hell-movie-poster-2011-german

Film Facts:

Hell is a German-Swiss post-apocalyptic/horror film (I watched it with English subtitles on Netflix). Released in 2011, starring Hannah Herzsprung, and the directorial debut of Tim Fehlbaum. My synopsis: “In a sun-scorched post-apocalyptic landscape, three travelers (Marie, Leonie, and Philip) head for the mountains based on rumors of water. Bad stuff goes down.

hell red car

The Apocalypse Scenario:

Hellish heat. In the near future, solar flares have wreaked havoc with Earth’s atmosphere and increased the planet’s temperature by 10°C (or 18°F). The sun pummels the terrain, scorching all plant and animal life. There are rumors that it still rains “above the treeline” but this notion is dismissed as wishful thinking. The survivors avoid walking during the daylight and cover their skin as if trekking across the Sahara desert. Car windows are decorated with newspaper, cardboard and duct tape in an effort to keep the sunlight out. One character has severe burns on his arm from only two hours of sun exposure.

The Year:

2016. We’re not given a timeline, but its been at least two or three years into the mysterious solar flares.
hell pushing barrier

What They’ve Run Out Of:

Water and Sunscreen. (Seriously, sunscreen must be worth a fortune because no-one ever puts it on.) Our trio scavenges for pretty much everything; water and food are the obvious necessities. The charred landscape is a constant reminder of the Earth’s demise, intensifying the need for food. Marie and Leonie take apart gas-station radiators and toilets in search of water. As our group traverses deeper into the mountains, creating a sustainable source of nourishment becomes central to the plot.

hell house

What this Film Adds to the Post-Apocalyptic Genre:

Compromise.
The question of “what will you compromise to survive” is nothing new to the post-apocalyptic genre. My guess is that someone read Cormac McCarthy’s The Road and decided to make an entire film exploring the farmhouse scene. (You know the one.) With that said, Hell is a well-made film and the idea of compromise takes a front-seat.

Its implied that Marie and Philip have a sexual relationship that’s somewhat reluctant on Marie’s part. When Leonie questions her older sister about it, Marie replies “we help each other.” When the inevitable stuff goes down, characters are forced to make decisions between their own survival and rescuing part of their group. Finally, we see what lengths a community will resort to in order to survive. The most disturbing part is how these compromises are accepted as part of normal life. The film asks the audience (without words) “What would you do to survive hell on earth?” And, “if the highest ethic isn’t survival, what is it?”

hell tunnel

Isaac’s Rating:

zippedlipzippedlipzippedlipunzippedlipunzippedlip

3 out of 5 Zipped Lips.

Post-apocalyptic films are becoming a dime of dozen, and I’m pleased to say that this is one of the better ones. Hell forgoes depicting destruction on a grand scale, preferring to focus on a trio traversing the German countryside in their little red car. The result is intimate, intense, and terrifying. Fehlbaum’s attention to detail, like Philip burning his fingers when he reaches for a sun soaked gas cap, gives the film a human touch of believability and familiarity. We’ve all experienced the intense heat of summer, and here we’re given a picture of a world that’s this way all the time. Even though its lower budget, the camerawork and scenery are all beautiful and terrifying to behold. Fehlbaum is a talented director and I’m looking forward to what he does in the future.

Overall, Hell is a solid but fairly derivative film. The Road, 28 Days Later, and The Walking Dead’s fifth season have all covered these ideas before. If you loved The Road and are looking for something intense, then give Hell a watch on Netflix. If you’re looking for something a little more unique, then skip it in favor of Mad Max or Walking Dead.

poster

What do you think, apocalypse fans? – Don’t forget to check out the rest of our movies in the Post-Apocalyptic Movie Roundup!

Film Facts:

Starring Mel Gibson as ‘Mad’ Max Rockatansky in the first three films, and Tom Hardy in Fury Road. Directed by George Miller (although George Ogilvie took over directing much of Thunderdome).

All of the Mad Max films have received ‘cult classic’ status and the sequel The Road Warrior is truly the best, most iconic, and post-apocalyptic of original three. This article will focus mostly on Road Warrior and I covered Fury Road in a separate review.

The Apocalypse Scenario:

Global nuclear holocaust set in the Australian Outback. Cold War tensions and a global energy crisis paved the way for the dystopian and near-anarchistic setting seen in the original Mad Max, and the ensuing nuclear war creates the wasteland seen in Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome.

The first Mad Max features the Outback’s descent into chaos and anarchy as wild biker gangs take over the open road, torturing and murdering anyone they encounter. The Road Warrior, its sequel, depicts a world totally destroyed. The wasteland lacks any semblance of order or civilization and is at the mercy of insane marauders.

The Year:

Unknown. While Road Warrior and Thunderdome clearly follow a nuclear war, they are purposefully vague on the details and dates of these events. It’s safe to say that the ‘Mad Max Universe’ takes place in an alternate 1970’s and following.

What They’ve Run Out Of:

-Gas. Inspired by car-wrecks and violent reactions during the 1973 oil crisis, George Miller wrote the script “on the thesis that people would do almost anything to keep vehicles moving and the assumption that nations would not consider the huge costs of providing infrastructure for alternative energy until it was too late.”

The entire plot of The Road Warrior rides on the premise that gasoline is now a rare and precious commodity. (You run out of fuel, you’re dead.) Max cruises through the wasteland in his supercharged V-8 Pursuit Special, clashing with marauders and running on fumes. Later, he happens upon some semblance of civilization, a small oil refinery besieged by the marauders. Max offers to help them escape by driving a battering ram equipped fuel tanker, hauling the precious gasoline and fighting off the pursuers. The ensuing chase is one of the most iconic action sequences in film history (and regularly tops “Top 10 Car Chase” lists).
Food, water, and ammunition are also scarce. Firearms are rare, and most resort to using bows and crossbows. Max bluffs with an empty sawed-off shotgun and eats a can of dog food for supper.

What this Film Adds to the Post-Apocalyptic Genre:

Everything. You can’t talk ‘Post-Apocalyptic’ without covering Mad Max because it defined the film genre. Everything from the Western style ‘man with no name’ hero to the beat up roadsters tearing across the wasteland have become infamous tropes. Road Warrior’s ‘comic-book, post-apocalyptic/punk style’ popularized the genre and jetted Mel Gibson to superstar status.
Mad Max is all about crazy car chases with crazier badguys. These villains are flat out insane. Their punk Mohawks, leather studded costumes, ragtag vehicles, unrelenting pursuit and psychotic battle cries make unforgettable villains.
The car chase sequences are action packed, tightly edited, fast-paced (by 80’s standards) and full of tremendous crashes. These pre-CGI films all feature an amazing amount of stunt work that leaves the viewer wondering what safety laws, if any, there are in Australia.

Isaac’s Rating:

The Mad Max series, especially The Road Warrior, is foundational to the Post-Apocalyptic genre. With that said, these movies are far from perfect. Unpolished and slow paced (it was the 70’and 80’s, after all) can make the Mad Max films rather laborious if you’re unprepared for its style.

Mad Max (1979). 2 Zipped-Lips. A classic ‘cop gets revenge for the death of his family’ story featuring car chases across the Australian Outback. In my opinion: Doesn’t stand the test of time. It is slow paced with lots of driving filler, minimal budget, unpolished, and ultimately skippable. (The Road Warrior recaps the events of this film in its opening sequence).

Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981). 4.5 Zipped-Lips. Clearly the superior film of the series. Gritty, relentless, iconic, but clearly dated by today’s standards. Max is a fantastic protagonist, sustaining realistic and permanent injury (he continues to walk with a limp and a leg brace after being shot in the first film). Road Warrior is a must-see for anyone interested in the Post-Apocalyptic genre.

Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985). 3 Zipped-Lips. This PG-13 sequel should have been called “Max Max and the Lost Boys from Peter Pan.” The gritty action was swapped out for a cheesier approach where badguys are subdued with frying pans and vats of pig poo. This humorous, slapstick action works wonderfully in movies like Hook but feels childishly out of place in Mad Max. The Thunderdome match against Master Blaster is a highlight (“Two men enter! One man leaves!”) but everything is downhill after that. Some fans argue that the film’s lighter tone was meant to reflect Max’s return to humanity, but in the end, its just disappointing.

There you have it, fans! The Mad Max series. Don’t forget to comment below!

poster

The Hunger Games (2012) – Full Review with Spoilers

“I keep wishing I could think of a way to…to show the Capitol that they don’t own me. That I’m more than just a piece in their Games.”

Synopsis: “In a post-apocalyptic future, the nation of Panem is controlled by a highly advanced metropolis called ‘The Capitol.’ As a symbol of their absolute power, two teenage ‘Tributes’ (one boy and one girl) are chosen from each of the twelve Districts to fight in the annual Hunger Games, a televised fight to the death. When Katniss Everdeen volunteers to save her younger sister from the Games, her chances of survival seem slim. But Katniss has a secret – she knows how to survive.”

This review has spoilers. If you haven’t seen the movie (or are planning on reading the book), please see my ‘spoiler-free review’.

The Hunger Games has our attention. Despite numerous attempts to apply a ‘teen-pop-movie’  stamp and shove it into a box next to Harry Potter or TwilightThe Hunger Games refuses to be branded. This is greatly due to the success of Suzanne Collins’ book series, which has a surprisingly mature message despite its simple prose. I thoroughly enjoyed Collins’ Hunger Games trilogy and was quite pleased with the film adaptation.

What worked?

Overall, the movie is quite good. The casting was great, especially Jennifer Lawrence. I was extremely impressed with Gary Ross’ directing and sound-editing. Several of the biggest moments in the film are practically silent, with little to no dialog and no music to support what’s going on. This is an incredibly bold move. As an audience member, I’m used to a soundtrack guiding my emotion through a scene and magnifying its impact. But here, the absence of sound is jarring, especially during the fight scenes. There is no narrative voice telling us what to think, no orchestral mediator helping us process the carnage, we’re simply thrust into the chaos with Katniss and allowed to experience the same terror.

As I mentioned in my previous review, The Hunger Games film takes on the role of “show” over “tell.” Instead of featuring long conversations about the poverty and oppression in the Districts in comparison to the vast wealth and privilege in The Capitol, the film simply lets us observe the difference. There’s no monologue comparing the Games to the Roman Colosseum, or comments on the animalistic viciousness the teens resort to, it simply unfolds before us and asks us to make intelligent conclusions. Those who haven’t read the books will probably find its lack of comments bizarre and perhaps even a ‘missed opportunity at saying something profound.’ But as a fan of the book, I was moved by its silence; the jarring chaos and striking images carry their own weight.

What didn’t work?

‘It was too short.’ This is the typical response of every book-to-movie fan, but another 10-20 minutes would’ve helped the film immensely. After talking with people who hadn’t read the book first, it seems that The Hunger Games film is tailored for fans of the book instead of the average movie-goer. A number of points go virtually unexplained, leaving questions like “what happened to the USA? Why is it Panem now?” Or “where is Katniss going when she cuts through the fence? To another District?” Or even “if The Capitol is bad, why don’t they all just revolt?” – While these don’t seem terribly important to enjoying the movie, failing to nail down the finer points of The Capitol’s oppression erodes the incredible importance of Katniss and Peeta’s act of defiance with the berries. Especially when some of these gaps could have been filled with a single line of dialog.

1. Katniss’ survival skills are so unique because she’s been hunting illegally.

Self-reliance is one of the major themes throughout The Hunger Games. When The Capitol forces the Districts to depend on food shipments, Katniss saves her family from starvation by hunting. Missing the fact that A: hunting of any kind is illegal, and B: Katniss is highly skilled at it, fails to establish what makes Katniss so unique: her equipped defiance. Katniss isn’t just uniquely equipped to survive in the Games, she’s a symbol of independence, self-reliance, and hope. “The Girl on Fire.” – While the film hinted at this, failing to clearly establish hunting as illegal and Katniss’ resolve to do it anyway detracts from the power of her defiance.

2. “Let’s blow up the supplies for the fun of it!”
(…actually, its so the Careers will starve to death.)

As I just established, Katniss was (essentially) the only Tribute who knew how to live off the land in the arena. The Career’s knew how to fight, but not how to survive. Destroying their pile of supplies meant starvation. This was never acknowledged in the film, leaving the audience to wonder why Katniss would risk her life (and Rue’s) by trying to blow up their pile of food. A simple line over a meal of roasted squirrel would do it: “we could survive for months out here, but the Career’s wouldn’t last a week without their supplies.” Omitting this detail when it could’ve been solved so easily strikes me as obtuse.

3. Katniss and Peeta bond in the cave.

This is the big one. I didn’t notice it at first, but my wife pointed out that this is one of the key moments in the entire series. Katniss and Peeta’s experience in the cave is not just important for the ending of book one, but begins a very distinct and mature shift in Katniss’ character development. Up until this point, Katniss is uninterested in teaming up with Peeta or anyone else who cannot assist her in winning. Her only goal is winning the Games so she can return home and take care of her sister, Prim. But when Katniss sees Peeta bleeding to death in the cave, she decides to care for him, even though this is extremely difficult for her. In short: She accepts Peeta as one of her own, even though protecting him jeopardizes her own survival.
This is an incredibly important point of development because Katniss is the quintessential ‘self-sufficient-American-Hero”. She is intelligent, dangerous, and completely independent. Yet in the arena of death, she learns to care for someone other than herself. Its an important step in her coming of age story and matures her character in a very interesting way.

The film failed to do this on multiple levels. A: It didn’t establish any foreshadowing that Peeta was seriously injured. B: Peeta’s wound didn’t look so bad and they made no mention of infection or ‘blood poisoning’ (we’re used to seeing our movie heroes take unrealistically gruesome wounds and keep going without a problem.) C: They didn’t have enough time in the cave and Katniss’ desperate banging on the hovercraft door was cut. – Most of these could have been resolved with one or two lines of dialog, though it could’ve greatly benefited from an additional 5-10 minutes.

4. The Cost of War.

The Hunger Games trilogy is not easy on its characters. They suffer wounds, scars, severe emotional trauma, and in Peeta’s case, amputation. After the Games, Peeta is given an artificial leg and never walks normally again. This was a shocking and completely unexpected twist. Hunger Games reminds us that there is a high cost to violence and warfare, even when its done for noble reasons. Leaving Peeta intact and virtually unscathed lessened the impact of this idea, weakening the bond that Katniss and Peeta share because of their traumatic experience.

Themes: Violence, Dystopian Oppression, Independence, etc.

The Hunger Games covers a lot of territory: violence, severe poverty, oppression, dystopian societies, government, justice, revolution, freedom, reality-television, coming of age, grief, PTSD, and the cost of war. I can’t possibly tackle all of that in one film review. (I am open to writing a book review if you want one.) If you’d like to read more on themes in Hunger Gamescheck wikipedia. If you’d like more on Katniss as the archetypal “American Adam,” here’s a great article at the NY Times.

A lot of people comment on the violence: “kids killing each other? That sounds sick.” I respond “that’s exactly the point.” – Similar to Lord of the Flies or Rollerball, Suzanne Collins is making a statement about humanity’s potential for bloodlust and evil. The Romans once oppressed the masses but appeased their appetites by entertaining them with “bread and circuses,” leading crowds to cheer on gladiatorial matches and voting on whether a combatant should live or die. While our reality-tv generation isn’t there (yet)we jeer as real people argue, fight, and destroy each others lives and reputations on national television. All in the name of entertainment. – On a related note, Suzanne Collins named her fictional nation ‘Panem,’ after the Roman phrase panem et circenses (bread and circuses)She is making a very deliberate comparison to ancient Rome and sounding the warning bell that this could happen again.

Conclusion:

The Hunger Games made the transition from page to screen incredibly well. The cast, visuals, editing, and sound (or the intentional lack thereof) is top notch. There’s been some bizarre media-buzz about miscasting but don’t pay any attention to that. Normally, I’d overlook a film’s edits and omissions, but its mind-boggling that so many holes could’ve been addressed with a single line of dialog. I am hopeful for a Hunger Games: Directors Cut that includes an extra 15-20 minutes and fills in some of the bumps.

Rating:

4.5 out of 5 Zipped Lips.

The Hunger Games is a great film. While it has a few oversights in exposition, a Director’s Cut armed with an additional 15-20 minutes will make this a perfect 5 Zipped Lips.