My Life in France by Julia Child

With the help of admirer Alex Prud Homme, six-footer Julia Child recounts the several years she and her husband, Paul Child, spent together in France where her cooking ambitions began in her autobiography My Life In France. What began as a passion towards the French cuisine grew into a cooking empire, and still one of the most influential and iconic cookbooks Mastering the Art of French Cooking.

Every chapter is simple and easy to breeze through. Once in a while, I'll come across an autobiography where the content is so detailed it seems the author is suffering from the classic celebrity syndrome of an unbearably huge ego. None of that can be found here.

The Californian-native is detailed about her relationships with fellow Gourmettes and her ventures into the publishing and television world without long-winded stories that finish in a dead-end. Child's descriptions of the scrumptious foods she made are absolutely mouth-watering. The deeply devoted Democrat leads us through the years of her life with wit and a notable zest for life in general. Her enthusiastic curiosity to embark into every world, culinary or otherwise, no doubt leaves an impression that she must have been a terribly fun person to share food, wine, and conversation with.

"This is my invariable advice to people: Learn how to cook- try new recipes, learn from your mistakes, be fearless, and above all have fun!"

Julia provides the main narration, but the journey is as much of hers as it is Paul's. In the modern world where many celebrity marriages seem like almost a joke where shameless tabloids exploit divorces and affairs, it was heartwarming to read how a couple supported each other when delving into unknown territories, especially fame.

Paul had Julia's back 110% with her cooking aspirations and often encouraged her to continue cooking and writing when she felt like throwing in the towel. He also used his passion for photography to snap photos of his wife cooking for her books and put his U.S. government experience with the media to work when Julia dealt with her first rounds of book signings, magazine interviews, and television appearances. As the couple lived abroad, they aimed to enhance each others' lives and their relationship is overall exceptionally loving.

My Life In France is such a delicious read and made me want to hop on the next plane and relocate across the pond to follow in Child's steps. After some consideration the idea wasn't very practical, this yummy autobiography did jump start my own interest in cooking. With the picturesque and romantic life Julia and Paul lead, this book left me with a bigger appetite to experience life with more vivacity.

In 2005, Julia Child's life was merged Julie Powell; a blogger turned author who cooked her way through Child's famous Master the Art of French Cooking. The novel was eventually adapted to the big screen in 2009 with Meryl Streep and Stanley Tucci, respectively playing Julia and Paul, with Amy Adams fronting as Powell.

Directed and written by Nora Ephron, the film splits time between Child and Powell's trials and tribulations in both their professional and personal lives. The performances by the trio are exceptional, though I found the characterization of Powell to be quite unlikable and catty. (Adams managed to make her character more charming than Powell's persona). Though the Julie and Julia novel is not as enjoyable as Child's autobiography, the adaptation gives a brief biopic of the couples' relationship intermixed with Powell's journey through cooking, and it's a fun Friday night movie for fans of the unforgettable culinary duo.

Blockbusted Blogathon: The Haunting (1999)

My weekends are often filled with the happy voluntary indulgence of watching blockbusters - Speed, Twister, Poseidon - and the list goes on and on. Across the board online is a movie that earns not one but three worst movie accolades; remake, horror film, and book adaptation. In terms of fulfilling a guilty pleasure, let's talk, rave, and analyse the insanely-awful movie The Haunting (1999).

As the story goes: Eleanor “Nell” Vance (Lily Taylor) has a terrible string of bad luck and arseholes ruling her life. After caring for her invalid mother for eleven years in a rundown Boston apartment, her sister and boyfriend evict Nell from her home via her mother's last wishes. Nell receives a phone call to participate in a sleep research study helmed by Dr. David Marrow (Liam Neeson) in an isolated mansion on Hill House. She uses her newfound "freedom" and nightmares as a means for escape to join the experiment. Once all have arrived at the manor - Marrow and fellow participants Luke Sanderson (Owen Wilson) and Theodora (Catherine Zeta-Jones) - they're cut off from the bordering town and the house soon shows its true horrifying colors.

Honestly, they are horrifying - not in the sense of the movie being scary. Two key ingredients of horrible films are plotholes and/or unrealistic plot circumstances. While offeringcheesy moments of suspense such as unexplained drastic temperature changes, constant conviction by the main character that she is seeing ghosts, and scenes of waiting to see what's lurking behind the corner to make you jump, The Haunting is all but laughable - probably one of the only reasons I watch it; to revel in its bombastic storytelling.

Musical Chairs (2012) final scores are admirable

A young Bronx-bred studio handyman Armando (E.J. Bonilla) aspires to be a dancer. When Mia (Leah Pipes), the studio's star performer is involved in a car accident, her dreams of a dance career are dashed. Armando befriends her, and as they fall in love, team up with other patients at the rehabilitation facility to compete in a New York City Wheelchair Ballroom Competition.

Director Susan Seidelman (Desperately Seeking Susan) produces a charismatic film of young love and persevering when life throws a curveball. Starring E.J. Bonilla and Leah Pipes, Musical Chairs is a feel-good romance in which to escape. Both actors radiate charisma and delightful star quality. As the ambitious Armando, Bonilla exuded captivating passion as an enthusiastic young man transforming a tragedy into dreams. And, Pipes as his counterpart is eloquent and vividly expressive as her character grows from her life-changing ordeal. Together, their performances transcend the film and are a promising duo illuminating the film's ambition.

Next to the performances the film most succeeds with its music, the romantic escapism, and its message on the emotionality of dance. Inviting and upbeat, Seidelman compiles a charming cast to transport the audience to a world where life is managing to find the beat to your drum. Part of its romantic escape is perhaps forgetting about the logistics of such a life-altering accident that would leave you immobile from the waist down. In the film world a cast of characters confined to wheelchairs train for a ballroom championship competition in a matter of weeks defies a bit of realism. The most connective and enjoyable scenes are shared when the characters are training; particularly Armando and Mia whose relationship is tested by her adaptability. The emotional connection carried by Armando and Mia drives the film to a poignant ending wherein the final scores aren't as important as their achievement of not giving up.

The story runs smoothly, however, cannot avoid a few cliche hiccups here and there. Like an Old Hollywood musical some of the conflicts are too conveniently ended for happy-go-lucky results. The script felt limited in terms of effectively showcasing the vivacity of New York City's melting pot of characters, and seemed to a bit to determined to recycle cinematic stereotypes. A shining performance by Laverne Cox (Orange is the New Black) delivers as Chantelle - who is a transgender woman falling in love with Armandos' old-fashioned uncle. However, Cox's strong heartfelt performance was presented in a finite view of her struggles. Although the supporting cast was indeed engaging, their storylines were trite.

Helmed by two fine rising actors and eccentric supporting cast, Musical Chairs should as a cinematic buoyant expression rather than a documdrama on disability. On that note, I found it quite enjoyable and worth a watch despite its script issues. Focused as an inspiration take on moving through the upswing and downbeat of life, this movie certainly achieves its goal of drama and dreams with appropriate cheeriness.

Rating: ★★☆

Rush (2013) drives home brains and brawns

Photo Credit: Rush

Growing up with my cousin who liked cars and trucks,  preconceived notions about racing as an adult have become limited: cars looping around in a track a few times. NASCAR and the famous Daytona 500 never held much interest for me in terms of watching it on television or seeking out news. As far as cinema 'knowledge' about the sports genre was concerned, I hadn't had very much experience - never seen the animated Cars by Pixar, Days of Thunder starring Tom Cruise, nor any other motion picture. To be honest, I never thought I'd come across a film about racing that constructed the sport and its drivers in an interesting way that non-sports people like me could understand and enjoy.

Then, came Rush. Centered around the 1970s feud between James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Niki Lauda, (Daniel Bruhl), the film dives into the world of racing and the catastrophic dangers its drivers takes.

Tall, blond and beautiful, James Hunt is the epitome of a young English hero with the world at his feet. His family had hopes for Hunt to become a doctor, but his combative personality against their strict upbringing ushered a natural love for racing. In an act of rebellion, he capitalizes on adrenaline: racing, sleeping around, drinking and drugs. On the opposite side of the spectrum is Niki Lauda. An Austrian native, he too could settle for working for his father, however, he defies his dad's disapproval to pursue his passion for racing. His act of rebellion is to show his family that he can do everything on his own. Often his looks are compared to that of a rat; brown musty hair, an overbite, and small beady eyes. Where he doesn't succeed in the looks department, he makes up for with his cunning ambition.

The passion to be behind the wheel leads both characters to be kings of the road. Their personality differences and work ethics - brawns versus brain - drives their feud. Neither Hunt nor Lauda are strictly portrayed as the protagonist nor antagonist; each is shown with equal virtues and downsides. For Hunt, it's his constant fast-lifestyle of partying and women. On the one side, he appears charismatic, however, his night-to-night dalliances threaten his natural talent. For Lauda, it's his direct attitude, which doesn't leave him with many friends but keeps his mental well-being clean to race without any inhibitions. Both characters are driven by their love for being the best in the world, and they have different mindsets for dealing with obstacles on and off the track.

Excluding his super-stardom brought on by the Avengers series, Chris Hemsworth manages to star as Hunt as a chameleon. He's a recognized movie star first by his handsome good looks, and then by his acting ability, which is becoming increasingly underrated. Daniel Bruhl is perhaps the star of the film managing to steal every scene against his co-star and others who star as his managers and wife. Lauda - for me - due to his Germanic upbringing and straightforward personality could've easily been a caricature displayed as a robot unemotional control freak. Bruhl manages to show and passion in multiple emotional layers that truly makes him the focus of the film's finale.

Perhaps the most refreshing aspects about Rush is how the racing sequences are edited. As a movie goer who enjoys seeing the action rather than cuts around characters in combat, I do not particularly like it when scenes are spliced up like a Thanksgiving turkey. Rush's cinematography gives an equal balance of seeing the cars race zoom around the track as a sideline observer and on the road as a driver. At high speeds, through hills, and pass finish lines, you really feel like you are alongside Hunt and Lauda as they push their automobiles to maximum speeds.

Director Ron Howard does a spectacular job bringing this vintage feud to life. The storyline is engaging and swift as we watch Hunt and Lauda battle around the world against each other and their own inner demons. The accolades for this film was seriously lacking in the 2014 Oscar race; surely, it could've earned a few with Direction, Best Picture or Best Supporting Actor for Buhl. Rush is a perfect balance showcasing racing in all of its dangerous and spectacle showmanship as well as the men behind the scenes who truly risk their lives to cross the finish line.

Rating: ★★★
Have you seen Rush? What did you think?

Blockbusted Blogathon

In the 2014 blockbuster directed by Gareth Edwards and starring Bryan Cranston, Godzilla is about to be unleashed onto the world again. For those who are not familiar with the original 1954 tale, a giant kaiju (strange creature or monster) attacks Japan - as simple as that. The classic version is beloved by movie goers around the world, though Hollywood has continually attempted to update the story and special effects to modern standards. A similar plot is being told in the newer version, and every new teaser that is released creates more and more anticipation for one of summer's most promising flicks.

Beyond this post and into the movie blogosphere, the hype for the new Godzilla has almost always included some layer of disgust for the last version Godzilla (1998). Starring Matthew Broderick, this monstrous flick was exactly that: an enormous disappointment to critics and audiences. The box office fail had every characteristic an aspiring blockbuster of the 1990s could have: cheesy direction, the hype, cringe-worthy one liners, sub-par characterization, the list goes on and on. Unlike other big disaster or monster flicks that gain a cult following over time, more than ten years later Godzilla (1998) is still avoided like the plague.

All of this got me thinking about the love of disaster and monster movies, especially ones that are not deeply appreciated by the general movie-going population. In my family, I've been crowned the queen of cheesy B-flicks. The list of my favorites goes on and on (however, even I cannot stand the Broderick Godzilla). Movies that I proudly hail as my favorites (The Day After Tomorrow for example) don't have the best scripts or characters. They might attempt to tell a serious story of the Earth being invaded but the material ends up reveling in fluff.

Which brings me to: the Blockbusted Blogathon. It's time to spread the shameless love for B-movie awesomeness.

Here are the rules:

Choose a super cheesy blockbuster B-rated movie(s). Genres include: disaster flicks (examples: Twister, Poseidon), alien invasions (i.e. Independence Day, Mars Attacks), creature attacks (Eight Legged Freaks, Tremors), retro horror (i.e. The Crawling Eye, The Blob), and 80s and 90s action (i.e. Total Recall, Armageddon), supernatural (The League of Extraordinary Gentleman, Van Helsing), and others like Battlefield Earth and the first three Star Wars. Here's a resourceful list for inspiration

In your post, include a picture(s) of your selection (etc) and reasons why you love that particular movie. Characteristics to consider may be the sense of adventure, the cast, the script, the one-liners, an nostalgic memory, the cult following. Share all the reasons why you are shamelessly in love with this particular movie; the sky's the limit!

Remember this blogathon is not about "bad movies"; it's about our unbreakable bond towards a cheesy blockbuster-esque movie with a setting, story, or character that introduces or deals with something not from this ordinary realm. (Even 90s action movies break the laws of nature and sane storytelling - so they count!)


Include one of the logos/buttons above on your sidebar or post, and link back to this post. Let me know about your post in the comment section, twitter, and e-mail. The deadline is May 24th. Wrap-up post will be May 25-26th. Good luck! Participants:

• Alex with Deep Rising
• Mariah with Reign of Fire
• Tanya with Galaxy Quest and Scott Pilgrim versus The World
• Sati with The Wicker Man
• Big Screen Small Words with The Running Man
• Mettel with The Island
• Maurice with Judge Dredd
• Anna with Independence Day
• Fisti with The Fifth Element
• David with Army of Darkness
• Jenna and Ally with Tremors and Mars Attacks

A Gif Guide to Writing Movie Reviews

It all starts with watching something right?...

Insurgent by Veronia Roth

By the looks of my previous review for Divergent by Veronica Roth (the predecessor to this book), it would seem that I would not touch the rest of the series with a ten foot pole. Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, because a girl crush for Shailene Woodley commenced followed by a decent adaptation, I somehow felt compelled to put myself through continuous torture. So, here is my review of Insurgent.

Picking up where the last book finished, our heroine Tris and her beau Four have ended the first round of drug-induced simulations where Dauntless (brave faction) were brainwashed to commit mass genocide against Abnegation (selfless faction). On the run from Jeanine Matthews, head of the Erudite faction (intelligence), the lovebirds and company escape to Amity (peace faction). Their next move is to discover why Matthews is hellbent on capturing the Divergent - society members like Tris and Four with special traits that make them immune to her mind-controlling substances. (Go with me on this!)

In a future dystopian world, Chicago is the main setting for Roth's story. Fenced in to incorporate five dramatically-different factions, the personality traits seem straight out of Harry Potter Sorting Hat with the characters' adventure taking notes from The Hunger Games. Part of me was grateful that my wish was fulfilled for the sequel to develop it's worldbuilding. Understanding how the science of the technological advancements, and a few of the actually unexpected plot twists, was by far the most improved aspects of the book. By far this was the best improvement to the story (as well as the necessary character development included below).

However, the other part of me wished the writing technicalities lived up to the worldbuilding.  Most of all the prose seemed to repeat itself. I can't count how many times Tris was at "the edge" of crumbling to pieces to symbolize an emotional breakdown or a stone sat in her stomach to emotionalize guilt. Dangerous situations in which the characters found themselves on the "brink of new information that could solve everything" usually lapsed into a catch-up meet and greet in every faction. New characters were often introduced within a few pages that would go on to reappear later to help out Tris in some way. The story would pause, let Tris break down, reignite her fears and determination - then presto, the goal of discovering why Matthews was trying to implement the serums would be back on track.

A major issue I had with Divergent was the dialogue which was cringe-worthy and the inability to tell characters apart - because of the lack of diverse communication. All of the characters' personalities ranging from younger teenagers to adults continued to collide into snarky sarcastic behavior. For a series about intrinsically different personalities, everyone sounded the same. A rolledex of the same insults and comebacks seemed to appear every other page. "Whatever" signified the end of a cutesy quarrel. Two characters that came from the same faction would mock each others' similar traits - repetitively. Tris and Four would gravitate towards honest believable exchanges before the dialogue would return to mush. Relating back to the prose, which did provide more than several chapters of substantial consistent storytelling and exposition, the written tone felt like Roth was capable of accessing deeper material but didn't or wouldn't flush out.

What made the story perhaps the most beneficial was Tris Prior continuing to be a truly refreshing dystopian leading character. I can often see Prior verus Katniss Everdeen (The Hunger Games) are the subject of debates for best leading heroine of the modern YA age. For me, Tris wins hands down. Inhabiting three of the five personality traits that make up the futuristic Chicago; selfless, brave, and smart, Tris is multifaceted in that she makes her own decisions by her own emotions and doesn't do so with the hopes of gaining her loverboy's approval. For the strict confinements that are offered in the setting, it's pretty awesome that she is capable of being more than a one-dimensional character - which everyone else seems to be. There's a constant struggle of standing up for herself and being brave for others in the most dramatic of crises.

Furthermore, I found Four to be a well-developed boyfriend/leading male character. What I find most frustrating in YA fiction is that couples run together on the same dependence trope; giving each other ultimatums, making it seem like the other person's love is all they have to live for. Sometimes they are forced to be so in love they lose their own identity. With Four and Tris, there is a magnetic friendship that blooms into an adolescent romance. Tris is not constantly wondering if what she does or says will lose the attraction he has for her. Four and Tris' emotions and decisions are separate, and where they collide in understanding each other's motives and their violent, chaotic circumstances. But rarely does Four hold Tris emotionally hostage, which makes their relationship an even better partnership.

Divergent was by far one of the most challenging reads to undertake in a long while. Its story and characters seemed so foreign to me, the mega-phenomenon this series has grown to be failed to live up to the hype. With Insurgent, and now thoroughly engrossed with the movies and characters, the world-building factor and main character's evolution was satisfying, even if the writing failed on so many levels. Perhaps even moreso, the material made me question if this story was worthy of three books to reach its conclusion. Is the material strong enough for me to sit through a reading of the third and final book Allegiant? Unlike my first review I truly may just wait for the movie.
Rating: ★ ★

Book vs Movie: Divergent

Set in a dystopian Chicago, the city has been broken up into factions sparked by an old war. The separation of society based on different virtues - Abnegation (selfless), Dauntless (brave), Candor (honesty), Erudite (intelligence), Amity (kindness) - is meant to be the new world's pathway to peace. At the ripe age of sixteen teenagers must choose an official faction and leave their old life behind. Beatrice Prior, the main protagonist of the series, is a member of Abegnation navigating her way through the Dauntless world. However, there is more to her selection ceremony results that force her to realize she doesn't belong in this new compartmentalized society. She is Divergent - a member of the factionless that can't be mindlessly controlled by the government.

Based on the worldwide phenomenon by Veronica Roth, let me be the first to say that I didn't have high expectations for the film adaptation. My book review can be read here, however, let me summarize that I thought the film wouldn't be worthy of anything except to see Shailene Woodley and Kate Winslet. However, my expectations were proven wrong. Director Neil Burger (of the forcefully cerebral Limitless) accomplishes a fun entertaining young adult flick.

Reconsideration: Chicago (2002)

1920s. Jazz. Booze. Adultery. Murderesses on death row. Aspiring vaudevillian Roxie Hart (Renee Zellweger) guns down her lover Fred Casley (Dominic West) after he betrays her with phony show-business connections. When she is sent to jail on a hanging case, her faces off against chanteuse Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones) for the help of money-loving lawyer lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere).

Winning six Academy Awards (out of its total thirteen nominations) in 2002, Chicago remains one of the most celebrated and hated musicals of all time. Premiere Magazine named it "one of the twenty most overrated movies of all time", a type of recognition echoed on other prestigious film lists. As one of my favorite musicals, I've tried to understand if the hate is the worth the hype.

Spin-Off Blogathon by Cinematic Corner

Dealing with the loss of a beloved family member, Margaret's blogathon at Cinematic Corner was a welcoming challenge to say the least. As instructed by her post, participants select a minor character from any film that they would wish to see a movie made of their own story and provide the reasons why.

Emma Watson in This Is The End is the first "character" that came to mind. The movie mostly focuses on Seth Rogen and his pals surviving the apocalypse in James Franco's house. Every time I watch this movie, she is definitely one of the major highlights, and I can never stop asking the question how did she get here?

Book vs Movie: Catching Fire

As a reader of The Hunger Games series, but not a passionate enough fan to call myself a "tribute", Catching Fire was my favorite installment of Suzanne Collin's trilogy. Our fictional heroine Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), and her romantic companion Peeta Mallark (Josh Hutcherson), have defied the Capitol's ruling that only one winner can survive their yearly games where competitors fight to the death. Her perseverance and rebellion becomes a symbol of hope, not something President Snow (Donald Sutherland) is willing to stand for.

As victors, Everdeen isnow  forced to realize that winning is more complicated than merely surviving the games. As a regulation for the winners, she must live outside her home of District 12 and mentor future gamers for the rest of her life. To stop another rebellion on his hands, and to end the reign of Everdeen as an inspiration, President Snow summons Everdeen, Mallark, and twenty-four former veteran victors to compete in another round of his homicidal games.

I liked the first movie. Despite the use of the shaky cam and cutting important sequences out of the first adaptation, director Gary Ross created an atmosphere I felt was gritty and raw. When director Francis Lawrence was named to helm Catching Fire, I remained still excited to see what he would make of it.

No doubt the second book tackles more than a new creative vision. By trying to cover more than Everdeen and Mallark struggling with their relationship, the film includes more backstory and undertones of Snow and his new game-maker's plans to annihilate the country's heroine. The practice of showing us how the games were created and manipulated behind the scenes was used in the first film showing, but here it didn't add definition to Everdeen's story.

Even though I finished the series more than a year ago, and know the characters' fates, it was a struggle to feel invigorated by the film. In terms of story and character development, Catching Fire was underwhelming. The bigger scope of the film created distance from the gravity of Everdeen's circumstances and it lost a bit of the story's unpredictability. With steadier cinematography, it's almost like the entire film was harnessed to the ground and never took flight.

In terms of performances, Jennifer Lawrence was never my imaginary interpretation Everdeen. My mind doesn't only accept what I saw her as, but I feel like her acting is unsatisfying. Contrary to John Hutcherson as Peeta Mallark, I feel like she is a blank canvas that knows what to emote but doesn't necessarily have a backstory behind her emotions. When it's her cue to scream, cry, grimace, smile, etc. she does it well but not with conviction. Throughout the film, her well-documented off-screen personality seemed to show through more than the character we saw in the first film.

Digging deep, fleshing out, and making us care about the characters may be where the director loses the ante of this second film. Woody Harrelson as Haymitch falls into a campy personality as the alcoholic mentor. Donald Sutherland pops up as President Snow to emote the strict power of the Capitol. Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the new game-maker Plutarch Heavensbee pretty much phones it in. The acting in general doesn't push boundaries that make me terribly excited except few actors were cast in the right parts and that's about it.

When re-entering the arena, Everdeen essentially has her pick of allies that are older, a bit deranged, and some definitely not reliable. Few of these supporting characters have limited screen-time but make a strong impact. Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin) was one of my favorites, and I felt he accurately interpreted being more than a pretty face through sarcasm, protectiveness, and heartbreak. Jenna Malone as the uninhibited sly Johann Mason is a complete wild card. You never know if you can trust her or if she'll take an opportunity to screw you over, and Malone balances this with having nothing to lose - which is exactly what Mason is all about.

While J. Lawrence continues to shine in both fans and critics' eyes, Elizabeth Banks returning as Effie stole the show. Her character's fluffy personality leads us to believe that she is blinded by the Capitol's violent corruption. Slowly, Effie comes to a heartbreaking realization that her friends are going to die and the games are no longer meager entertainment. Passed being dolled up in Capitol Couture and her luxurious lifestyle, she wears the biggest facade of everyone. Banks superbly translates Effie's epiphany about the deadly reality her friends are facing and her own little rainbow-colored bubble she tries hides in.

The second half of the film establishes Everdeen's journey and political gambits of a Victory Tour that riled up the nation more than subdued it. Teaming up with Peeta, and her pick of the litter with allies, she is thrust into an entirely new arena with reconstructed obstacles. Reading the book, I was so interested in how this would turn out on-screen. As the characters venture on an island shaped like a clock, every hour pours out different challenges such as ferocious monkeys, a toxic fog that makes skin boil, and flocks of birds that mimic loved ones being tortured. If you step over one hour into another, a force field blocks you from escaping until the hour is over.

One of the things that the movie successfully heightens moreso than the book is the visual world of the arena. It's bigger, bloodier, more unpredictably cruel and savage. Besides Everdeen's bow and arrow or more simpler techniques of hunting, technology (mostly in the third book) is a blur to me. The prose isn't laid out in a way that is digestible to see. The movie's interpretation was most dramatic and hair-raising. It inhibits the senses and the environment becomes even more of a threat than her competitors and sketchy allies.

The first film defined Katniss as the unexpected symbol of hope. The second film's script lacked to formalize the importance of her well-being; not only as a solo character but what she means to the resistance as well. As a reader who knew the series' ending almost a year ago, this sequel didn't inspire me to ask how does Katniss dares to move forward. The production itself has the story, costumes, sets, and fanbase, but it took the edge out of guessing how this will end. A change in director was by all means meant to inject new life into the series but I fear it kept it flat. Overall, the movie is an honest adaptation. The story just doesn't tread far enough passed the epic blockbuster scope it was given. More or less it floats on the girl on fire phenomenon but doesn't charges a battle cry forward in support for her.

Winner: Book
Book: ★★★ Movie: ★★

ABC Movie Blog Challenge

Taking a day off from movie reviews, inspiration struck me in a meme sort of way. I really wanted to do an alphabet related movie meme or 30 day challenge, but finding one was more than a challenge I thought it would be. In free moments here and there, I created this meme which I hope everyone enjoys.

As all alphabet memes go, each letter is a theme or question to answer about your love of movies. Feel free to share this on your own blog, and comment with a link to your own list. I'd love to see what your answers and choices are!