Tuesday, 27 March 2012

The Hunger Games - Review

While it doesn't quite live up to all the hype, The Hunger Games (Gary Ross) comes very close, and delivers a perfectly enjoyable blockbuster, that is sure to propel Jennifer Lawrence even further into the spotlight.

Set in a dystopian future, North America is now called Panem, and is divided into districts. The further out from the major city, The Capitol, you go, the poorer the districts are. Every year, a lottery is drawn, and two 'tributes', male and female between the ages of 12 and 18, are sent from each district to compete in the Hunger Games, a fight to the death, where only one comes out alive. This is in memory, and punishment, of a previous uprising of the districts against the government. At the annual 'Reaping' Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence), volunteers in place of her younger sister Prim (Willow Shields). She and male competitor Peeta Mellark, (Josh Hutcherson) must now travel to the Capitol, impress sponsors, win public support and train as quickly as they can in order to have the best chance of surviving, knowing that even though they are from the same community, only one can return.

I have always been unsure of the casting of Jennifer Lawrence in the lead role. Thankfully, I found nothing to complain about with her performance, and it was even one of the films highlights. She has to carry a lot of the film by herself. Also impressive was Hutcherson as Peeta, who isn't the a-typical, suave love interest that you would come to expect from a franchise such as this. That job goes to Gale (Liam Hemsworth), Katniss' closest friend and hunting partner in District 12. Hints of a love triangle are present, but seeing as Gale's character doesn't have a lot to do in this film apart from watching the televised games in a few cutaways, the filmmakers can't really do more except hint at a little jealousy of Peeta on his part.

Over two hours, the film certainly doesn't feel as long as the runtime suggests, which obviously works greatly to its credit. There is a lot of build up to the actual start of the Games (with a few short lulls, but these felt negligible), and a lot of moments of real tension in the arena itself. The moment the Games begin is truly amazing - sound cuts out, and the horror of the opening bloodbath for supplies and weapons is all the more shocking, as we witness what desperate people will do in a life or death situation. What's even heartbreaking is some of the tributes look as if they are even enjoying it.

So, The Hunger Games has tension, excitement, is for the most part well-paced and a number of good performances. I never expected this film to get away without downsides however, and it definitely had them. My number one pet peeve was the use of the shaky, handheld camera (and a lot of people I know have been saying this). I understand what the filmmakers were trying to do, in emphasising the reality TV show aspect. During the second half of the film it mostly worked pretty well, but the first half used it far too much. It felt jarring and distracting a lot of the time. It was just unnecessary.

Downside number two - little details of significance weren't really explained properly. The significance of the Mockingjay pin that Katniss wears, for example. I have read the books, but it was a while ago, and I was a little unsure as to what these things meant at times.

Downside number three - I didn't connect emotionally with any of the characters as much as I should have. There were two scenes which had the most emotional impact for me - near the beginning, when Katniss volunteered for Prim. This was incredibly well-handled, and not melodramatic at all. The second was the death of one of the tributes in the Games. It's an inevitable thing - we are told from the beginning only one will come out - but this particular one (which I don't want to spoil) was really quite moving. Other than these two moments, I never really experienced any kind of emotional turbulence, and this is what would have given the film its edge.
Peeta Mellark

Overall, I think the thing I expected from The Hunger Games was a popcorn flick, or a good blockbuster. This is pretty much what I got, as I had never really bought in to the hype surrounding the release. I wasn't disappointed, I had fun, and while I wouldn't rush to see it again, I wouldn't really have an objection to it either.

3.5 / 5.





13 comments:

  1. Interesting that you weren't keen on Lawrence casting because I couldn't find someone else better for Katniss. Who would you choose instead Ruth?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not entirely sure. I completely agree with the casting now that I've seen it, but when it was first announced I just couldn't picture it at all!

      Delete
    2. Ah I see, well I'm glad Lawrence changed your mind. I really think it's a much improvement compared to y'know, Twilight!

      Delete
  2. Good review, I like the fact that you didn't get into the movie with high expectations, I always try to do that, it's better!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Definitely leads to less disappointment.....except when it comes to Twilight films perhaps. I always expect them to be bad, and they always are, haha!
      Thanks Diana :)

      Delete
  3. The film doesn't really get going until they actually do get to The Hunger Games, but when it does get started up its entertaining, tense, unpredictable, and very well executed from Gary Ross. I also couldn't believe that this was his 3rd film after other flicks such as Seabiscuit and Pleasantville, which are both good but are different from this one. Still though, great jobs from everybody involved and I cannot wait for the sequel. Good review Ruth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Woah - I've not seen Seabiscuit, but I've seen Pleasantville. Definitely a change for Ross! Thanks Dan!

      Delete
  4. Entirely agree with your review, sums it up mighty finely!
    I was disappointed Peeta wasn't better eye candy - but it was for the best since Hutcherson was a pretty accurate portrayal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cheers VezzieT :P I actually didn't think Peeta was that bad looking. He grew on me after a while :D

      Delete
  5. Awesome review! That pin...I never read the books and I didn't get what the hell was up in every single scene with it. Eh, should have just stayed home and read books, because apparantly without novels the movies are incomprehensible nowadays:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've read the books, but honestly can't remember. Something about the Mockingjay is significant - they might be leaving it for the next film, but yeah, little deets like that stopped the film being amazing for me. :)

      Delete
  6. I saw Hunger Games this week, and would also give it an average rating. The lack of violence I was okay with, and the survival in the forest was exciting enough. I haven't read the book as you have. The story I didn't think was particularly original, as I had already seen (the bloodier) Battle Royale a few years back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've been wanting to see Battle Royale for ages now. Am keeping on eye out for the DVD :) As for the story, in terms of the market it's aimed at I think it's pretty decent. One of the better young adult franchises for a while, anyway.

      Delete

Let's have some discussion...