Mico E. Aquino  

2-O

                                                Catching Fire

Not having read the book, I cannot say whether or not the film is faithful to the second book of Suzanne Collins' hit series, Hunger Games.

In Hunger Games, the first installment of the trilogy, the viewers had no idea what was going on. All they knew was that the Hunger Games- an event in the story- was some sort of Battle Royale done every year to commemorate a 'War'. This alone tells us that this was set in a dystopian future. What we do not know is the logic behind the Hunger Games, why it is done, what its purpose is. In the next installment, Catching Fire, we find out.

Catching Fire's story is excellent, as it explores the various secrets "behind the iron curtain", as one would put it. The Iron Curtain, as historians define it, is the partition that separates the Communist countries from the Capitalist countries during the days of the Cold War. The concept of the Iron Curtain and how it was a deciding factor between the relationship of the Communists and the Capitalists during the Cold War is sort of similar to the situation in Panem, where, for some reason, Capitol is richer than any of the of the Districts, even when put together. Now, the definition of the phrase "Behind the Iron Curtain" is that, up front the Communists look like they're having a better time than the Capitalists, but in reality, they're having more trouble than the Capitalists trying to keep things together. This is similar to the situation in Panem where, up front, President Snow and the government are "suppressing" (more like "neutralizing") riots and that any forms of rebellion are being suppressed, but in reality, the rebelling population show no signs of being deterred because of Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) being their inspiration/symbol of hope. And from here on out begins President Snow's campaign of making Katniss Everdeen a symbol for his government instead of the Rebellion. President Snow's attempts fail, and he is forced to change the rules of the year's Hunger Games' "The Reaping", where, instead of any random citizen, the "Tributes" will be the winners of past Games, for at this point he is convinced that all winners are symbols of hope for the Rebellion and seek to, as Grand Moff Tarkin said, "crush the Rebellion with one swift stroke!"

This plan backfires, however, for the Rebellion has spies all the way to the highest echelons of the government, in the form of Plutarch Heavensbee, the Gamemaker for the year. With Plutarch, the rebels successfully ruin the Game and, with Katniss in tow, begin their long-planned 'Revolution' against Panem.

Final score: 9/10

“They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.” 

― Patrick Henry

Short Film (10 minutes!) Groupings:

Cereal Killer - VALLENTE (1A), VILLACAMPA (2H), TICMAN (3B), GARCIA (4C), EDUARTE (1I),             ESQUIVEL (1I), FLAVIER (1I), COLOQUIO (2O)

Base One - PAMINTUAN (1F), EUGENIO (2N), MUSNGI (3C), DELA CRUZ (4L), DIAZ (1M), ORETA (1N), DIVINO (1O), MADRID (1O), SANTOS (1O)

Godmother - DAWANG (1A), QUIZON (2E), CANSINO (3B), TRINIDAD (4B), BAYOT (1G), ICARANGAL (2N), BALMACEDA (3F), FLORENDO (4L)

Ballpen - CHAN (1A), MARCELO (2C), ASTILLA (3B), ARMADA (4B), DAWANA (1G),  DIVINO (1G), AQUINO (2O), ASPERILLA (4M)

Misunderstood - MALLORCA (1G), OLANO (1G), LAVINA (1H), BAUTISTA (2O), LACSON (1A), CONEL (2H), FLORES (3B), BUMAGAT (4C)

Hunger - SANTOS (1I), IBANEZ (1J), SAN PEDRO (1L), DOREGO (2O), ALDABA (1C), CORONEL (2K), CRUZ (3C), DE DIOS (4H)

 

      Thor: the Dark World is in my opinion an improvement on Thor, giving it better action, better comedy, and an overall bigger scale. Thor: the Dark World definitely has more comedy than the first Thor movie. There are many quite funny moments in the movie and Jane's friends provide a lot of comic relief. I felt the comedy could have been toned down a little, but I thought that it was genuinely  funny, making me laugh many times and it did not get in the way. 

The action I also felt to be better. This is primarily because Thor actually has his hammer for the whole movie, so you can have that larger scale destruction. Battles are clear and easy to enjoy, but never too much that you get sick of it. The villain, Malakith, was underwhelming and never really impressive. This is not due to the performance of Christopher Eccleston, but it is because he is never really seen doing anything that shocked or impacted the viewer. He perhaps had one significant action, but even then it was kind of predictable. It is sad that his potential as a villain was wasted and he became your generic bad guy. 

    Everyone in this movie I felt did a good job, but of course Tom Hiddleston steals the show as Loki. He is in the movie for quite a reasonable time and provides much mischievous entertainment as both Thor and the audience are not sure if he should be trusted. The climax is entertaining and impressive. It has action, suspense, and a bit of comedy, nicely giving a satisfying last few minutes.

Overall, I feel that Thor: the Dark World is a great, entertaining movie and a good improvement on the previous movie.

-   By Karlos Dawang, 1A

THOR: THE DARK WORLD MOVIE REVIEW

by Lorenzo Vallente

                DIRECTED BY: Alan Taylor

          STARRING: Chris Hemsworth

                            Natalie Portman

                            Tom Hiddleston

                            Christopher Eccleston

                            Anthony Hopkins

Plot: The forces of evil are at it again, this time, threatening to destroy Asgard and the Nine Realms. When Malekith, leader of the “Dark Elves”, threatens to plunge the worlds into darkness once more, it’s up to Thor, Jane Foster, AND Loki to stop him. To avert the realms’ impending doom, Thor must destroy the Aether, a powerful weapon Malekith intends to use to destroy the realms.

Review: As you may have noticed, the plot of this movie is very straightforward, much like most Marvel movies. Even if this is the case, this movie in particular seems to feel strangely emptier than most movies coming from the Marvel brand. The movie is undeniably entertaining. The acting is adequate, the direction is fine, the action sequences are suitably bombastic and explosive and the humor is suitably self-deprecating and campy.

Let’s focus on the humor for a second. Much has been said about this movie’s humor. Many say it was brilliant and really funny. While I don’t disagree, I don’t necessarily agree with the statement either. The movie is indeed funny, but the humor comes too often and, at times, actually takes away from the story and the grittiness of the movie. In the scene where Thor is flying a plane, Loki consistently makes side comments and remarks, which are admittedly funny, yet distract from the impact of the action scene itself.

Now, one cannot talk about “Thor: The Dark World” without comparing it to the original “Thor”. If one judges the better movie based on mere mindless popcorn entertainment, Thor 2 is undoubtedly better. It has far more humor and crazier action. However, judging which is truly the better movie on a more technical level, the first movie immediately comes to mind as being superior. The first Thor was gritty, suspenseful and exciting. The direction of the first Thor was more to my liking than the second one as well. Although Alan Taylor did an adequate job, Kenneth Branagh really injected the first movie with his Shakespearean “quirks” and grittiness. The first movie had a lot of tilted camera shots, which helped enhance the mood of the movie, and each action scene was brilliantly staged without being over the top as most “Post-Avengers Marvel movies” seem to be. The first Thor was funny AT THE RIGHT TIMES, without randomly littering jokes throughout the movie as Thor 2 did. The actors, in my humble opinion of course, did a better job in the first movie (most noticeably Hemsworth) because he really played Thor as a gritty, sometimes bitter and even jealous god of thunder. In the second Thor, he is much more goofy and lightweight. The plot development was more rushed in Thor 2 and the finale came all of a sudden.

I know what you’re thinking, wait a minute, I thought you still like Thor 2. I do. I’m merely expressing my preference for the first movie.

Overall, “Thor: The Dark World” is an entertaining action-filled romp packed with (a little too much) goofy humor. I think this will satisfy Marvel fans until the next Avengers movie comes out.

PROFESSIONAL RATING: 7/10

ENJOYMENT RATING: 8/10

OVERALL: 7.5/10