The Hunger Games (review)

Recommended Videos

A Curious Fellow

New member
Nov 16, 2010
284
0
0
Okay. Negatives first.

First, from the start and all the way to the end, the cinematography is bound up in itself and fighting itself every step of the way. Zoom ins that are too close and ceaseless shaky handcamera work press a sense of urgency and tension in countless scenes that were obviously not in any way designed to be urgent or tense. The action scenes being filmed this way is one thing, but usage of such techniques in establishing shots and expository scenes is utterly indefensible.

Second, this film revolves around dehumanizing murder, of children and by children, and as such would have been served abundantly better with an R rating. The deliberate shy away from raw depictions of violence is unmistakable. That said, nothing in the action sequences ever feels fake or phoned in, and considering the lack of gore and money shots, that is a great feat in and of itself.

Third, the visual design of the mutant dog things in act 3 is a blatant rip off of the Mabari hounds from Dragon Age, seen here: http://blogs.setonhill.edu/setonian/files/2011/02/Mabari-War-Dog-character.jpg But I don't mind, because I got to mention Mabari hounds.

Good things: Everything else. Elizabeth Banks and Stanley Tucci in particular do a great job of personifying the massive divide between the downtrodden district dwellers and the impossibly rich and self-absorbed asscrabs in the gleaming capitol. The costume design is beautifully surreal in this regard as well. The story is well structured everywhere that matters, never leaving me feeling confused or disinterested. I can't think of any scenes that served no purpose, despite this being a movie adapted from its book by its book's own author. But most of all I have to commend Jennifer Lawrence. Entire scenes relied on her acting alone to inform the audience of the emotional tone and impact of the events onscreen, and she performed excellently.

All in all, I loved this movie. The camerawork may well give you a headache, so plan for that, but this is absolutely one to see.

ESPECIALLY if you haven't read it yet.
 

Lionsfan

I miss my old avatar
Jan 29, 2010
2,842
0
0
Just a tip, reviews like this go into the User Review section of the Forums rather than Off-Topic discussion. You could probably ask a mod to move it

As for the review, good write up. I'll probably have to watch the movie to fully understand what you're talking about, but good anyways. One of my pet-peeves in movies is Shaky-Cam to try and make it "more realistic", so if this has a lot of that I probably won't be seeing it soon
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
Just came back from seeing this, and I have to say that I couldn't disagree more with one part of your review, specifically:

A Curious Fellow said:
ESPECIALLY if you haven't read it yet.
I found the film did a reasonable job of fan service for those already familiar with the source material. The casting was strong...Jennifer Lawrence in particular was excellent, as you noted...and it's good fun to see familiar characters and set pieces acted out on screen.

Unfortunately, the almost breakneck pace established in an attempt to cram the events of the novel into a 2+ hour film leaves little to no room whatsoever for character building or subtext, and as a result a SIGNIFICANT amount of essential characterization, atmosphere and tension is obliterated.

This is particularly damning on two fronts. The first is that the time in the arena feels compressed...what elapsed over several weeks in the books appears to occur over a couple of days at best, and feels more like a couple of hours. We have little time to meet or understand the other contestants...Cato in particular has lost much of his menace and significance...and perhaps more importantly numerous significant injuries/life threatening situations encountered by Katniss are minimized or hand waved away. The days she spent almost dying of dehydration? Cut. The burn on her leg? Barely seen, almost immediately cured. The concussion/loss of hearing she suffered after sabotaging the supplies? Gone. Peeta's life threatening wound and subsequent blood poisoning? Barely touched upon. She comes out of the games looking barely rumpled, and as a result the impact of the games on her psyche is lost. Book Katniss is clearly suffering from moderate to severe post traumatic stress syndrome from her time in the games. Film Katniss seems mildly annoyed.

The second, and perhaps even more harmful loss, is her relationship with Peeta. We get to see very little of the wary, untrusting, cynical, manipulative Katniss in this film, beyond those little snatches Lawrence is able to put across through sheer determination in her performance. A viewer seeing this without having read the books would be completely oblivious to the fact that Katniss's seeming affection for Peeta is a ruse to dupe sponsors (a ruse he is lamentably unaware of, and eventually heartbroken by). Instead, we're presented with what appears to be a paint by numbers and absurdly accelerated romance, which will do nothing to dampen the hoots of derision Hunger Games receives whenever it is (wrongly) compared to bodice rippers like Twilight.

It's not a terrible film, but it needed another hour of running time to make it to the screen intact, and what we're left with is a poor imitation of the books. Fans of the novels should by all means see it...Lawrence is a capable and compelling Katniss, Hutcherson is an appealing Peeta, and many of the secondary characters are nicely portrayed as well. Those who haven't read the books would be well advised to steer clear until they have, or be prepared for a seriously watered down translation of the source material.
 

A Curious Fellow

New member
Nov 16, 2010
284
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
Just came back from seeing this, and I have to say that I couldn't disagree more with one part of your review, specifically:

A Curious Fellow said:
ESPECIALLY if you haven't read it yet.
I found the film did a reasonable job of fan service for those already familiar with the source material. The casting was strong...Jennifer Lawrence in particular was excellent, as you noted...and it's good fun to see familiar characters and set pieces acted out on screen.

Unfortunately, the almost breakneck pace established in an attempt to cram the events of the novel into a 2+ hour film leaves little to no room whatsoever for character building or subtext, and as a result a SIGNIFICANT amount of essential characterization, atmosphere and tension is obliterated.

This is particularly damning on two fronts. The first is that the time in the arena feels compressed...what elapsed over several weeks in the books appears to occur over a couple of days at best, and feels more like a couple of hours. We have little time to meet or understand the other contestants...Cato in particular has lost much of his menace and significance...and perhaps more importantly numerous significant injuries/life threatening situations encountered by Katniss are minimized or hand waved away. The days she spent almost dying of dehydration? Cut. The burn on her leg? Barely seen, almost immediately cured. The concussion/loss of hearing she suffered after sabotaging the supplies? Gone. Peeta's life threatening wound and subsequent blood poisoning? Barely touched upon. She comes out of the games looking barely rumpled, and as a result the impact of the games on her psyche is lost. Book Katniss is clearly suffering from moderate to severe post traumatic stress syndrome from her time in the games. Film Katniss seems mildly annoyed.

The second, and perhaps even more harmful loss, is her relationship with Peeta. We get to see very little of the wary, untrusting, cynical, manipulative Katniss in this film, beyond those little snatches Lawrence is able to put across through sheer determination in her performance. A viewer seeing this without having read the books would be completely oblivious to the fact that Katniss's seeming affection for Peeta is a ruse to dupe sponsors (a ruse he is lamentably unaware of, and eventually heartbroken by). Instead, we're presented with what appears to be a paint by numbers and absurdly accelerated romance, which will do nothing to dampen the hoots of derision Hunger Games receives whenever it is (wrongly) compared to bodice rippers like Twilight.

It's not a terrible film, but it needed another hour of running time to make it to the screen intact, and what we're left with is a poor imitation of the books. Fans of the novels should by all means see it...Lawrence is a capable and compelling Katniss, Hutcherson is an appealing Peeta, and many of the secondary characters are nicely portrayed as well. Those who haven't read the books would be well advised to steer clear until they have, or be prepared for a seriously watered down translation of the source material.
No, see, this is what I mean by the movie being best for people who didn't read the book. I'm not bogged down by looking for things that really have nothing to do with the film I'm watching. I can just watch the film, virginal to the material. Maybe, say, the black guy got way more characterization in the book, but that doesn't matter to someone who didn't read it. In the film he's just one of the cannon fodder one-offs who isn't Rue or from district one or two or twelve and gets one particular moment to do something memorable, which is all you can really hope for in a movie like this. I sincerely feel that I enjoyed this movie far more than I would have if I had spoiled myself with the book. I'll let you know once I've read the book if I still feel that way.
 

A Curious Fellow

New member
Nov 16, 2010
284
0
0
Lionsfan said:
Just a tip, reviews like this go into the User Review section of the Forums rather than Off-Topic discussion. You could probably ask a mod to move it

As for the review, good write up. I'll probably have to watch the movie to fully understand what you're talking about, but good anyways. One of my pet-peeves in movies is Shaky-Cam to try and make it "more realistic", so if this has a lot of that I probably won't be seeing it soon
I didn't realize there even was a user-review section. Thanks for letting me know. But I don't think I will alert a mod to move it. Attracting their attention has never done me any good.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
A Curious Fellow said:
No, see, this is what I mean by the movie being best for people who didn't read the book. I'm not bogged down by looking for things that really have nothing to do with the film I'm watching. I can just watch the film, virginal to the material. Maybe, say, the black guy got way more characterization in the book, but that doesn't matter to someone who didn't read it. In the film he's just one of the cannon fodder one-offs who isn't Rue or from district one or two or twelve and gets one particular moment to do something memorable, which is all you can really hope for in a movie like this. I sincerely feel that I enjoyed this movie far more than I would have if I had spoiled myself with the book. I'll let you know once I've read the book if I still feel that way.
Well, alright. Let's put it this way. The film, taken hand in hand with the book, is alright. Not perfect, not terrible. The film, taken on its own, without any of the subtext or character building in the book, is rubbish. Well acted rubbish, at least in Lawrence's case, but rubbish nonetheless.

As you enjoyed it, this should make you fairly excited, as you're apt to like the book MUCH more.
 

torzath

New member
Jun 29, 2010
117
0
0
A Curious Fellow said:
Third, the visual design of the mutant dog things in act 3 is a blatant rip off of the Mabari hounds from Dragon Age, seen here: http://blogs.setonhill.edu/setonian/files/2011/02/Mabari-War-Dog-character.jpg But I don't mind, because I got to mention Mabari hounds.
Uh, the mabari hounds themselves are based on real life mastiff dog breeds. I don't think dragon age had anything to do with it.

Bandogge Mastiff


Cane Corso


I do wonder why they went for mastiff over wolf (like the book description)though. Perhaps to make it clear they weren't just ordinary animals?
 

A Curious Fellow

New member
Nov 16, 2010
284
0
0
torzath said:
A Curious Fellow said:
Third, the visual design of the mutant dog things in act 3 is a blatant rip off of the Mabari hounds from Dragon Age, seen here: http://blogs.setonhill.edu/setonian/files/2011/02/Mabari-War-Dog-character.jpg But I don't mind, because I got to mention Mabari hounds.
Uh, the mabari hounds themselves are based on real life mastiff dog breeds. I don't think dragon age had anything to do with it.

Bandogge Mastiff


Cane Corso


I do wonder why they went for mastiff over wolf (like the book description)though. Perhaps to make it clear they weren't just ordinary animals?
Okay.... but, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, I totally don't actually care. Because Mabari hounds are what scientists refer to as "the shit"
 

torzath

New member
Jun 29, 2010
117
0
0
A Curious Fellow said:
Okay.... but, and I mean this in the nicest way possible, I totally don't actually care. Because Mabari hounds are what scientists refer to as "the shit"
Mabari hounds are indeed amazing, but accusing a movie of plagiarism just to mention them is a little far-fetched.