Hunger Games Rant

   The Hunger Games (By Suzanne Collins) is unique in that I have never read a book or watched a movie where teens kill each other and people enjoy it.

   I have never watched the movie but have read all three books, so my review will be entirely based on the books.
   To start off, the writing technique the author chose is odd and hard to catch on to for frequent book readers. She used present tense and first person, which is very different in that it is impractical. If the author was using it as a way to stand out I almost think it is the wrong way to go.
   The main protagonist, Katniss Everdeen, is not a character most people can relate to. She was in a way selfish, very rude and acted very spoiled despite a hard up bringing. Some might say she has a right to act the way she does, because of the circumstance she was in, but I disagree and say she should be more responsible and understanding for her poverty, not grouchy and stuck up.
   To go along with my disappointment upon Katniss is the love triangle created around her. (I will avoid using names for the sake of spoilers). Even though the author tried to create suspense and perhaps hope for one of her suitors, it was clear by most readers who Katniss would pick as a lover. Making the rest of the drama almost annoying and pitiful, and leaving the readers pitying the tag-along who had no chance with Katniss.
   The Hunger Games itself was revolting to even think about. To think teens are thrown into an arena to kill each other does not sound appealing. To be fair the author did explain from Katniss' point of view her disdain and disgust towards the game. However I can not see how teens enjoy reading about it so much; as if they wish to be apart of it. I do not really know if that is what fans are thinking, but that is the idea I get when I am speaking with them.
    Now on a brighter note. It has been asked of me, despite my clear dislike of this trilogy, who is my favorite character? I have to say it is Haymitch. That is right, the drunk mentor Katniss, and Peeta Mellark are stuck with. His part in the hunger games is to try and keep the two of them alive in the games for as long as possible. he is the only character I like, even though he drinks, he has common sense, and morals that I always look for in characters. He always was trying to do what was best for Katniss even when she pretty much spat in his face for her own prideful and stubborn reasons, (her reasoning made no sense to me either).
   A last note is the ending of this tale, even though Katniss ends with a happily ever after, I would still claim this story a tragedy. To many good characters died near to the end, where you are trying to keep up with all that is going on. The U-turn the author makes in the last few chapters, when Katniss was supposed to kill the main antagonist, but than doesn't and instead a whole new circumstance arises, totally threw me around wondering why it all changed so quickly.
 
   If you are still curious about this Hunger Games trilogy, even though I strongly suggest against it, I would advice you to just watch the movie (soon to be movies). I am told by many sources it is accurate to the book. So save yourself the hours and just watch the movie(s).

Thanks for reading, and tolerating my overly judgmental opinion.

Voronwe's Rantlike Review of Star Trek Into Darkness.

You know, they say never to judge a book by its cover. Historically, I've been pretty good at keeping an open mind about books, movies, and games until I've seen/played/read them (being part of a fanbase that celebrates candy-coloured equines learning lessons about friendship helps to remind one of that).

That said, the title of this motion picture was throwing me for several loops for months prior to its release. Star Trek Into Darkness… It just struck me as a bit redundant. If one is trekking into the stars, well, yeah, obviously it's going to be dark. Space tends to be that way.

My suggestion would be to toss in a colon: Star Trek: Into Darkness. Thusly not implying that our good characters are Star Trekking Into Darkness, but rather that the story itself would be some sort of descent into the dimly lit bowels of mysterious conspiracies of evilness.

Fortunately, this is pretty much what the story wound up being.

As both a moviegoer and a long-time trekker, Star Trek (COLON) Into Darkness was an excellent film that earns high marks both as a stand-alone Star Trek story, and as a sequel.

One of the things that I was concerned about going in was that the story would take a backseat to the action. There's no doubt that J.J. Abrams has created a much more crowd-pleasing action-packed incarnation of Trek. 

Thankfully, though there was some off-putting fan-service (Carol Marcus in her underwear was a particularly pointless scene. Given Dr. Marcus's role in the classic movies, I think that Kirk's attraction to her could have been conveyed with more subtlety and human emotion. As opposed to his simply admiring her physical attractiveness) this is still a movie with great comedy and some very poignant character-driven drama, bolstered by performances I felt had only gotten stronger from the first film to the second.

Chris Pine's Kirk and Zachary Quinto's Spock continue to have an excellent dynamic, with some really good conversations about the nature of vulcan emotional suppression and how that affects Spock's friendship with Kirk, his relationship with Uhura, and his ability to deal with fear and loss. The vulcan psyche has always been a deceptively complex issue in the Star Trek universe, and I was pleased to see it returning as a core focus in the story.

And of course, there's good 'ol Sherlock Holmes himself: Benedict Cumberbatch, as the film's villain, John Harrison. This is the work that I hope solidifies him as a bearer of the greatest ability an actor can possess. A superpower that I like to call "The Sean Connery Factor". Or, to be more descriptive, the ability to single-handedly elevate the quality of anything he appears in.

Without giving away any spoilers, his portrayal of John Harrison creates such an intimidating presence, just as much for his prowess as a savage beast in battle as for his sheer intelligence, that it more than makes up for the first movie's fun but forgettable villain.

Now, there are a few minor plotholes dotted here and there, as well as a few continuity issues that, as a trekker, got to me a lot more than they should have (The Enterprise didn't have seatbelts until the late 24th century. This film takes place in the mid 23rd) but I think the most divisive thing about Star Trek: Into Darkness, will be the last 30 minutes of it's run.

Again, without giving any spoilers away, the movie takes full advantage of its alternate universe setting to recreate some scenes from the classic series with a few alternate history twists thrown in. People new to the series probably won't think anything of it, but as a fan, I can only imagine trekkers either finding it completely amazing… or feel horribly distracted and betrayed.

For my part, I absolutely loved it, and when combined with a great cameo by Leonard Nimoy as Spock Prime, it really gave me a good feeling that the continuity I know and love still has a presence here. 

All in all, Star Trek DASH COLON APOSTROPHE WHATEVER THERE SHOULD REALLY BE SOMETHING DIVIDING THE FIRST HALF OF THE TITLE FROM THE SECOND Into Darkness does everything a good sequel should do: It continues the story of the first film without rehashing it, further develops the characters we love while introducing some phenomenal new ones, and offers us a good Trek story with the perfect balance of character, comedy, and action.

Also, I actually like the design for the new Klingons. It does a good job maintaining the overall impression whilst making them appear a bit more alien. Bring on a Star Trek 3 focusing on the Klingon/Federation wars, please!

Cheerio, pip pip, and thank you for reading!

Star Trek Into Darkness (Warning: minor spoilers)

As someone who hasn’t delved much into the Star Trek franchise as of yet, Star Trek Into Darkness was quite interesting for me. Despite not having seen the first film, I was able to follow the story very well and was not subject to the pain of having to try and catch up to the character development that has obviously happened previous to the story I watched.
From a movie goers perspective, the overall experience is great. The visuals are pleasing and exciting, the acting is well done, and the cameo appearance of the original Mr. Spock (Leonard Nimoy) was something that even I, as an almost completely uneducated watcher, could appreciate.

Already being a fan of Benedict Cumberbatch after seeing him in the roles of Sherlock Holmes (BBC's Sherlock) and William Pitt (Amazing Grace), I was not disappointed by his performance as the villain Khan -aka- John Harrison in this film. I am looking forward to seeing more of him, as well as several other British stars who are rising in popularity here in North America.
As a Christian, the various expletives throughout were a small annoyance, as well as some of the more obvious examples of James Kirk's slightly promiscuous personality, but something I could pass over with a little difficulty for the sake of the film as a whole.

All in all, it was a movie that I considered worth going to see a second time, and would enjoy seeing again in the future.