foximus

(2013-06-17 13:57:12)

Hunger Games, the movie

This movie is science fiction set in a distant future in which part ofNorth America is divided into 12 zones, with some zones wealthier andmore advanced than others. Television still plays a huge role in thisfuture society. Television producers are able to create elaboratefantasy worlds.For historical reasons, each zone is required to select a young man andyoung woman to participate in a reality show that is essentially amutual hunt to the death combined with an escape from deadly specialeffects. The story focuses on the experiences of one engaging andattractive young couple from a particularly poor district.This interesting future world and the grand theatricality and drama ofthe "hunger games" are gradually revealed in a way that allowed me toget caught up in it. I enjoyed seeing how they imagined the futurewould look and how such a show would be mounted. The characters wereextraordinarily attractive and the movie was visually appealing. Themovie was fast paced and I was curious to see where it would lead.The character development of the Katniss character was good and therole was believably and well played by Jennifer Lawrence. She was thefocal point of the movie (perhaps at the expense of the othercharacters). I ending up caring about what happened to her and therewere a few places where I was emotionally affected by her experiences.Every movie has flaws though. Most of the characters weretwo-dimensional. Some aspects of this future society, including thetechnological capabilities of the show producers, bordered on theunbelievable.After looking at the discussion boards, I've discovered that this movieis part of a teenage phenomenon. Many young people see themselves ascognoscenti because they've read the books. They are explaining themovie in light of the book. It seems many fans don't want this movie tobe taken at face value -- they want viewers to read the book and theywant the movie to be interpreted in that light.Also, some young fans are apparently troubled by comparisons betweenthis movie and earlier movies, between this movie and earlier culturalthemes and concepts. Of course, they want the Hunger Games phenomenon(including the movie) to be seen as something fresh and new in ourculture.I think we have to remember to respect the fact that a movie is aseparate work of art. Books and movies are different media. The bookwill reveal more detail, including the thoughts of the characters. Amovie is much more of a visceral, visual experience. A movie may beloosely based on historical facts or a book, but it will not be thesame. And nor should it be. Hunger Games the book and Hunger Games the movie are two differentthings. They are approached differently. It's not really useful toexplain the "real" story behind the movie. There is no real story. Themovie is what it is. It stands on its own, separate from the historicalevents or book that gave rise to it. This doesn't effect the validityof the original book or historical events, of course. They can all beenjoyed, but in a different way.Also, many books and movies reflect earlier books, movies and themesthat have arisen in our culture. This is a good thing and enriches theexperience. Every book and movie will have to rely on artistic elementsthat went before. Some fans don't want this movie compared to the"Truman Show", for example, which was a fantastic, original movie. Themovie "In Time" also had a future world where people were forced tolive in districts with disparate wealth levels.The fans particularly don't want the Hunger Games compared togladiatorial combat. But to me that's what this movie reminded me of,especially the chariot entrance into the stadium. It was essentiallyfuturistic gladiatorial combat aimed at teenagers. Clearly this is whatthe author intended or the country wouldn't have been called "Panem".It didn't escape my notice that there was not much difference betweenthe 21st century moviegoers and the futuristic audience watching theHunger Games live. Perhaps not surprisingly, the morality of ofsadistic voyeurism was a theme not explored in this movie. This moviemight have been improved by the realistic depiction of gore. Theviolence here, despite being the core of the movie really, was of thegoreless Hollywood variety. True gore is too difficult for most peopleto watch. For me the unrealistic violence mitigated the horror of thesituation and the underlying moral point.Hunger Games seems to be aimed at a generation that has grown upwatching survivor, reality and game shows where people get "voted off"."You are the weakest link -- Boom!"I enjoyed the movie (but only for what it was) and would recommend itto anyone.

nikiconsiglio

(2013-06-17 06:26:43)

A well done film

I never read the book but loved everything about the film andstoryline. It was uneasy to watch at times but could not stop watching.The characters played their part beautifully. Katniss really capturedmy attention and proved to be a strong young woman which made for aperfect lead role. From beginning to end, I was entertained awaitingfor the hunger games and what was yet to come. The battle was so fiercebut portrayed courage, something people use in every day life.Throughout the movie they said "may the odds be ever in your favour"and the odds turned out to be something never expected. WatchingKatniss at home with her sister and in her everyday life showed thatshe would be tenacious in such a competition and for her to volunteerwas honourable. Her and Peeta were such a great team but it was such anodd coincidence that fate would put the two of them together. I watchedthe movie 2 times in one day and recommended it to everyone.

gorpong

(2013-06-15 20:28:22)

I would give almost anything to get these 2.5 hours back in my life

Summary says it all.Character development: nonexistent.Storyline / Plot: idiotic and not even remotely believable.Suspension of disbelief: just not possible, see above.Acting: Emotionally stunted, just didn't care about any of thecharacters. At the start, the relationship between Katniss and hersister (and her mother) seemed to be promising, but after about thefirst 10 minutes of the movie it became clear that was the best we weregoing to get.Plot twists: none, it was completely formulaic.I'm upset that I actually paid money to see this. At least the popcornwas buttered, and that's the best thing I have to say about this movie.I've never before posted a review to IMDb, but the depth of my negativeemotion for this film required I write this.

kwmorri

(2013-06-15 08:41:32)

Believable!

I would classify myself as a major fan of the books. So of course Inoticed all the subtle differences between the movie and the book.However, I'm smart enough to understand that books and movies are intwo different mediums, and thus cannot be compared to one another. I'mallowed to say the movie was a great adaptation on the book, which itwas, but you have to judge the book with one review and the movie withanother review. That is the end of my little rant, now it's time toreview the movie.I thought Gary Ross did an incredible job taking a difficult storylineand piecing it together without losing all the brutal and cruelelements of the story. What I liked:+ The tone throughout the movie matched the tone of the characters. Toomany times we see dramatic action movies try to add comedic elements tolighten the mood and add some comic relief, which I believe takes awayfrom the "mood" out of movie. The Hunger Games kept a consistent darktone from beginning to end. + All the actors were terrific and more importantly "believable"special shout out to Jennifer Lawrence, Stanley Tucci, DonaldSutherland, and Woody Harrelson. I have never seen a movie where I feltso connected with the characters and beating to the pulse of Katnissand Peeta.+ The camera-work! I know some people may not like the hand-held camerashooting, but I think it gives the viewer a first-person view and I'mgoing to throw out the word again "believable" + The underlying Score! Music isn't featured as much in the HungerGames as it is in most movies, but when it appeared, it added to thatdark tone that I loved so much. Kudos to James Newton Howard.What I didn't like - There weren't too many things I didn't like aboutthe movie. Actually there is only one thing, I wish they showed more ofthe districts and capitol citizens reactions to the Hunger Games. Itwasn't a huge deal for me but it's something that could have added tohow cruel the sport is and what the citizens are thinking when thereloved ones die. Overall, I give this movie an A+. I don't give many movies A+ but thismovie is well- deserving of an A+

Sick Motherfokker

(2013-06-14 17:26:49)

WARNING : Too long, boring and incredibly stupid !

Okay, I don't review a lot of movies, because I'm lazy and I trust IMDbto be fair and correct to a certain degree. But this movie is so veryawful. The rating is so very WRONG ! I can't understand how someone whocan read can like this movie. If you have never seen a movie, then thisone is maybe interesting, purely for its 'colors'. It made me angry,that I wasted 150 minutes of my life. I didn't feel anything for thecharacters, there was no character-development. There was little to noadventure. It was just plain boring and dull. It took 70 minutes beforethey even got to the main 'attraction'. I don't want to voice myopinion on this movie... I just want to warn you people out there. Ifyou like movies and see yourself as a person with good taste in movies,then I have only one word : AVOID !

sarthak_y

(2013-06-14 09:09:17)

Please stop comparing this to twilight..don't you have something better to do?

Just watched The Hunger Games with a bunch of friends and i have to saythat i was blown away by it.... firstly let me just say this to all thepeople complaining about shaky camera handling that it was supposed tobe like that.because when you are watching an intense scene in whichthe girl is being chased,you feel a rush of adrenaline and by directionof this kind that feeling is amplified,so for me it was superbdirection.... Jennifer Lawrence played the role of Katniss Everdeen toperfection,displaying that perfect blend of anger,hurt and love.theother actors did justice to their parts as well,but Jennifer Lawrenceas usual stole the show.on a grade of 1 to 10 i'll give her an 11.thisis one of the few movies who remain true to their novels...for me thismovie was brilliant in all aspects be it direction,acting orwhatever... To all those who haven't watched it yet-you can't afford tomiss this one people.P.S To all those nutbags who r busy comparing this movie to Twilight-please stop making fun of your own self and also stop wasting otherpeople's time because unlike you they have better things to do than towatch shitty movies or read books like TWILIGHT!!!

nagyistvanandor

(2013-06-14 09:52:46)

brain dead story

I don't know a thing about the book, so I just gonna pretend its amovie. Pretty much through out the film I was thinking "did the writersinteract with humans at all?" And I don't think so. The hole story hasits forced sense, where characters and events happen in a not realisticway, with the purpose to get from A to B, and when they would conflictwith the story they just go to non-existence. Like the riot in district 11, that is what would happen if thegovernment how already treats people like slaves, would go "Oh hey, Igonna take away from Your children and gonna slaughter them for no realgood reason. But hey it will be fun." But in this movie this onlyhappens so the story can progress forward, and once that it done itspurpose it goes in to a non-existence stage.Than there are the evil 4, how teams up for what reason? they will needto kill each other anyway, so no real sense in that. And they keeploverboy as a pet "Oh he's are best chance to found the hero"... why?(to keep loverboy a life I guess) Than they found her, apparently noneof them can clime tree's, they magically can't shoot the hero with bowland knifes. Than they go, because loverboy how would be dead rightthere since he served his purpose, goes "lets just wait till she comesdown" and they like "okay" Not that they could not shake the tree, orplace a mine on it and trigger it. No. Lets just wait so that the herocan survive. Than they all go a sleep... really? they have a dude nextto them how they cant really trust, a chick above them how the same,and other how runs around in the forest how might kill them, but howneeds a guard, right? Than there's the bee hive, lets just forget thatthey probably make that much noise that our hero how is close to themwould have realized "oh bees" on her own. But angry bees only infectsone evil person, even though they stormed the 3 other mean person andloverboy but they get out just fine.Of course this is just the top of the ice berg, there are so manythings wrong with this hole movie its impossible to write it down inthis limited space. But to sum it up, its the classic case of lets keepthe hero alive even though she should so die here, and here, and here.Oh well we just gonna make everybody else mindless, and react out ofthe character so there's a cheesie way to save her.

aletoledo

(2013-06-13 17:31:03)

Why is it called the Hunger Games?

I went with several people that never read the books and none of themunderstood why it was called the Hunger Games. Didn't the creatorskinda miss this major point or did they plan on only fans watching themovie? I suppose no movie is going to meet up to the expectations ofthe fans of the book, but this was a pretty big oversight.Filming at the beginning was horrible. It's that shaky type of filmingthey do in TV police dramas. You know the kind, where you get dizzy andhave to look away. I'm not sure what they were thinking, but thankfullythey stopped this about 1/3 of the way through. Maybe the shakiness wassupposed to represent hunger? The acting was good and what special effects there were turned out niceas well. The quintessential moment of fire was thankfully not adisappointment.I think the problem is that they needed the movie to be 3 hours toreally convey more of the book's essence. Still everyone that read thebooks will have to see this. If you didn't read the books, judging bythe people that went with me that didn't, you probably can wait till itcomes out on DVD.

martysimons

(2013-06-12 15:02:37)

Note to Hollywood:Shaky cam has officially jumped the shark

The build up to the games was very interesting, but the actual gameswas anticlimactic for me. Loved Woody's character and how he evolvedthrough the progression of the movie. Other than that, I had littleconnection with the characters. Good movie but could have been muchmore. Not sure what all the hype is about though. As I stated in the title, the use of shaky cam is so over the top inthis movie at the beginning and during the games scenes that it almostmade me sick (literally). It disgusts me how much Hollywood has gone tothe shaky cam these days...IT DOES NOT ENHANCE THE MOVIE! Its almostamateurish since it replaced real cinematography. Why botherchoreographing fight scenes that no one can tell what the heck is goingon?One more thing, how does killing children only get a PG-13?

Al_The_Strange

(2013-06-12 04:56:21)

"Everyone loves a good underdog."

Every now and then, there comes a sci-fi film that pushes theboundaries of what is considered civil, for even though civilizationmay prosper, there will always be a demand for violent entertainment.Films that portray futuristic death-matches for sport could probably becounted only in the double-digits; titles like the original"Rollerball," "The Running Man," "Battle Royale," and the "Death Race"remake typically dominate this obscure corner of sci-fi.In this niche, "The Hunger Games" might be the most accessible filmever. It doesn't indulge on gory, graphic details the way these otherfilms do; most deaths in this death-match are off-screen, obscured, orjust plain bloodless. There's still enough roughness to emphasize theharrowing nature of the actual Hunger Games; some might even say it'sbetter that way.It takes a good hour or so to get to the games; the film runs a goodlong length and takes its time to establish the story, characters, theenvironment, and the conflict, before getting down and dirty witheverything else. The film entertains throughout; very few, if anyscenes, dragged. I personally found myself well-invested in the story.And the story will be the thing worth seeing. Those familiar withSuzanne Collins' book will probably relate to the film best, as theycan pick out all the fine details and understand every nuance the best.The film does a first-rate job of adapting the original story; thereare many minor changes, but most of it is just like the book. Thoseunfamiliar with the book may be alienated from the film, though most ofit can stand on its own. Characters stand out pretty well; a romancedoes come about that seems reminiscent of "Twilight," which willattract young audiences (especially the ladies) and could beoff-putting for dudes wanting straightforward fighting. Regardless, thefilm never comes off as sappy or pandering.My biggest complaint is in the filming; it looks great half of thetime, but harsh, shaky, jittery cameramanship rears its ugly headthroughout. There are three or four times where I wish I could haveseen more of what was going on, but couldn't because of thephotography. Otherwise, parts of the film look great and stylish, andhave fine editing. I was pleased with the acting and writing; everybodyputs on a quality performance. This production has some veryfascinating sets, props, and costumes. For special effects, I've seenbetter and I've seen worse. Music is pretty nice.I'd recommend this best to fans of the book, and interested sci-fifans. Those seeking more hardcore material can do better.4/5 (entertainment: 4/5, story: 4.5/5, film: 4/5)

gaborzeller

(2013-06-11 14:55:27)

Decent show

Recently I was having a hard time finding a decent one-night show.While Hunger Games is definitely not great, it delivers.I haven't read the books, but I read the reviews of those who actuallydid so after watching the movie I have a pretty good idea why they hateit. Not to mention for those who saw battle Royale this movie will feellike a complete ripoff.The atmosphere is good, the acting is so-so, the only two characters Ireally did like were Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci. JenniferLawrence had her moments too, but definitely has a long way to go as anactress.I consider myself lucky, because for me this movie was like anappetizer and very likely will read the books. A solid 6/10.

cobbyszss

(2013-06-11 05:24:44)

JUST FINE but should be made as TV series instead!!!

The trailer is epic but the movie is NOT as good as I thought about.Thestoryline in the movie is rather blur and the purpose of setting thehunger games isn't stated clearly. If you didn't read the book,youwon't understand these.1.What's the relationship between Capitol and the twelve districts?2.Why should Katniss and Peeta should show their love to audiences?3.Why the Gamemaker was executed? 4.What harm will it do when they pullout those berries? 5.Why president snow get angry?These are the scenes added perfectly into the movie but not show inbook.1.Prim stopper her shirt in to her skirt when she was called.2.About the way the Gamemaker was executed(This is really awesome!!!!!)Anyway as a movie it is good enough,but it should be made as TV seriestherefore more details can be explained more thoroughly.

maria sidd

(2013-06-10 19:52:20)

AMAZING!!!! (may contain spoilers)

At first I thought...wow that was terrible but I realized this book ismostly Katniss thinking to herself about the games. Then I realizedthey had two options put a narrator(it would kill the movie), or cut itout(better idea). I love how they actually take scenes word for wordand it was really interesting to see how The Hunger Games was put onscreen, and I was pleased I watched the midnight premiere which wassooo fun. I loved how they had every character just like SuzanneCollins described them. There were scenes that could've been changedsuch as Katniss finding like no water, but thats OK they can't includeevery little detail from the book. I really liked how they showed Galewhen Peeta and Katniss kiss I was like awwwww, I felt so bad LiamHemsworth Is soo hot but Josh Hutcherson is pretty good looking. I'm adie heart fan of the books but the book is always better but I thinkthey did the best they could which is all I care about because like itdidn't turn out like Harry Potter and it didn't turn out likeTwilight(THANK GOD!). I loved how they followed the thing the girl onfire and when Katniss twirled for Caesar I was like OMG they followedthe book. They had the main points and they captured basically thewhole book they captured more than I expected.. people are probably bedreviews because they had hoped every last detail in the book would bein there and if they were going to do that we might as well be still inthe movies still watching for 12am. BY FAR THE BEST MOVIE YET! GO TEAMGALE!!!!

eatfirst

(2013-06-10 10:04:39)

Solid adaptation just slightly pulling its punches

Occupying the familiar milieu of one of science-fictions' most wellworn conceits, the dystopian future society, in this case animpoverished set of states ruled over by a decadent totalitarian elite,teenager Katniss Everdeen hunts and scrapes to keep her family aliveuntil fate forces her to volunteer as "tribute" for the annual HungerGames, a form of brutal gladiatorial combat designed to keep the massesin their place. Twenty-four youngsters will enter but only one can comeout alive.With Harry Potter now done and dusted, and the finish line of Twilightjust around the corner it's no surprise that studios have been huntingfor the next big teen-lit franchise to bring to the screen, or thatSuzanne Collins' mega-selling sci-fi adventure would be one of those inthe frame. But in spite of the driving linear narrative, featuringplenty of set-piece thrills and a love-triangle backdrop, adapting TheHunger Games, with its sullen heroin, extensive internal monologue,bleak atmosphere and brutal violence, may not have been the safe betone might assume, and director Gary Ross and colleagues have trodden atricky balancing act to a surprisingly effective outcome.Crucial to their success is Jennifer Lawrence; already a rising starafter her Oscar-nominated performance in "Winter's Bone" and who, asKatniss, delivers just the right combination of introspection, steelydetermination and just a touch of vulnerability. But much credit toomust be given to the support of Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks asher drunken mentor and absurdly coiffured escort respectively, both ofwhom carry roles that could easily have tipped into parody with muchrestraint. Indeed restraint could be the watchword for the wholeproduction. On the page, the description of Capitol City's preening,rococo fashionistas seemed worryingly likely to translate to the screenwith Fifth Element style campery. But this is kept firmly in check byan atmosphere of quietly unsettling disconnect from reality, alwaysunderplayed, and always taken seriously, underscoring the juxtapositionof the hollow, vacuous lives led by these privileged bourgeoisieagainst the spartan hand-to-mouth existence that is the only way oflife our protagonist has ever known. Indeed these act-one sequencescontain some of the film's best moments, effectively pulling theaudience into Katniss' isolation and dreadful predicament with minimalfuss.Once the games themselves kick into action, the need to achieve atarget-audience friendly 12A rating does start to assert itselfsomewhat. The Hunger Games does not need graphic violence to deliverthe thrills, but it does need things to become truly desperate, and inthis regard the film seems to pull a few too many punches, with somedeaths passing perhaps a touch inconsequentially, and little visiblesigns of the physical stresses of exposure, hunger and injury showingon the always clean and presentable contestants (or even evidence ofstubble on the male team members after several days in the game). It'shere also that the film makes its greatest departure from the book.Rightly judging the difficulty of relating some events via thefirst-person internal narrative of our heroine, fresh scenes areintroduced depicting the power-brokers and puppeteers behind the games.It's a logical departure from the source structure that justoccasionally falters by delivering a few ham-fisted Basil Expositionmoments, but, by way of compensation, adds to the implicit parallelswith modern-day TV and the trend towards ever more ghastly and extreme"reality" entertainment.Much has been made of the similarity of Hunger Games' concept to thatof "Battle Royale", and clearly a debt is owed. But while that Japanesesubversive cult favourite is very explicitly an adult piece of satirethat happens to feature school-kids bludgeoning each other to death,this is by intent a much more straight-ahead adventure, and the settingowes at least as much to the classic dystopian visions of "1984",particularly the impressively monumental authoritarian architecture.But as the downtrodden citizens watch on helplessly and those in chargemanipulate the results for their own ends, I began to recall anothermovie that is perhaps the most interesting and unexpected antecedent:"The Truman Show", and like that brilliant work, The Hunger Games endsa touch ambiguously, leaving you with a lingering and disturbingquestion "would you watch too?".

jwrightshop

(2013-06-09 17:15:03)

Good. Quite a bit of action, but left as all setup for a series.

Thought it was good. My kids (boys 9 and 10) enjoyed it as well. Actionkept it moving along but in the end it felt like it was all setup for aseries. Lots of focus on the main character and it did well enough toexplain her background in the mining district 12. She's a verylike-able character, but really the only one that gets any developmentof any sort. The action itself isn't overly gory, although it does takea level of understanding from the kids that children are going to die.I did not think they did enough to explain *what* was evil to warrantkilling children in the plot. In the end, the plot is about survivaland the kids got that. I left myself wishing we could just see the nexttwo chapters at the same time so that there was some sort ofconclusion.

Ninjamonkeysd

(2013-06-09 07:16:44)

Worst adaptation ever.

OK. So without sounding too much like THAT GUY, the hunger games moviewas BAD. Actually it was worse than that. Its pretty much a perfectexample of how Hollywood ruins decent books. Clearly tailored to thetweens who will, without a doubt, go see it with their moms, who are infact still high off their Twilight buzz. Personally, I love to hear theDIE HARD tween moms claim there is NO similarity between HUNGER GAMESand Twilight. The director, in his allotted 90 Hollywood minutes(hopefully his last), drain this movie of ALL of the passion the bookscontain. He surgically removed all evidence of the socioeconomicstruggle the characters go through,which IS the point of the movie. Imean ITS THE TITLE of the book! Either this Director (I only call himthis for lack of a better word) did not read the books, or failed everyEnglish class he ever took. I suggest you read the books rather than gosee this steaming pile of Hollywood garbage. All 3 books can be boughtfor less than the price of a ticket to see this crap. Awful...

Grymee

(2013-06-09 19:05:30)

A Grymee Review - The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games was the most anticipated film of 2012 so it became amust see on my list. From the very beginning, we were off to a badstart. The screen goes black and before I realize the movie has begunabout four paragraphs of wording quickly fade in and out, explainingimportant back story information. If I wanted to read I would havepurchased the book. When I pay $12.50 for a theater ticket, I expect tosee story unfold through visual story-telling. This was the firstindication that the writers do not understand the difference of story-telling through book and film… and this misunderstanding remainedconsistent throughout the movie.Before continuing, it's important I mention that I did not read thebook, have no intention of reading the book nor am I comparing the filmadaptation to anything I may have heard about the book - this isjudgment on the film alone. The movie tried to cram too muchinformation into 142 minutes while leaving out too much information forthe story to be effective. Many characters that were intended to besupportive, scary or pivotal weren't given enough depth and screen timeto pull off the role. The lack of information created a lot of plotholes and presented The Hunger Games as a rush film.Some technical criticism… with a $78,000,000 budget, how come no onethought to purchase a tripod? The cinematography through the 1st thirdof the film made me nauseous and incapable of enjoying anything onscreen - camera shots shook harder than The Blair Witch Project -$60,000 budget. So why does a big production do this? To be artsy? Thecamera team had too much to drink every day of production? I think therise of reality television (which is scripted by the way - suckers!),youtube video and low budget indie filmmaking encourage majorproduction studios to go the shaky cam route. They think the shaky camwill make the viewer feel like the story is real and gritty, draw themin quicker. It's not real or gritty - buy a tripod!The Hunger Games is not a bad movie but it's also not a good movie…it's in film limbo. Film limbo is not worth a $12.50 ticket.

YoungSinema1

(2013-06-08 23:53:55)

Had To Review This Masterpiece

I, along with my brother and a co-worker of mine, went to the openingof the Hunger Games and my high expectations were met from the openingcredits until the end. The film stayed true to the books, but severalthings were left out. Avoxes were missing, no Madge, some of the murderscenes were changed (Katniss shooting the arrow into a tribute'sstomach instead of through his neck), and a few more. The movie wasnearly 2 1/2 hours long, but it felt like it was short. The acting fromJennifer Lawrence was superb (especially the trembling scene). Thecapitol looked just like how I imagined it to be. Fans of the book willnot be disappointed by this movie at all.

Reel_starz

(2013-06-07 19:17:18)

Jennifer Lawrence, Gary Ross and the audience emerge from The Hunger Games victorious

In recent years, the young adult sphere of pop culture has beendominated by a certain boy wizard and, more irritatingly for those ofus who aren't tween girls or their middle-aged mothers, vampires andwerewolves named Edward and Jacob. Now, at last, another is breakinginto their ranks, a sixteen year old girl with a braid, a bow andenough spirited determination to conquer the world: meet KatnissEverdeen, the girl on fire.As Harry Potter's legacy officially ends with the eighth and finalmovie of the franchise having bowed last year, cementing J.K. Rowling'slandmark series as the cornerstone of the childhood of a generation,and the world eagerly anticipates – or dreads – the release of the lastTwilight movie, Gary Ross offers us his fine cinematic adaptation ofThe Hunger Games, the first chapter in Suzanne Collins' bestsellingtrilogy about a dystopian future where teens are forced to fight to thedeath by a government that controls its citizens with an iron fist. Thedirector of Seabiscuit brings Collins' story to life with aserious-minded verve and intelligence that distinguishes it from otheryoung adult-oriented fare, assembling an almost pitch-perfect cast andtreating the source material – and its fans – with a respect that feelsincreasingly rare in an industry that often seems to value easy moneyand marketability over true quality, especially when it comes topotential franchises.The temptation to churn out a cheap, lazy cash-grab a la the Twilightmovies must've been there, given that audiences would've flocked to thetheaters regardless, but the filmmakers evidently cared about the moviebeyond its obvious box-office potential. They take the pulse-poundingintensity of the books and successfully translate it to the big screen,staying true in spirit but displaying a great willingness to tweak andembellish the story when necessary. Among other changes, by expandingthe point of view beyond Katniss, the movie offers a wider perspective,something new that could not be found in the book. It feels like agenuine, standalone movie rather than a paint-by-the-numbersadaptation, a distinction that the Harry Potter movies, for all theirartistic merits, never quite mastered. Aside from some memorableperformances, those films never provided anything that the booksdidn't. Furthermore, though as someone who has read the books, I couldbe wrong about this, The Hunger Games does a good enough job ofestablishing its characters, story and tone internally that it shouldwork for those coming in cold as well as long-time fans.Instead of going for sweeping and epic, Ross smartly focuses on theintimate, human aspects of the story, using a sometimes shaky cameraand concise editing to create an almost documentary-like feel. He paysas much attention to the quiet scenes, such as a moment near the verybeginning where Katniss comforts and sings to her younger sister Primbefore leaving to hunt, as he does to the action scenes, which aresporadic and avoid self-indulgence, neither glorifying nor glossingover the violence. The music, composed by T. Bone Burnett, eschews thebombastic punk rock one might have expected in favor of a sparse,folksy vibe that reflects both the rustic simplicity of Katniss'sDistrict 12 roots and her inner desperation as she fights for survival;a few techno beats are thrown in as well whenever the action moves tothe more advanced, futuristic Capitol. The costumes and sets also helprealize the world of Panem in vivid detail while toning down the moreoutrageous elements of Collins's descriptions, particularly when itcomes to the over-the-top fashion tastes of the Capitol residents.At the center of it all is Katniss Everdeen, played by a forceful butartfully restrained and nuanced Jennifer Lawrence, who appears innearly every scene and, coupled with her Oscar-nominated performance asthe similarly strong-willed and independent Ree in Winter's Bone, isestablishing herself as a consistently compelling actress and a screenpresence to be reckoned with. Passionate, complex and quick-witted,Katniss is willing to do whatever it takes to protect the people sheloves, even if it involves violence or means putting herself in danger,but she doesn't descend into the emotionless, sexless (or sexed-up)killing machine cliché that seems to pass for a strong female characterin action films nowadays. She's a heroine worth rooting for.Though Jennifer Lawrence is undoubtedly the star of the movie, she'sjoined by a host of talented, well-chosen supporting actors. As PeetaMellark, Katniss's fellow District 12 tribute and sort-of loveinterest, Josh Hutcherson displays the appropriate amounts of charisma,sensitivity and conviction; he's come a long way since he firstappeared in movies like the mostly forgettable Will Ferrell vehicleKicking and Screaming and Zathura and continues to prove himself to beone of the most promising actors of his generation. Elizabeth Banks isalmost unrecognizable under heavy, purposefully crude makeup as theshrill, peppy Effie, and Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci are both asmagnetic as always as, respectively, Katniss's and Peeta's perpetuallydrunk mentor Haymitch and Caesar Flickerman, host of the Hunger Gamestelecast.Movies geared toward young adults or teens tend to be dismissed asescapist, mindless fluff not worthy of more serious consideration.Though it's hard to tell whether The Hunger Games will break this moldand be embraced as fully as the Harry Potter series, which foundadmirers among the young and old, critics and general audiences, was,it has an edge and intelligence that make it hard to resist. Sure,there are more pointed, hard-hitting social critiques out there, and itisn't as bleak or gritty as some might have liked, but as engagingentertainment that doesn't just ask viewers to turn their brains off,it more than delivers.

Sanpaco13

(2013-06-07 08:27:15)

So much better than the book

This movie stays very close to the book's sequence of events and Ienjoyed it much more than reading the book. The problem I hadthroughout the books was the abundance of insights into the illogicalhormonal thoughts of a self-pitying teenage girl. The movie didn't haveany of that. Much better :)On top of the story, the performances were incredible. It isinteresting to see so many supporting characters played by big actors(Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Stanley Tucci, etc.) while themain characters are played by lesser known actors. I thought all theactors played very well to their characters.