Skip to main content

The Hunger Games: A movie review




If I was to describe the hunger games in a single word, yes I know this is becoming a habit with me, it would be this:  Stark.  Having read the entire hunger games trilogy, I feel that this is appropriate, but does not necessarily make for the best movie.  Let me clarify though:  the very austere and even severe impression that I get from the movie isn't bad, it just isn't fun.  Interesting, compelling, provocative yes, but fun, no.

A brief word to those that are fans of the series:  the movie is fine.  Structurally there isn't anything wrong with it and all the most critical details are left intact, as they had damn well better be if these people hope to make a trilogy out of this.  Being a fan of the series myself and having read all the books, I notice the glaring differences where small or large details have been left out and while I'm not thrilled, it didn't prove to be a deal breaker either.  On the whole, I would say that this film is a perfectly adequate adaptation of the novel, not good, not bad, but adequate.  It is kinda neat to see some of the elements you read about visualized and I gotta say at least a handful of them are pretty satisfying.

On the positive side, I have to say that the casting is pretty good, with Lenny Kravitz being the biggest surprise and in my opinion, a fantastic choice for Cinna.  The acting is good.  The sets are at least mostly believable and the overall plot of the novel is left largely intact.  This is quite an achievement when you consider positively Godawful adaptions of masterful works of literature like Michael Crichton's Timeline, which was thoroughly butchered into some schlock of cinema featuring Paul Walker.

On the negative side, people who did not read the books may likely find the film somewhat inaccessible, and need to either read the books or have friends fill them in as they go.  While I fully understand the significant challenges of adapting a novel into something that gets squeezed into 2 hours and 20 minutes, this is something that has hurt the movie.  Details from the book that helped to flesh out characters or events just aren't there and end up leaving the plot feeling thinner than it really is.  Things that were included are over and done with so quickly you barely have time to register them or their significance.  And lastly, the soundtrack, or to be more precise the distinct lack of a soundtrack.  The entire film feels so muted and while that may be good for conveying the naked despair the general population feels, it really doesn't get the audience into the film.

I know it sounds like I've had a lot more bad than good to say about the film, but it really is a decent movie.  If you're a fan, you're probably going to see it anyway and its not like anything is going to be spoiled for you in terms of plot twists.  If you're not a fan, go ahead and check it out, you could certainly do a lot worse.

Comments

JourneymanProj said…
Great analysis of the movie. I watched the movie without having read the book and found it to be enjoyable, although a bit slow for a typical movie. My wife watched too, having read the book, and was able to track with all the book as she watched. We agree the soundtrack was lacking, and after answering a ton of questions from me, we also agree that there's a lot that a movie simply cannot communicate in 3 hours. Perhaps they will release an extended DVD version...
Professor Tom said…
While I haven't read the books, it sounds like if we could have a conversation abut this film, we'd likely have same thoughts. If you're curious, here's my review.

Cheers,
PT
Guy Montag said…
I haven't read the books either, but it struck me as a pretty well made movie. The bit about the landmines threw me for a bit ("Where did they get landmines from? Seems overkill for a weapons drop!") though eventually I realized they dug them up from around the pedestals. It was definitely a youth / tween oriented movie, but unlike Twilight, it was very watchable from an adult perspective.
DJBlitzkrieg said…
I didn't even realize people had commented on this movie because people rarely do, so I never took the time to figure out where to look for them =P

Popular posts from this blog

Max Payne: The Movie - A Review

It all started innocently enough back in '01. Some company named 'Rockstar' put out a video game. It was like playing a cross between the best cliches of pulp detective novels and a combat system right out of the Matrix films. Some crazy fool turned it into a movie, and after seeing it tonight, I came to a few conclusions. One, the first video game was better than this movie. Two, this movie was still better than the second video game in the Max Payne series. Three, a few punches can put Max Payne in a hospital bed, but he can laugh off a shotgun blast to the chest from three feet away. If you're reading this, all you care about is 'should I bother seeing it or not?'. The short answer is, if you like stuff being shot up reaaaal good, go see it! If you're interested only in seeing Oscar-worthy movies, you'll probably want to skip this one. And for those of you sticking around for my humorous take on the movie... Max Payne is a man with a past. We know thi

Public Enemies: The Cinephile's Enemy

I'm with on the false advertising in trailers thing: I think that studios that snooker you into the theater via false advertising in their trailers ought to have to pay out punitive damages in a class action lawsuit. All of the good shots of Public Enemies was in the trailer. Michael Mann owes me $10.50 for a midnight ticket after being drawn, beaten, horsewhipped, set on fire and quartered. I demand that Universal personally send Johnny Depp with my refund check, even though he and Christian Bale were the only things right wit the movie. There's very little good to say about this movie. I can't recall a lick of the score because it all sounded like source music. The only recognizable piece of music in the film is Otis Taylor's Ten Million Slaves which, if you don't buy the linked single, you get forced into buying the the whole damned album . For whatever insane reason, Director Michael Mann decided to film on cheap digital cameras.It's impossible to tell

Green Lantern: Made of Fail

If someone gave you $300 million dollars and said " Make me an awesome movie about the Green Lantern ", you might think to yourself 'Ah, twice as much money as Thor and X-Men: First Class had - easy as pie!'. If you're director Martin Campbell and you've impressed everyone with movies like Edge of Darkness and Casino Royale, but secretly hate super hero movies and Hollywood producers with an insane cunning, and really want to make an expensive pile of fail, you'd have made " Green Lantern ". The short review - don't waste your money on this unless you *literally* have nothing better to do than watch paint dry. If you like comic books, or even just action movies, AVOID AT ALL COSTS. Where to begin... I heard bad things about the movie, but I thought 'How bad could it be?'. First things first. Ryan Reynolds. Generally known for playing slightly air-headed characters with a sense of humor and formulaic Hollywood looks. Star of fifty-two