Fred-S

If one had not read the book(s), I think he might find this to be an enjoyable, if not outstanding, movie. However, anyone who has read the trilogy knows that the movie did not even address the theme that made the trilogy so outstanding. The trilogy is primarily a character study of at least four of the trilogy's characters: Peeta, Gale, Haymitch and most importantly Katniss. Katniss is a girl who seems to stand for honorable ideas, but who finds insult and deceit in almost everything anyone tells her; especially Peeta. She finds comfort in his arms when she is fearful, but then refuses to admit to anyone, including herself, that she has any need for such care. Rather than being the hero, she is more the anti-hero of the story.

In the movie, she is brave and bold and smart. In the original she is bold, but not really so brave and certainly not smart. She operates entirely on emotion, saying and doing things without paying the slightest attention to logic. Time and again she is convinced that everything bad that has happened was caused by her. In this view she is only somewhat wrong. But after all of her agonizing and vows of repentance, she continues to do the same self-serving and illogical things that lead to more suffering of herself and others. In book 2, Haymitch tells Katniss, "See, this is why no one lets you make the plans." Later, she recalls Haymitch's statement and says,"That's true, no one in their right mind would let me make the plans. Because I can't tell a friend from an enemy." Here, she is exactly correct, but that does not prevent her from making that mistake time and again with her most loyal friend, Peeta.

Nonetheless, Katniss is a very appealing character, and that is what kept me going for three volumes. I got a feeling about Katniss very much like the feeling I had for Scarlett O'Hara in "Gone With The Wind."

This, not her skill with the bow, is what makes "The Hunger Games" a great story.

After reading the first 3 reviews I decided that a review from someone who has read Bjorn Lonborg - who is an economist (not "a poly-sci guy" as one newspaper reviewer referred to him) - and who has studied the science of global climate change for more than a decade might be helpful.

First off, Lonborg is not a GW skeptic: he thinks it is real, but that the severity has often been greatly overstated, which even the scientists at IPCC will admit. Also, he does not mean that if we spend a few trillion dollars and deprive (by creating large deficits of energy) poor people all over the world of the few things they currently get to enjoy (like adequate food) we will decrease global temperature by 1 degree: he means we will limit the increase by one degree. Big difference. He is pointing out that taking a sledge hammer to the world economy will not really make much difference in temperature, but a big difference to people who will not be able to buy energy at the intentionally increased prices.

Lonborg points out that we will be able to adapt to the climate change, as people and animals have been doing throughout history, as we gradually change from fossil fuels as more desirable technologies mature. Some parts of the world - equatorial zones - may change drastically, but those nearer the poles (Minnesota, Canada) will likely gain a longer growing season and more tillable land.

But, Lonborg's main point is that if we spent these large sums of money and resources on things we can change: hunger, diseases like malaria and AIDS, and clean water, we could bring about some real improvement in the lives of millions of people world-wide.

My studies, which include a discussion with one of the leading scientists at IPCC, lead me to think that Lonborg makes a very good case. I don't know why so many reviewers ridicule Lonborg. This movie, if you really watch and listen, does not deny climate change. It does state that global poverty is not the best way to counteract global climate change.

I saw Vanilla Sky when it was first released in 2001 and then again on DVD about a month ago. In reading reviews on IMDb I discovered that it was a remake of a Spanish movie, Open You Eyes, and so I ordered it from Netflix as well. Penelope Cruz is the only cast member in both versions. She plays the role of Sofia and does a masterful job. The story is almost exactly the same scene by scene and even in dialogue.

But, the ALMOST is significant.

When I saw Vanilla Sky, I thought it was pretty good. I did think that it left too much unresolved and an extra scene (which I didn't know was extra at the time), further clouded the resolution with no apparent value to the movie.

Ambiguity isn't always bad in a story, but I felt that the resolution in Open Your Eyes was exactly what was appropriate for the movie. I also felt that the scenery-chewing that Tom Cruise did in several scenes of the American version actually detracted from the feel of the story line.

There is a bar scene that is almost identical, word for word, in the two films. The only difference is the tone and body language of the main character and the bartender, which makes the Vanilla Sky version quite confrontational while in the Spanish version the scene plays as a simple faux pas on the part of the bartender that is quickly resolved. Again, I thought the confrontation was unnecessary and, I would hope, unrealistic.

In general, I think the American version suffers from inferior direction and poorer acting. Penelope Cruz is excellent in both. Cruise and Kurt Russell seem to have decided that their roles needed to big bigger and more emotional. They were wrong.

If you are really interested in film making, I suggest you watch both and see how seemingly small changes can change the "feel" of a movie. Otherwise, I recommend Open Your Eyes.