Here's a review I wrote for my website, moviepodpie.com Give it a shot!
THE HUNGER GAMES (2012)
Directed by Gary Ross
Written By Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray Based On A Novel By Suzanne Collins
Starring Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss); Josh Hutcherson (Peeta); Liam Hemsworth (Gale)
OK. Now that the "hype" has died down a bit I have decided to take a look at The Hunger Games. I'm not trying to be a "Johnny Come Lately" (I wonder who the real Johnny was who came late--does he get residuals on this? I have managed to digress in only two sentences, a new record for me--maybe I can start a new phrase "Johnny Digression"). I intentionally waited to see and review this movie because, frankly, if you are a hardcore fan of this franchise you have already seen it (more than once) and wouldn't heed my advice (whether a recommendation or a dismissal) in any case. This review is not written for teenagers. It is written for guys just like me. Let's face it--this movie wasn't made with the "Geeky Guys Approaching 40" demographic in mind. That said--
In 1924, a short story written by Richard Connell was published by Collier's Weekly. Entitled "The Most Dangerous Game", it involved the concept of Man hunting Man. I mention this fact not to show how knowledgeable I am (since I pulled that fact not out of the recesses of my mind but from Wikipedia), but to point out something crucial/critical about the supposed lack of originality in The Hunger Games. Most geek-oriented reviews of this movie point out its liberal appropriation of plot elements from sources such as Battle Royale (an insanely violent Asian film), The Running Man (based on a novella by Richard Bachman--whatever became of him?), The Long Walk (based on a novella by Richard Bachman--oh yeah, he was "killed" by Stephen King some time ago), the Star Trek episode "Breads And Circuses", and, of course, the television show "Survivor" (which to me, at least, is not a "Reality Show" so much as it is a "Game Show"). The point being, sure, The Hunger Games certainly is not "original" but then again, neither are any of the stories/movies that it takes from.
Is it original? No. Does that instantly categorize it as bad? No. So, then, is it good? Well, sure. I suppose it is. I mean, it kept me engaged for its (to be fair overly long) 2 1/2 hour running time. It entertained me. There were actual moments of suspense and things of a gripping nature. I recommend it for the sheer enjoyment value. However--
The problems I have with the movie (and would likely have with the book were I to read it) are fairly large. The basic plot (I'll "high concept" describe this as best I can) is this: In a dystopic future, the United States (I know, I know, it's really called Panem, but to be honest, it's America) has been split into 12 sectors (districts). Every year a boy and a girl (ages 12-18) from each district are chosen by lot (I guess we can add Shirley Jackson's The Lottery to this movie's origin stew, come to think of it) to battle to the death on television. The reasons for this are not all that clear, but it evidentially is to pay tribute to the evil overlord-like government (run by a ZZ Top bearded Donald Sutherland). So, the survivor rate for these Games is not very much in your favor, should your name be drawn (I would calculate it, but I am not much for math learnin'). Since the Games are televised (there are cameras EVERYWHERE), all of the killings are broadcast (presumably all 23 of them) to the bloodthirsty masses (though, when we see the masses watching the Games, they don't appear to be especially bloodthirsty). We follow the Tributes from District 12, a fierce headstrong girl named Katniss, and a likable, if dull, boy named Peeta (not sure if this is a subtle advertisement for PETA, my guess and hope would be not). Will one of them survive? Will they fall in love? I am not going to spoil it. I will say, however, that there are three books in the series, so what do you think the chances are Katniss gets offed?
So, that's basically it. This is one of those "futurey" movies where there's an occasional rocketship flying overhead and most of the characters have "future hair" (you'll know what I mean if/when yo see it). The costumes all look to be not so much futuristic as they appear to be Gaultier designs, circa 1995 or so (I can see in my mind Kate Moss wearing some of these clothes). There's stormtroopers and weird facial hair, which I would imagine means our great-grandchildren's generation will be spending lots of time with grooming.
So, if Katniss is the hero of the movie (is "heroine" considered now to be sexist the same way "actress" is?) and we have to like her and want to see her survive, we're going to have to see her actually kill people. It's here that the movie really loses me. The story wants its cake and to eat it too. If we watch Katniss kill people in a bloodthirsty fashion it will make her not sympathetic. However, if she doesn't kill anyone, she would probably be the first to go. So, the movie cheats. It keeps putting her into scenarios where she would have to make some morally shaky decisions and then almost immediately removes her from them. Had the movie really examined what its premise was, it would be glorifying a mass murderer. Since glorifications of mass murderers aren't usually fodder for PG-13 event movies, this won't do. I am treading lightly here to avoid spoilers, but there's another Tribute that Katniss teams up with, and when I saw that, I thought, "Hmm, this could get interesting if Katniss needs to eventually fight this other character to the death". A second or two later, that moral quandary was eliminated, as was the possibility of the film going into some dicey and interesting territory.
Another problem is the Hunger Games themselves (should it be plural? Not sure). The rules should be set in stone and yet they are amazingly flexible to the demands of the plot. Again, we cannot have two characters we grow to care about killing each other (not in a teen movie, apparently), so the Game Master (or whatever you want to use to describe Wes Bentley's character) makes a fundamental change that makes no sense to the world that the movie is depicting. Did someone read the screenplay?
Another major issue I have is with just how futuristic this world really is. It is a mixture of high tech and agrarian cultures, which is fine, but just how high tech is this future? The Games, as mentioned, are monitored by what must be thousands of cameras. Fine, but later in the movie, the people running the Games seem to be able to make living breathing creatures materialize out of the thin air (monster creatures that seem to be half dog, half bear, and all bad CGI). So, if this is a world that can manufacture animals from nowhere (maybe the science of this is explained in the novel better, but in the movie it is a confusing mess) it would seem hunger would not be much of a problem (I mean, just create lots of cows, pigs, and chickens, for God's sake). These creatures are a jarring addition to the proceedings and go a long way to wreck the credibility of the world that we're being asked to buy into.
In any case, I still liked the movie fine. The acting was good. Jennifer Lawrence is quite good as Katniss, a strong-willed earthy young woman who is comfortable in the woods and will do anything to save her sibling (coming off her work in the overrated Winter's Bone, where she played a strong-willed earthy young woman who is comfortable in the woods and will do anything to save her siblings). Josh Hutcherson is fine as Peeta, though the script fails him (why have him betray Katniss at one point if you're never going to deal with it). As the "Adults" Woody Harrelson is decent as a former Games survivor (though his character seems to be pulled and pushed in directions that make no character sense but further the plot). Stanley Tucci, as the host of the television show, is having fun here and it is infectious (he is one of the few people in the movie, both as actor and character who seems to understand the utter ridiculousness of the premise). Liam Hemsworth is barely used (I imagine we'll have more of him in the sequels, when the movie adds Twilight to its influences by having a love triangle between a good girl, a decent boy, and another boy with a dangerous edge).
This is a pretty good movie. I'm not sure it should be closing in on $400 million domestic, but then, as mentioned, this movie doesn't necessarily consider me as a viable target for it. It has enough action to keep you watching, if not "hungry" for more (I believe all reviews should in some way pun the title of what you're reviewing--thanks Gene Shalit and Jeffrey Lyons!)
Two more books to adapt into movies. How much you wanna bet the last book Mockingjay is made into two separate movies?
Letter Grade: B
THE HUNGER GAMES (2012)
Directed by Gary Ross
Written By Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray Based On A Novel By Suzanne Collins
Starring Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss); Josh Hutcherson (Peeta); Liam Hemsworth (Gale)
OK. Now that the "hype" has died down a bit I have decided to take a look at The Hunger Games. I'm not trying to be a "Johnny Come Lately" (I wonder who the real Johnny was who came late--does he get residuals on this? I have managed to digress in only two sentences, a new record for me--maybe I can start a new phrase "Johnny Digression"). I intentionally waited to see and review this movie because, frankly, if you are a hardcore fan of this franchise you have already seen it (more than once) and wouldn't heed my advice (whether a recommendation or a dismissal) in any case. This review is not written for teenagers. It is written for guys just like me. Let's face it--this movie wasn't made with the "Geeky Guys Approaching 40" demographic in mind. That said--
In 1924, a short story written by Richard Connell was published by Collier's Weekly. Entitled "The Most Dangerous Game", it involved the concept of Man hunting Man. I mention this fact not to show how knowledgeable I am (since I pulled that fact not out of the recesses of my mind but from Wikipedia), but to point out something crucial/critical about the supposed lack of originality in The Hunger Games. Most geek-oriented reviews of this movie point out its liberal appropriation of plot elements from sources such as Battle Royale (an insanely violent Asian film), The Running Man (based on a novella by Richard Bachman--whatever became of him?), The Long Walk (based on a novella by Richard Bachman--oh yeah, he was "killed" by Stephen King some time ago), the Star Trek episode "Breads And Circuses", and, of course, the television show "Survivor" (which to me, at least, is not a "Reality Show" so much as it is a "Game Show"). The point being, sure, The Hunger Games certainly is not "original" but then again, neither are any of the stories/movies that it takes from.
Is it original? No. Does that instantly categorize it as bad? No. So, then, is it good? Well, sure. I suppose it is. I mean, it kept me engaged for its (to be fair overly long) 2 1/2 hour running time. It entertained me. There were actual moments of suspense and things of a gripping nature. I recommend it for the sheer enjoyment value. However--
The problems I have with the movie (and would likely have with the book were I to read it) are fairly large. The basic plot (I'll "high concept" describe this as best I can) is this: In a dystopic future, the United States (I know, I know, it's really called Panem, but to be honest, it's America) has been split into 12 sectors (districts). Every year a boy and a girl (ages 12-18) from each district are chosen by lot (I guess we can add Shirley Jackson's The Lottery to this movie's origin stew, come to think of it) to battle to the death on television. The reasons for this are not all that clear, but it evidentially is to pay tribute to the evil overlord-like government (run by a ZZ Top bearded Donald Sutherland). So, the survivor rate for these Games is not very much in your favor, should your name be drawn (I would calculate it, but I am not much for math learnin'). Since the Games are televised (there are cameras EVERYWHERE), all of the killings are broadcast (presumably all 23 of them) to the bloodthirsty masses (though, when we see the masses watching the Games, they don't appear to be especially bloodthirsty). We follow the Tributes from District 12, a fierce headstrong girl named Katniss, and a likable, if dull, boy named Peeta (not sure if this is a subtle advertisement for PETA, my guess and hope would be not). Will one of them survive? Will they fall in love? I am not going to spoil it. I will say, however, that there are three books in the series, so what do you think the chances are Katniss gets offed?
So, that's basically it. This is one of those "futurey" movies where there's an occasional rocketship flying overhead and most of the characters have "future hair" (you'll know what I mean if/when yo see it). The costumes all look to be not so much futuristic as they appear to be Gaultier designs, circa 1995 or so (I can see in my mind Kate Moss wearing some of these clothes). There's stormtroopers and weird facial hair, which I would imagine means our great-grandchildren's generation will be spending lots of time with grooming.
So, if Katniss is the hero of the movie (is "heroine" considered now to be sexist the same way "actress" is?) and we have to like her and want to see her survive, we're going to have to see her actually kill people. It's here that the movie really loses me. The story wants its cake and to eat it too. If we watch Katniss kill people in a bloodthirsty fashion it will make her not sympathetic. However, if she doesn't kill anyone, she would probably be the first to go. So, the movie cheats. It keeps putting her into scenarios where she would have to make some morally shaky decisions and then almost immediately removes her from them. Had the movie really examined what its premise was, it would be glorifying a mass murderer. Since glorifications of mass murderers aren't usually fodder for PG-13 event movies, this won't do. I am treading lightly here to avoid spoilers, but there's another Tribute that Katniss teams up with, and when I saw that, I thought, "Hmm, this could get interesting if Katniss needs to eventually fight this other character to the death". A second or two later, that moral quandary was eliminated, as was the possibility of the film going into some dicey and interesting territory.
Another problem is the Hunger Games themselves (should it be plural? Not sure). The rules should be set in stone and yet they are amazingly flexible to the demands of the plot. Again, we cannot have two characters we grow to care about killing each other (not in a teen movie, apparently), so the Game Master (or whatever you want to use to describe Wes Bentley's character) makes a fundamental change that makes no sense to the world that the movie is depicting. Did someone read the screenplay?
Another major issue I have is with just how futuristic this world really is. It is a mixture of high tech and agrarian cultures, which is fine, but just how high tech is this future? The Games, as mentioned, are monitored by what must be thousands of cameras. Fine, but later in the movie, the people running the Games seem to be able to make living breathing creatures materialize out of the thin air (monster creatures that seem to be half dog, half bear, and all bad CGI). So, if this is a world that can manufacture animals from nowhere (maybe the science of this is explained in the novel better, but in the movie it is a confusing mess) it would seem hunger would not be much of a problem (I mean, just create lots of cows, pigs, and chickens, for God's sake). These creatures are a jarring addition to the proceedings and go a long way to wreck the credibility of the world that we're being asked to buy into.
In any case, I still liked the movie fine. The acting was good. Jennifer Lawrence is quite good as Katniss, a strong-willed earthy young woman who is comfortable in the woods and will do anything to save her sibling (coming off her work in the overrated Winter's Bone, where she played a strong-willed earthy young woman who is comfortable in the woods and will do anything to save her siblings). Josh Hutcherson is fine as Peeta, though the script fails him (why have him betray Katniss at one point if you're never going to deal with it). As the "Adults" Woody Harrelson is decent as a former Games survivor (though his character seems to be pulled and pushed in directions that make no character sense but further the plot). Stanley Tucci, as the host of the television show, is having fun here and it is infectious (he is one of the few people in the movie, both as actor and character who seems to understand the utter ridiculousness of the premise). Liam Hemsworth is barely used (I imagine we'll have more of him in the sequels, when the movie adds Twilight to its influences by having a love triangle between a good girl, a decent boy, and another boy with a dangerous edge).
This is a pretty good movie. I'm not sure it should be closing in on $400 million domestic, but then, as mentioned, this movie doesn't necessarily consider me as a viable target for it. It has enough action to keep you watching, if not "hungry" for more (I believe all reviews should in some way pun the title of what you're reviewing--thanks Gene Shalit and Jeffrey Lyons!)
Two more books to adapt into movies. How much you wanna bet the last book Mockingjay is made into two separate movies?
Letter Grade: B