Hope everyone had a super Thanksgiving and Black Friday! I have so far ... not only because I got to eat delicious food and bought a couple of great deals, but also because I got to see "Frozen." It's not a top tier Disney classic like "The Lion King," but it's a solidly entertaining second-tier Disney film which, let's face it, is way better than a lot of movies geared toward the kiddies. I really enjoyed it! Plus, it had some pretty decent female character who weren't completely stupid or evil! Success!!!!!
Anyway, read my entire review online RIGHT NOW at KPC Media Group's website by clicking here, or read it in Sunday's KPC Media Group newspapers. Monday, I'll post the whole thing on the blog!
Friday, November 29, 2013
Monday, November 25, 2013
'Dancing With the Stars' recap: Journey's End
It seems like "Dancing With the Stars" just started, but now, the D-List Dance Competition O' Glitter is almost over.
But first, the couples have to perform three dances, including the fan-favorite freestyle dance!
Let's get down to it ... we have a lot of ground to cover and celebrities to watch dance!
But first, the couples have to perform three dances, including the fan-favorite freestyle dance!
Let's get down to it ... we have a lot of ground to cover and celebrities to watch dance!
Review: "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire"
This review was originally posted at KPC Media Group's website and published in their three daily newspapers. You can read the original review here. Reprinted with permission.
There's a glorious phenomenon in fiction, when suddenly the reader or viewer realizes how much more there is going on in the world that these fictional characters inhabit.
For me at least, that's the moment that a piece of fiction in any form starts to take hold of my emotions, and I start to inhabit that world alongside that fictional character.
And that's what "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" is all about. The franchise goes from the first movie, a tidy little story about a girl trying to survive a battle to the death in a dystopian future, to a sprawling tale of rebellion centering on that same girl, who discovers that she's still trying to survive a battle to the death - just against different opponents. It's an affecting tale, made especially emotional by a stunning performance by the young woman in the center of it all.
"Catching Fire" picks up where "The Hunger Games" left off - teenagers Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) have won the annual teenage death battle the Hunger Games by manipulating those in power with their mostly-for-the-cameras romance. Katniss thinks she'll be able to settle down and live a relatively normal life, but she soon discovers she can't.
Because Katniss and Peeta made the authoritarian Capitol and its ruthless leader, President Snow (Donald Sutherland), look weak during their games, the pair - especially the fiery Katniss - inadvertantly spurred the downtrodden citizens into revolt. To save those they love - including Katniss' mother (Paula Malcomson), sister Prim (Willow Shields) and friend/sometimes love interest Gale (Liam Hemsworth) - Katniss and Peeta must try to calm tempers in the districts during their victory tour. When that doesn't work, Snow and the new head of the Hunger Games, Plutarch Heavensbee (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), devise a new way to scare the districts into submission - hold a Hunger Games featuring former champions, including, of course, Katniss and Peeta, as tributes.
The scope of the story is just much bigger in "Catching Fire" than it was in "The Hunger Games." We got a sense in the first movie that there was unrest in one of the districts, partially sparked by Katniss' actions in the games, but in "Catching Fire," the scope of the actions by Katniss and Peeta take on a new weight. The audience discovers along with Katniss just how important the events of the first movie are, and the first half of the movie is a dizzying buildup of tension as the weight of her actions - and the realization of the trajectory of the rest of her life - settles on her shoulders. Add to that a nice big dose of PTSD for Katniss from her participation in the Hunger Games, and you have a recipe for a pretty big, emotional story.
Katniss is a lead character who often internalizes her feelings, though, so it's important that the actress playing her can show the audience the depths of her pain, rage and despair. That's where Jennifer Lawrence comes in. She was very good in the first "Hunger Games" movie, but Lawrence is nothing short of brilliant in "Catching Fire." Without her, this movie would pack a lot less of a punch. With Lawrence taking center stage, though, "Catching Fire" is a tense, scary, emotional roller-coaster of a movie.
"Catching Fire" is also just a better made, more streamlined movie. As much as I like the work of Gary Ross, who directed "The Hunger Games," Francis Lawrence clearly has a better handle on the themes of the material. Ross' biggest flaw was the same problem that happens with so many other book-to-movie adaptations - the director wants to be too faithful to the books, to the detriment of the film. It's not that Lawrence wasn't faithful too, because he was - if memory serves, he took several scenes straight from the books - but he also made the story his own. He wasn't as constrained by the source material, and it improved the flow of the movie immensely from the first movie.
The only real flaw with "Catching Fire" is the fact that it ends on a cliffhanger that won't be resolved for another year. Even if you read the books like I have, it's fun, yet tough, to walk out of the theater with so much unresolved. Still, don't skip the movie just because of the ending - other than the big unknowns at the end, "Catching Fire" is a well-made, immensely entertaining, satsifying sequel that outshines its predecessor.
Jenny's Take: See it tonight.
(Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some frightening images, thematic elements, a suggestive situation and language. Runs 146 minutes.)
There's a glorious phenomenon in fiction, when suddenly the reader or viewer realizes how much more there is going on in the world that these fictional characters inhabit.
For me at least, that's the moment that a piece of fiction in any form starts to take hold of my emotions, and I start to inhabit that world alongside that fictional character.
And that's what "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" is all about. The franchise goes from the first movie, a tidy little story about a girl trying to survive a battle to the death in a dystopian future, to a sprawling tale of rebellion centering on that same girl, who discovers that she's still trying to survive a battle to the death - just against different opponents. It's an affecting tale, made especially emotional by a stunning performance by the young woman in the center of it all.
"Catching Fire" picks up where "The Hunger Games" left off - teenagers Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) have won the annual teenage death battle the Hunger Games by manipulating those in power with their mostly-for-the-cameras romance. Katniss thinks she'll be able to settle down and live a relatively normal life, but she soon discovers she can't.
Because Katniss and Peeta made the authoritarian Capitol and its ruthless leader, President Snow (Donald Sutherland), look weak during their games, the pair - especially the fiery Katniss - inadvertantly spurred the downtrodden citizens into revolt. To save those they love - including Katniss' mother (Paula Malcomson), sister Prim (Willow Shields) and friend/sometimes love interest Gale (Liam Hemsworth) - Katniss and Peeta must try to calm tempers in the districts during their victory tour. When that doesn't work, Snow and the new head of the Hunger Games, Plutarch Heavensbee (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), devise a new way to scare the districts into submission - hold a Hunger Games featuring former champions, including, of course, Katniss and Peeta, as tributes.
The scope of the story is just much bigger in "Catching Fire" than it was in "The Hunger Games." We got a sense in the first movie that there was unrest in one of the districts, partially sparked by Katniss' actions in the games, but in "Catching Fire," the scope of the actions by Katniss and Peeta take on a new weight. The audience discovers along with Katniss just how important the events of the first movie are, and the first half of the movie is a dizzying buildup of tension as the weight of her actions - and the realization of the trajectory of the rest of her life - settles on her shoulders. Add to that a nice big dose of PTSD for Katniss from her participation in the Hunger Games, and you have a recipe for a pretty big, emotional story.
Katniss is a lead character who often internalizes her feelings, though, so it's important that the actress playing her can show the audience the depths of her pain, rage and despair. That's where Jennifer Lawrence comes in. She was very good in the first "Hunger Games" movie, but Lawrence is nothing short of brilliant in "Catching Fire." Without her, this movie would pack a lot less of a punch. With Lawrence taking center stage, though, "Catching Fire" is a tense, scary, emotional roller-coaster of a movie.
"Catching Fire" is also just a better made, more streamlined movie. As much as I like the work of Gary Ross, who directed "The Hunger Games," Francis Lawrence clearly has a better handle on the themes of the material. Ross' biggest flaw was the same problem that happens with so many other book-to-movie adaptations - the director wants to be too faithful to the books, to the detriment of the film. It's not that Lawrence wasn't faithful too, because he was - if memory serves, he took several scenes straight from the books - but he also made the story his own. He wasn't as constrained by the source material, and it improved the flow of the movie immensely from the first movie.
The only real flaw with "Catching Fire" is the fact that it ends on a cliffhanger that won't be resolved for another year. Even if you read the books like I have, it's fun, yet tough, to walk out of the theater with so much unresolved. Still, don't skip the movie just because of the ending - other than the big unknowns at the end, "Catching Fire" is a well-made, immensely entertaining, satsifying sequel that outshines its predecessor.
Jenny's Take: See it tonight.
(Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some frightening images, thematic elements, a suggestive situation and language. Runs 146 minutes.)
Friday, November 22, 2013
"The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" Review posted at KPC Media Group
It was the moment we'd all been waiting for ... the premiere of "Catching Fire," the sequel to "The Hunger Games." And it delivered!!!!!!!! And it was even better, because I went to a double feature of the first movie and the sequel!
Read my full review of the movie over at KPC Media Group's website by clicking here, or pick up one of the KPC Media Group Sunday newspapers to read it in good old fashioned print. I'll post the full review here on Monday!
Read my full review of the movie over at KPC Media Group's website by clicking here, or pick up one of the KPC Media Group Sunday newspapers to read it in good old fashioned print. I'll post the full review here on Monday!
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
TV Snap Judgment: Almost Human
This week, "Almost Human" premiered, and I must admit that I was incredibly pumped. I was waiting for what seemed like decades for this show.
OK, yeah, it was only a couple of months, but "Almost Human" was one of the shows I was most looking forward to this TV season. And I'm happy to say, the show really lived up to my high expectations.
OK, yeah, it was only a couple of months, but "Almost Human" was one of the shows I was most looking forward to this TV season. And I'm happy to say, the show really lived up to my high expectations.
Monday, November 18, 2013
Dancing With the Stars Recap: This Is It! Well, Almost.
The craziness of "Dancing With the Stars" is almost over, and tonight the dancers were competing for a spot in the finals. And they had to do it in front of Maksim Chmerkovskiy as a guest judge!
Tonight's trick was that they had to perform a different dance to a stripped-down version of the song they performed their first dance to. Interesting concept! Let's get right down to the dancing, though.
Tonight's trick was that they had to perform a different dance to a stripped-down version of the song they performed their first dance to. Interesting concept! Let's get right down to the dancing, though.
Movie Review: Balance of sap, silliness makes 'About Time' a sweet treat
This movie review was originally published on KPC Media Group's website and in the Sunday editions of its daily newspapers. Read the original review here. Reprinted on the Pop Tarts blog with permission.
Watching "About Time" is like watching a tricky balancing act.
It would be easy for it to tip over and fall into gag-worthy sticky-sweet sentimentality, but every time it sticks its toe into the pool of sap, it throws in a dash of spice and the movie is back on track. There was only one scene that really had me rolling my eyes in a way rarely seen outside of a Nicholas Sparks romance, and it was short-lived. Overall, "About Time" had just the right mix of gooshy goodness and quirky humor.
The movie follows Tim (Domhnall Gleeson) who, at the age of 21, is told by his father (Bill Nighy) that the men of his family can travel through time. They can't change history, in the sense that they couldn't go back and kill Hitler or anything, but they can travel within their own timelines and change their lives. His father used the time to get some extra reading done, but Tim decides to do what any gawky, nerdy-cute, single 21-year-old would do - he uses his power to get a girlfriend.
Enter Mary (Rachel McAdams), an adorable American girl Tim meets when he moves to London. After a series of fits and starts brought on by Tim's time-travel, the pair of them begin their ordinary lives together - made just a little more extraordinary by Tim's gift.
"About Time" works despite its relatively simple concept. Yes, time travel is not exactly "normal" in the real world, but since Tim is an ordinary man who can only travel back in his own history, there isn't really much he can do except improve or further screw up his life. There are no massive repercussions for the world when this man goes back in time. There is no "butterfly effect," where some small change causes big differences to other people. Everything that Tim changes effects Tim's little world - his parents, his girlfriend, his friends. The movie, therefore, becomes a celebration of the things in life that are beautiful but, in the great scheme of things, mundane - a chance meeting at a restaurant, a wedding, a walk on the beach.
"About Time" also features a pair of perfectly likeable but, ultimately, slightly dull characters. Tim and Mary are certainly cute and blandly charming, but they wouldn't be able to carry a movie without the help of the quirky, deliciously acted characters that surround them. Not only is Tim's father a delight as played by Bill Nighy, but his spacy sister Kit Kat (Lydia Wilson), earthy mother (Lindsay Duncan), dorky friend Rory (Joshua McGuire), crazy uncle (Richard Cordery) and perpetually discontented family friend and playwright Harry (Tom Hollander) all lend some personality to the film.
In the capable hands of chick-flick master Richard Curtis, everything works just as it should. "About Time," which Curtis wrote and directed, is reminscent of Curtis' other, similar works - the "Bridget Jones" movies, "Notting Hill" and "Four Weddings and a Funeral." While it doesn't quite live up to my favorite of Curtis' movies, "Love Actually," "About Time" has the same charm, humor and warmth that made his other works so famous and well-loved.
"About Time" takes a gauzy look at ordinary life, but does it in such a way that there's still a little sass and a touch of silly fun to temper the sap. It's one of those warm, fuzzy movies that, sometimes, is just what you need. It isn't an earth-shaking movie, and it doesn't have a terribly deep meaning, but it is a fun, sweet morsel of a movie.
Jenny's Take: See it before it leaves theaters.
(Rated R for language and some sexual content. Runs 123 minutes.)
Watching "About Time" is like watching a tricky balancing act.
It would be easy for it to tip over and fall into gag-worthy sticky-sweet sentimentality, but every time it sticks its toe into the pool of sap, it throws in a dash of spice and the movie is back on track. There was only one scene that really had me rolling my eyes in a way rarely seen outside of a Nicholas Sparks romance, and it was short-lived. Overall, "About Time" had just the right mix of gooshy goodness and quirky humor.
The movie follows Tim (Domhnall Gleeson) who, at the age of 21, is told by his father (Bill Nighy) that the men of his family can travel through time. They can't change history, in the sense that they couldn't go back and kill Hitler or anything, but they can travel within their own timelines and change their lives. His father used the time to get some extra reading done, but Tim decides to do what any gawky, nerdy-cute, single 21-year-old would do - he uses his power to get a girlfriend.
Enter Mary (Rachel McAdams), an adorable American girl Tim meets when he moves to London. After a series of fits and starts brought on by Tim's time-travel, the pair of them begin their ordinary lives together - made just a little more extraordinary by Tim's gift.
"About Time" works despite its relatively simple concept. Yes, time travel is not exactly "normal" in the real world, but since Tim is an ordinary man who can only travel back in his own history, there isn't really much he can do except improve or further screw up his life. There are no massive repercussions for the world when this man goes back in time. There is no "butterfly effect," where some small change causes big differences to other people. Everything that Tim changes effects Tim's little world - his parents, his girlfriend, his friends. The movie, therefore, becomes a celebration of the things in life that are beautiful but, in the great scheme of things, mundane - a chance meeting at a restaurant, a wedding, a walk on the beach.
"About Time" also features a pair of perfectly likeable but, ultimately, slightly dull characters. Tim and Mary are certainly cute and blandly charming, but they wouldn't be able to carry a movie without the help of the quirky, deliciously acted characters that surround them. Not only is Tim's father a delight as played by Bill Nighy, but his spacy sister Kit Kat (Lydia Wilson), earthy mother (Lindsay Duncan), dorky friend Rory (Joshua McGuire), crazy uncle (Richard Cordery) and perpetually discontented family friend and playwright Harry (Tom Hollander) all lend some personality to the film.
In the capable hands of chick-flick master Richard Curtis, everything works just as it should. "About Time," which Curtis wrote and directed, is reminscent of Curtis' other, similar works - the "Bridget Jones" movies, "Notting Hill" and "Four Weddings and a Funeral." While it doesn't quite live up to my favorite of Curtis' movies, "Love Actually," "About Time" has the same charm, humor and warmth that made his other works so famous and well-loved.
"About Time" takes a gauzy look at ordinary life, but does it in such a way that there's still a little sass and a touch of silly fun to temper the sap. It's one of those warm, fuzzy movies that, sometimes, is just what you need. It isn't an earth-shaking movie, and it doesn't have a terribly deep meaning, but it is a fun, sweet morsel of a movie.
Jenny's Take: See it before it leaves theaters.
(Rated R for language and some sexual content. Runs 123 minutes.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)