Natural Born Killers (1994)

Director: Oliver Stone

Cast: Woody Harrelson, Juliette Lewis, Robert Downey Jr., Tommy Lee Jones

Have I Seen It Before?: Nope.

Did I like it?: One can’t help but go through a movie like this and wind up with a few questions.

My first question is this, and may betray the reality that I’m missing the point: How did the Coca-Cola Company feel about the use of their polar bears? I can’t imagine they were into it or even sought the product placement out, but then again, I can’t rule it out.

Is it fair to judge satire through the prism of the time that has passed since its creation? Maybe, but it’s as good a point as any to start. America was a violent place in 1994, and we couldn’t stop watching it on TV.

It’s a quarter of a century later. We’re more violent. We’re covering it more. The parasitic relationship didn’t die with Robert Downey Jr.’s character. The only change is that the killers of the 21st century are far less likely to live to their exclusive interview.

If it’s not fair to judge the film through the prism of time, it’s probably not fair to judge it because the problem diagnoses didn’t get fixed. Our politicians are still dishonest if it gives them the slightest advantage, even those we saw Wag the Dog (1997). The trend of humanity to embrace its ignorance continues apace, despite the fact that Idiocracy (2006) is a thing. If anything, I’ve only watched more TV since The Cable Guy (1996), a film which is clearly built on the foundation of Natural Born Killers.

What were the other questions with which I was left? First, was manic Tommy Lee Jones ever really a thing, and I just happened to miss it? Second: Is the forthcoming Venom 2 going to be a sequel to this movie? Only time will tell.

Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)

Director: Ruben Fleischer

Cast: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin

Have I Seen It Before?: I missed in the theaters. I was even scheduled to watch it for an episode of Beyond the Cabin in the Woods, but was too enmeshed in the post-production for The Fourth Wall to make time for a screening. C’es la vie.

Did I like it?: As I mentioned in my review of the original <Zombieland (2009)> that zombies and I have never gotten along. Given both my feelings, and the fact that the zombie comedy had been perfected with Shaun of the Dead (2004), it’s pretty impressive that the original could be entertaining at all.

Did it need a sequel? Is a sequel even welcome? What more could they explore that was somehow omitted from the original? As it turns out not much, as the characters have stayed in almost complete stasis in the ten years since the original film. Suspiciously so. Has there been any series with ten years between installments where the characters are more entrenched in the types of people they were in the earlier entry?

That stasis notwithstanding, given that the four leads are likable enough, spending another two hours with them doesn’t feel like a chore. Adding a series of characters that are pointedly similar to the originals to throw a wrench into things feels varying degrees of awkward, but the film could have been far more embarrassing, as many protracted gap sequels often are.

But couldn’t we have had more with Bill Murray (once again, Bill Murray)? I once again was not expecting him to be in the film, but his adventures in the first day of Zombieland over the end credits are once again the highlight of the film. Murray probably wouldn’t have been game for such an endeavor, but we couldn’t have done a prequel of his entire adventures leading up to the first movie?

I probably just want fewer zombie movies, and far more Bill Murray movies. Thus, this film series (should it continue) will likely continue to flummox me.

Zombieland (2009)

Director: Ruben Fleischer

Cast: Woody Harrelson, Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin

Have I Seen It Before?: I was an extremely skeptical viewer on opening weekend. What could possibly be added to the arena of Zombie comedies after Shaun of the Dead (2004)?

Did I like it?: I think it’s important to admit that I have such little regard for the Zombie genre that this film could have been very good, indeed, and completely missed my interest. Most of the Romero films have failed to make anything resembling an impression with me. Like any good consumer of popular culture, I watched The Walking Dead for as long as I could, but checked out far earlier than most, and can’t say I enjoyed the depressing odyssey for which I did remain. Some people dream of living through the Zombie apocalypse, and for the life of me I can’t understand those people. Were armies of the undead to rise and crave the brains of the living, I would easily happily check out when CDC facility explodes, if it is all the same to you.

All of the above being said, I’ve definitely enjoyed Zombieland the handful of times I’ve watched. The zombies themselves are completely incidental to that enjoyment, naturally, as it is all basic fair. The other visual flourishes regarding the rules Columbus (Eisenberg) devises for surviving the Zombie apocalypse, and the chemistry between the actors and their performances make the whole affair far more watchable than it has any right to be.

And then, there’s Bill Murray (Bill Murray). What a wonderful treat to be surprised by Murray having fun in a film and with his own screen personae. Before seeing this film, the idea of playing Ghostbusters with Murray (wherein you get to be Pete Venkman, naturally) wouldn’t have occurred to me as bucket list item. Now, it’s the one thing I keep thinking about any time I watch the movie.

If that’s the kind of thing one can expect from the Zombie apocalypse, maybe I won’t check out at the earliest opportunity.

Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)

Director: Ron Howard, but to get into that story any further might begin the review prematurely.

Cast: Alden Ehrenreich, Woody Harrelson, Emilia Clarke, Donald Glover

Have I Seen it Before: Saw it in the theater. I had long since decided to be excited about it, despite the kerfuffle behind the scenes. It seems like a simpler time, just over six months ago.

Did I Like It: It was fine.

A Han Solo-based prequel seems like an astoundingly bad idea on paper. Do we really need to see how Han (Ehrenreich) and Chewie (Joonas Suotamo, having fully replaced the aging Peter Mayhew since The Last Jedi (2017)) met? Do we need to see the long-fabled gambling match where Lando Calrissian (Glover) loses his prized Millennium Falcon? Do we really need to see the conclusion of a story where, inevitably, Han will learn the virtue of shooting first? Is there need for more elaboration on just what the Kessel Run is? Did we not learn anything from the rationale for the prequel trilogy?

Given it’s pointedly bad idea bona fides, the logical conclusion was to reach out to Phil Lord and Christopher Miller. With The Lego Movie (2014), 21 Jump Street (2012), and hell, 22 Jump Street (2014), they have an unbroken track record of turning wildly stupid pitches into insanely watchable movies. There was reason enough to get excited.

And then Lucasfilm fired them. Apparently they were making the film too watchable, and that didn’t quite fit in with the earnings projections already made to Disney shareholders. They hired Ron Howard. He’s a great director in his own right. He brought Michael Keaton into the movies with Night Shift (1982), and is therefore worthy of our respect. Here, unfortunately, he is a hired gun, and it shows.

As the boy who would be Solo, Ehrenreich never quite feels up to the task, turning in the kind of work that can’t help but bring to mind the trajectory of Brandon Routh, forced to do a tepid impression of Christopher Reeve in Superman Returns (2006). Ehrenreich is charming enough, and we can only hope that there is some nice TV show he can call home in a few years. As Calrissian, Glover equates himself far better, still offering a performance with only flourishes of an impression of Billy Dee Williams, more akin to the work of Chris Pine as Captain Kirk in the recent Star Trek movies.

The film ends up a wildly over-budgeted adaptation of a tie-in novel that might have been written in the mid-90s*. There is even a bewildering cameo jammed into the third act by none other than the crown prince of prequels, Darth Maul (Ray Park), that by all accounts has nothing to do with the actual film at hand, and came off a list of possible reveals that could happen at the end. Even so, the movie is largely fine, and a better way to spend a little over two hours than digging ditches, but it isn’t the film it could have been, and that’s a shame.

Maybe, a la what happened with Richard Donner’s cut of Superman II, we might one day see the best version of this movie. A guy can hope, right?

* The Star Wars line did produce a young Solo trilogy in the 90s, written by the late A.C. Crispin. They trade in a lot of the same story beats as this movie, but remain firmly entrenched in the now defunct Legends canon.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay: Parts 1 (2014) and 2 (2015)

…Too Many Colons: The Rise of the Colon Army

Director: Francis Lawrence

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Julianne Moore, and a disturbing drought of Stanley Tucci

Have I Seen it Before: No. Honestly, I’m not sure why, after I genuinely liked The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013), but in the current flood of media, it just never came up on the radar.

Did I Like It: I mean… I think I still have some problems with all of the proceedings, but sure.

I’m going to review both of the final movies of this series in one entry, because—and this isn’t exactly a hot take—that’s the way this story should have been presented. 

Since filmmakers split up Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (2010 and 2011), we’ve been having to endure the unnecessary elongation of an epic’s final act. Scenes go on forever, fan service is turned up to eleven, and an artificial cliffhanger is injected into a story that never needed or wanted one. 

Now, if I’m being completely honest, patient zero for this phenomenon was actually Back to the Future Part II (1989) and Part III (1990), although those are two films that—when someone derides them—I get irrationally irritated. The splitting—or culling, to borrow a term from this franchise—makes business sense, I suppose. If you have a hot property, why not get two big opening weekends out of your last hurrah, when you can get two for the same price? Good for the shareholders; have yet to hear an argument for why it might be good for the story.

Moving on from the artificial elongation, what we have here is your Typical Part III™, feeding off the momentum of the predecessor, and marching toward and end you can see coming a mile away. It couldn’t possibly be a spoiler to tell you that the Capitol as run by Coriolanus Snow (Donald Sutherland) is brought to its knees and Katniss Everdeen, the titular Mockingjay (Jennifer Lawrence) is at the center of the social upheaval. 

The film delivers on these intrinsic promises, and then succeeds and fails where it tries to play with these expectations. It soars when Katniss sees the sliding standards between Snow and his self-appointed successor Alma Coin (Julianne Moore) and diverts her arrow. It’s less great when she and Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) are all of a sudden on board with a new batch of Hunger Games that would instell cull rich Capitol kids. And it’s even more of a thin attempt to make us feel something out of the blue when it is revealed that Katniss and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) retreat back to a life in the Victor’s Village, raising their kids, and Katniss appearing  as if she’s become completely numb to the world she helped save.

It could be worse: the werewolf kid could have decided he was madly in love with his jilted lover’s infant daughter. That’s a ridiculous plot line. I’m not sure where I heard that one…

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

Director: Francis Lawrence

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, and all your cartoon pals.

Have I Seen it Before: Yes, again, strangely I’m not sure under what circumstances.

Did I Like It: Yes, and that much was pretty surprising. Honestly, halfway through the series, I’m not sure why I’m so skeptical about the proceedings on spec.

Not much to say about the film itself, aside from the fact that it suitably raises the stakes (if not the believability, but more on that later) on the character’s plight in slightly predictable ways, and ends with a cliffhanger that propels the action forward in ways I actually found surprising on first blush. General critical consensus would indicate that the film is more self-assured than the first, but I don’t know if I buy this as a particular evolution among the filmmakers, or more of a general byproduct of sequels freeing themselves from large swaths of exposition.

But I have a few more thoughts on my Big Questions(™) regarding the mythology behind these stories.

So, if the world of Panem our future, or some fantasy land about which we’re not supposed to think of the origins? This has led me to some moderate Wikipedia surfing to find that the general consensus is that Panem is, indeed, future America, with the heroic District 12 located in the coal country of West and Regular Virginia, and the Capitol apparently being built over what was once Salt Lake City, Utah. 

This only serves to aggravate my skepticism about the proceedings. Why has anyone thought the actual Hunger Games—except for maybe the exception of Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks) and Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci)—were a good idea? I mean, fear, sure. That always helps the bad guys, but the rules were always going to break the whole damn thing down. Does anyone think ahead anymore? Also, and again a question renewed from my Hunger Games review: how does Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) accomplish living this long? He’s a baker and constantly in danger. I’m getting the sinking feeling that there is a possibility the story might illuminate my first question, but have little hope that there’s ever going to be an explanation for Peeta’s longevity.

The Hunger Games (2012)

Director: Gary Ross

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, A Hemsworth, Woody Boyd, and a well-paid Stanley Tucci and Elizabeth Banks

Have I Seen it Before: Yes? Did I see it in the theater? I can’t honestly remember.

Did I Like It: I guess, but… Well, we’ll get to that later.

The cinematic adaptation of Suzanne Collins’ first novel in The Hunger Games series is stylishly directed, and the cast is better than one might expect for the material and genre, benefiting from casting a still-unknown Jennifer Lawrence before she became a bona fide movie star, and other performers like Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, and even Stanley Tucci who might otherwise seem like they were slumming it a bit, appearing in such a YA yarn, but are actually amiable screen presences and professional performers, that you never get the sense that this was anything other than the roles they were meant to play.

And yet…

Here’s my problem, and it actually stems from the books, I suppose, so it’s entirely possible that the filmmakers should get a pass. It is a matter of believability. 

I mean, I think I get that the story is supposed to be a parable tying in elements of the gladiators of ancient Rome, the antebellum south, and thorough reading of the Cliff’s Notes of 1984, but like nobody is happy about the Hunger Games taking place. It puts the powers of the Capitol in doubt, and it’s not like anyone who lives in a District lower than 2 is thrilled with the idea of having to go and fight these things. Why did they agree to all of this? Is there some kind of better explanation for this as the films/novels go on? Maybe I’m in for the whole ride now to find out. Maybe, in that respect, it is less of a flaw than a virtue. I imagine I’ll have thoughts on this issue as things progress.

Also—with a similar level of dubiousness—how did Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) live that long. He should have been out in the initial rush for supplies.