Category Archives: Woody Harrelson

Movie Review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

1 Reply

Here’s the thing about sequels: they are usually at their best when they are planned and more importantly, when they come at the center of a trilogy.

“The Hunger Games: Catching Fire,” the second installment in “The Hunger Games” series, and the umpteenth edition of Hollywood’s colon obsession, shines as an outstanding blockbuster long after the end of the regular blockbuster season.


A few months have passed since they won the first Hunger Games and Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) find that their lives have completely changed. In addition to celebrity status, they have more money than they can spend. Katniss and Peeta can barely spend anytime in their home of District 12, which looks something like coal mining country in Western Pennsylvania, as they have to go on their victory tour. During this time, the two of them are basically trained to be celebrities and participate in what is essentially an extended press junket campaign. One way that “Catching Fire,” and “The Hunger Games” series in general, justifies its translation into film is that it sometimes seems like a commentary on entertainment and being a celebrity in general.

This is where the “Hunger Games” series separates itself from most of its Young Adult counterparts: it doesn’t pander to its young generation as much as it is inspired by it. Apparently, we are a bunch of brats who love reality TV so much that it can distract us from any of our problems. The Real Housewives are the new opiate of the masses.

“Catching Fire” is about what happens when the opiate starts to fade. Escapism isn’t working in this world anymore, as the divide between the rich and poor is now so big that it is hard to avoid. Rebellion is now impossible to avoid. Katniss has become the face of the uprising. The president (Donald Sutherland) hoped that Katniss would inspire hope in the people of her district; just not in this way.

Now that most of the exposition of the first film is out of the way, “Catching Fire” can move on to more detailed world-building, which it does quite exceptionally. By focusing on class issues, and more importantly the people of each district, “Catching Fire” elevates this futuristic America from bland dystopia to complex society. While the poor suffer, the rich eat until they are full, make themselves throw up, and then do it all over again. The rich people of “Catching Fire” act like a bulimic version of the French nobility.

While “Catching Fire” adds a few new characters to the mix, such as the predictably great Philip Seymour Hoffman (who will hopefully get more screen time in “Mockingjay”), it most notably strengthens its existing characters. Lawrence continues to prove that she can turn anything into an Oscar winning performance. Katniss had to deal with a lot in this installment, including, PTSD, heartbreak, and a love triangle which finally stopped being all “Twilight.” Most things in life are better when they don’t try to be like “Twilight.” Luckily, Lawrence and Hutcherson display much better chemistry in this film than in the last one.

There is also some new blood added to “Catching Fire” behind the camera. Director Francis Lawrence adds a grittier look to the film and smartly does away with most of the shaky cam. Writers Simon Beaufoy (“Slumdog Millionaire”) and Michael Arndt (you might have heard of him as the man who got kicked off of writing the new “Star Wars”) structure the story in such a way that plays off the first film while also being something completely different. Without spoiling too much, the main characters end up in the Hunger Games once again. In movie terms, the way in which they end up in the competition again is surprisingly plausible, so long as you remember that mutant baboons don’t actually exist.

Jennifer Lawrence=Real life Khaleesi. Mother of Mockingjays!

I’d like to focus on the writers once again because usually in a film of this scope, the writers supposedly don’t matter. However, they mean quite a lot when you are adapting a book to the big screen. I have not read any of the original novels, so I cannot speak as to whether or not they got the voice of the original down. However, what I can say is that besides capturing the dark side of this story, “Catching Fire” is funnier than you could ever imagine. It really digs down and finds the humor in most of its characters, and that writing is supported by some great work from the likes of Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson.

“Catching Fire” is a strange crossroads in the series, as it is the penultimate story, despite the fact that there are two more films on the way (of course “Mockingjay” is being split into two parts because money). While it is an incredibly solid film on its own, “Catching Fire” ends on a note that suggests that it never wanted to tell a self-contained story, as if it just needed to serve as filler between the original Hunger Games, and what I predict will be an all out war. However, “Catching Fire” deserves to be known as much more than just that. Here’s a movie where you will gasp at a dress that turns on fire, weep over soldiers that abuse people, and then laugh at Woody Harrelson as he attempts to drink rubbing alcohol. There is no new James Bond film this year, so in terms of big Hollywood entertainment, “Catching Fire” will have to do.

Brain Farts From The Edge:

  • With “Catching Fire,” the “Hunger Games” series came of age.
  • I wish I brought a notepad to keep track of how many times Donald Sutherland says “I want them dead.” It’s a lot. If you really wanted to make Donald Sutherland look evil, you should have just had him headbutt a cat. 
  • Stanley Tucci’s Caesar Flickerman embodies the satirical side of “Catching Fire.” Even his name is ridiculous. In real life, Flickerman would probably be a perfect TMZ host.
  • The competition of the Hunger Games itself is like a movie. All of the contestants are putting on a performance. However, that performance is real and has consequences. It’s actually pretty meta. “The Hunger Games” series is much smarter than anyone gives it credit for.
  • Speaking of which, it is always impossible to tell whether or not Katniss’ affection for Peeta is genuine or not.
  • Amongst other things, “Catching Fire” includes a public flogging. How it got away with a PG-13 rating is beyond me…
  • …but I will try and explain (at least how I see it). There is a lot of violence in “Catching Fire.” However, most of it is not shown in graphic detail. If you avoid blood and realism in your portrayal of violence, then you can avoid an R-rating. Also, the MPAA is a little too close with all of the studios. If you want to make more sense with the horrible absurdity of the ratings system, you must watch “This Film Is Not Yet Rated.”
  • How did this trend of not showing the title until the ending start? We know what your title is, that is why we went to see the movie! You don’t have to treat it like a twist!
  • The elevator scene is by far the film’s funniest. 
  • Speaking of the elevator scene, I may or may not have been distracted for a moment as well. Johanna (Jena Malone) said “something something in our district we have TREES.” 
  • All of Effie’s (Elizabeth Banks) outfits look like costumes that the Dean would wear in “Community.”
Good luck telling Jim Rash and Elizabeth Banks apart now.

Movie Review: Seven Psychopaths

Leave a reply
This is one of my favorite movie stills of all time.

“Seven Psychopaths” is one of those film in which its title is also the title of the screenplay a character is writing in the film. However, it’s not one of those films that just ends with the final scene being typed out, so we can take comfort in knowing that everything that just happened was only in some writer’s head.

“Seven Psychopaths” is an insane deconstruction of action movies that I loved every minute of. Perhaps Hollywood has reached a tipping point when it comes to telling crime tales, and “Seven Psychopaths” is exactly what it needed to put it back in line. Meta films walk a very tight rope, and “Seven Psychopaths” manages to consistently stay in line.


I have never understood why films about screenwriters have gotten such a bad reputation. Thanks to the weird minds of screenwriters created by the weird minds of screenwriters, we’ve gotten “Sunset Boulevard,” “Barton Fink,” and “Being John Malkovich.” I have a feeling that “Seven Psychopaths” was written when Martin McDonagh was going through writer’s block. Marty Faranan (Colin Farrell) hasn’t gotten past the title for his latest script, “Seven Psychopaths.” Marty is a drunk, which is in his heritage, as others tend to frequently remind him. He is also in a bad relationship with a controlling girlfriend (Abbie Cornish). He wants his script to be about seven different psychopaths. However, he’s having trouble finding his psychos.

“Seven Psychopaths” was made for both film buffs and crime news fanatics. Marty’s best friend happens to be a dognapper named Billy (Sam Rockwell). He wants to help Marty write his script, so he puts out an ad seeking out every psychopath in Los Angeles with a great story. Billy is always eating junk food and he may be completely insane. I always knew Rockwell was a great actor, but I never realized he could be this funny. His performance is filled with twitchiness and manic energy that makes it impossible to know what he could do next. If for some reason another film about Hunter S. Thompson were to be made (I’m hoping for a version of “Rum Diary” that’s actually good), I would cast Rockwell above all others to play Thompson.

Christopher Walken, in his best role in years, plays Hans, the eccentric boss of the dognapping empire. While he can kill it in small roles (“Pulp Fiction,” “Annie Hall”) he is capable of emotional range that goes much further than “creepy guy with a raspy voice.” His character is that archetypal old criminal who seems too nice to ever shoot. He’s also raising money for the same reason many other film criminals have: his wife has cancer. Why he thinks dognapping is the best way to pay for his wife’s treatment is beyond me, but I don’t think the reasons are all that important.

“Seven Psychopaths” commits so many felonies against good screenwriting. Yet, it breaks all of the rules with such confidence and self-awareness that it just can’t be held against McDonagh. Now, I’m not saying that self-awareness is an excuse for bad writing. However, they come across much better when they are done intentionally. “Seven Psychopaths” knows that the kind of story it wants to tell has been done so many times before, so it might as well try to present it in a new way.

“Seven Psychopaths” introduces characters and subplots, and then gets rid of them whenever it damn well pleases. Breaking screenwriting rules is actually beneficial here: it adds a dangerous, unstable element to the whole story. It’s a screenwriter projecting his own mind through the eyes of another screenwriter, and neither have any idea where their own stories can take them. And that is a beautiful thing about writing a film: when you have absolutely no idea where the story you are inventing is going to end.

Despite the unpredictability, McDonagh seemed to have a good plan for where to end this film in the same way that “In Bruges” tied everything together so perfectly in the end. “Seven Psychopaths” is a huge ensemble, and it makes a mobster played by Woody Harrelson, a serial killer who kills mobsters, and an adorable Shih Tzu all come together. I am not trying to start a fight here, but I will take that Shih Tzu over Uggie any day of the week.

I see “Seven Psychopaths” as being about the purpose of violence in movies. Sometimes, it has to exist just punish people who had it coming. At one point, Billy suggests they all just go out into the desert and forget about everything that happened. That doesn’t work for long, and not only because Billy is an idiot. Perhaps the reason that heist films end in a shootout is because that’s the only natural course for a criminal to go on. No matter how hard you try, cliches can never be completely avoided. But if you present them in the right way, they can show why movies are such an exhilarating experience.

A friend of mine made a very accurate remark about Martin McDonagh, in that he is the only auteur bred during a generation of Tarantino ripoffs that can ripoff Tarantino correctly. That may be partly because McDonagh got his training in theater, so he knows how to write the long scenes of dialogue that mark a Tarantino film. Not only that, but he also gives the characters funny and insightful things to say. We don’t mind if the story is delayed for a bit, because what the characters are saying is so good to listen to. If a film has good dialogue, that means it can be listened to without the accompanying images and still be just as good.

As someone who is currently writing a script, “Seven Psychopaths” spoke to me on a very high level by nailing a writer’s journey. Whenever it looks like we’re just sitting there doing nothing, there is actually about a thousand ideas forming in our heads, looking for ways to become a whole. “Seven Psychopaths” is filled with little mini stories that are just as good as the main story. Some of the mini stories are made up and told within a story that is also made up. “Seven Psychopaths” is a movie about how life doesn’t turn out like it does in the movie. Try not to let your head explode before you can actually go see it for yourself.

Yes, that is Tom Waits and a bunny rabbit.

The Movie About Dognapping You’ve Always Dreamed Of: Seven Psychopaths Trailer

1 Reply

I only post trailers for movies when it is something I am irrationally excited for and have irrationally high expectations for.

Today, the trailer for “Seven Psychopaths,” the new film from Martin McDonagh, was released. McDonagh’s last film was his 2008 directorial debut “In Bruges” which remains one of my favorite films of the past five years. “Seven Psychopaths” has McDonagh re-teaming with Colin Farrell, whose abilities as a comedic actor remain severely underrated. It also stars Sam Rockwell and Christopher Walken, who are two of my favorite actors, as well as Woody Harrelson, who I like most of the time. It also has Gabourey Sidibe (Precious) sitting on a toilet, just in case you were dying to know what that looks like.

The story seems to revolve around criminals who kidnap people’s dogs, return them, and then collect the reward money. “Seven Psychopaths” could be somewhat less dark than “In Bruges,” if there are as many animal reaction shots in it as the trailer seems to portend. However, based on “Bruges,” McDonagh is not one who will let criminals get away with their wrongdoings unscathed.

Are you as excited for “Seven Psychopaths” as I am? Have you seen “In Bruges” yet? If your answer to the latter question is no, go rent it right away. Watch the trailer for “Seven Psychopaths” below:

Movie Review: 2012

1 Reply

I picture Roland Emmerich, director of “2012,” being something like Woody Harrelson’s character in the film: standing on top of a mountain, and cheering as the world came to an end.

Yes, “2012″ is what some might describe as “death porn” or “destructo-porn.” It’s a disaster film based on an old conspiracy that goes where so many disaster films before it have gone. It’s a marvel of special effects, but an absolute disaster in story telling.
“2012″ is based off the popular conspiracy that on December 21, 2012 the world will end because it’s the very day the Mayan calendar ends. Hours of unnecessary footage on the History Channel have tried to take everything from history and put it together to convince us that it will happen.
Now, I’m not saying I didn’t like “2012″ because I don’t subscribe to this whole theory. Let’s take a look at the story to see what is actually wrong with it.
The film has multiple story lines. One involves the President of the United States (Danny Glover) and two scientists: one with good intentions (Chiwetel Ejiofor), and another with shadier intentions (Oliver Platt).
The most important story involves Jackson Curtis (John Cusack). Jackson is a divorced writer who must get his two kids, his ex-wife (Amanda Peet), and her annoying new husband (Tom McCarthy) to safety as the world crumbles. That seems nice, until you realize that it’s the exact same plot of Spielberg’s “War of the Worlds.”
The rest of “2012″ basically involves the audience watching the world get destroyed. The Los Angeles freeway collapses. The Vatican crushes an entire crowd. The White House is crushed by a giant tsunami. Yellowstone National Park turns into a giant volcano. This then goes on for another two-and-a-half hours. It’s entertaining, and even a little enthralling at first. But after a while, you’re just waiting for it all to end.
Don’t get me wrong, I love a good, special-effects laden blockbuster. If done well, it can make for great cinema, and even greater entertainment. However, what prevents “2012″ from the possibility of being good is Roland Emmerich. Emmerich you could say is obsessed with destruction, as he also directed “Independence Day” and “The Day After Tomorrow.” It’s a testament to how lazy “2012″ is when you see that it has literally the exact same closing shot that “The Day After Tomorrow” had. That’s right, Emmerich ripped off himself.
Anyway, Emmerich’s problem is that he cares more about the spectacle, than the humanity. As a giant earthquake splits the earth in two, splitting streets and causing buildings to collapse, thousands of innocent people crash to their deaths. They are not seen as humans, but merely as small specs in the distance. Even when main characters die, nobody seems phased by it in the slightest bit. Perhaps most tastelessly, is when an entire office building filled with people collapses, but the only thing we’re supposed to be paying attention to is that the family got away safely in a jet. How can we cheer for one person, when everyone else around them is dying? Quite ironic for a film that preaches to remain humane in dire times.
For films like this, one should leave the idea of reality at the door. Good movies can suspend your disbelief from reality, but bad movies make you wish they had a little reality injected into them. How is it that Jackson and his family can narrowly escape death that easily? Not to mention, most of what is passed off as sound science in this film is completely wrong.
Possibly the one redeeming aspect of “2012″ is Woody Harrelson’s hilarious performance as an apocalypse-loving DJ. Seriously, this man can make eating a pickle seem funny. Most importantly, Harrelson looked like he was having a good time. Too bad no one else in the cast was.
Emmerich not only directed the film, he also co-wrote it. And what an awfully written screenplay it is. It’s filled with so many inconsistencies and gigantic plot holes. Not to mention, it also makes the main character incredibly unlikable. I know that some people in life are bad people, but shouldn’t the guy we’re rooting for be at least a little bit nice. He can’t even obey a clear “No Trespassing” sign.
I’d like to say that despite the flaws “2012″ is nonetheless a good, entertaining time at the movies. It is, for about an hour and a half. The rest is dull and often laughable. The viewer can never really enjoy any of the film’s thrill’s because of how much is happening at once. Emmerich can’t decide which way the world should end and therefore decides to gives us every possibility. “2012″ might’ve been more enjoyable if it paced itself better.
Maybe the worst part of “2012″ is the sense of smug superiority that it gives off; it believes itself to be much more intelligent that it actually is. At one point, the last survivors on earth board a life-saving ship known as the Ark. There’s also a character named Noah on it. Coincidence?
I hate to call a film sadistic, but “2012″ truly is, as it is not a celebration of life and survival, but rather a film that enjoys at the destruction of a planet and the loss of life. You’re bound to have a more entertaining time looking at the crazy 2012 theories online, then spending $10 on this film.
Better Apocalyptic/Disaster Thrillers: Children of Men, War of the Worlds, Zombieland, Jaws, Akira, 12 Monkeys, Wall-E, Planet of the Apes, Titanic

Movie Review: Zombieland

Leave a reply

There is a little, important secret of horror filmmaking I’ve been picking up on lately. That little secret is that less is more, that what we don’t see is scarier than what we actually do see. Even though much blood and guts is spilled in “Zombieland,” much is still left up to the imagination. This helps keep the film from being wannabe shlock to a totally satisfying horror satire.

“Zombieland” takes place in a post-apocalyptic Earth, long after a virus has turned most humans into cannibalistic zombies. The world has now become a Darwinian society, where all you need are a few basic skills to get by. One of those people lucky enough are Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg). Columbus is a scrawny, awkward college student who manages to get by unscathed because he’s so used to loneliness.
While trying to reach his parents in Ohio, Columbus meets the tough, potty-mouthed, yet ultimately tender Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson). As they head east, they meet two con women: Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). The rest of the plot mainly consists of them traveling cross country, searching for safe haven as Columbus begins to fall for Wichita.
As you’ll notice, each character is named after a different city. They each name themselves after the destination they are headed to, whether it still exists or not out of confidentiality reasons. It seems kind of ironic that they want their names to be secret though, as they end up becoming something of a family in the end.
In my introduction, I made the film seem like too much of a pure horror film. That, it isn’t. I only felt frightened at a few moments in the film, but then again, “Zombieland” was meant to be a satire, and not a horror film. That doesn’t mean it’s not directed like a good horror film though. Take the convenience store scene. The most brutal death involves Tallahassee, a zombie, and a pair of hedge trimmers. We don’t see what exactly the trimmers do, but we do see them slide across the floor, covered in blood. It’s inferring what happened, rather than actually seeing what happened, that challenges the viewer, builds suspense, and just makes it even creepier to ponder. However, “Zombieland” does show us a good amount of graphic blood and guts. However it’s much more sparse than you might imagine, and it mainly happens at the way beginning. It’s almost like director Rubin Fleischer’s way of saying “there’s the gore. Happy now? Can we just move on?”
I can’t forget that “Zombieland” is first and foremost a satire. Unfortunately, I’m not well-versed enough in the zombie genre to say whether or not “Zombieland” effectively both pokes fun and pays tribute to the popular genre. However, the film may also be a satire of the horror genre in general (I picked up a reference to the banjo scene in “Deliverance”). I could spot even smaller possible satirical spots. Some of them could even be the more predictable moments of the film, possibly mocking how formulaic the genre has become.
The humor of “Zombieland” is buoyed by its two central performances. While it might be cool at this point to bash Eisenberg for playing the same character he played in “The Squid and the Whale” and “Adventureland” I’m going to go against the tide and say he gave a good performance because I like him and well, if someone is good at playing a certain personality, why shouldn’t they be allowed to keep playing it?
Mainly, Harrelson’s performance as Tallahassee steals the show. The writers give him a few great lines (“That’ll do, pig”), and he does such a great job at delivering each one. Harrelson plays Tallahassee slightly like Mickey from “Natural Born Killers,” if Mickey had a soft spot and a love for Twinkies.
Stone doesn’t bring a huge amount to the table, but she doesn’t really detract from the story at all either. Breslin, however, does a great job with the material. After this and “Little Miss Sunshine,” she proves that she can handle more adult material better than most girls under 18 [Editor’s Note: Let’s say for example, Hannah Montana, who’d I’d love to see be eaten by zombies]. The film also includes an extremely random, yet hilariously and even refreshing cameo. I dare not give it away here; I don’t want to ruin the fun for you.
“Zombieland” isn’t perfect. It’s short and it isn’t the first zombie satire ever made (there’s also “Shaun of the Dead” which, for the record, I still haven’t seen). But why did I like it so much? Mainly, its 81 minutes of pure, blissful, escapism. It’s the kind of escapism that will draw you out of reality and further and further into the world of movies. This isn’t a Seltzer-Friedberg satire, it’s the kind that has a deep knowledge, and even a deep respect, for the subject its consistently mocking. Not only that, but it stands as a comedy in its own right, with its own, original jokes, as well.