‘Lone Survivor’ stands tall at no. 1

Looks like audiences agree with Lone Survivor’s marketing team, which has been heralding the Afghanistan combat drama as the best war film since Saving Private Ryan.  It certainly made one of the strongest debuts among its genre cohorts, pulling in higher opening-weekend numbers than both Zero Dark Thirty ($24.4 million) and Black Hawk Down ($28.6 million). Survivor’s weekend haul of $38.5 million also far exceeded Universal’s conservative estimates – the studio had the movie tracking somewhere in the high teens – and, most impressively, has earned the film the title of second-most impressive January bow. The only other movie to have had a stronger January opening was Cloverfield, which grossed $40.1 million in 2008.

Many pundits are attributing the film’s success to a savvy promotional campaign that highlights the real-life heroism of its protagonist SEALs, while downplaying the fraught political implications that still surround the American invasion abroad. Whatever the initial appeal, critics and audiences alike are standing firm behind the movie, which has earned a rare A+ CinemaScore rating. The Mark Wahlberg-starrer should continue to hold strong in the weeks ahead.

It was an older crowd that helped lead Lone Survivor to victory over the weekend (the film’s demographic breakdown was 57% over the age of 30, as well as 57% male), while younger, and one would assume many repeat, viewers were (still) lining up for Frozen. The animated box-office behemoth has earned $317.7 million to date, and can now boast a Golden Globe win for the year’s Best Animated Feature to boot.

It’s unlikely the aforementioned honor will surprise anyone who’s leant an attentive ear to industry buzz of late, but the continued ascent of Martin Scorsese’s The Wolf of Wall Street might. After getting off to an OK start at the box office, the comedy/drama has steadily risen among the weekend’s rankings. Likely benefitting from continued controversy surrounding its debauched subjects, Wolf earned $9 this weekend to bump its overall gross to $78.6 million. Star Leonardo DiCaprio’s Golden Globe win last night may give the movie an additional boost this coming weekend. Estimates surrounding the film’s eventual total cume continue to expand: As of this morning, general consensus has Wolf topping out at well over $100 million by the time it leaves theatres.

David O. Russell’s crowd-pleaser American Hustle has already reached that milestone, officially crossing the $100-million mark as of yesterday. Another big Golden Globe winner (stars Amy Adams and Jennifer Lawrence both took home statuettes last night, and the film as a whole won for Best Musical or Comedy), Hustle grossed $8.6 million this weekend. The film tied with The Legend of Hercules for fourth place. That amounts to another strong showing for Hustle, but an underwhelming debut for the latest sword-and-sandal epic. Hopefully, The Rock’s take on the oft-adapted Greek legend will fare better this summer.

In fifth place, August: Osage County reaped $7.3 million from 905 locations. Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones performed as expected, slipping roughly 66% to earn $6.3 million. It remains on track to become the franchise’s least successful offering yet.

Unfortunately for specialty enthusiasts, two critically favored films also underperformed. Her earned $5.4 million, which, while in itself not a terrible figure, is nonetheless fairly weak considering the number of theatres in which the film screened (1,729). And although Inside Llewyn Davis seemed to connect with coastal audiences, averaging about $100,000 per theatre when it opened in NY and LA, it struggled to find a wider viewership. From 729 locations, Davis grossed just over $1 million. Let’s see if the continued onward march of awards season can do anything for these two struggling originals.

Battering 'the best'

Considering the many nomination announcements in recent weeks, including those for the Screen Actors Guild and Golden Globe awards, as well as the unveiling of the 2014 New York Film Critics Awards winners, it seems this year’s Oscar frontrunners can boast clearly defined leads. To recap: The NYFCC named American Hustle its Best Picture of the year, while, with four nominations, 12 Years A Slave garnered the most SAG nods. The Golden Globes divided its love equally between the two contenders, nominating each for seven awards. In other words, American Hustle (which opens wide tomorrow) and 12 Years Slave are the industry’s sweethearts, and America -- or at least her film critics -- loves them. Right?

Not quite. Peter Debruge of Variety recently published a screed that attributed Hustle’s popularity to a fortuitous alignment of its stars – all of the film’s major names are at the top of their games, and, in the case of Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, and director David O. Russell, fresh off last year’s award-winning Silver Linings Playbook, at the height of their popularity, guaranteeing their collaboration would generate a certain amount of fanfare. But Hustle, Debruge contends, doesn’t deserve the praise: It’s a hot mess. Stephanie Zacharek of The Village Voice doesn’t lambast 12 Years A Slave, but she does challenge the positive consensus. “Is there any blood in its veins?” she asks.

If the old adage “you can’t please everyone” won’t surprise anyone, some might be taken aback by the contemporary negativity surrounding other roundly popular, and what are now considered canonical, films. TIME magazine, for instance, had this to say about greatest-film-of-all-time Vertigo back in 1958: “The mystery is not so much who done it as who cares.”

Inspired by this spirit of contrariness -- or maverick insight, if you prefer -- we’ve compiled a list of against-the-grain reviews for some of the most critically lauded and beloved films of all time. Taste certainly does lie in the eye of the viewer.

We like to think the one who called Audrey Hepburn awkward had a cataract.

Gone With the Wind – Reviewed by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. for The Atlantic, 1973

And how badly written it is! There is hardly a sharp or even a credible line. It is picture-postcard writing, as it is picture-postcard photography (and, for that matter, picture-postcard music). Melanie and Scarlett, the women's-serial rewrite of Amelia Sedley and Becky Sharp, are too much: one too good to be true, the other too wicked. As Ms. Scarlett, Vivien Leigh gives a thin and shallow performance. She does not enrich the part by the slightest idiosyncrasy or originality. It is far more external and far less interesting as a rendition of a Southern bitch than Bette Davis' Jezebel or Miriam Hopkins' Temple Drake. Olivia de Havilland and Leslie Howard are beyond belief.

Full Review

Casablanca – Reviewed by TIME magazine, 1942

Nothing short of an invasion could add much to Casablanca.

Rebel Without a Cause – Reviewed by Box Office Magazine, 1955

Others, and presumably they will be a vast majority, may be prone to opine that the story has few, if any, believable characters, situations or passages of dialogue.

Thus handicapped by the script's utter implausibility, which is alleviated not one whit by the strained direction of Nicholas Ray, Dean's delineation is far below the arrestingly high standards set by the above-mentioned portrayal in "Eden." His supporting cast, both its juvenile and adult components, are projected with even less effectiveness.

Full review

Vertigo – Reviewed by TIME magazine, 1958

The old master, now a slave to television, has turned out another Hitchcock-and-bull story in which the mystery is not so much who done it as who cares.

Lawrence of Arabia – Reviewed by Bosley Crowther, The New York Times, 1962

The fault seems to lie, first in the concept of telling the story of this self-tortured man against a background of action that has the characteristic of a mammoth Western film. The nature of Lawrence cannot be captured in grand Super-Panavision shots of sunrise on the desert or in scenes of him arguing with a shrewd old British general in a massive Moorish hall.

The fault is also in the lengthy but surprisingly lusterless dialogue of Robert Bolt's over-written screenplay. Seldom has so little been said in so many words.

Full Review

My Fair Lady – Reviewed by Geoff Andrew  for Time Out: London

Hepburn is clearly awkward as the Cockney Eliza in the first half, and in general the adaptation is a little too reverential to really come alive.

Full Review

Rosemary’s Baby – Reviewed by Renata Adler, The New York Times, 1968

Everyone else is fine, but the movie—although it is pleasant—doesn't quite work on any of its dark or powerful terms.

I think this is because it is almost too extremely plausible. The quality of the young people's lives seems the quality of lives that one knows, even to the point of finding old people next door to avoid and lean on. One gets very annoyed that they don't catch on sooner. One's friends would have understood the situation at once. So that for most of its length the film has nothing to be excited about.

Full Review

Chinatown – Reviewed by Gene Siskel for The Chicago Tribune, 1974

As much as I admire the work of both (Roman) Polanski and (Jack) Nicholson, I found "Chinatown" tedious from beginning to just before the end. . . .

The majority of problems are to be found in Polanski's direction of Robert Towne's ("The Last Detail") script. The opening shot of almost every scene has been so artificially overcomposed as to make one aware of Jack Nicholson wearing '30s clothes while standing in a room decorated to look like a '30s room while talking to stereotypes plucked from an assortment of '30s movies.

The Silence of the Lambs – Reviewed by Dave Kehr for The Chicago Tribune, 1991

It`s easy to understand why [director Jonathan Demme] might want to shake off the cute and cuddly image that has settled on his work (though his films have always contained a beckoning dark side, an edge of violence and despair).

But ``The Silence of the Lambs`` does more than avoid sweetness and light. It`s a gnarled, brutal, highly manipulative film that, at its center, seems morally indefensible.

Full Review

The Artist – Reviewed by Jaime N. Christley for Slant Magazine, 2011

The idea of making a film about the American cinema between 1927 and 1933 seems as daunting a prospect as making a film about the entire cinema—in other words, the difference between conceiving the magnitude of a galaxy and the magnitude of the universe. You might as well make a 100-minute film about the Renaissance. Michel Hazanavicius's The Artist neatly sidesteps this unsolvable dilemma by ignoring everything that's fascinating and memorable about the era, focusing instead on a patchwork of general knowledge, so eroded of inconvenient facts that it doesn't even qualify as a roman à clef.

Full Review

American Hustle – Peter Debruge for Variety, 2013

How has “Hustle” conned so many intelligent people into declaring it a masterpiece? This is a messy C-minus movie at best, one that makes Michael Bay’s “Pain & Gain” look downright disciplined by comparison.

Full Article

12 Years A Slave – Reviewed by Stephanie Zacharek for The Village Voice, 2013

It's all so perfect, so right.

But is there any blood in its veins? 12 Years a Slave is a pristine, aesthetically tasteful movie about the horrors of slavery. Aside from a characteristically nuanced lead performance by Chiwetel Ejiofor—plus an oak-tree-tall supporting one by Benedict Cumberbatch, as well as a breath of movie-star vitality from Brad Pitt in a very small role—it's a picture that stays more than a few safe steps away from anything so dangerous as raw feeling. Even when it depicts inhuman cruelty, as it often does, it never compromises its aesthetic purity.

Full Review

The ‘Hobbit’ to tower over ‘Madea’

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug and Tyler Perry’s A Madea Christmas will go head-to-head at the box office this weekend, although the matchup is not exactly a nail-biter. As the second prequel in the incredibly popular and successful Lord of the Rings franchise, Hobbit is pretty much guaranteed a stronger bow. Last year, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Smaug’s predecessor, earned $300 million domestically and an unearthly $1 billion worldwide. Critics, however, didn’t love it, and even fan reactions were mixed, certainly in comparison with the kind of accolades heaped upon director Peter Jackson’s Rings trilogy. Journey’s success was largely due to its ability to leverage the popularity of these films, while Smaug has a more difficult road ahead of it as it works to prove it’s better (more fun, less dragging) than its predecessor. Luckily, critics seem to think it is. The Desolation of Smaug will probably earn $15 million less than Journey and open to around $70 million or so. The fact that such a staggering gross would still be considered a qualified success speaks to the ridiculous earning potential of – and ridiculous expectations surrounding – these movies.

Though it isn’t expected to trump The Hobbit, Madea’s box-office odds are still looking pretty merry. Tyler Perry’s A Madea Christmas is the director’s 14th movie in the past eight years. Eight of Perry’s 13 movies have opened to $20 million or more. A more fun fact: The only other directors to have had as many $20 million openings are Robert Zemeckis, who has had nine, and Steven Spielberg, who can boast 11. In total, Perry’s oeuvre has earned $674 million domestically, with his top three films all featuring his Madea character, or Perry dressed up as a smart-mouthed granny. Odds are Madea will chuckle up a little less than $30 million.

Frozen and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire are still going strong and will probably land at nos. three and four, respectively. Specialty enthusiasts and Academy Awards speculators, though, are more concerned with Disney and Jennifer Lawrence’s other movies opening in limited release this weekend: Saving Mr. Banks and American Hustle. Viewers are expected to be drawn in like moths to the Oscar-gold flame surrounding these two. Awards buzz is thick around Lawrence, who plays a broadly cockamamie housewife in Hustle, and Emma Thompson as the persnickety Mary Poppins author, P.L. Travers, in Banks. The latter film is opening in 15 locations ahead of its wide release next weekend, while Hustle will screen in six theatres.

'American Hustle' wins top NYFC honor

The New York Film Critics Circle has announced its 2013 list of awardees, kicking Oscar punditry, predictions, and proselytizing into high gear. David O. Russell's American Hustle walked away with the Best Picture title, while star Jennifer Lawrence was named the year's Best Supporting Actress (cue mockingjay hand signal of solidarity). The list of winners is below:

 

 Best Picture: American Hustle
 Best Actor: Robert Redford, All Is Lost
 Best Actress: Cate Blanchett, Blue Jasmine
 Best Director: Steve McQueen, 12 Years a Slave
 Best Screenplay: American Hustle
 Best Supporting Actor: Jared Leto, Dallas Buyers Club
 Best Supporting Actress: Jennifer Lawrence, American Hustle
 Best Animated Film: The Wind Rises
 Best Cinematographer: Bruno Delbonnel, Inside Llewyn Davis
 Best First Film: Fruitvale Station
 Best Foreign Film: Blue Is the Warmest Color
 Best Non-Fiction Film (Documentary): Stories We Tell
 Special Award: Frederick Wiseman

 

‘Games’ to make child’s play of weekend b.o.

It’s a foregone conclusion the second installment in the Hunger Games franchise, opening today in 4,163 theatres, will prove victorious at the box office this weekend  – and the next weekend, and the one after that, and so on and so forth, until Catching Fire has not merely broken but incinerated most sales records set before it.

If our expectations sound a tad hyperbolic, consider the context. The first Hunger Games film opened to an awe-some $152 million. It continued to hold strong through the duration of its theatrical run, resisting any significant downturn in sales thanks to strong word-of-mouth and favorable reviews. By the time it finally closed, The Hunger Games had amassed $408 million. That makes it the 14th highest-grossing movie of all time. Surprisingly, it out-earned any of the Harry Potter or Twilight films, which had previously set the bar for frenzied-fan fare.

Then there’s that small, shiny pated statue perched somewhere in Jennifer Lawrence’s house. The actress who plays Katniss Everdeen has seen her star rise and rise since 2012’s Games. She won an Oscar for her turn as a stubborn yet compassionate (we spy a theme) dancer in David O. Russell’s Silver Linings Playbook last year, and stood out within an ensemble cast of pretty mutants in Marble’s lucrative tentpole X Men: First Class. Add to the mix all those viral videos of her acting lovely, like the one in which she comforted a crying fan, and Jennifer Lawrence is capable of calling upon quite a large group of faithful for support.

However, there are those pundits who believe it would be difficult for any film, even this one, to surpass a $152 million weekend opening. There’s little doubt Catching Fire will match its predecessor – beyond that, it may eke out another $8 million or so for a staggering $160 haul. Odds are favorable.

Less so for the latest Vince Vaughn comedy, Delivery Man. Once a bankable draw, Vaughn has taken his lumps of late. Neither The Internship nor The Dilemma (no, can’t remember them either) was very successful, with the one opening to $17.3 million and the other $17.8 million. Man is tracking for an even poorer debut.

Specialty release Philomena also opens in four locations today. The film has seen a small boost in publicity in recent weeks, thanks to Harvey Weinstein’s successful campaign to change the movie’s R rating to PG-13. Weinstein’s hoping the softened label will reap dividends when Philomena opens wide and becomes accessible to family and church-going audiences, but for now, its largely positive reviews should appeal to the weekend’s arthouse viewers.

In all, between Catching Fire and the still popular Thor: The Dark World and The Best Man Holiday, this coming weekend could be one of the cinema’s best ever.

'Argo' triumphs again at 2013 Oscars

As soon as Argo won the Oscar for Film Editing, it seemed inevitable that the 1970s CIA thriller would also win Best Picture. Forget about the fact that Ben Affleck wasn't nominated for Best Director.  He had already won the DGA award that heralds a Best Picture award, and if there's any other Oscar night award that predicts Best Picture, it's the one for editing.

In a year with so many good films, it was nice to see that most of the nominees went home with Oscars. The biggest winner of the night was Life of Pi with four wins, but Argo and Les Miserables followed with three, and Lincoln and Django Unchained each grabbed two awards. Silver Linings
Playbook scored with one major award, Jennifer Lawrence for Best Actress. Zero Dark Thirty was the only real loser of the bunch, with just one (a tie, even!) for Sound Editing. That movie deserved more--it was better than The Hurt Locker, which scooped up six Oscars, compared to ZDT's solo win. But in such a strong field of players, the awards were divided evenly, instead of the "sweeps" by one film that have dominated the Oscars in recent years.

There were a few surprises in the wins. Although I loved Christoph Waltz's performance in Django Unchained, the role was quite similar to the one that previously won him an Oscar, in Inglourious Basterds. I also think that his role was central enough that it barely skated into the "supporting" category.

In the Animated Feature category, it was Disney Pixar vs. Disney, and a bit surprising that Pixar's Brave won over Wreck-It Ralph, which had been favored to win. This was a weak year for the animated category. In years past, the top two animated films were better than all the nominees this year.

Jennifer Lawrence and Jessica Chastain both won "Best Actress" awards at the Golden Globes, but only one could win at the Oscars. Although I favored Chastain, both for the quality of the role she played, and the fact that she has a bit of seniority over Lawrence, Lawrence could not have been a
more---well, not graceful, but grateful winner. Her speeches, both in front of the mike and backstage, felt so natural and effusive and funny that it was hard not to root for the star. In contrast, Anne Hathaway's "It came true" speech fell flat among many Twitter couch pundits. She was in the difficult position of being heavily favored for the win and her speech came off sounding rehearsed and fake--all the more inexcusable because she was accepting the award for Best Supporting Actress. I think her team was looking for an "Oscar moment" that just didn't quite register.

Argo was a strong, crowd-pleasing choice for Best Picture, but I wonder if some of the other eight nominees may age better than that film. Argo's victorious look at U.S. history was certainly more palatable than Zero Dark Thirty's version, but it has its own flaws. How Argo got away with its inaccuracies and dramatizations while ZDT was slammed for them remains a mystery. If anything, it shows that Argo benefited from historical distance while ZDT hurt from covering a topic that still pushes many political and moral buttons.

Now that the onslaught of awards season has come to a close, movie lovers will face the long drought before the next crop of awards contenders is ready. But in the meantime, there's plenty of spring and summer tentpoles (and some hopeful indies) that go very well with a side of popcorn.

Projections for Sunday's Oscar ceremony

After months of speculation, the Oscars will finally be awarded on Sunday. So before you print out your Oscar ballot and mark your choices, take a look at Screener's picks and talking points for the leading categories..

Best Supporting Actress
Anne Hathaway for Les
Misérables. There is zero chance of an upset here.

Best Actress
My vote is for Jessica Chastain. This is the best chance for Zero Dark Thirty to get recognition.
Kathryn Bigelow didn't get a directing nomination, and Mark Boal will face competition from Django Unchained and Amour in the Original Screenplay category. That being said, those that favor Silver Linings Playbook may want to reward star Jennifer Lawrence in this prominent category. If voters split on that category, Emmanuelle Riva may win for Amour. The movie on aging was a favorite with the older demographic that belongs to the Academy. Riva is already the oldest nominee in the category, ever, and if she won she would be the oldest winner. If there's one thing the Academy loves, it's firsts.

Best Picture (and Best Director)
What will win: I'm betting on Argo. Ben Affleck won the Directors Guild Award, which traditionally predicts the Oscar winner for Best Picture and Best Director. The catch is that Affleck didn't even receive a nomination for Best Director at the Oscars, and Best Director and Best Picture almost always go together. My predicted split: Argo for Best Picture and Steven Spielberg for Lincoln. Argo is also the lead in the Adapted Screenplay category, though, again, it's a tough race, and both Lincoln and Silver Linings Playbook have people batting in their corner.

Best Actor
Daniel Day-Lewis for Lincoln. Chastain was pretty much a lone wolf in Zero Dark Thirty, but Day-Lewis had lots of help from Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones, who were also nominated for their performances. But that doesn't change the fact that Day-Lewis' performance is critical to the success of Lincoln. Great actor, great part = Oscar.

Best Supporting Actor
Some are leaning towards Philip Seymour Hoffman for The Master in this category. Although I can't vouch for that performance (one of the few I missed), it has gravitas, which is something the Academy tends to like. Robert De Niro's performance as a bookie father (who cries!) in Silver Linings Playbook is also a frontrunner. Personally, I think Tommy Lee Jones' chuckle-inducing performance as Thaddeus Stevens has been woefully unheralded among the press. He provided some much-needed comic relief in a sometimes dour historical account. Seeing this social liberal compromise in order to pass the amendment was an emotional and intellectual highlight of Lincoln, and Jones is my underdog favorite.

With tight races among great films, this should make for one of the most exciting ceremonies in recent memory. There will also likely be more viewers watching. This year, seven out of the nine nominees for Best Picture have earned over $100 million, which has helped build interest compared to years dominated by micro-indies. And did we mention that Seth MacFarlane is hosting?

 

'The Hunger Games' promises big, but it also delivers

Over 2,000 screenings of The Hunger Games have sold out on Fandango. Estimates that the movie could earn $80 million have now been upped to $130-140 million, according to THR. This week, fans lined up at a NYC Barnes & Noble fourteen hours in advance in order to meet the cast. The Regal Union Square had five or six screenings scheduled on Saturday when I checked a few weeks ago. Now it has twenty-five.

I'm happy to report that enthusiastic fans will not be disappointed with that adaptation of Suzanne Collins' franchise. Less excited family and friends who are dragged along to the show may also be pleasantly surprised. At the all-media screening at AMC's Lincoln Square Cinema in New York City this Monday, the crowd was incredibly responsive to the movie--plenty of collective "awwws" and chuckles. The movie itself exceeded my expectations. I had been a bit worried about the CG elements based on the trailer, but they looked much better on the big screen. The games themselves weren't shown in any of the advance material, so the second hour was pure, no-idea-what-it's-going-to-be-like enjoyment. Here are some of the things about the adaptation that I liked best--or least.

The movie trusts its audience. In the book, the heroine is a mother figure to her younger sister, Prim, while her mom suffers from severe depression. In an early scene, Prim looks to her mother for approval but it's Katniss who responds. In a gesture, the actors convey what's going on. No dialogue necessary.

CG that overwhelmed and underwhelmed. Katniss' neighbor and fellow competitor Peeta has a talent for camouflage, and the movie uses CG to great effect to make him look like he's covered in bark, a rock, etc. On the flip side, the tracker-jackers look like regular bees, and the muttations' faces resemble killer animals, not the dead Tributes (participants in the games). However, even I was wondering how they would pull off the muttations. Instead, Katniss and Peeta hear the voices of the fallen. The auditory cues are just as unsettling, and certainly a lot easier (and cheaper) to pull off.

It's more to the spirit of the book than the letter. There are a number of small changes from the page to the screen. The mockingjay pin has a different origin. Katniss' dress during the interviews doesn't burn into a mockingjay pattern (but how would they do that, anyway?). None of the changes bothered me. I would rather the filmmakers move things along rather than contort the screenplay in order to maintain some artifact that just can't be explained properly in a movie. This was a lesson learned from the early Harry Potters, in my opinion.

The action sequences are great. What I loved about the novels is that the action isn't one of brute force, but cunning. Instead of people chasing after each other and having a fight, it's more of a cat-and-mouse game. It's very reminiscent of Drive's opening car chase scene, which involved parking the car as a means of evasion--a scene beloved by myself and many other women I've talked to. The emphasis on strategy partially explains why women in particular are drawn to the series. Strategic bombing of supplies. Letting loose a nest of insects. Hiding and waiting. These are the kind of weapons and tactics I find most engaging.

This weekend, theatres will be flooded with happy fans. I'm already thinking about the next adaptations in the trilogy. Catching Fire, the next film in the series, should easily be a success. Thinking oh-so-far ahead, the series might run into trouble during Mockingjay, as Slate writer Erik Sofje points out. Perhaps Lionsgate's plans to turn the book into two movies may end up helping, not hurting, the action-filled finale. But that will be years away, and this weekend is all about welcoming one of the most satisfying literary adaptations I've seen in a long time.

 

The full rundown on the 'Hunger Games' trailer

By Sarah Sluis

Last month I was on an airplane, when I recognized the Hunger Games font in my seatmate's book. "She's reading The Hunger Games!" I thought. Conversation ensued. We were both in our mid-twenties. She was reading the second book on the recommendation of her sister. These are what Hunger Games fans look like. We're not as swoony and crazy as the Twi-hards, but we also don't include the younger fans of the Harry Potter series. Quite a lot of the readers have long aged out of the young adult category but still find themselves turning to the series, which has an immensely satisfying dystopian vision. Twelve districts, used only for their natural resources or manufacturing capabilities, must sacrifice a male and female teen to play in the Games as a Tribute. Armed with weapons and survivalist gear (if they're lucky), they fight to the death in the Arena, a natural environment that's been tweaked by the Gamemakers to make it more dangerous.

The trailer for the movie, which opens on March 23, 2012, released yesterday, unleashing a furor of comments and posts from the blogosphere. I list the trailer's biggest disappointments and successes.

1. District 12. The poor coal town looked exactly as I had envisioned it. The (un-)electric fence looked old and rusty, the citizens downbeat and drained of hope. The platform Effie (played by Elizabeth Banks in makeup that appears to channel Johnny Depp in Alice in Wonderland) uses to announce the Tributes is bigger and grander than I imagined, with lots of extra screens to amplify the action.

2. The city shot of the Capitol looked bland and boring, like a modern Star Wars ripoff. No budget was spent on this. The interiors were much more promising. Hollywood knows how to create futuristic, modern interiors without a problem. It's the special effects that are lacking here.

3. The makeover. For me, the biggest Jennifer Lawrence transformation was seeing her first as a poor Ozarks girl in Winter's Bone, then as a glamorous blonde at the Oscars. The Hunger Games can't replicate that kind of transformation. She does look prettier and more done up after receiving her makeover at the Capitol, but don't expect The Princess Diaries.

4. The Games. This is really the most important part of the story, and so far there's nothing to disappoint. The trailer stops after all the Tributes enter the arena, and Katniss (Lawrence) grabs the same, single bag that she does in the book. The initial bloodshed occurs just moments later.

Some of the book's biggest assets can't be intuited from a trailer. Suzanne Collins' novel reads like a screenplay at times. There aren't a lot of superfluous details to edit out, and the action is brisk, satisfying, and extremely page-turning. If the actors and director can transfer that energy to the screen, The Hunger Games will have no trouble being a huge success.

First look at 'Hunger Games' set, as Lenny Kratitz joins the cast

By Sarah Sluis

I'm two-thirds of the way through the Hunger Games series, and I can't wait for the movie. Unlike the Harry Potter books, which have so many unique subplots and details that the movie must pick and choose what to include, The Hunger Games is incredibly lean. It even reads like a novelization of a screenplay. While I've never liked the Harry Potter movies as much as I liked the books, The Hunger Games will make a great movie. Even while reading the books, I wanted to see the action sequences and environments off the page and on the screen.

Today, some blogs have posted two pictures of District 12. The book takes place in a futuristic America that is ruled by a capitol, with twelve districts that provide agriculture, fish, textiles, etc., to the district. Our heroine Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) lives in District 12, the coal mining district.

The first photo is probably of the Hob, an old warehouse where people go to sell black market goods like bootleg liquor and game from the surrounding, forbidden forest.

The second is a more generic picture of a coal railway car--it's not of any significance to the story, but it helps you get a feel for the Appalachia location.

Lionsgate also announced the casting of Lenny Kravitz, who is going to be absolutely perfect for the role of Cinna. People in the Capitol dress kind of like Lady Gaga, and as a musician Kravitz knows how to rock some weird looks (the photo below proves this point). Cinna becomes the confidant of Katniss, and he also uses his role as dressmaker to subvert the Capitol's intentions.

As The Hunger Games begins filming in order to make its March 23 release next year, there should be more set photos and some final casting announcements. One last reason I'm excited about this movie is director Gary Ross. A big part of The Hunger Games is the transition from the parched, dismal environment in District 12 to the modern, wealthy Capitol region, and then again to the Games. Ross pulled off a similar transition in Pleasantville (you know, the one where they go inside the TV and then turn from black-and-white to color), and I'm confident he will imbue The Hunger Games with that same satisfying sense of transformation.

Casting 'The Hunger Games': Please pick Jennifer Lawrence!

By Sarah Sluis

Jennifer Lawrence knocked it out of the park in Winter's Bone, my favorite kind of film: the little indie that could. The unknown actress landed an Academy Award nomination for her breakout performance. Like her fellow nominee Hailee Steinfeld, who was nominated for True Grit in the Supporting Actress category, she looks almost unrecognizable on the red carpet, given that they both appeared onscreen in fairly plain-Jane getups.

At the Oscars Lawrence showed up in a bombshell red dress, and her hair color has gone from dirty blonde to really blonde, almost as if she wants to create a physical separation from her character in Winter's Bone. Her next marquee role will be Mystique in X-Men: First Class, a big, action, summer popcorn movie. But there's also a chance for her to combine action with sci-fi in the adaptation of the bestselling young adult book The Hunger Games.

Though I haven't yet read The Hunger Games, the books have an amazing premise, combining the omniscience of a futuristic state with gladiator sports. The story centers on a girl selected to participate in fight-to-the-death games broadcast on national television in a post-U.S. country. It's like a reality-television inspired 1984, with action scenes to boot. Steinfeld is also up for the role, and according to THR, casting will depend on whether they want to skew the role older or younger. Since the star would most likely be locked into a trilogy, provided the movie performs well, I can see the logic for going younger. But I really see Lawrence, not Steinfeld, in this role. I may be biased based on the kind of heroines they played in last year's films, but the feeling sticks. Lawrence played a character that had a loose, natural feel, and was quiet and determined. In Coen Brothers' style, Steinfeld was stiff, fast-talking, and slightly unlikable. Lionsgate plans to release the movie in March 2012, so a casting decision will have to be made fast during a time when both of these Oscar nominees are weighing a flood of offers.