The Hunger Games – Review

by Ken B.

Some visual  details in The Hunger Games will most likely always be questioned in my mind,  particularly due to director Gary Ross’ (Pleasentville, Seabiscuit) constant use of what I affectionately refer to as “San-Andreas vision”, or the employment of an extremely shaky camera during action sequences. And when I say “extremely”, I do mean that.

But first, let’s start with the backstory. By what I can tell (the first thirty minutes were a cinematic nightmare, more on that later though), this is the story of Katniss Everdeen (JENNIFER LAWRENCE), a sixteen year old girl who lives in Panem, the remains of North America in the distant future, a now “united” multi-district supernation headed up by a mysterious capital.

Katniss lives in District Twelve, the dirt-poor district, the industrial district, the Hollywood-version-of-Detroit-and-an-off-forest district. She has a little sister named Primrose (WILLOW SHIELDS), and life is somewhat normal, although that’s about to change.

Every year, for the past 74, Panem has held something called “The Hunger Games”. This is where, chosen at random, is one boy and one girl, between the ages of 12 and 18, from each district is sent to fight to the death against each other, until there’s one left. That’s a 23 to 1 chance of survival, for those of you who aren’t good at math.

Surprise, surprise, Primrose is chosen as the District 12 girl, and as a result, Katniss believing she won’t stand a chance, volunteers to take her place. The male tribune is a boy roughly the same age as Katniss, the son of a baker called Peeta Mellark (JOSH HUTCHERSON). This is about the time where I start complaining.

Earlier in this article, I mentioned that I hated the first half hour of this film. And rightly so. Unfortunately, it is necessary. Without the first thirty minutes, you would have no clue who the good guys and bad guys were. They’re interchangeable and you don’t feel for anyone, really.

I assume this is because the screenplay assumes that most viewers will be familiar with the book it’s based from. However, I have not read the books, and if you have to read a novel to understand a film, it is clear that the film has not accomplished what it should do.

When the titular Hunger Games kick off, the shaky camera is almost all we know. I assume this is to reduce the impact of the violence (despite that, Lionsgate decided to cut a few seconds to avoid a restricted rating in the US (“R”) and the UK (“15”). However, for the viewers who can handle the harsher stuff, it comes off as an irritating mess. If I had seen this film when it was in theaters instead of on home media, the excess of  intentionally shaky and blurry imagery would have caused me to erroneously report to the manager that the projector was out of focus. Really, it’s a problem.

Now, let me talk about  acting. A later example in this film (AMANDLA STENBERG) showed me  under 18s are capable of good acting, and unfortunately, Shields as Primrose Everdeen is hit-or-miss. All the  script gives her is a squeal and scream here or there and a bit of dialogue. The dialogue, however, is not delivered, you know, without being in a state of the period right before bursting into tears. (And it usually isn’t in context).

Jennifer Lawrence is a talented actress, and past roles have revealed that. She plays a strong female lead here, and she does very well as usual. But I had that feeling that the script was limited her potential. It was nothing that could have been prevented, that’s just a sidenote.

Among the supporting cast is Donald Sutherland who plays the barely on screen president. he’s the senior member and the best, he says so much with so little. However, it’s still quite inexcusable to underuse Donald Sutherland in your movie.

Is it safe to say that I had no emotional investment in anyone? The script takes the story and twists it into something reduced, just for the hardcore fans. Who said this was acceptable?

If there is one compliment I have, it’s the experience. The Hunger Games is a unique experience, filled with a sense of importance and harm, not unto itself, but into itself. My best guess is that this film was supposed to be deep, dark, painful, and lingering. However, you feel no pain for the characters, and it’s easily forgettable.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “The Hunger Games – Review

  1. Pingback: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 – Trailer Reaction « The Reviews

  2. Hi are using WordPress for your site platform? I’m new to the blog world but I’m trying to get started and set up my own. Do you require any coding knowledge to make your own blog? Any help would be greatly appreciated!

  3. This is really interesting, You’re a very skilled blogger.
    I’ve joined your rss feed and look forward to seeking more of your great post.
    Also, I have shared your site in my social networks!

  4. Hey! I could have sworn I’ve been to this blog before but after checking through some of the post I realized it’s new to me.
    Nonetheless, I’m definitely glad I found it and I’ll be book-marking
    and checking back often!

  5. Pingback: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire « The Reviews

  6. Pingback: This Film is on Fire — Weekend Special #11 | Weekend Special

  7. Pingback: This Film is on Fire — Weekend Special #11 « The Reviews

  8. Pingback: Beasts of the Southern Wild – Review | The Reviews

  9. Pingback: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire – Trailer Reaction | The Reviews

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s