villain but he was too underused to be any real threat.

And we come to the god-awful love story between Peeta and Katniss which had all the foundations of a lean-to shelter. In flashbacks, we see Peeta giving Katniss some bread. In a pre-tournament interview, Peeta confesses he is in love with Katniss. She angrily dismisses this as a shallow attempt to appeal to sponsors. When in the tournament, Peeta allies with the Careers and leads them straight to Katniss. But after the wasp attack, he joins Katniss after seemingly betraying her. I say seemingly as it's never explained why he joins the Careers and Katniss accepts this without question. It's not even just an acceptance...she falls in love with him. And they kiss! He could have got you killed, Katniss. And the less said about the Romeo and Juliet ending the better.

The Hunger Games was also criticised for its camerawork and it was pretty awful, especially the shaky-cam. In the film's final fight between Katniss, Peeta and Cato - one of these bland Careers, the camera moves around so much, I can barely tell who is who - not that I care much.

I am sure that this review will earn me the ire of Hunger Games' fans, but here's hoping Catching Fire will be better. May the odds ever be in my favour. Humph. Not bloody likely.