Saturday, January 30, 2016

Top Ten Best Television Episodes I Saw in 2015


Another year down, another year of watching more and more TV through Netflix and YouTube. This year, I tried to broaden my horizons, watching more anime series so as to better understand the medium and watching more episodic television series in general. Overall, I will say the shows I've watched this year of a decidedly lesser caliber than the ones I saw last year. Most of the shows I saw this year merely served to entertain me as opposed to enthrall me, and the selections this year tend to reflect that difference. While I adored shows like Fawlty Towers last year, this year's offerings weren't as brilliant in either their comedy or their drama. This is not to say that these episodes are bad, per se; for the most part, though, they're not as good as the ones I saw last year, especially in the lower entries. But there's still a lot to analyze, so let's get started. SPOILERS AHEAD!

Honorable Mentions:

"Chapter 29" - House of Cards

In my eyes, Season 3 of House of Cards wasn't as disastrous as most critics made it out to be, but it was nonetheless a step down from the first two seasons. The plot felt pretty directionless; the only momentum the story really had was in slowly tearing apart the Underwoods' marriage and the rather effective Douglas Stamper arc. However, the political wonkery of the show started to fall apart, with the mechanisms of the Underwoods becoming increasingly bizarre. "Chapter 29," however, was my personal favorite episode of the series, pitting Frank Underwood against the equally savvy Russian President Viktor Petrov. The first meeting of the two characters presented two politicians who have clearly pulled more than a few strings to reach their positions, and their banter was incredibly fun, albeit intense. Petrov appears to be the one opponent Underwood cannot simply depose of: it's hard to beat a politician operating in a completely different political system. The duel between these adversaries was the best part of Season 3, and I can't wait to see how the relationship develops in Season 4.

"Flatline" - Doctor Who

Boy, Series 8 of Doctor Who was rough. Though I immensely prefer Peter Capaldi to Matt Smith as a Doctor, the episodes of the eighth series were not effective whatsoever. While it was nice to see the Master return (and as a woman no less), the grand plot behind the season was pretty stupid overall. (Zombie Cybermen? Are you kidding me?) The only episode that stood out in a good way was "Flatline," a fun science fiction story involving dimension hopping and some nice role reversal that actually gave companion Clara Oswald a bit more narrative purpose. Instead of feeling like a constant drag or a nagging mother figure, as she did throughout most of the season, she used her confidence to show the leadership we expect from a good companion. Plus, Peter Capaldi's dancing is downright adorable.

"The Murder of Sherlock Holmes" - Murder, She Wrote

Murder, She Wrote is a curious show. Its writing isn't as spectacular as that of Columbo or The Rockford Files or any number of other mystery shows I've seen, but Angela Lansbury is such a good actor that it doesn't really matter. Of the episodes I watched in 2015, "The Murder of Sherlock Holmes" sticks out the most, if only for the genuine tension the episode presents in the last few minutes. The reveal of the killer is one of the best I've seen in a show, one as heartbreaking as it is horrifying.

"A Matter of Honor" - Star Trek: The Next Generation

The closest entry to making the list, "A Matter of Honor" is a very strong episode of a science fiction show into which I'm having trouble making a tremendous amount of headway. I'm not a big fan of Star Trek's pacing, but I do appreciate its culture and universe. Of the episodes I watched in 2015, "A Matter of Honor" delved the furthest into said universe, giving us a better look at the Klingon lifestyle than most any other episode of the multiple series up to the point of its release. Furthermore, it's the first episode that made me truly appreciate the relationship between Riker and the Enterprise crew. The conflict of interest between Starfleet protocol and the importance of Riker's friendships is put on glorious display. The stakes are tremendous, and it's an absolutely enthralling watch. It just barely missed the list.

Number 10

"A Devil of Vengeance: Makoto Shishio's Plot" - Rurouni Kenshin

Some shows establish their excellence through episodes, others through overarching plots. While most of the episodes on this list fall into the former category, "A Devil of Vengeance" falls squarely into the latter. Rurouni Kenshin's Kyoto arc is one of the most engaging and powerful stories in all of shonen anime, a compelling story of personal growth, victory, and, ultimately, redemption. It's rife with the standard shonen tournament fighter tropes - high level battle techniques, increasingly powerful enemies, and oh so much screaming - but it has an emotional core far stronger than that of any other shonen show I've seen. Though their backstories are relatively simple, the characters are extremely likable and relatable. The show's chief weapons are its creative action sequences, its rich atmosphere, and, most important, its spectacular dialogue. The stories are simple, but they're related in just the right way as to draw the maximum pathos. "A Devil of Vengeance" is the beginning of this excellent arc, and it's a tremendous introduction to one of shonen's best stories.

A word of warning: "A Devil of Vengeance" shouldn't be watched unless one has watched the preceding episode, "Strongest Opponent of the Past: Merciless Fangs Strike." In it, we are introduced to Saito Hajime, the only swordsman we've yet encountered able to match our hero, Kenshin Himura, blade for blade. That episode establishes the long-held animosity between the two swordsmen: the two were the best fighters on either sides of the shogunate wars that ended Japan's Edo period. "A Devil of Vengeance" begins mid-duel, featuring the best combat animation in the entire series. Both the speed and the attention to detail are incredible: every drop of blood or sweat, every wrinkle in their robes, every spark of their blades pops. It's truly a sight to behold.

Every frame looks this good. Behold the excellent character design.
Even more important, the combat actually has a narrative function. The real fight isn't the battle between Kenshin and Saito, but the battle between Kenshin and his past. Saito holds the upper hand throughout the entire duel, throwing aside Kenshin's offense effortlessly and exploiting every vulnerability. The only way Kenshin can match him is tapping into his own darker side, his former identity of Battousai - the "Man Slayer." While Kenshin strives to be a servant to others and a gentle wanderer, the Battousai has no compunctions killing anything or anyone that moves. Worst of all, once Kenshin dips into that side of himself, it's nearly impossible for him to extricate himself from his bloodlust. It's the same principle guiding the One Ring of J.R.R. Tolkein's Lord of the Rings: the power of the Battousai is more than able to save Kenshin's life, but using that power makes him lose that which is worth living. We feel terrible when Saito wounds Kenshin, but we feel even worse when Kenshin turns the tide and begins wailing on Saito. The fight scene takes up almost half the episode's run time, but it's a fight that actually advances the story and develops the character.

And then there's a plot twist.

We learn Saito was only fighting Kenshin so to test his strength; in actuality, Saito is an undercover cop for the Meiji government who needs Kenshin's help to eliminate an even greater threat to Japan. In the final half of the episode, we learn of the Meiji government's vested interest in eliminating the real Big Bad of the series, Makoto Shishio. Shishio himself is a foreboding villain, a murderous hitokiri intent upon destroying the Meiji government with an army of the world's most lethal warriors. Saito is but the opening test, an appetizer for the fights to come. This reveal makes the audience interested in watching the rest of the arc: how much more powerful is Shishio than Saito? Will Kenshin have to fully transform into the Battousai in order to match this new threat? With these factors in mind, "A Devil of Vengeance" is a tremendous piece of set-up for a great story full of excellent character development, great animation, and some of the most enthralling "narrative through combat" in anime history.

Number 9

"Changing Channels" - Supernatural

Supernatural is not a show for me. Is it a bad show? I'd hesitate to say so, but it's got more than a few flaws. The misogyny is pretty blatant (AKA killing every major female character), the acting is incredibly rusty (if I have to look at Jensen Ackles's pouty face one more time, I swear to God...), the pacing is rather spotty (the first season is as painful as a root canal), and the effects and atmosphere are, at best, underwhelming (someone clearly watched Lost before designing the demon effect). However, the main reason I don't like it is simple: I don't like the main characters. I find both Sam and Dean Winchester extremely unlikable; the objectively bad performances of both Jensen Ackles and Jared Padalecki combined with the melodrama of the script makes for two characters I'm bound to dislike.

That said, I do enjoy Supernatural when it decides to stop taking itself seriously and focuses solely on the humor. "Changing Channels" is easily the funniest episode of Supernatural I've seen, as it's little more than a series of television parodies loosely strung together by a plot to discover the true identity of the Trickster who has pestered the Winchester brothers throughout three seasons. The Trickster traps Sam and Dean inside the television programs of the Supernatural universe, forcing them to play their roles in the shows in order to survive. From an insane Japanese game show, to Knight Rider, to a commercial for STD medication, hilarity ensues. The real humor here isn't so much the accuracy of the parodies themselves as it is the absurdity of seeing two melodramatic characters forced into comedic roles. Supernatural is always at its best when Sam and Dean are more relaxed and humorous, allowing the actors to play themselves rather than the characters. "Changing Channels" allows them to do that for a good half hour.

Speaks for itself...
Some of the parodies are absolute bullseyes. The cheesy sitcom opening perfectly captures the tone of bad sitcoms of the 80s and 90s: Full House is screaming as it is so lovingly lampooned. Everything, from the corny one-liners, to the canned laughter, to the garish set design, works. But my personal favorite parody is probably the "Dr. Sexy MD" segment. When one has lived in a household with two family members who love Grey's Anatomy, the horniest hospital on network television, one is more than happy to see a parody complete with melodramatic speeches, hushed dialogue, and characters best described as "the sexy and 'insert adjective here' doctor." It's equally funny to learn that Dean Winchester, the more stereotypically masculine of the two brothers, is a closet fan.

However, as funny as "Changing Channels" is, two factors keep it from getting much higher on this list. First of all, not every parody works. The parody of procedural cop dramas is extremely short-sighted, not taking any factors into consideration aside from one liners and the use of the term "ligature marks." Also, the Knight Rider parody just isn't that funny either, if only because Knight Rider was a ridiculous enough show to begin with. More importantly, though, "Changing Channels" isn't a particularly original episode. Teen Titans featured a similar episode back in 2005, in which a villain named Control Freak trapped the Teen Titans inside their television and forced them to fight him using the set pieces. "Changing Channels" was released in 2009; while I doubt the episode intends to plagiarize a kid show, the idea isn't exactly original. Thus, even at its best, Supernatural is towards at the bottom of this list.

Number 8


"Toguro's Wish" - Yu Yu Hakusho

Yu Yu Hakusho is a weird show. Not that it's strange: it's a standard shonen tournament fighter. In bare-bones terms, there's little difference between Yu Yu Hakusho and Dragonball Z, the tournament fighter anime to which all subsequent series are compared. However, Yu Yu Hakusho is a strange beast in that it is far better than it has any right to be. The characters start out as one note caricatures, but they develop into alarmingly interesting and compelling individuals. Indeed, the only way Yu Yu Hakusho and Dragonball Z are comparable is their genre: in every other respect, Yu Yu Hakusho outclasses Dragonball Z. The fighting isn't as tedious, there's less filler, the jokes are funnier, the characters are more endearing, the character design is sharper, and the themes are more interesting. Most importantly, Yu Yu Hakusho knows how to reflect on the action and question exactly what was at stake while our protagonists were duking it out. "Toguro's Wish" is the finest example.

"Toguro's Wish" ends the Dark Tournament saga of Yu Yu Hakusho, a saga essentially amounting to forty straight episodes of non-stop fighting. While these fights are admittedly entertaining (mostly because of the animation, not the writing), they don't amount to much more than visual Cinnamon Toast Crunch - bits of sawdust with sugar on top. Most of the stories and characters are cliché. Our hero, Yusuke Urameshi, develops as a warrior (I mean, "spirit detective") through defeating increasingly more powerful monsters, all capped off by a Big Bad villain named Toguro. Toguro is a brute intent upon destroying Yusuke so as to have a truly satisfying battle - a common trope among shonen tournament fighter villains. During the tournament, he kills Yusuke's mentor figure, Genkai, with whom he's shared a common past - nothing original so far. Finally, after a four episode slog fest, Yusuke kills Toguro and wins the Dark Tournament. The saga ends, with the viewer anticipating more action in the next arc. Yet, along comes "Toguro's Wish," an episode requiring one to reflect on exactly what was at stake in the previous arc.

The main focus of "Toguro's Wish" is uncovering the real motivation of Toguro throughout the Dark Tournament. The bulk of the arc makes it seem as if Toguro participated in the Dark Tournament so to unleash a horde of demons on the Earth and face one great fight against Yusuke. He even killed Genkai, his former love interest, so to make Yusuke a stronger opponent. Yet "Toguro's Wish" reveals an even darker story. As it turns out, Toguro abandoned his humanity to become a demon after the former Dark Tournament champion murdered all of his martial arts students. Once he defeated the champion in an act of revenge, Toguro realized that he loved power for its own sake too much to be truly considered a good person. Wallowing in self-martyrdom, he sacrificed his humanity so to become the last great challenge for a human destined to defeat him. His villainy doesn't come from the pleasure of being bad; rather, he's villainous out of his own sense of narrative obligation. His extremes end up destroying him in life.

Plus, Toguro finally takes off his sunglasses.
Yet Toguro makes an interesting choice. When Koenma, the judge of the afterlife, prepares to give him a sentence based on his good deeds and his bad deeds, Toguro requests to be sent to the lowest level of Hell, being tortured for 10,000 years for his actions. Koenma very nearly refuses, thinking the punishment too severe for a man who once did great good for the world. But Toguro's personal need to torture himself trumps even the powers of heaven. Toguro's wish raises plenty of questions. If his personal opinion manages to win Koenma over, does fate truly control his life? Are the narratives we create for ourselves more powerful than any divine dictate? Do divine dictates only exist insofar as we create them? Each question makes Toguro that much more fascinating. His brief talk with Genkai on the bridge of the afterlife is undoubtedly my favorite scene in all of Yu Yu Hakusho, and it's a powerful reflection on the nature of choice and one's place in the universe.

Some episodes do a lot of things right while not doing any one thing extraordinarily well. "Toguro's Wish" is not one of these episodes. Aside from the scenes with Toguro, Koenma, and Genkai, the rest of the episode is fairly average for the rest of the show. Yet those two main scenes are done so well that the rest of the episode doesn't really matter. Best of all, one doesn't even need to watch the rest of the Dark Tournament saga to really enjoy them. Thus, for anyone not desiring to watch the bulk of Yu Yu Hakusho, I would definitely recommend watching "Toguro's Wish" on its own. It's an extraordinary moment in an otherwise competent show.

Number 7

"Kimmy's in a Love Triangle" - The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt

Everyone who's had the pleasure to watch The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt knows how excellent a dark comedy it is. The story of a woman whose education was restricted to a ninth-grade level due to her being abducted by an insane preacher, The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt is able to mock the idiosyncrasies of modern society as compared to the 1980s while still managing to respect the intelligence of the audience and not offend those who have undergone traumatic experiences themselves. It's probably the show that made me laugh the most over the course of this year, featuring some of the smartest writing and best performances in a Netflix sitcom.

Kimmy Schmidt has finally found a stable living condition with her flamboyantly homosexual roommate, Titus Andromedon, a new job working as a nanny to the wealthy Voorhees family (no relation to the murderous family of Friday the 13th fame... though that is part of the joke), and even a new boyfriend in the über-rich socialite, Logan Beekman. Yet she learns that her math tutor and fellow GED student, Dong Nguyen, has romantic interest in her, and she's not sure which of the two men she cares for more. Additionally, Mr. Voorhees's latest marriage is falling apart. The eldest Voorhees daughter, Xan, is none too keen to live in Connecticut with her birth mother, preferring her entitled lifestyle; she thus enlists Kimmy's help to fake "bad girl" behavior so to stay in New York. Meanwhile, Titus needs to take acting lessons so to "pass" as a heterosexual, as employers continually deny him acting roles due to his flamboyance.

Not much can be said about this episode other than that it's got dozens of great jokes. Kimmy's aloofness to Xan's intentions in pretending to be a "bad girl" produces some of the best visual gags in any sitcom I've ever seen. The set design presents a massive caricature of the bad sides of New York only seen on television, what with a chalk outline on the floor, Kimmy wearing a T-shirt with "drugs" literally written onto it, and Titus storming into the building with a lacrosse stick. Titus's acting coach turns out to be Dean Norris (AKA Hank from Breaking Bad AKA the most manly-man character ever); the heterosexual male stereotypes that ensue are outright hilarious. How can you not laugh at quotes like "No! Straight men leave a buffer seat!"?

The best still from any episode on this list.
Plus, I have to give a shout out to the single best outro joke I've seen in any show ever: Harrison von Harrison Jr.'s "Daddy's Boy." During the episode, Kimmy breaks up with Logan after he reveals some extremely selfish tendencies; he reveals that he himself is a daddy's boy, much in the vein of a long-forgotten fictional Broadway musical. We finally get to see this musical in the outro. It's a complete black and white parody of the golden age of musical theatre, perfectly capturing the spirit of Guys and Dolls and similar shows. Best of all, the parody features the talents of Broadway veterans Nic Rouleau (The Book of Mormon), Jefferson Mays (A Gentleman's Guide to Love and Murder), and John Cullum (Urinetown/On a Clear Day You Can See Forever). It's practically a love letter to hackneyed early 20th century theatre and it's my single favorite joke from any TV episode I watched this year.

I'd definitely recommend The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt to any interested viewer. While the show hasn't quite developed the sense of heart of some of the all-time great TV comedies, it certainly has the humor to back up its intriguing premise. I can't wait to see how the show continues to develop the characters and the relationships in future seasons. If the writing stays this sharp, we might have a true classic on our hands.

Number 6

"Paradise" - Trigun

That spoiler warning I presented in the introduction applies for all subsequent episodes on this list except for entries 5 and 3. Heck, the picture used to introduce this segment makes it pretty clear that a major character dies in this episode, so you should really skip this one if you haven't seen Trigun yet... or, you could be like me and have this death spoiled for you and enjoy the episode nonetheless.

Trigun is the best shonen anime I've ever seen. Granted, I haven't seen that many; my attempting to watch so many anime series over the course of this year has mostly been my attempt to catch up to the cultural grade curve. Yet shonen anime have nearly always presented themselves as either immature (Dragon Ball Z), melodramatic (Code Geass), or outright rancid (Death Note). Trigun defies all of these labels in the best way. It's got its moments of comedy and over-the-top histrionics, but the characters themselves are extremely adult. Vash the Stampede is one of the best protagonists in any young adult television series, a character haunted by his apocalyptic past but not defined by it. His enemies are truly monstrous, from his species-ist and über-utilitarian brother, Knives, to Knives's even more lethal and genocidal second-in-command, Legato Bluesummers. Yet Vash's most dangerous enemy ends up being his best friend: a preacher-gunslinger named Nicholas D. Wolfwood. Though the two save each others' lives on many an occasion, we eventually find out Wolfwood is an unwilling member of the Gung-Ho Guns dedicated to killing Vash and his friends. "Paradise" finally pits the two friends against each other. And the outcome is heartbreaking.

Yeah. The Biblical symbolism is pretty overt in this show.
"Paradise" is full of exciting gunfights against a number of memorable opponents, not least of which is the brief fight between Vash and Wolfwood, but the real battle is one of ideology. Trigun is a very Christian show: the series might as well be an Aesop's fable for "turn the other cheek." Vash's main goal throughout the show is to defeat his enemies without killing them, trying to have them renounce their wicked ways on their own terms. Nonetheless, either innocents, turned sinners, or both end up dying anyways, as killers like Legato are all too willing to pull the trigger when Vash won't. Thus, Vash constantly fears whether or not he ends up destroying more lives than he saves. Wolfwood, on the other hand, is strictly utilitarian. He will do whatever it takes to save the most lives as possible. He follows this code even if it means killing Vash, whose body is a ticking hydrogen bomb, or killing children indoctrinated into following Knives's and Legato's genocidal manifesto. Wolfwood only joins the Gung-Ho Guns so to protect an orphanage of children from being killed by the other members. Vash stands in his way, criticizing Wolfwood for his point of view. It is better to try and save everyone without killing rather than sacrifice the some for the needs of the many. In the true climax of the episode, Vash offers Wolfwood a chance to permanently trade roles: should Wolfwood kill Vash, he must swear to never take another life, no matter the cost. Jesus Christ offers John the Baptist a chance to take up his cross.

While the philosophy of the episode is fascinating, it doesn't get in the way of traditional character development. The conclusion of Vash and Wolfwood's battle has as much to do with the 12 episodes of preceding character development as it does the characters' personal philosophies. As Wolfwood makes his choice, he's not just reflecting upon the purpose of his life; he's considering his friendship with Vash, the various things the two have done for each other, Vash's companion, Milly, whom he has come to love, his tutelage under Chapel, the most lethal gunman of the Gung-Ho Guns - all of these factors spiral into a few frames, but their impact is clear. We reflect upon exactly why we like both Vash and Wolfwood as characters. They're not merely physical embodiments of abstract principles; they're very real people we've come to care about via their banter, battles, and brotherhood. The choice has tremendous weight, on both a philosophical and a personal level.

Yet the episode's tragic denouement is a reflection upon what happens when choice is denied. As one could probably tell from the thumbnail, Wolfwood dies at the end of this episode, sacrificing his life to save his friends. However, he only dies because Legato, gifted with the ability to telekinetically control others' bodies, forces an unwilling Chapel to pull the trigger. As Wolfwood's lifeblood pours out, he questions exactly what choices he made in the past. If one was ignorant of the good choice, was one really guilty of performing the evil option? Were the choices he made in the past too damning for his sacrifice to count? Is dying itself a matter of fate or a matter of will? The lack of resolution haunts Wolfwood, as he declares "I did not want to die this way!" right before succumbing to his injuries. The cut to Milly crying after Wolfwood dies is the most punishing edit on the entire list.

"Paradise" presents an interesting examination of Christian values versus Benthamian utilitarianism through a gunfight between two friends. It completes one of the most important character arcs of Trigun. It's spectacularly animated, thrillingly paced, and genuinely affecting. It's the saddest episode on this list, but it's the kind of sadness that any television fan enjoys.

Number 5

"Threat Level Midnight" - The Office (US)

Guess who came late to The Office party? Back when I was in high school, The Office was the show all of my friends watched, quoted, and breathed. However, I didn't watch much television at all during high school, so most of the references and characters went completely over my head. For a few months, I didn't even know where the quote "that's what she said" came from. Now, having watched the show all the way through, I find its influence staggering. So much of the humor my educational cohort uses on social media is inspired directly from The Office. Indeed, our very sense of comedic timing seems to be derived from this show and no other, from the pauses to the delivery. While I can't say I love the show, as it wasn't as funny as many older comedy shows I've seen, I completely understand why it became the quintessential network television comedy of my generation.  Thus, I've chosen the episode at which I laughed the hardest: "Threat Level Midnight."

Some might criticize this choice, as it isn't really an episode of The Office; it doesn't even follow the plot of the main series. It's mostly the airing of Michael Scott's home movie, "Threat Level Midnight," at an office party. The film in question is a film that's equal parts Michael Bay and Ed Wood: preposterously over-the-top in its action sequences yet so incompetent in its filming that it ends up completely lovable. Within the story itself, the secret agent, Michael Scarn, must stop the evil Goldenface from blowing up the NHL All-Star game. Meanwhile, the actual characters in the office must hold back their laughter lest Michael stop them from watching the movie so to protect his pride. Thus, there's a nice bit of tension between the fictional audience and the real audience: while we are laughing hysterically at all the bad jokes, they must try to watch the film as if it were serious.

"Threat Level Midnight" has two factors putting it above any other episode of The Office. The first, obviously, is the humor. I laughed more at "Threat Level Midnight" than any other episode. Most of the popular episodes of The Office focus more on the character interactions and dynamics than the jokes; however, speaking personally, I always found the jokes far more compelling than the relationships. While I liked the Jim-Pam friendship-relationship-marriage, it wasn't the reason I kept watching. Usually, each episode has at least one really funny joke, a bunch of less funny jokes, and a good amount of relationship drama. Are these inherently bad? No. However, I'd rather have an episode that keeps me laughing; on that end, "Threat Level Midnight" more than succeeds. Everything - from the stinted dialogue, to the preposterously bad special effects, to the bizarro plotting - is so bad it's good. For any fan of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, this is a must watch.

But the more important factor, oddly enough, is the episode's continuity and sense of detail. "Threat Level Midnight" was shot at the same time as the rest of the Office's seventh season, but the producers of the show make it appear as if the movie was filmed as the show's narrative was progressing. We see characters who only appeared in a few seasons, like Rashida Jones's Karen from Season 3, in multiple silly cameos. Not only that, but the cameos also span the entire length of the show, drawing upon every previous season. More crucially, every bit of costume and make-up design reflects the production of the movie in the continuity of the show. Jan's cameo was clearly shot in Season 4, when the character was in a relationship with Michael. Jim and Pam's scenes were shot in Season 2, when the pair's relationship was still on edge. All the bells and whistles fit, making "Threat Level Midnight" as much an ode to The Office's metahistory as it is an ode to Ed Wood movies.

"Threat Level Midnight" is a fun ride from beginning to finish. It made me laugh more than any other episode of television I saw in 2015. I'll leave you all with a request to "do the Scarn."


Number 4

"Can You Face Your True Feelings" - Puella Magi Madoka Magica

Puella Magi Madoka Magica might be Japanese, but it's really Greek. To be unnecessarily more specific, it's a Greek Sophoclean tragedy, for hamartia, also known as "the fatal flaw," is the show's central mechanic. In PMMM, every character gets the deal of a lifetime: make one wish - with any scope whatsoever - and spend the rest of one's life fighting monsters as a "magical girl." Nearly every character is eager to accept the wish... except those who know the real outcome. As it turns out, one's wish is one's downfall. "Can You Face Your True Feelings" is the first time we see this happen, and the result is heartbreaking.

Sayaka Miki is my favorite character in PMMM, as her personality and character are the most complete. Madoka is little more than an avatar; Mami is a rather standard mentor figure who dies early on; Kyoto is a generic renegade; Homura is a walking, albeit sympathetic, plot device. Sakaya, however, is completely vibrant. She's a tomboy who wears her heterosexuality on her sleeve. She's caring, considerate, and compassionate. She's energetic, vibrant, absolutely joyful. She's thoughtful, cultured, and principled. Of all the characters, she's the only one that acts like a real teenage girl, a completely three-dimensional character rife with personal demons and emotional inconsistencies. We sympathize with her the most. Thus, when she makes a wish to heal a crippled teenage violinist and becomes a "magical girl," we're rooting for her. Sure, one of the other characters previously died on the show, but, certainly, Sayaka will be able to endure. Right?

Wrong.

As the beginning of "Can You Face Your True Feelings" reveals, the real cost of becoming a "magical girl" is losing one's soul. PMMM's equivalent of Mephistopheles, Kyuubey, transfers the girl's soul into a gem so to give the body enhanced endurance. The body is technically dead, little more than a husk controlled by pure will. That's all that's left. The person, in essence, is a zombie with feelings, able to impart emotion to those aware of the pact but appearing as distant and lonely to everyone else. The Sayaka we've came to love died the moment she said "I wish." The loss of the soul in PMMM, commonly interpreted as an allusion to Goëthe's Faust, is, in a ways, an inversion of Faust. While Faust's pact is completed so long as he experiences one moment of perfect happiness, Sayaka's pact forever keeps that moment of happiness away. This level of complexity keeps PMMM interesting beyond its allusions to other media.

But could Sayaka's sacrifice be worth it? The episode gives us some hope by revealing the fate of Sayaka's personal rival, Kyoko. After revealing how her wish ruined her life, Kyoko implores Sayaka to never use her magical powers for the good of others and act like her: using her abilities to steal food, slay monsters, and enjoy youth. Yet Sayaka refuses to listen, vowing to use her magical powers for the benefit of others, regardless of the cost to her. For a moment, she becomes the Sayaka we knew from earlier episodes, in spite of the fact that her soul is now separated from her body. If anyone can break the cycle of wishes going wrong and ruining lives, she can. In fact, in the middle of the episode, she delivers a moving speech about the responsibility of using one's powers for the general good, leading up to one of the most emotionally uplifting moments of the show.

Note how I said "middle of the episode." There's a full ten minutes left. Within that time, we learn Sayaka is not so noble as she appears...

Those with weaker constitutions, have your tissues on standby.
Sayaka's wish comes not from a desire to make the world a better place by bringing back a prodigious musician, nor from a place of merely trying to heal one person's injuries. No: Sayaka has Florence Nightingaled over her friend for too long and has fallen in love with him. But, like Hans Christian Andersen's Little Mermaid, after saving her beloved's life, her sacrifice damns her. When one of Sayaka's friends reveals that she, too, has affection for Sayaka's love interest, Sayaka realizes she must cede her opportunity of dating him to her. After all, who could love someone whose soul has been ripped from her body? Who could love a literal zombie? Worse than that, Sayaka realizes that her choice hasn't just taken away this relationship from her, but any future relationship. She can never get a job. She can never start a family. She can never feel the warmth of a kiss from anyone. All these thoughts come pouring out at once; even if not stated explicitly, we can see the full range of emotions racing through Sayaka's mind. The result is downright heartbreaking.

Subsequent episodes of the show reveal the full extent of Sayaka's downfall and the anguished plights of her other friends, but none hit harder than "Can You Face Your True Feelings." While most other episodes translate their deepest meaning only through symbolism, "Can You Face Your True Feelings" allows its very dialogue to question the deeper implications of hamartia and the Faustian pact. The art is spectacular and expressive, featuring great character models, backgrounds, and animation. The animators even incorporate a number of unique styles to differentiate between characters' perspectives. The episode is perfectly structured to build up the viewer emotionally before completely shattering our hopes, much like the pact does to Sayaka. By the end, the viewer is an emotional wreck. Yet, as sad as the viewer feels, Sayaka has gotten beyond her pain, as she embraces her soulless side and mindlessly hacks into the body of a witch she has killed. Over and over again.

Number 3

"The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street" - The Twilight Zone

Ah, there are few things The Twilight Zone didn't do better than anything else. After all, it's the show that inspired the title to my blog. Yet, I have not seen every episode, or, indeed, a majority of the episodes. So, why do I praise it so much? A few years back, I saw a few sporadic episodes from the later seasons and loved all of them. But, when I did some research, I didn't even watch the most acclaimed episodes of the show. Thus, I've determined myself to watch every episode. Since then, I've used The Twilight Zone as a bit of a palate cleanser. When I watch a bad movie or a string of bad TV episodes from other shows, I turn on an episode of The Twilight Zone and take in all the brilliant writing, excellent acting, clever set design, and glorious atmosphere. In 2015, my favorite episode that I saw was "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" - one of the more popular episodes, to be sure, but undoubtedly one of the best.

When a suburban town suddenly loses power to all electronics, even battery-powered machines like cars, the townsfolk become considerably agitated. Suspicion begins to foment when one of the local boys, Tommy, describes a story he read in which aliens wiped out all power in a town and then used a sleeper agent to destroy the townsfolk. Most laugh Tommy off, but several coincidences make it appear as if some people might have more power than the rest. Soon, the citizens are at each others' throats, all accusing each other of being a sleeper agent intent on killing them. It's Cold War, Red Scare paranoia at its finest, with a twist ending perfectly suited to The Twilight Zone.

Most critics are content to merely describe "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" as a simple metaphor for McCarthyist America, but I think the parallel is more complex than the average review presents. All of the characters in "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" have their idiosyncrasies and quirks; these elements don't merely advance the plot but, rather, advance the metaphors of the episode. Pete Van Horn, the greatest victim of the episode, is a hard-working man merely trying to get his car to work. Being busy trying to find out what's going on, he stays away from the paranoid behavior of all the other characters. Ultimately, he's the only character to explicitly die in the episode, suggesting that the innocents are the real victims of Red Scare paranoia. Charlie Farnsworth, the most unlikeable character in the episode, is gluttonous and consumptive, nearly always chowing down on something while brashly accusing someone of being the sleeper agent. He fills in the capitalist stereotype quite nicely, proving the most cowardly and emotionally empty of the townsfolk. Les Goodman is an insomniac with few social graces; he's ultimately the first one accused, echoing the fates of foreigners in the US who haven't quite picked up all the social mores of the nation. They become the first scapegoats before the nation's people ultimately turn on each other. Helping all of this is the excellent acting: there's not one bad performance in the entire ensemble.

Yet the metaphor wouldn't work if not for The Twilight Zone's always immaculate pacing and editing. The tension of this episode mounts with each shot and musical cue. Every slight change to the status quo, from Les Goodman's car starting without warning to Van Horn ominously walking down the street, hammer swinging from his belt-loop, builds up momentum. Wide-angle lenses distort the human face as to make the townsfolk increasingly alien as the episode progresses. The final montage of chaos in the town is one of the most effective uses of montage in television history, perfectly accenting the horrors of small-town riots. The Twilight Zone never skimps out on detail, and "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" shows off the best of the show's film-level craft.

Needless to say, "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street" is a superb episode of one of the greatest television series ever made. The episode is an indisputable classic able to maintain a tremendous reputation and critical standing. It's got craft, character, and clever writing. I certainly had a blast watching it, and any viewer will certainly see the same. What are you waiting for? See it now if you haven't already.

Number 2

"Face Off" - Breaking Bad

It wasn't the second coming of Shakespeare, but Breaking Bad was pretty damn good.

Last year, I expressed some skepticism at the massive critical acclaim of Breaking Bad. I thought it was just another post-Sopranos television drama about an anti-hero caught up in a relentlessly violent world. The hero becomes the villain? How many times have I seen that story again? Hm... Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Star Wars, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Doctor Who... and that's not even getting into the number of times comic books and classic literature have done this. While the show certainly had excellent production values and some strong episodes - "And the Bag's in the River" being especially memorable - it certainly didn't seem like a masterpiece from the get go. The second season had some pretty spectacular mis-steps, with more than a few plot points stretching my suspension of disbelief to unnatural limits. A show dedicated to hyper-realism has two planes crashing into each other during the season 2 finale - really? I can expect that kind of insanity on House of Cards, but not on this show. Yet, by the middle of Season 3, I can't deny that I was completely hooked. Breaking Bad might not be particularly original, but the sheer quality of its craft can win over even the most skeptical viewer. Any of the episodes from Seasons 3-5 could have made this episode, but I had to go with the most satisfying season finale I've seen in a long time - "Face Off."

By the end of Season 4, high school teacher turned meth cook Walter White has gotten into a rut with his employer, the nigh-invincible drug kingpin, Gustavo Fring. By this point, White has killed multiple members of Fring's gang so to protect himself; the only reason Fring has not killed him already is White's usefulness in producing methamphetamine. By "Face Off," Fring has found his substitute and is ready to kill Walter White and his entire family at the slightest provocation. In the preceding episode, White's partner, Jesse, nearly kills Walter when he suspects him to have poisoned a child so to keep Jesse's loyalty; Walter convinces him that Gus is the one responsible. After all, we have seen Fring murder children on the show previously. "Face Off" presents Jesse and Walter White at their direst hour, itching to kill Fring but being uncertain of the means. Finally, an opportunity reveals itself: Fring regularly visits a nursing home to taunt a former drug enforcer who ruined his life. Walter White thus prepares his most dangerous move ever, and the conclusion is truly explosive.

Needless to say, "Face Off" has plenty of excellent plot and character development. Particularly, this is a spectacular end to Gus's character arc. Gus has been an omnipresent threat to Walter White for two entire seasons. He's a truly Machiavellian villain, not only seizing immense power throughout the show's run but also maintaining it with clarifying acts of violence and an appropriate balance of carrots and sticks. Yet Gus's takedown comes from the tiniest weakness, the sole instance in which a bit of his humanity and hubris shows. The only way Gus could have saved himself would be to abandon his soul entirely and to wholly subsume himself into the corrupt life he has led. In a way, the end to his story in "Face Off" is the perfect way for him to depart the show.

Walter has his great character moments, too. While the first half of the episode shows his peaks of depression and fear, the final moments of the episode are a somber reflection on just how far he has fallen. When he declares that he has "won" at the very end of the episode, the entire season becomes hollow. The full-out war between Gus and White becomes little more than a game, in which everyone else has become a pawn on the chess board. When the final shot reveals Walter White's true trump card, the audience feels sick for rooting for him for an entire season. More than any other episode in the series, "Face Off" shows Walter White at his most dangerous and foul; thus, it's one of the most engaging of the entire show.

But, aside from the character depth, "Face Off" is an intense thrill ride. Vince Gilligan certainly knows how to create suspense in the Hitchcockian sense. "Face Off" continues Breaking Bad's run of impeccable camera work, using all the right angles to highlight Bryan Cranston's excellent acting and emphasize central set details. There's a true craft to making something as unbelievable and occasionally ludicrous as Breaking Bad look believable; the show clearly mastered that craft come "Face Off." It's no wonder superficial fans of the show think they can behave in the fashion of Walter White or Jesse when the show provides so much cursory detail. The editing is excellent, the sound production is practically surreal, and the pacing is pitch-perfect. There's not a milliliter of extra chemical in this episode.

Really, my praising "Face Off" is actually redundant. You've all heard Breaking Bad is an excellent show. Hell, the majority of people reading probably watched it before I did. If you're late to the game, get started. It's worth it, especially for episodes like this. But, while Breaking Bad is undeniably great... it's not quite a masterpiece. That title can only go to one episode of television I saw this year.

Number One

"Azure, Paler than the Sky" - Revolutionary Girl Utena

Some television episodes force the viewer to question the structure of the show. Some television episodes force the viewer to challenge his/her own perception of a character. But few television episodes force a viewer to question his/her own outlook on, well... life itself. But that's exactly what "Azure, Paler than the Sky" did to me. Aside from "Walkabout" from Lost, no other episode of television has ever affected me so viscerally as "Azure, Paler Than the Sky." It might not be as exemplary in its craft as "Lonely Souls," "Passion," or "Face Off," but it engaged me in a way no other television episode has ever been able to replicate.

Revolutionary Girl Utena centers around a group of students using a girl named Anthy as their personal trophy, or, rather, a means to "revolutionize the world." One of their classmates, Utena, determined to be a noble prince, rightfully objects to their treatment of Anthy and tries to put a stop to their nonsense by dueling them. But, though Utena is able to rescue Anthy, the students keep coming to take her back, each gradually revealing the complex and often disturbing reasons why they want to "revolutionize the world." Of these antagonists, the best written is Juri, a closeted lesbian determined to disprove the existence of miracles after her heart was broken by her best friend and love interest. In her first character-centric episode, she seemed little more than a spiteful girl trying to ruin love for everyone simply because she couldn't find it. But, as the seasons progress, we learn just how fraught and complex Juri's love life is.

Though Juri is a lesbian - in fact, she's the only character in the entire show that's explicitly homosexual (implicit homosexuality is all over the place) - her sexual orientation by no means defines her. She's a relentless perfectionist, a far superior duelist to everyone else in the school, unfailingly loyal, determined yet cold: she is not one to be defined by stereotypes of homosexuals. However, Juri does have a sinister way of defining herself: her relationship, or, rather, her lack thereof, with her once best friend, a girl named Keiko. Keiko is, to put it bluntly, a complete and utter b****. I do not say this to imply that Keiko has any obligation to have a romantic relationship with Juri. Far from it. The problem is that Keiko intentionally and mercilessly taunts Juri: she dates multiple guys wholly for the purpose of spiting Juri, openly insults Juri on multiple occasions, and even uses Juri's life energy as a weapon in the Black Rose saga (it's complicated). Yet, in spite of Keiko's best efforts, Juri's feelings for her persist. Juri doesn't actively pursue Keiko, but she still takes Keiko's abuse, even when it's very clear that Keiko is harming her just to boost her own ego.

Prhaps Juri deserves the pain. After all, she did toy with someone else's entire life for months prior to Utena's arrival at the school. She did try to destroy the concept of miracles and love for everyone. But, unlike the other students trying to control Anthy, Juri stops trying to revolutionize the world after one defeat. She realizes that her intentions were wrong and does what she can to repent. Making matters worse, most of Keiko's cruelest actions happen after Juri's conversion. Thus, the audience is put into a difficult moral place: is this a just punishment for someone who once manipulated another's entire life? These plot points lie in the background for most of the other episodes of the third season, waiting for "Azure, Paler Than the Sky" to bring them to the center. At the core of it all lies a single question: why do we love someone when that love only hurts us?

In the preceding episode, we meet Ruka, the former fencing captain who has been absent from school due to an illness. He's a highly formidable duelist; after all, Juri, the current captain, was merely his replacement. Upon his return, Keiko, so to spite Juri further, starts dating Ruka; the power couple's popularity certainly doesn't bode well for Juri's emotional health. Ruka also decides to take Anthy for himself, but he loses his duel with Utena. Seeing that Ruka is a new character, we don't care too much about him other than his past with Juri. We see Juri feeling inferior to Ruka, from both her dialogue and her body language. His dating Keiko is but another injury. Thus, by the time Ruka loses, we want him to fail not only because he's trying to control Anthy but because he's also hurting Juri all the more. But he's a good deal more complex than we'd expect.

At the end of the episode, Ruka publicly breaks up with Keiko, socially ruining her. As it turns out, Ruka was manipulating Keiko the entire time, making her think he had fondness for her so that he might draw out the full extent of Juri's rage. Ruka has realized that Juri's skills now surpass his own, and he wants to get her back in the game. When the emotionally-addicted Juri comes to Keiko's defense, asking that Ruka date her again, Ruka blackmails Juri into fighting in the duels again. Juri, indignant, demands that they duel to settle the matter. She loses. Thus, in the last ten minutes of the episode, Juri once again battles Utena for control of Anthy's life. But, this time, Juri's not fighting for the sake of controlling someone else. She's not even fighting for herself. She's fighting for her loved one's happiness, even if it's fake. Thus, the battle has higher stakes than any other prior duel.

Yet the battle between Utena and Juri is passionless as compared to the duel against Ruka, the one that actually mattered. Why? Thus, I thought more deeply about the situation and came to a realization. Juri isn't fighting for Keiko's happiness, but Keiko's enslavement. Ruka clearly does not care for Keiko; any relationship they could have would be hollow. Plus, Keiko doesn't really care all that much for Ruka as a person. The only reason she cares about their breakup is the social fallout from being rejected by the most popular boy in the school. The relationship's only function is that of spiting and hurting Juri. Thus, the only reason Juri keeps fighting is to chain herself to her own pain. It's practically masochistic... That's when I realized that Juri wasn't actually fighting for Keiko. She's fighting to keep herself in a state of constant suffering, as if that's what "true love" demands.
My favorite shot in anything, film or television, that I saw in 2015.

But, just when I thought I'd figured it out, "Azure, Paler than the Sky" throws a huge wrench into the mix. In every other duel in the show, Utena wins by cutting off the rose on her opponent's chest. In this duel, Utena accidentally cuts off Juri's locket - a locket holding a picture of Keiko. Utena falls, giving Juri plenty of time to cut off her rose and control Anthy's life once again. We've come full circle, with an opponent with a motivation pure enough (in her own mind, at least) to rival Utena's. Yet, right as we think Utena is about to lose, Juri cuts off her own rose. And it starts to rain.

Some might say that losing the locket means that Juri gets over Keiko and decides to fend for herself. The message is not clear cut. What's definitely clear is that Juri finally begins to question why she loves Keiko rather than accepting her love for Keiko as a fact. Why should she fight on behalf of someone who has done nothing but hurt her? Why does she intentionally harm herself out of a misbegotten sense of self-suffering unrequited love? Going further, does Juri need to feel like she should be in love with someone so as not to feel alone? As the last few minutes of the episode elapse, yet more questions come forward. Can two people who are alone provide each other solace? Or, can they only cause each other pain? Is overcoming a misplaced love a hopeful process, or does is the scar permanent? Each of these questions peels off the episode as the petals of Juri's rose, washing away in the rain.

The last two scenes of "Azure, Paler Than the Sky" are some of my favorite in any visual medium I've ever seen, manipulating shadows and sunsets to create a sense of emotional ambiguity that's at once inspiring and haunting. We see Juri functioning as an emotionally stable human being once again. Meanwhile, Ruka and Keiko, two people who both tried to use Juri for their own ends, have ends to their character arcs that offer up a great deal of redemption for both. Yet, as with everything in Revolutionary Girl Utena, we can't take what we see at face value. The dialogue keeps all conclusions ambiguous. That's what makes this episode all the more rewarding. It doesn't have a clear answer, and every viewer will come up with a different conclusion. Needless to say, it's the perfect ending to a perfect episode.

The National Review's contrarian/hack critic, Armond White, once claimed television could never be visual art, but only visual entertainment. "Azure, Paler Than the Sky" is proof his assertion has little to no merit. All of these episodes have artistic merit, but "Azure, Paler Than the Sky" is art for its own sake. It's got great animation, impeccable voice acting, marvelous scriptwriting, fantastic artwork, breathtaking pacing, and complex themes. This is the type of anime episode I was looking for when I started looking into more Japanese shows last year. It's the kind of episode I can wholly endorse, with no qualms about sexism, saccharinity, or stupidity. I absolutely encourage everyone reading this to track down Revolutionary Girl Utena and watch it: it's the kind of show that can seriously change the way one thinks about television. This episode certainly changed everything for me.

Sunday, January 3, 2016

Movie Review #22-5: The Hunger Games and Its Horribly Flawed Sequels

The Hunger Games (2012)
Director: Gary Ross
Writer(s): Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins, Billy Ray
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)
Director: Francis Lawrence
Writer(s): Simon Beaufoy, Michael deBruyn
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Donald Sutherland

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 (2014)
Director: Francis Lawrence
Writer(s): Peter Craig, Danny Strong
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Julianne Moore

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 (2015)
Director: Francis Lawrence
Writer(s): Peter Craig, Danny Strong
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Julianne Moore

The Hunger Games is the first full movie franchise I've seen solely from the perspective of an unbiased adult viewer. I did not grow up with these movies. I have not read the books. Rather, I, like most of the movie-going public, found myself startled; what was this strange book and movie series sweeping the national consciousness? I felt towards The Hunger Games the same emotions most 20-30 year olds felt towards Harry Potter, Pokémon, and Spongebob Squarepants when I was growing up: confusion as to how the franchise got popular. Seriously, a franchise about kids killing each other in a death arena? Have we been transported back to ancient Rome? But, one winter evening back in January 2013, I ordered the film on pay per view, took a watch, and fell in love with one of the finest teen blockbuster movies that's come out in years. The Hunger Games is exactly what a blockbuster movie should be: a well crafted, richly plotted, superbly directed, competently acted film that appeals to all viewers mature enough to understand its plot.

Naturally, I was almost excited as everyone else to see the next movie. Unfortunately, Catching Fire left a bad taste in my mouth, ending on a plot point so rushed and convoluted as to leave me wanting to throw my popcorn at the screen. After thinking over the film for a few hours more, I figured my disappointment was just a fluke: the producers had to rush the pacing in order to keep the franchise moving. Plus, Catching Fire is based on a book, and plenty of children's book series end on massive cliffhangers. Unfazed, I went to see Mockingjay Part 1 with fresh eyes; unfortunately, the movie was little more than set-up for a second movie. That said, the set-up was far from bad, working on building character and establishing themes; the final movie had plenty of potential. Last month, I watched Mockingjay Part 2.

It's not good. Not at all.

I knew I needed to review Mockingjay Part 2 so to fully express my fury at what the film is, represents, and implies, but I was unsure of the best way to explain why the film is so flawed. Thus, it became apparent that I needed to review the entire franchise in one go, emphasizing what made the first movie so excellent and what made the sequels so disappointing, or, as in the case of Mockingjay Part 2, so bad. This extended review will go through each of the movies, exploring the best elements of each and exploring what I see as some of the problems in all of them. Thus, let's cut to the chase and discuss:

1. The Hunger Games - AKA The Good One


There is a direct correlation between the amount of color in the Hunger Games' movies and the quality of the films: the more color, the better the film. This is not to say The Hunger Games is A Troll in Central Park. Indeed, every frame has somewhat of a grey sheen to it. But, in spite of this bleaching effect, each character, shot, setting, plot point, and musical cue in The Hunger Games has more flavor than those found in any of the other films. It is an undeniably grim story, but it's not lacking in pathos. It is relentlessly violent, but it's not humorless. It is unabashedly in one's face with its themes, but it does not lack subtlety. The cast is dynamic, the set pieces varied, the world atmospheric: the entire film has more punch than the others. It's a spectacularly crafted movie.

Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is a 16-year-old girl living in one of the poorest district of Panem, a dystopian association of countries unified under a dictatorial Capitol. To keep the districts in line, the Capitol annually forces two children of each district to kill each other in a battle royale (pun intended) called the Hunger Games. When Katniss's younger sister is surprisingly selected in her first year of eligibility, Katniss steps in and takes her place. The socially distant Katniss unwillingly plays to the crowd, who sadistically enjoy the games as most average Americans enjoy American football. Katniss must also deal with a variety of side characters whom, for the most part, she'd rather not spend her time with: the drunken former champion from her district, Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), the airheaded Capitolist Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), the resourceful but youthful Rue (Amandla Stenberg), and her districtmate and admirer, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson). Ultimately, Katniss wins the Games along with Peeta, at the cost of Rue's life and facing the true horrors of a dystopian society.

Now, most reviewers claim that the backbone of The Hunger Games is Jennifer Lawrence's performance as Katniss Everdeen. I disagree. I'll discuss the many merits of Katniss later on, but the real strength of the film is the world-building. The environment of the Hunger Games is expansive, with each district, even the Games themselves, having its own culture. District 12 is a mining region dominated by grey shading and almost lifeless forests. The clothes are faded and tattered; the buildings are ramshackle; the characters are mostly impersonal and cold. Contrast this with the Capitol, a region of garish fashions, horrendously askew colors, and Olympics-level theatrics. Oddly enough, the games is the one region of the world in which some sort of cultural balance is achieved, in which all the citizens are made equal. Yet even this world is fraught, as the twisted game makers can generate monsters and new weapons with which to horrify the players. Best of all, The Hunger Games gradually introduces each set-piece in a way as to feel organic. Most of District 12 is shown in broad panning shots, indicating expanse and emptiness. The Capitol uses more tracking shots, accenting the hustle and bustle of urban life. The Games emphasize shaky cam, replicating the blurred vision many soldiers experience in the fog of war. Everything is intentional.

Admirable too is The Hunger Games' immaculate editing and pacing. No scene feels too long or too short. Each character is developed just enough to make a connection with the audience but short enough so as not to distract the viewer's attention from the central character: Katniss. The film handles exposition with a tact I haven't seen in a movie since Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. The Hunger Games must explain a great deal (after all, it is the first film in the franchise), from the literally poisonous politics of the Capitol, to the strategies for winning the Games, to the backstories of the characters. Though a text crawl establishes the base premise of the film, the rest of the exposition is story-driven. Granted, doing this should be story-telling 101, but most film franchises nowadays are content to present exposition dumps without establishing good characters (X-Men, The Amazing Spiderman, Divergent). Thus, The Hunger Games were extremely refreshing when they came out.

The cast is spectacular. Josh Hutcherson might have been a bad child actor whose agent couldn't choose a script for his life (Bridge to Terabithia, Journey to the Center of the Earth, Zathura, RV), but he certainly matured into a competent actor; his Peeta Mellark is clearly unprepared for the games on a physical and emotional level, but he is more than capable of playing to the camera. Donald Sutherland gives a nice subdued performance as the villainous President Snow, wielding power with effortless dignity. Amandla Stenberg is a good child actress, making a highly believable Rue. My personal favorite supporting cast members are Isabelle Fuhrman and Alexander Ludwig as Clove and Cato, the "career" fighters and primary villains. The two play up the sadism to a level just bordering on over-the-top. One senses that the characters come from a culture completely de-sensitized to violence. Murder has no consequence. It's only when their own lives are on the line that they actually show their humanity, showing the desperation of children. The two even have a subtle lethality to their partnership: Clove being silent and detached, Cato being over-confident and unhinged. Indeed, nearly all of the characters serve as much purpose as symbols and ideas as they do characters. One's emotional investment translates into intellectual engagement.

The same principle clearly applies to Katniss. I'm not sure how many people realize just how important The Hunger Games was in launching Jennifer Lawrence's career. Certainly, she had some fans from her performance as Mystique in X-Men: First Class, but The Hunger Games made her a superstar. Watching her performance, one sees the reason why. Katniss isn't just a "strong female character," in the vein of Emily Blunt's character in Edge of Tomorrow or Lois Lane in Superman; she's actually socially aloof and almost sociopathic. The only emotional connection she has with anyone is between she and her sister; she keeps everyone else, from Peeta, to Haymitch, to her own mother, at a distance. Even her clear love interest, Gale, is kept an arm's length away. It's clear Katniss's self-separation is her coping mechanism for the realities of mining district life, in which every day hides a new mine collapse, a new famine, a new pandemic. In the actual games, Katniss's hardened lifestyle is put to the test. Now, Katniss must exude social confidence so as to appeal to the crowd while maintaining her independence and innate defiance. Jennifer Lawrence plays all of these notes perfectly with a focused performance that is neither too aloof nor too engaged. Its intensity works in spades throughout the franchise, but nowhere is it more effective than this film.

Most importantly, the narrative structure of The Hunger Games is complete and cohesive. Every character and event has a purpose. Consider Haymitch - an alcoholic former champion who cares little for his district-mates; his fate, that of a political manipulator drenched in debauchery, is an eerie premonition of what Katniss and Peeta could become. After all, Haymitch shares the detached tone of Katniss and the social acumen of Peeta. Rue is clearly an analogue for Katniss's sister, Primrose: her death in the games suggests Primrose's death. With her gone, Katniss must find a new reason to win the games, be it mere self-preservation or, as is equally the case, the need to protect someone or something else. Will she protect Peeta? Will she protect personal autonomy? Both? The lamentable fates of each of the other fighters links clearly to his/her hamartia. The snarky Glimmer ends up stung to death by hallucinogenic tracker-jacker venom, trapping her in her own illusions of grandeur. The brutal violence of Thresh comes to an end when mutant dogs rend him to pieces. Clove's sadism comes to an agonizing end when Thresh repeatedly smashes her head against a steel wall. Cato, ever the arrogant competitor, is mutilated so badly that he faces the most pitiful of deaths: mercy-killing. Nothing is gratuitous; everything fits into a greater narrative.

Is The Hunger Games a perfect movie? No. Some of the characters are little more than stereotypes, such as the disposable Cinna and the air-headed Effie. The acting occasionally slips into melodrama. The love triangle between Katniss, Peeta, and Gale isn't particularly effective. The shaky cam in the Katniss v. Clove battle is distracting as opposed to thematically engaging, as it is in previous scenes. That said, I'm not sure what more I could demand of the movie. After all, it's a movie meant for teenagers, not adults. It's not supposed to be Shakespearean in its writing or Kubrick-ian in its cinematography. It's meant to be a story with enough allusions and deeper ideas to keep teens enthralled and adults engaged. The Hunger Games does just that, and I can't ask for anything more.

2. Catching Fire - AKA the One with the Stupid Ending


When I first left the theatre after seeing Catching Fire, I was practically spitting venom. I loathed the ending, and I mean, loathed the ending. Catching Fire felt like the Halo 2 of movie endings: a bitter cliffhanger offering neither resolution nor catharsis. I almost hated the whole movie because of it. That said, my opinion of the film has mellowed after two years. Most contemporary critics called Catching Fire a better movie than The Hunger Games; I disagree to this day, but I do recognize the many admirable qualities Catching Fire has. It's a film with likable characters, symbolically pertinent set pieces, extraordinary action sequences, and higher stakes than the first film: pretty much everything one would want in a sequel to The Hunger Games. Even the ending, as unsatisfying as it was and still is, wasn't as bad as I originally thought it was. So, how does Catching Fire hold up? Well, let's take a look.

Katniss and Peeta have both won the 74th annual Hunger Games, and in doing so, have brought tremendous hope to the people of Panem by refusing to kill each other. Indeed, as a result of their actions, mild rebellions have popped up in the poorer districts, particularly District 11, Rue's home. To crush the spirits of the rebellion, President Snow employs a special tradition for the third Quarter Quell/75th Hunger Games: inviting the old tributes back to the games for a tournament of champions.   Katniss and Peeta try to fake a marriage and pregnancy in order to get out of the games, but their ruse fails, only serving to infuriate Katniss's other love interest, Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth). Katniss and Peeta thus enter a new round of games, but this time, they have a larger cohort of allies: the heartthrob Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin), the murderous Johanna Mason (Jena Malone), the frail but loving Mags Flanagan (Lyn Cohen), and the techies Beetee (Jeffrey Wright) and Wiress (Amanda Plummer). Will President Snow manage to crush our heroes' spirits and the hopes of the rebellion? Well, there are two more movies, so the answer should be obvious.

Most critics prefer Catching Fire over the original Hunger Games. Heck, most of my friends prefer Catching Fire over the original Hunger Games. Why? I think the new characters are largely responsible. Most of the characters in the original Hunger Games function as plot devices, foils, and symbols rather than as human beings. Now, this is not to say using characters in this way is inherently wrong: indeed, some of the greatest movies of all time (La Dolce Vita) use characters as modes of relating ideas rather than developing them as persons. But such an approach to character writing is often cold and less than engaging: I'll elaborate upon this should I someday review Roma, Citta Aperta. The new Tributes in Catching Fire have very rich personalities and backstories. My personal favorite would probably be Johanna, a classist and psychopath who won her first Hunger Games by feigning timidity before ruthlessly murdering the last few competitors. Those killings practically released all her inhibitions, as she makes and seemingly breaks alliances with deliciously sinister fervor. While I never connected with the friendly and motherly Mags on a personal level, I cannot deny that her death scene was beautifully shot and emotionally affecting for those who liked the character.


Yet the character most people seem to love is Finnick Odair. I don't like him. Here's why.

Love for Finnick seems to come from a misbegotten love of the "bad boy with the heart of gold," one of the most malignant stereotypes of modern media, right up there with the "strong female character who lacks any genuine strength." He's snarky, overconfident, and wears revealing clothing, but he loves Mags like a mother and is really just participating in the games so to free his true love from the clutches of the evil Capitol. Now, most people who protest the use of "bad boys with hearts of gold" trope dislike the characters for their "bad" elements: no matter their good intentions, nothing warrants the initial moral misconduct. But, as I see it, it's the "heart of gold" that ruins Finnick as a character. The Hunger Games are supposed to be a taxing experience. Victory and defeat are equally soul-draining: it's just a matter of whether the soul leaves the body in the physical or the spiritual sense. Yet, in spite of this, Finnick is a practically perfect Prince Charming. He flirts with danger without any consequence, since he's that much better a fighter than everyone else. He shrugs off the worst of the Capitol's tricks with his spirit very much intact. Even the death of Mags merely manages to make him cry rather than break him completely. When the hero is this invulnerable, his odyssey has no real stakes. Instead of being a truly developed character, Finnick services as little more than a generic trope and teenage girl eye-candy.

So, if I'm not a huge fan of the characters, what part of Catching Fire do I like better than The Hunger Games? The action scenes. The Hunger Games had some of the most symbolically effective and engaging combat in any young adult film I've ever seen, using shaky cam for a genuinely artistic purpose rather than cheap theatrics. But I'd be lying if I said The Hunger Games didn't occasionally abuse its trump card. Catching Fire is not nearly so reliant on shaky cam, using crane shots and extended tracking shots to show off combat. The opening fight scene at the Games' central hub is especially effective. The other effects in the movie are also visually fascinating. Mags' death scene and sacrifice is particularly beautiful in its execution; I will not say many good things about Francis Lawrence in the two reviews to come, but I will praise him for this truly effective scene. Not to mention, the already great set design is turned up to 11. There's no doubt about it: Catching Fire looks great.

But, much like a shiny coat of new paint on a car or the graphics card on the latest Call of Duty game,  no amount of visual improvements can save a flawed interior. For Catching Fire, that flawed interior is the writing. Few characters share any verbal chemistry beyond bare bones relationships.  Most of the dialogue is extremely weak, particularly the romantic tension between Katniss, Peeta, and Gale. While the original Hunger Games made it very clear that Katniss's affection for Peeta was limited to keeping both him and herself alive, keeping Gale as the actual love interest, Catching Fire develops one of the most groan-inducing love triangles in teen fiction. Fortunately, the writers of Catching Fire manage to keep moping and complaining out of the script... at least for this movie. However, let it be known that Catching Fire and not The Hunger Games directly inspired some of the worst elements of the Mockingjay films.

The flaws go beyond the sentence by sentence issues. The plot itself is a hackneyed mechanism for getting Katniss and Peeta back into the games. Though some of the story ideas, such as Katniss's feigning pregnancy to get out of the games, are quite clever, they're never utilized to their fullest. The pathological manipulation of the audience is instantly dropped once the characters enter the games. Furthermore, the general lack of interesting in-game villains keeps the stakes at a minimum. The only real threats come from the ever unpredictable Johanna and President Snow's game design; though they're semi-effective short-term threats, they only serve the purpose of enhancing brief action sequences rather than real character development. Unlike the first film, nothing is deliberate; it's just a rough transcription of the book onto film that pays no heed to developing a self-contained and consistent narrative.

Which brings me to the film's "brilliant" ending... Catching Fire ends on a plot twist, revealing that the allegedly destroyed District 13 has been operating in secret to take down the Capitol and free the districts. Most critics loved the unexpected turn, putting it on par with The Empire Strikes Back's "No, I am your father" or The Usual Suspect's "the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist." However, those twists work because there's plenty of clues hinting to them throughout the movie. Once one knows the twist, one can appreciate the subtleties of the preceding details all the more. Catching Fire offers no clues. Rather, the reveal of District 13 comes practically out of nowhere, being hardly mentioned in the previous two films whatsoever. The only time I actually remembered them was from the opening text crawl of the first movie. What's even more infuriating is that Suzanne Collins apparently had new characters who introduced the idea of District 13 still being around in the original Catching Fire book; the Catching Fire film drops this point entirely: a simple fix gone kaput. Worst of all, the reveal is horrendously paced, giving a mere three minutes of screen time to an entirely new plot point that completely changes the tone of the series. The audience barely has time to process the twist before the film abruptly ends. Instead of being interested in a new direction for the series and appreciating the increased stakes of the franchise, the audience is left bewildered and full of questions. Where has District 13 hidden? Who are these people? What was their function before their extermination? How did they acquire the weaponry to destroy the Hunger Games center? How did they communicate with the Tributes? Indeed, there are so many questions left at the end of this movie that it takes an entire movie for The Hunger Games franchise to finally re-center itself.

Why is the writing this bad? Well, the writing teams of The Hunger Games and Catching Fire are completely different. Not one of the original writers of The Hunger Games returned for Catching Fire. The worst of these losses is that of Suzanne Collins - The Hunger Games' actual writer. The later writing teams lacked the direction of the original novelist, allowing for the theming and narrative to have duller impacts. Perhaps more important is the shift in the structure of the writing team. The first film's director, Gary Ross, was one of the writers, giving him a clearer sense of the material he had to direct. The new director of The Hunger Games films, Francis Lawrence, is not a member of the writing team at all. This disconnect leads to an overall lack of focus for the entire movie. Not to mention, the quality between the two directors is tremendous: Lawrence released the critical flops Constantine and I Am Legend, Ross released the critical darlings Pleasantville and Seabiscuit. The step down is palpable.

While Catching Fire is far from a bad movie - the nice action scenes and characters do pick up a great deal of the narrative slack - it is a significant comedown from the adrenaline and intellectual highs of the first movie. It's watchable, but I could only ever call it better than average. Ultimately, the high production values, rather than anything else, end up as the movie's saving grace. The film looks spectacular, and there are plenty of memorable visuals. However, those visuals don't mean anything within either a self-contained or expansive franchise narrative. Throw in an irritating, poorly paced ending, and Catching Fire was my first turn-off to The Hunger Games franchise.

3. Mockingjay Part 1 - AKA the Boring One


After being disappointed with Catching Fire, I nonetheless had high hopes for Mockingjay Part 1. After all, the film promised so much: answers to the questions left by the preceding film's twist ending, new symbols as opposed to the increasingly overused idea of the Hunger Games themselves, improved action scenes, more diverse locations. Most importantly, I hoped for character development. The "Part 1" in the title actually gave me a lot of hope, as these split sequels usually devote the first film almost entirely to character development. In fact, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is one of my favorite Harry Potter movies - ranked third after Prisoner of Azkaban and Sorcerer's Stone - entirely because of its focus on character. What did I get? A bunch of mildly entertaining images that introduced ideas without really developing them and a tremendous amount of build-up for a sequel.

As we learned in the last minutes of the last film, District 13 has been operating in secret to try to overthrow the Capitol. Their leader, President Coin (Julianne Moore), is determined to use Katniss Everdeen to fuel their rebellion, using her as a symbol of rebellion forces. To ensure Katniss's complicity, the rebellion reveals that President Snow has completely destroyed District 12, although Gale, Primrose, and Katniss's mother all managed to join with District 13 before the act of genocide. Katniss agrees, only to find out that she's not very good at the whole "inspiring people" schtick. Meanwhile, Peeta has been captured by the Capitol and forced to deliver propaganda for their side. Katniss manages to rescue Peeta, only for him to try to kill her. As it turns out, the Capitol has brainwashed him into becoming an assassin. The film ends with Katniss lamenting Peeta's fate and hoping District 13 can find some cure.

That's the whole plot. I only removed relatively minor details about characters for whom we don't need to care. Sure, we meet a few of President Coin's henchmen, but they don't have any characters outside their job description. There's Cressida (Natalie Dormer), the head of propaganda; her most defining feature is her weird hairstyle. There's Boggs (Mahershala Ali), the military chief; his only contribution to the plot is knocking Peeta out at the end. Gale gets a bit more development, becoming an officer in President Coin's army. But even this is but a small change: we don't learn anything more about him as a person, and he only suffices as a shoulder for Katniss to cry on. However, that role becomes practically redundant as Katniss has hardened herself sufficiently enough so as to not cry very often. Every time Lawrence tries to develop a character, the attempt fails due to the plot's inertia. As opposed to, say, Deathly Hallows Part 1, which actually used the set pieces to try to develop the characters, Mockingjay Part 1 is literally stuck underground.

The strongest idea at work in Mockingjay Part 1 is the battle between personal autonomy and the needs of the state, particularly with regards to propaganda.  As District 13 develops a military bureaucracy, Katniss must serve as their Uncle Sam, a role of which she is not particularly fond. Many scenes show Katniss struggling to comply with the demands of Cressida and the other members of Coin's cabinet, her antisocial behavior getting in the way of their efforts to foment rebellion. As it stands, though, these scenes don't push the idea any further than the original Hunger Games film: there, too, Katniss suffered when she was unable to connect with the audience. Mockingjay Part 1 tries to push the idea further by indicating that Katniss must harness the pain of others to make an impression, but that same principle applied in the first film: Katniss only ever seemed empathetic when put into contact with either Rue or Peeta. At best, Mockingjay Part 1 merely makes explicit that which was implied in The Hunger Games.

What's worse: Mockingjay Part 1 does away with nearly all of Catching Fire's redeemable elements. Interesting characters like Johanna are completely sidelined in favor of President Coin and her flunkies, who couldn't be more emotionless if they were Vulcans. The action scenes are the worst of the entire franchise, with edgy hand-to-hand combat being replaced with generic CGI explosions and a few trick arrows. The film is practically colorless. All the diverse locations of the previous movies are gone; all that's left are grey, war-torn landscapes. I could find more interesting settings in a generic first person shooter. The costumes are monochromatic, suggesting a hive mind mentality to District 13, but there's no plot element to expand upon this idea. Mockingjay Part 1 feels phoned in from every production angle.

The film's sole saving grace is its acting. Jennifer Lawrence is still a highly engaging Katniss; her facial expressions do indicate at least some of the modest character development she has received over the course of the past two films. When Peeta attacks her, we really do care what happens next. Liam Hemsworth might not have much to do, but he certainly makes the best of his screen time. Julianne Moore is even somewhat imposing as President Coin, even if the inevitable plot twist for the sequel is practically written into her forehead. If the dialogue is soulless, the actors clearly try their best to make it count. No one seems to be phoning it in. As far as redeemable elements go, though, that's about it.

Mockingjay Part 1 is a difficult movie to review, as it's barely a movie at all. It's clearly designed to set up the next film, and the lack of any real character development or thematic expansion makes it a challenge to sit through. It's just plain boring: something I couldn't say about either Catching Fire or The Hunger Games. I want to see where these characters are going, but Mockingjay Part 1 keeps spinning its wheels without gaining traction. At the very least, the film does clarify some of the questions Catching Fire's whiplash ending left, putting us on good footing for the sequel...

4. Mockingjay Part 2 - AKA the Soulless One

I hate this movie.

Mockingjay Part 2 takes all of the bad elements from the previous two Hunger Games sequels and puts them on full display. The stakes are nonexistent. The pace is horrendous. The acting is lifeless. The themes are trite. The action scenes are preposterous. The ending is an insult. Making things worse: the film tries everything in its power to defile all the elements that made the first film great. It's full of hollow action scenes, pretentious dialogue, and pointless character deaths. It's the DC's Countdown to Final Crisis, the Marvel's Ultimatum of movie finales: a death-fetishizing mess of a movie with a barely structured plot and an ending no less insulting than a punch to the genitals.

Katniss and the rest of District 13 lament the fact that Peeta's re-conditioning after his being brainwashed is more difficult than originally planned. Furious, Katniss decides to go after President Snow and personally assassinate him, hiding aboard a supply transport to arrive at the now war-torn Capitol. Coin sends a squad of soldiers to help Katniss once she learns it is impossible to call her back; these soldiers include Gale, Finnick, Cressida, Boggs, and a highly unpredictable Peeta. Using a map known as a "Holo," Katniss and her allies must traverse a series of booby traps in order to get to the Capitol, costing the lives of everyone but the few characters about whom we actually give a damn. After arriving at the Capitol, bombs go off, killing hundreds of Capitol children. Everyone assumes President Snow murdered his own people in an act of desperation. However, once President Coin reveals that she intends to set up a final "Hunger Games" to satisfy the rebellious districts, this time with the Capitol's children up on the screen, Katniss realizes the ugly truth and must make a choice that will determine the fate of Panem.

Let's start with the plot. Mockingjay Part 2 has a lot riding on it: after all, we had an entire previous movie building up the stakes of this movie. In the slightest respect, Mockingjay Part 2 provides a modicum of risk to the story. The addition of the unstable Peeta to the military group makes the mission a bit more interesting. Indeed, in some points, we do see Peeta act in a treasonous fashion, pitting the interests of Katniss (and the audience) against those of District 13. However, whatever good this does is insignificant compared to the actual mission itself. All the obstacles between our heroes and President Snow are generic explosions, Stormtrooper clones, and CGI gobbledegook. Even worse, these obstacles play out like licensed video game levels: I can practically see "Press X to shoot, hold L1 to aim" on the sides of the screen.

This pacing would be terrible enough on its own, but its effect is made even worse considering the slipshod characterization found in Mockingjay Part 2. The film tries so hard to bare-bones characterize each one of the redshirts in Katniss's team; no sooner do we learn the slightest bit of information about these characters than do they die. We learn Lt. Jackson has legitimate trust issues: dead in the next five minutes. We learn that the Leeg twins love each other: dead in the next two minutes. We learn Boggs doesn't like President Coin very much: revealed as he is bleeding out. The film wastes precious time that could be spent on characters we actually do like on cannon fodder we expect to die. We know Katniss, Peeta, and Gale are going to live, so we don't give a damn when anyone else dies, rendering the obstacles completely useless. The mission has zero dramatic tension, and it's the bulk of the film.

Then again, even if the film provided genuinely interesting characters and had enough time to develop them, we would want them to die anyways: the acting is terrible! Everyone in District 13 acts like a lifeless drone. When Katniss acted in this way in the first movie, it had purpose; her asocial tendencies both showed the harsh nature of District 12 life and made Katniss more vulnerable  in the Games and, by extension, more sympathetic. Here, it just feels as if these characters are dull redshirts: the only meaning they could ever have is accenting the threat level of some new obstacle. Julianne Moore's ice cold performance as President Coin, while threatening in the previous movie, is oddly boring in this movie: did something happen overnight to make her lose her acting mojo? The ordinarily excellent performance of Donald Sutherland as President Snow switches from off-puttingly succinct and lethal to campy and cartoonish. Liam Hemsworth's facial expressions are restricted to immature glares, Josh Hutcherson's to mournful puppy dog eyes. Even Jennifer Lawrence is terrible in this movie. While her previous performances had an edge, this one seems entirely phoned in. Thus, when Katniss has a huge emotional breakdown at the end of the film, the result isn't moving, but laughable. The most accurate parallel to the acting of Mockingjay Part 2 is Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, widely considered to be one of the worst movie sequels ever. It's THAT bad.

The script is a mess. Though Danny Strong has worked with Joss Whedon, an excellent writer, in the past, the talent clearly did not rub off. The exposition is extremely inconsistent, offering too much information about trivial pieces of plot information and not enough about more important information: I don't care about what a "pod" is (basically a booby trap), but I would like to know what a "mutt" is (a weird cross-breed of zombie, dog, and lizard-man). Romantic scenes are incredibly awkward, what with Gale and Peeta openly discussing which of them Katniss will choose while Katniss is in the exact same room! Note to Strong and Craig: real people don't discuss competing romantic interests with their rivals, especially when the person in whom they are interested is right in front of them! But worst of all is the heavy-handedness with which they treat the word "game": sure, the Hunger Games are a horrifying symbol for society's lust for violence, but I can only take so many puns before I want to throttle the screenwriters.

Keep in mind, all the details I mentioned above are only enough to make Mockingjay Part 2 a "bad" movie. Mockingjay Part 2 takes a sharp detour into "horrible" territory once we consider the actual themes and implications. In short, the entire movie presents the "meet the new boss/same as the old boss" cycle of revolutions. The video game, Bioshock, related this theme by making the player/audience member complicit in the revolution and a victim of the change in fortunes. George Orwell harnessed the power of this theme in one chapter of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Pete Townshend of the Who summed it up in nine words. What do all of these artistic media have in common? They all communicate the hollow nature of revolution: there's no happy ending within the newly crowned regime. How does Mockingjay Part 2 resolve this theme? Spoiler alert: Katniss kills President Coin in public. With Coin gone, the revolution gets a magically more moderate President and starts rebuilding without threat of new tyranny. How does this work? It's not possible that the one person who became President of District 13 was the only totalitarian in the new regime. One madman does not a despotic state make. Merely killing Coin should not serve as a reset button. But worse than the plot hole is the implication of the assassination: if the new boss doesn't work out, get rid of him/her too! Certainly the new new boss will be better! The film thus serves as little more than intellectual drivel.

But that wouldn't be too offensive... if the film didn't feel the need to pointlessly murder as many characters as structurally possible. For Mockingjay Part 2 isn't just content to kill redshirts: it kills more developed characters too! Now, one would think I should like this. After all, killing characters to whom the audience has an attachment actually leaves an impression. But such deaths must be handled cleverly, paying respect to the qualities of the characters. The deaths of Mufasa in The Lion King, Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, and Old Yeller in Old Yeller matter because their deaths reflect upon the importance of their relationships to other characters and the ideas/moral values they represent. Their means of dying, too, have significance. Not so with the deaths in Mockingjay Part 2. As much as I think Finnick is a bad character, even I felt insulted when Katniss had to mercy-kill him as he was slowly being eaten alive by mutts. Finnick was supposed to be a badass who should have went down roaring in fury as he cut off one of these monsters' heads; instead, he goes out whimpering like a baby. Even worse is the fate of Katniss's sister, Prim - blown up along with hundreds of other children for the sole purpose of shocking the audience. One might construe Prim's death as representative of the complete loss of innocence for Katniss, but that point was already made clear by Rue's death in the first movie. With her symbolic value removed due to Rue's sacrifice, Prim's death is completely pointless.

And let's touch upon the "bombing children" for a second more. Does Mockingjay Part 2 really need to blow up innocent children in order to make President Coin appear evil? This isn't just a casual plot point either: the film fixates on it. Little bombs disguised as presents fall from the sky, while children are being held up to the gates of President Snow's mansion in hopes of getting them to safety. One flash of light later, and bodies are strewn all over the screen. No one needs or wants to see this: it's over-the-top and insulting. All the filmmakers needed to do was show that President Coin was intent upon setting up a new Hunger Games for the children of the Capitol; the point was clear enough. But, no, we had to see her bomb children. When the audience sees this, they don't get angry at President Coin: we've already established that she's a bad person. No, they get angry at the filmmakers for practically ogling the deaths of innocent children. In essence, Mockingjay Part 2 becomes the Hunger Games themselves: mindless violence intent upon sating an eager audience. Mockingjay Part 2 has zero understanding of the message of the original film. The film practically gives the critical minded viewer the middle finger.

To top it all off, the ending is even worse than that of Catching Fire: even more poorly paced, terribly written, shamelessly optimistic, and pathetically acted. The script practically transforms into a Hallmark card of over-sentimentality and trite wordplay. The setting jarringly transitions from the grey and blues that have been the franchise's chief visual motifs to a garish yellow glow, as if to say the world is now a utopia of no worries. The film abandons the complex themes at work in the first two films, deciding to spend its last ten minutes wrapping up the love triangle. Worst of all: we find out Gale was directly responsible for the bombing of children. Thus, any romantic stakes the choice had are irrelevant: Katniss has a choice between a developed character or a child murderer. And, of course, we need to show Katniss with two children at the end, as if to say, "yes, girls, you can undergo two hellish games, a propaganda war, the sight of your sister being blown up in front of you, but, after it's all over, motherhood is still the locus of female happiness." Guhh...

It's at times like these when I like to clarify my rating system for movies.

9.0-10.0: Films of the highest calibre that anyone should see at some point in his/her lifetime.
8.0-9.0: Excellent films with one or two minor hiccups.
7.0-8.0: Good films that come with a few caveats for certain viewers.
6.0-7.0: Entertaining films with noticeable flaws, but that are enjoyable nonetheless.
5.0-6.0: Either average films or well-made films with themes/messages I find disagreeable.
4.0-5.0: Forgettable movies or disappointing sequels.
3.0-4.0: Films with significant flaws in the production/writing process.
2.0-3.0: Films with overwhelming flaws or significant moral quandaries.
1.0-2.0: Offensively bad/morally insulting films.
0.0-1.0: The lowest of the low: moral, intellectual, and artistic tripe.

Mockingjay Part 2 barely misses the last rung of the ladder; at the very least, the film doesn't realize its morally horrendous implications. But its complete lack of structural integrity, its flagrantly bad pacing, its deplorable themes, and its b****slap of an ending made it the second worst film I saw in 2015, beaten only by the rancid Kingsman: The Secret Service.  It's a bitter ending to a franchise I once loved. I legitimately looked forward to every movie in this franchise after the first movie impressed me so much, but each sequel battered down my expectations more. I will always respect the original Hunger Games as one of the best young adult films of the past decade, but its sequels are a continued series of diminishing returns. That's why Mockingjay Part 2 hurts as much as it does: it's the franchise's headstone.

Recommendation: The first Hunger Games film is safe for any child old enough to take the violence. I'd personally recommend it for viewers 12 and up. As one can tell, I'm very much a fan of the film; I do think it is worth one, if not multiple, viewings. If one is a fan of emotionally, if not thematically, engaging characters, I guess Catching Fire is a half-decent film to check out, but I'd recommend ignoring the final scene. Unless one is determined to sit through the entire franchise, I cannot reasonably recommend the first part of Mockingjay. Finally, I don't see any reason for anyone to watch the second part of Mockingjay; it's simply too hateful and simplistic a film for me to endorse.

I give The Hunger Games an 8.0/10, Catching Fire a 6.2/10, Mockingjay Part 1 a 3.4/10, and Mockingjay Part 2 a 1.8/10.