Where's the Rock?

I wanted to love Rock of Ages. I really, genuinely did. I am an unabashed lover of rock'n'roll music, and for me, theater is a way of life. To see the two combined onscreen was a dream come true - at least in concept. In delivery, not so much. What really disappoints about Rock of Ages is that in the maelstrom of misfires, there are some genuine rock'n'roll moments, some flashes of what the whole film could and should have been all about.

There's a saying that'll be familiar to anyone who works in and/or enjoys musical theater: when you have something to say, you speak. When you can't speak, you sing. Musicals are all about that chance to express things that we can't find the words to otherwise. In Rock of Ages, the vast majority of the characters have little or nothing to say, which makes their singing, in a word...pointless. Because many of these characters are so shallowly drawn (and frankly, unlikable caricatures), their singing lacks the raw, explosive emotional power that sits at the center of any good musical. Musicals are built around just that - the music, as extension of character and story. When both of these elements are as flimsy as they are here, it undercuts the music. 

Like me, you may have heard or read that the real reason to see this movie is Tom Cruise's turn as the Axl Rose-inspired rocker Stacee Jaxx. That's genuinely true. Jaxx has an odd obsession with feeling other people's heartbeats (these people are almost exclusively women), but what's interesting is that he alone is the heartbeat of this film. Why? Simple. Stacee Jaxx is the only real piece of genuine rock'n'roll in the entire movie. Every time he's onscreen, a wild energy comes with him that invigorates an otherwise furiously dull film.

Other performers in the film can sing and dance perfectly well, for sure. One thing this movie isn't short on is talented, pretty people. Julianne Hough in particular gives a game performance and supplies great vocals. 

Unfortunately there's not all that much here for the performers to work with. The movie is set in 1987, and for some counter-intuitive reason, it seems more interested in chronicling the decline of rock'n'roll than celebrating the fact that it will never die. Watching Rock of Ages will just make you want to come home and blast your favorite vinyl record on the turntable. But that's really not so bad, is it? 

The Majesty of the Doctor

I don’t know why I keep watching this clip. It makes me cry like a baby every single time. The brilliance of Murray Gold’s score combined with the regeneration scenes of every Doctor are unbelievably powerful.

But what hits me the most about this clip is the roars that go up from the crowd as each Doctor’s face appears on the screen. You can tell how much people really love The Doctor and how important he’s been to them - in all 11 incarnations, to millions of people over nearly half a century, in so many different ways.

As a writer, as a creator, I find myself wishing that someday, I might be able to create even just one thing - one story, one character, one anything - that has an impact on even just one person the way that the Doctor has mattered to so many people. 

At first this idea seemed selfish to me…but then I realized, it isn’t. I don’t need the fame, the glory, the money that might come from it. I just need to create something that matters to someone else the way that the Doctor matters to me. He is a hero of mine and I look up to him, and I’ll never apologize for that. Maybe someday, if I’m lucky, someone will look, even just for a moment, to someone I’ve written the way I look to the Doctor now.  

Allonsy, everyone. 

Shameless Plugs (An Addendum)

In the spirit of my last post, and because I think they deserve it, I thought it would be a good idea to post links to some of the dedicated writers and artists I mentioned when writing about GraniteCon. If you have a chance, check out their sites and show them some love - metaphorically (or literally in the form of purchasing their work).

Juli Mayers (Wicked Little Studio): Not only is Juli a genuine, friendly person, she's also a great artist. I have a print of hers (the 9th Doctor and Rose) hanging in my room right now. You can find her at: http://www.wickedlittlestudio.com/

Charles Soule: Writer of 27 and Strongman, as well as the upcoming Strange Attractors, Charles is based in New York. I'm reading the first volume of Strongman right now, and it's very, very good. And I'm not saying that just because I met the guy. Give his work a read - you can find him at: http://charlessoule.wordpress.com/

Peter Vinton Jr. : This guy is an artist and illustrator, and his work ranges from covers to sequential art to portraits. Check him out at: http://petervintonjr.com/index.html

Joe Hill: Of all the folks on this list, he's probably the one least in need of what (little) help might come from a mention on this blog. The son of writer Stephen King, Mr. Hill is the author of the Locke and Key comic book series, which is ongoing, as well as the novels Horns and Heart Shaped Box. He is also the author of the superb short story collection 20th Century Ghosts. If you don't have a copy, do yourself a favor and get one as soon as you can. You'll be glad you did.
You can find him at: http://joehillfiction.com/

GraniteCon, Comics Writing, and the Creative Community

Yesterday, I went to GraniteCon in New Hampshire for the first time. It was the first major con I've been to, and I couldn't have asked for a better time. Not only did I go with my two best friends, I got to meet writers, artists, and plenty of other folks who love the same things I do. There's not much out there that's more inspiring (or just plain cool) than that.

I got to reconnect with a few new friends and fellow geeks, including the talented Juli Mayers of Wicked Little Studio, who I first met on Free Comic Book Day and who puts out some really great work. I collected some great new prints and a commissioned sketch as well.

In addition to that, I attended a comic book writers panel featuring several writers, including:

- Joe Hill, author of Locke and Key in the comicsverse, as well as the novel Heart Shaped Box and the phenomenal short story collection 20th Century Ghosts. 
- Jason Ciaramella, writer of Joe Hill's The Cape and the upcoming The Cape: 1969
- Charles Soule, writer of 27 and Strongman, among other titles.
- Mike Raicht, creator and writer, The Stuff of Legend

The panel itself was great and the guys gave some nice insights about the comics world, especially the oft-asked question of how to break in to the business. The simple answer (if you're curious): you don't. The Big 2 (Marvel and DC) don't take solicitations, resumes, or anything like that anymore. According to these guys, the only way to really get yourself out there is to do just that - get yourself out there, in any way you can. Comics companies often look for writers from other fields to pen stories for them, so don't limit yourself or dismiss an opportunity because its not the perfect job you were looking for. Also worth noting is their admonition to start small. As one of the writers put it, everyone has their big epic, their story they want to be the next Sandman or Walking Dead, but there's no way that script is going to get printed right off the bat. It takes years and years of hard work and success to even be in a position where that is a possibility. As always, the bottom line was, you have to love what you do. If you don't, you'll be surrounded by people who do, and not only will they "smell you out" incredibly quickly, they'll also be producing work that's better than yours - because they love doing it.

Of course, if you'd rather, you could ignore all that and just go with Joe Hill's idea, which was: get a giant Deadpool tattoo on your chest, then go to a con where you can meet Jim Lee, then rip your shirt open and demand a job from him. Of course, as Ciaramella said, Lee and the other folks over at DC would probably not take kindly to that - for more than one reason.

Because Deadpool, as we all know,
is a flagship DC Comics character.
Along with Spiderman and The Avengers.

What stuck with me most about the day, though, was a conversation I had with Charles Soule at his table after the panel. I stopped by to talk to him and get a look at some of his work, but decided to take a last spin around the other tables before I bought one of his books.
When I came back, he said, "Hey, you made it back. You're a man of your word." All I could think to say was, well, the truth: I hope that someone would do the same thing if I was in his position. That hope was only strengthened by what he told me next. He said, at every con, there were people who did that -said they were coming back and then never did. He said it was "heartbreaking", every time. You might not think it would be, but it is.

Thinking about that exchange today, I've come to a better understanding than ever before of how important it is for us creative types to support each other. I mean, living the creative life is hard enough anyway, so why not try to make it a little easier on each other? That's part of what events like GraniteCon are for, to take the opportunity, as writers and artists of all stripes, to come together and buoy each other up a bit. Money might not be the easiest thing in the world to come by, but where can it be better spent than in helping another artist out?

Now I know I'm no authority on the subject of money being tight, and I don't have the metaphorical soapbox of a starving artist to be writing this post from. I'm still a college student, lucky enough to be comfortable and have the support of his parents. But someday, all that comfort might not be there. Successful or not, well-known or not, I still think that the thing I as a writer will value the most is the appreciation and honesty of an audience, large or small. So to the writers and artists and everyone else reading this, take that chance. Buy a book by an up-and-coming writer. Pay the $10 for a commission sketch at a con. Instead of a mass-produced poster for your wall, buy a large print from an artist you know. And when someone asks you where it came from, tell them. Spread the word, and help each other out. Who knows, maybe someone will do the same for you.

ASSEMBLE: Thoughts on the Avengers

DISCLAIMER: LEVEL 7 SPOILERS ABOUND BELOW. IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE AVENGERS, DO NOT PASS GO, DO NOT COLLECT 200 DOLLARS, DO NOT READ THIS REVIEW...JUST GO SEE THE MOVIE ALREADY. THEN COME BACK HERE. 

Finally. This movie is one I've been waiting for for over two years. Finally, it is here. And it was well worth every second of the wait. 

 I'll admit, I was intrigued, but not enthralled, by the concept of The Avengers back when it was nothing more than that - a concept in the far-flung future of Marvel's moviemaking arm. Then came Comic-Con 2010, and the announcement of Joss Whedon as the Avengers director. Color me ecstatic. I am a die-hard Whedonite, and I  won't pretend otherwise. But that by no means translates to me loving anything Whedon does unconditionally (much as I might like to be able to). 

Fortunately, The Avengers is not a film that requires blind, unconditional anything. All the positive buzz, the rave reviews and the sky-high box office numbers and roars of fanboy (and girl) approval? This film earns every single one of them. Is it perfect? No, it is not. But it comes damn close. 

I've seen Avengers three times now - once in 2D at the midnight premiere, and twice in IMAX 3D. The film works in both mediums, but if you have the opportunity to choose, choose IMAX 3D. The format exists for movies like this one, and it is well worth the jacked-up ticket price to experience it. I don't typically throw my money at any movie in theaters more than once, especially not one in IMAX 3D - but this is the exception. 

Avengers is Marvel's most ambitious movie to date. Its also fair to say that it is the most ambitious superhero movie ever made.This film had the potential for disaster to appear at every turn, and with a few small exceptions it avoids all the potential pitfalls of such a big-budget blockbuster film - something that, in the end, turns out to be a double-edged sword. 98% of this movie works like a charm, and that makes the few issues it has a little more noticeable.

One of Avenger's greatest strengths is also one of its greatest challenges: it is a superhero team-up movie.  This means that anyone who saw and enjoyed Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, or (by some bizarre happenstance) one of the Hulk films, would have at least a passing motivation to see Avengers. Not to mention all the Marvel comics fans who grew up reading Avengers comics and have been salivating over the potential / fearing the ruination of a big-screen adaptation.

 Moral of the story is, this movie needed to please an awful lot of people in an awful lot of different ways. That's exactly what it strives to do, and believe it or not, this movie succeeds. 

Avengers has the unenviable task of juggling six main characters, and in true Whedon style, that's exactly what it does. Say what you will about Joss Whedon, but his talents at balancing ensemble casts in a spectacular and realistic manner is virtually unmatched - and The Avengers proves it time and time again. I think you would be hard-pressed to find any other writer/director working today who is better at understanding and portraying the multi-tiered challenges of a group of people who aren't quite normal. In one way or another, every character in this film, large or small, gets their chance to shine and by proxy prove their worth to the film. Put simply, the characters are not given chances to shine just because they are contractually obligated to appear - they each shine by virtue of their proper place in the story. 

Whedon has been quoted many times as saying that what makes the Avengers so remarkable is the fact that by rights, they shouldn't work at all. Tony Stark isn't the only one among them who doesn't play well with others. Much of the film spends its time focusing on this truth. None of the core members of the Avengers Initiative are remotely comfortable or friendly with any of the others, and more often than not, that discontent is displayed through their violence towards one another. 

I could go into rambling detail about all the things that work about this film and those that don't. After seeing it three times, I've pretty well solidified my thoughts on just about every aspect of the movie. But here's the thing: I've come to the realization that none of that 'critical' stuff really matters to me. Not when it comes to this movie. Sure, Avengers has its imperfections, some bigger than others. Sure, I can be nit-picky and play the neurotic geek about all sorts of things. But I don't need to. See, the thing is, this movie, as far as I'm concerned, is the greatest superhero movie ever, and one of the best movies to hit screens in a very, very long time. I get that this is a more-than- lofty claim, and it probably seems pretty silly to some of you reading this - just the gushings of a fanboy who doesn't know any better. I don't care. Even if a 'better' one comes along someday, The Avengers will always hold that top spot in my heart. Here's why: 

I grew up loving things that were out of this world. I loved superheroes, the supernatural, and all the things that are just a little (and sometimes a lot) out of the ordinary. I still do. The heroes who are onscreen in The Avengers are some of the characters that I wanted to be when I grew up. Those heroes are the ones I looked to in high school while I was trying to figure myself out (which is still an ongoing process). They are the ones I look to now for inspiration for both myself and the creative work that I do. Superheroes are the ones who help me, to this day, to believe in something more. As Nick Fury puts it, they are the "extraordinary people" who come together to become something more, and by doing so, make people like me believe in the extraordinary. 

There's one particular shot in Avengers that is ingrained in my memory even more so than the others, and I think it will help show why I feel the way I do about this movie. 

It comes during the kickoff of the climactic battle in New York. Captain America, Hawkeye, and Black Widow are in the midst of a firefight while panicked citizens flood the streets. Cap asks Hawkeye, "You think you can hold them here?", and Hawkeye responds "Captain, it would be my genuine pleasure." 

With that, Cap is off, racing down into danger because that's what he does, because it's what we need him to do - because he's a hero. Each time I saw this movie, this was the moment that (I'll admit without shame) brought tears of joy to my eyes. Cap runs down the street, brandishing his shield and dodging explosions, totally fearless, and every time, I thought to myself, this, right here, is just how I imagined it. That's the sort of mental picture I had of myself when I was a kid, running around the house in my superhero pajamas, saving the world. It's the way my minds eye brought the scenes in comic books to life for me. It's the sort of moment that makes me believe in heroes. 

The Avengers reminded me what it means and what it feels like to be totally invested in what's happening on the screen in front of you. Every time Cap, Iron Man, Thor, Bruce Banner, or any of the others took a hit in battle, I felt it in my own bones. Every time Loki threatened the team or the Earth...I believed him. Each time I saw the film, I caught myself with my jaw hanging open in awe and wonder for minutes at a time. More than that, I wound up smiling so hard it hurt. This movie reminded me why I write, why I want to tell stories. It rekindled a sense of wonder in me, and that did more to cement my feelings on it than just about anything else. 

I'll say it again, and I make no apologies: The Avengers will make you believe in heroes. If you already do, it'll renew that belief and bring it to new heights. If you don't...well, get ready to have your eyes opened. The world we live in can get nasty, cynical, and seem pretty hopeless. Sometimes, it's impossible to believe that good...no, that great, people still exist out there. The Avengers spends two and a half hours insisting that what we all want to believe is true. Great people - heroes - do exist. 

That, above all, is what makes The Avengers truly amazing. 

Review: Dark Shadows

The latest Johnny Depp/ Tim Burton collaboration is, more or less, exactly what you'd expect it to be. This movie is a very shiny thing on the outside, but when you get down to it, there's not much in the way of substance under the fancy exterior.

Johnny Depp (above) stars in Hollywood's re-imagining of the popular supernatural soap opera Dark Shadows. I've never seen an episode of the show, and I really don't know all that much about it, so this is one time that you don't have to worry about the source material affecting how I feel about the flick. 

Tim Burton and Johnny Depp are famous for the interesting and outlandish results of their nearly continuous collaborations over the years. More recently, the end products of those collaborations have started to appear less and less spectacular  (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, anyone?) The hope in some quarters was that this would be the film to put the magic spark back in Burton's work. Sadly, that is not the case. Dark Shadows has all the bells and whistles you'd expect, and none of the heart you'd hope for. 

The story is only mildly convoluted: Barnabas Collins, the son of a successful Colonial father, runs about in the 1700's, doing whatever and whomever he pleases. It's the latter that gets him into trouble. He spurns the affections of a serving girl for those of a higher-born girl - trouble is, that servant girl also happens to be a witch. Her desire for Barnabas leads her to compel his new squeeze to jump off a cliff. Barnabas is so grief-stricken that he follows suit, only to discover when he hits the ground that he's been made into an immortal vampire by the witch, who then locks him in a coffin for a few hundred years as punishment. 

When Barnabas is set free again, it turns out to be 1972. Barnabas returns to his home, Collinwood Manor, and sets about trying to wrangle his descendants, acclimate himself to the new century, and combat his old flame, the witch (who is still very much alive and kicking). 

The best things about Dark Shadows are all on the surface. It has Burton's usual style and flair, incorporating borderline garish set pieces, costumes, and characters - all of which look pretty fantastic. Visually, the movie is a real treat. It's easy to see that the movie was shot with Imax and 3D formats in mind, and the great thing is that even in standard 2D, it still looks great. 

The real problem is, Dark Shadows is a movie that can't decide what it wants to be, and most of that fault lies with the script. There are elements of comedy, drama, and the dark and supernatural here - and not one of them hits the right note with any regularity. The storytelling beats here are all off, and their misplacement makes the movie hobble along (and occasionally spin in circles). The movie feels overstuffed with characters who flit in and out according to story demands rather than common sense (for example, we see Barnabas' 1970's love interest just long enough for him to decide he's in love with her, then she virtually disappears from the story until the last 2 minutes of the movie). Misplaced jokes ruin what could be strong dramatic moments, and when actual dramatic moments come along, they're so overwrought that they can't be taken seriously.

There's a pretty great cast assembled here. Most of them, like Depp and Helena Bonham-Carter, are Burton standbys - and they certainly don't lack talent. Trouble is, even the greatest actors can only do so much with subpar, shallow material like they have here. 

Cabin in the Woods [Some Non-Spoilery Thoughts]

You don't want me to tell you all about Cabin In the Woods, Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard's long-awaited (and long-delayed) big screen project. If I did, that would just ruin it. See, one of the absolute joys of this movie is that it takes you away with the power of a story whose ending you can't see coming from a mile away - and you don't need to.

Above all else, Cabin is a smart movie that treats its audience as being intelligent as well. As a fan of horror (and of movies in general), this is incredibly refreshing. I was constantly engaged with the film on multiple levels. The structure of the film presents questions on top of questions - and the answers are thoroughly satisfying.

You've probably heard that Cabin  is a movie with a "twist". This is true. But this "twist" is no Shayamalan-style attention grab. In other words, the movie is not all about trying to blow your mind with insane twists for the sake of twists. The twists and turns are natural to the story, and so only serve to make it better.

To say much more than that Cabin In the Woods is about 5 college kids who go to an isolated cabin in the woods (who woulda thunk it, right?) and get much more than they bargained for out of the trip would be letting myself become a spoiler monkey. And I hate spoiler monkeys. What I can tell you is this: calling Cabin nothing more than a 'horror' movie or a film with a 'twist' is selling it far, far short. This is a movie with a strong, intelligent script; a wide-ranging and talented cast; and a wildly inventive and self-aware premise. In short, its a rarity in Hollywood these days, and well worth the price of a ticket. Don't read spoilery reviews. Don't watch clips online - don't even watch trailers. Just go see it, and bring your friends.

The Hunger Games, banned books, and Bully

The Hunger Games, banned books, and the documentary Bully: what ties these three things together? Quite a bit more than you might think at first. To begin, for those not up on the latest book and movie news, here’s a quick tutorial.

Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games is a young adult novel centering around a girl named Katniss Everdeen and the post-apocalyptic world she lives in. At the center of this world is a totalitarian government that exerts complete control over its 12 Districts. Each year, as a method of keeping the Districts in line, the Hunger Games are held. 2 children from each District are randomly selected to compete in these “games”, wherein the 24 ‘tributes’ are placed into an arena from which only 1 may emerge alive – and only after all the other tributes have been killed. In this year’s Games, Katniss’ younger sister is selected, and Katniss volunteers to enter the Games to save her sister from almost certain death. The book has been challenged or banned many times since its publication for various reasons, including supposedly overt sexuality, violence and unsuitability for the age group it is aimed at. For the past few years, it has appeared on top-ten banned books lists across the country.

Bully is a documentary, produced by the Weinstein company, that’s about exactly what you think it is: bullying in schools and the very real and devastating effects it has on American youth. The movie might have been just another small documentary film – until the MPAA (movie ratings board) hit the film with an R rating for language, which many correctly argue would prohibit the age group that the film is about from seeing it. Harvey Weinstein, head of The Weinstein Company, distributor for the film, argued vocally and very publically for the rating to be overturned. Mr. Weinstein is no stranger to spats with the MPAA. He has publically challenged them in the past regarding ratings on some of his studio’s other projects, such as Blue Valentine and The King’s Speech. Consequently, some have attacked Weinstein’s efforts as being nothing more than a publicity campaign for another one of his films. But Weinstein says, ““I am not being Harvey Weinstein, showman…I am not using the ratings system for publicity. Yes, I’ve done it in the past. Mea culpa for that.” But, in the unique case of Bully, “this is completely out of passion.”

What brings these two projects and issues together is simple. The controversy each faces is symptomatic of different sides of the misdirected efforts to ‘protect our children’, while policing literature and other forms of entertainment, that is so popular in today’s culture. The Hunger Games and Bully are two sides of the same wrongly rejected coin. Hunger Games is a book that some argue can do harm to the children and young adults who read it. Those who make such claims may be well-intentioned, but they are wrong.

Yes, Hunger Games is a dark, dystopian novel. Yes, there is violence in its pages, and some elements that aren’t appropriate for younger kids. That does not make it a dangerous book. Nor does it make it a book that should be removed from library shelves. Should parents consider talking to their kids about the content of The Hunger Games and books like it? Absolutely. Should they, like the Goffstown, NH, mother who said the book gave her 11 year old nightmares, try to have the book removed from libraries? Absolutely not.

Violence and the other controversial subject matters of The Hunger Games are not unfamiliar to teenagers. We, and they, live in a world where violence in particular is spectacularly prevalent, even among our youth. This last is something that Bully does its best to address. In showing the prevalence of violent bullying in schools and the victimization of innocents, the movie is trying very hard to do something good – and the fact that many in our country can’t reconcile this idea with their preconceived  notions of what it means to protect children is a real problem.

Bully received an R rating for language. Weinstein says that he was told by the MPAA that the rating would not change unless “a crucial scene in which obscenities are hurled at a young victim on a school bus was changed – something he and Mr. Hirsh [the director] were unwilling to do.” I applaud that decision. Just because violence or profanity isn’t used onscreen does not mean it isn’t real, and trying to pretend otherwise is just foolish. Let’s be honest, in our world, most kids hear (and some see) worse things in and out of school on a daily basis than they’ll ever see on the movie screen while watching something like Bully.

            This whole debate hits close to home for me on a few different levels. I was never bullied as a kid, and I’m very thankful for that. But I was that kid who hung out reading a book at recess because I didn’t quite fit in with most of the other kids – and because I was too shy to talk to them even if I had somehow fit in. I wasn’t the only one, either. There were a few of us who just didn’t quite fit the mold, and that’s no different today. There are, and will always be, kids for whom books are a sanctuary, that place to go when there’s nowhere else you’d rather be. Books are an escape unlike any other, and for some kids, they are the only escape from tough situations. Books made my middle school years (and beyond) great, and I don’t want to think about what it might have done to have them taken away from me based on someone else’s erroneous judgment.

I think it is safe to say that the kind of kids who read books like the Hunger Games often do it to escape a world in which they’re attacked or judged for being themselves, which the film ‘Bully’ documents. Now is the time for parents to take a moment and think about what the best way to protect their children and others like them is. Is it to fight to keep books out of their hands, or is it to advocate for something good instead – like the documentary Bully, the message it imparts, and the challenge it leaves us with? 

TV Review: Don't Trust the B- in Apartment 23

It's that time of year in TV land...failed freshman shows are settling into their graves, and the networks are busy airing replacement fare to fill timeslots until summer. Don't Trust the B- in Apartment 23 is one of those replacement shows - and judging from the first two episodes, you'll be hard pressed to find a worse comedy on television for the rest of the season.

I'll be honest: I downloaded the first two episodes of the series off of iTunes for free. What interested me about the show's premise was simple. James Van Der Beek, of Dawson's Creek fame, plays a version of himself as a friend of Chloe (the title B-). I've got nothing against this recent trend of actors playing themselves (see Wil Wheaton on The Big Bang Theory for a prime example of how one plays a version of oneself to perfection). I think it's an original and fun concept, especially for actors who have found themselves pigeonholed by one role in the past. In the case of Don't Trust the B-, it is also the only thing that even comes close to working.

On paper, the driving concept of the show sounds like it could be fun (if you can get past the unnecessarily profane title): June, a straight-laced young woman, moves to New York and winds up roommates with another woman, Chloe, who, it turns out, makes money off of finding roommates, collecting their security deposits, and then driving them out with her deliberately heinous behavior. Unfortunately, that part of the plot is tied off in a neat little bow before the end of the pilot...at which point we descend into sitcom anarchy.

The characters:
They're at best one-dimensional caricatures - June, our main character, is the sum total of every dumb blonde joke in history. At worst, they're just plain offensive and gross - see June's neighbor, an admitted 'Peeping Tom' whose only actual companion is a  blow-up doll and who occupies his time by staring through the window into June/Chloe's apartment. I get that characters on TV shows take time to develop, but the problem is, with these stock/vaguely offensive characters, there's nothing to develop. Every single one of them, especially the two leads, are cardboard cutouts of real people, not to mention idiotic stereotypes of 'the straight-laced country girl' and 'the rowdy, moral-less city chick'.

James Van Der Beek as himself is an admittedly dim 'bright spot' on the tarnished metal of this show. At least for the first 5 minutes he's onscreen. After that, you realize that the writers probably just filled a whiteboard with 'Dawson's Creek' jokes, and are going to recycle them in different forms over and over again. By the beginning of episode 2, it's abundantly clear that Van Der Beek's character is as one-note as the rest of the cast, which is a real shame.

The plot:
what little there is scrapes the bottom of the barrel. Within the course of the first two episodes, we're treated to the following things as major plot events:
- Chloe getting hot and heavy with June's fiance to prove to June that he's a cheater.
- Chloe setting June up with a guy who turns out to be her (Chloe's) married father. This is the entire plot of Ep. 2. Yeah, I threw up in my mouth a little too.
- After ditching her fiance, June vows to get back on track with the ever-present, ever-cliched 'life plan'. Which, in this context, means looking for a guy to have kids with, mostly because she sees a cute baby in the hallway as the episode begins.
Honorable Mention: Chloe's mother being wheelchair-bound gets milked for laughs so much that it hurts to watch.

What struck me about the show overall is that Don't Trust the B- is a carbon copy of this year's much better 2 Broke Girls. A really, really bad carbon copy. Yes, 2 Broke Girls is raunchy, not-for-everyone comedy. But what it does have going for it is a strong cast whose characters actively defy the stereotypes so egregiously on display here.

If you want quality comedy, the last place to look is Apartment 23.

The odds are in favor of The Hunger Games

DISCLAIMER: Spoilers abound here. Why are you surprised?

DISCLAIMER #2: I read the book first, so this review will in fact be looking at the film through that lens – but it will NOT be dedicated to dissecting and/or complaining about the differences between page and screen. Just FYI.

Ok. So, I finally saw The Hunger Games with my sister last night. I’m still reeling a little bit, for a lot of reasons. First off, let me say this: The Hunger Games is one of the strongest adaptations of a book to the big screen that I have seen in a very long time. The writers, director, and cast could have tried (and probably succeeded) in dumbing down Suzanne Collins’ fine YA novel into the next Twilight Saga (read: a big-budget cash cow with little to no substance under the hood). But they didn’t. The film is, for the most part, an unflinching adaptation of a grim, sometimes very dark, dystopian future  story that is also one of the more original concepts to be put to page in the last few years. Is it perfect? No. But it stands head and shoulders above many other movies in the multiplex.

Let’s jump right in. As I’ve already mentioned, this movie is very faithful to the source material of Suzanne Collins’ YA novel, and that is a very good thing.

 I say that as both a fan of the book and (as my friends will tell you) a notoriously picky film geek. If I think something is poorly written or adapted, I will say so with the fury of a thousand very small, but very angry, suns. This is not the case here. The script is strong, standing solidly both as an adaption and as a film script. The dialogue is tight and believable in almost every instance, and the story kept me fully focused for the entire run time.

[Sidenote: it’s worth pointing out that the Hunger Games has a run time of almost 2 ½ hours, which is a rarity for films in general these days, and especially for movies targeted toward a teenage demographic. The movie never dragged, and almost every minute was well spent.]

           

            The casting director here should be commended. At first, when I heard about some of the names being mentioned, I was a little hesitant. [Sample inner monologue: “Lenny Cravitz? What the what? Who’s idea was that? Isn’t he as singer with an afro or something? Why is he playing Cinna?”] Some of the minor characters, such as the Tributes from District 1 and 2, were unfortunately one-dimensional, portrayed like the nastiest of high-school bullies (but with weapons). That’s not necessarily the fault of the actors, but still, I felt that it took away from what was otherwise a very fresh palate of characters.

The one performer I was behind from the beginning was Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss. I saw her feature debut a few years ago (The atmospheric Winter’s Bone, in which she gave a gripping performance, well worth checking out if you haven’t already) and had been looking forward to more from her ever since. Here, she stands and delivers as Katniss, doing a fine job bringing a young, complex character to life onscreen on every level. I’m also going to take half a second here and laugh in the faces of those critics who attacked Lawrence for looking “too fat” or “well-fed” on screen. Does stupidity know no bounds? Comments like that are ignorant, foolish, and have no place anywhere in the public spectrum, let alone in the film criticism community.

Carrying on! The single major issue I did have with the film was its cinematography. Much of the film was shot with handy-cam, following the trend of recent years. This is the biggest misstep of the entire production. It noticeably diminishes our perspective on the world we’ve been transported into, and that’s not a good thing. Major scenes are meant to introduce us to the world of District 12, where Katniss lives; the Capitol, the grand seat of the tyrannical government that organizes the Games; and the Gaming field itself. Instead, we get treated to tight, shaky camera angles and flashes of imagery that could have been turned into spectacular tracking shots used to show us the world these characters are inhabiting. In my opinion, the style is a real missed opportunity that should not have been overlooked. Doing so diminishes the power of the world we’re being asked to inhabit for 2 ½ hours. I’m torn on the use of handy-cam during the Games themselves, if only because I wonder if the style is meant to help us see the chaos through the characters’ eyes – flashes of movement, battle and blood that they cannot afford to let their eyes linger on, because they need to worry about surviving. If this was the goal, it wasn’t used consistently enough to really make its point, and in any case, it should not have been used in the first hour and a half of the movie, before we entered the actual arena.

A second, admittedly more personal and minor problem I had with the structure was [SPOILERS in case you missed that warning the first time] the added scenes with the Gamemakers. For me, part of what made the novel so engrossing was that, after the Games begin in earnest, we know nothing about what is happening outside of the arena. We are placed in the same situation as Katniss and Peeta, having to watch them rely entirely on their own smarts and skills, in a territory that is as unfamiliar and dangerous to them as it is to us. Here, we’re treated to scenes of the Gamemakers sitting at their digital tables, conjuring up the next challenge for the Tributes. This seriously affects the pacing of the film, and not in a good way. First of all, the audience always knew what was coming before the characters did. This meant that any element of the surprise and dangerous mystery of the arena was taken away. Second, the contrast between the madness of the arena and the calm tranquility of the Gamemakers chamber sounds like a good thematic contrast in theory, but in practice, it was like hitting the emergency brake on a high-speed train every five or ten minutes for what ended up feeling like no good reason.  

Except to look at the Head Gamemaker’s beard.  Total facial hair jealousy. I wish my facial hair grew in wildly badass curlicues like his.  

I spoke to a friend of mine that saw the movie before I did, and one thing that she mentioned was surprise at the fact that the movie only got a PG-13 rating, because of the amount of violence in it. After seeing it for myself, I’d have to agree with her. Not because this is the most violent PG-13 movie I’ve ever seen (far from it) – but because literally all of the violence had to do with children and teens.

My stomach was in knots at points during the movie, especially during the death of Rue (at least partially because she reminded me strikingly of a friend of mine at school). I now understand completely why my mom saw this movie and hated it. As she said, it is not a “mom movie”. Many of the scenes in the Games were extraordinarily tough to watch. Don’t get me wrong. This film is not gratuitous in any sense of the word, but violence is different when it is people your own age or younger killing one another because that’s the only way to stay alive. It really makes you think, and that, more than anything, is the strength of this movie. I left the theater turning the movie over in my head, and I think I’ll be doing the same in the days to come. The Hunger Games has depth, storytelling skill, and top-notch performances that make it well worth your $8 ticket.