Last year I read Suzanne Collins' Hunger Games trilogy. Devoured it, really, in something like three days. Was ecstatic when I heard the movie would be out this year. Avoided the opening weekend crowds and finally went to see the much anticipated movie, based on the first book, on Tuesday evening.
No doubt several gazillion reviews have already been posted. Most of them probably by people much more qualified than I. Nonetheless, here's my two cent review of the movie. Those of you who've not read the book or seen the movie, be warned; this review may or may not contain some spoilers.
I should preface my review by saying that in preparation for the movie, I re-read the trilogy. In about three days time. Three days prior to seeing the movie, to be specific. Thus, by the time I got to the movie theater, not only was the first book fresh on my mind, but so was the entire story, thereby giving me probably more information than I really needed for the viewing of the first movie, The Hunger Games. That being said, here are my observations, thoughts, and feelings about the movie.
Cinematography
Prior to seeing the movie I read an article that indicated the editing of the Hunger Games was very choppy, leaving the viewer feeling a bit disjointed. I concur wholeheartedly with the article's author. The editing was extremely fast paced, leaving you with some sense of urgency but without motivation for the urgency. The killing scenes were cut extremely short and reduced to considerably less than the horrific scenes they were in the book. I recognize this was likely done to reduce the maturity rating on the movie, as well as to spare the viewer the agony and horror of watching children being butchered to death by other children. And for that, I am grateful. Nonetheless, the overall editing seemed to also cut short the development of various characters and relationships, thereby leaving me wanting. I suspect that as a result of the editing and lack of character development, thee were times when the movie felt slow, almost boring, tedious even. Which is at complete odds with the book as there was never a feeling of slowness. Even the historical references kept up with the pace and rhythm of the book. The movie, not so much.
Story Adaptation
The screenwriters definitely did a noteworthy job of translating Collins' work to the silver screen. While some scenes I loved from the book were left out, the story held together nicely without them. Viewers who hadn't read the book were probably able to follow along without issue, and I would suspect many of them are now putting the book on their to-do lists.
Casting
Katniss Everdeen -- Jennifer Lawrence
I must admit, when I first saw the cast for The Hunger Games, I was disappointed. I was hoping to see Dakota Fanning cast as Katniss, but them I am biased as I think Ms. Fanning is incredibly talented. However, Jennifer Lawrence certainly held her own as the rebellion invoking Katniss Everdeen. Her acting was polished, though there were a few things that bugged me. I suspect these pertained more to character development than Ms. Lawrence's performance.
In my imagination, Katniss was very rough around the edges and conflicted, even before she entered the Arena. With Lawrence's portrayal, I had a difficult time seeing her as rough in any capacity. She came across as polished and collected throughout the entire movie. Even the scene where she is being transported via the tube to the Arena, you barely notice her distress or fear. Instead, you are given this nearly blank stare that doesn't begin to convey what Collins' describes is happening to Katniss at that time. I will counter that in all fairness, the author was able to describe Katniss' thoughts during that time and one thing that remains consistent throughout the book is that Katniss was determined never to let her fear show, while in the movie we only have her facial expressions and body language to tell us what might be going through her mind. Still, I never got the impression she was fighting to hide her fear, but rather was unsure of how to convey any feelings at any given time. Again, I chalk this up more to character development than I do Ms. Lawrence's acting abilities.
Peeta Mellark -- Josh Hutcherson
Ok, seriously? Mr. Hutcherson is an attractive young man and all, but Peeta Mellark he is not. At no point in the movie do I ever connect with him as the "boy with the bread." Unfortunately, as I cannot think of who I would rather see in this role, I'll leave this one alone. Suffice it to say that I was completely dissatisfied with this man's performance. Or maybe, as with Katniss, my disappointment is more with character development.
Gale Hawthorne -- Liam Hemsworth
While Mr. Hemsworth was certainly more suited to play Gale than Mr. Hutcherson was to play Peeta, I was still not thrilled with this performance. Hemsworth, though he had little screen time and his role was minimal in this first movie, failed to portray any of the passion of Gale, whether it be his feelings for Katniss, at which the first book only hints of, or his deep dislike of the Capitol, for which you get a better sense of in the book. Regardless, the performance felt shallow. Or maybe it was just the character development. Again.
Do you see a theme emerging here?
Perhaps I should skip the casting and move right on to Character Development. Yes? No. Not just yet.
President Snow -- Donald Sutherland
I think Mr. Sutherland will likely develop into a great President Snow. His role in this first movie was insufficient for me to truly gauge how I feel about him as Snow. Particularly since I read all three books just days prior to seeing the movie [finished the third book the night before]. And I really do think that for some reason the freshness of the entire trilogy is skewing my perception of some of these performances. So I'll leave this one alone. For now. But know this: I have VERY HIGH expectations of Mr. Sutherland. Particularly for the movie(s) covering the third book, Mockingjay.
Effie Trinket -- Elizabeth Banks
Having never been a fan of Elizabeth Banks, I think she played Effie Trinket to near perfection. She was appropriately annoying and correspondingly self indulgent. More concerned about the niceties and the Tributes' manners, she was a fairly decent depiction of what I expected for someone from the Capitol. My biggest beef here was that in my head, Effie Trinket was somewhat heavyset. I think I'd have liked Ms Banks' performance better if she'd put on a few pounds for the role. But hey, that's just me. And what do I know?
Haymitch Abernathy -- Woody Harrelson
Hm. This one is tough. Mostly because I know that my feelings regarding this role are about character development. Assuming Mr. Harrelson was directed to deliver the Haymitch we got in The Hunger Games, I can not hold him at fault. If, however, this was his interpretation of the drunk, bullish mentor, then I am highly disappointed. Since I have no way of knowing which it is, director or interpretor, I will air my grievances in the Character Development section.
There were other characters but none I feel were fleshed out enough for me to truly comment on their performance. I recognize that the film would likely need to be twice as long to viably do the book justice, so I'll stick to the aforementioned performances and move on. Take that as a hint however, Hollywood: if the book is such that it warrants two movies, then give us two movies. Twilight did it. Harry Potter did it. I think The Hunger Games should probably do it. Just my two cents.
Character Development
All right. Let's get down to the nitty gritty, shall we? Character development was a bit of a mess, in my humble opinion. I never felt any chemistry with Katniss and Peeta. Nor with Katniss and Gale, for that matter. The conflicted Katniss never truly emerged. In the book, Peeta won my heart,and I was torn for Katniss, who would at some point have to choose between her best friend, Gale, and the "boy with the bread", Peeta. The movie, however, failed completely to conjure up my compassion for Katniss, as I never sensed her feelings for either boy. Her need to save Peeta was not the result of her internal struggle, her fear of returning to District 12 without him and winding up hated by all. Rather it felt like she was merely wanting to save him because it was the right thing to do. Her hatred of Peeta when she sees him with the Career Tributes failed to take form as well, and that left me feeling unsure of her motives for anything to do with Peeta.
Haymitch, in the book, comes across as bullish, uncaring, selfish, and a complete alcoholic. Totally unlikeable. Not so in the movie. This Haymitch was concerned, helpful, and almost felt like he was trying to be Katniss' new BFF. It will be interesting to see how this character develops in upcoming movies.
Peeta, who professes his love for Katniss during the Tribute Interviews before the Games begin, was completely unconvincing. The charisma so clearly depicted in the book never came across the screen and I found myself barely tolerating him. A complete one-eighty from how I felt for him in the book.
The tracker jacker hallucination scene, when Katniss is yelling at her mom. For viewers who'd not read the book, I'm sure this scene was lost on them. It felt out of place and totally unnecessary.
And finally, Panem's Capital and it's citizens. Collins' vivid descriptions of the people that inhabited the Capitol left me with a mental image of a place so surreal, filled with self-important, self-centered, self-indulgent people whose only purpose in life is to be fashionable and party. These narcissists implanted gems on their bodies, tattooed their faces and surgically altered themselves in extreme ways for fashion, and dressed so outrageously that surely it befit the phrase for which Panem was named, 'Panem et Circenses', a Latin phrase meaning "Bread and Circuses." Hoarding was fashionable, gorging oneself and them regurgitating it all to make room for more gorging, and worst of all, viewing The Hunger Games as pure entertainment, rather than for the brutal punishment it was. This is what made people citizens of Panem.
The movie however, doesn't show you the rainbow hued buildings, or the outlandish fashion customs of the locals. Instead we are only given brief glimpses of a city of gleaming silver, and citizens covered in obnoxious colored costumes and positively garish makeup. These people looked less like the Panem citizens of Collins' book, and more as if they were trying to bring back punk rock in the 80s. I think this was a major fail point for me, however inconsequential to the story line it was, because I feel that with today's technology, Hollywood could have really brought Panem to life on the screen. Instead, what we got felt like a half hearted attempt to bring back Willy Wonka and his Chocolate Factory, minus all the colors and the Oompa Loompas.
Overall
Though from my breakdown you might think I completely disliked the movie, you'd be wrong. I actually enjoyed the move overall. It took separating it as much as possible from the wonderful book I'd just finished reading, and approaching the movie as it's own entity, independent from the book. Once I was able to do that, the movie was somewhat entertaining and it was interesting to see the director's interpretation of such a highly popular novel. While I enjoyed the movie, and am looking forward to seeing the sequels that correspond to the other books in the trilogy, I can't say this is one I'd watch again. At least not any time soon.
And that, dear friends and welcome strangers, concludes my review of The Hunger Games [movie]. Please note that these are just my opinions, and they don't mean much to anyone but me, however I certainly appreciate you stopping in to visit. Feel free to leave a comment with your impression of the Hunger Games, and be sure to include if you've read the book.
Here's to seeing our beloved books on the big screen!
Share Tweet
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
