A post-hype review.
*** ½ out of 5
142 minutes
Rated PG-13 for intense violent thematic material and
disturbing images - all involving teens
Lionsgate
Article first published as Movie
Review: The Hunger Games on Blogcritics.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the main event. In this
corner, we have the first of three Young Adult novels. Three hundred sixty four
pages and selling millions of copies — everyone please welcome Suzanne Collins’
“The Hunger
Games.” And in this corner, we have one of the year’s biggest box
office hits. Costing a mere $78 million, earning $684 million worldwide, and
certified “Fresh” on RottenTomatoes at 84%, please say hello to director/co-writer Gary Ross’s
film adaptation.
Yes, it may have been released on March 23, and some would
say I’m behind the times, but I have finally seen “The Hunger Games.” While the
plot is extremely unnecessary to rehash at this point, all I can report on is
whether the film works on its own merits. Or at least point out, what does or
doesn’t work. It may still be receiving rave reviews, but I think I have to sit
somewhere in the middle. As my wife said when the credits rolled, “I think I’m
just whelmed. Not over and not under.” Even the friend who lent me the Blu-ray
felt about the same way from what I could tell. And he’s a huge fan of the
book. It’s one of five books he’s ever read in his entire life (“The Hunger Games,”
“Catching Fire,”
“Mockingjay,”
“Swan Song,”
and “Strip Tease”
to be exact).
Aside from Ross’s decision to cut to shaky cam footage
anytime something gets exciting, I think the biggest fault lies in the decision
to completely excise the first-person narrative. I can agree that voiceover
narration can become quite irksome. But having also read the novel myself, I
can sustain that by cutting out Katniss Everdeen’s (Jennifer Lawrence) inner
monologues, we miss out on a lot of the true turmoil going on inside her head.
It also completely undercuts the end of the film making her intentions more
confusing than anything. Those who have read the novel will know what I mean.
Let alone the fact that one of the novel’s main characters (Gale Hawthorne,
played by Liam Hemsworth, brother of Chris, aka “Thor”)
is supposed to be the third part of a love triangle but is only in three scenes
in a 142-minute film.
Now don’t get me wrong; the film works fine on its own
merits, I just think that Ross, along with co-writers Billy Ray and Suzanne
Collins herself, have completely demolished the emotional tides that bind the enterprise
together. At least Josh Hutcherson (playing Peeta Mellark) fares better here
than he has in a long time. And Jennifer Lawrence really shines as Katniss
bringing the ferocity needed to pull the part off, particularly when she
attacks Peeta after he reveals he has unrequited feelings for her in an
interview with Caesar Flickman (the always stupendous Stanley Tucci).
A final thought is that to fully enjoy the film you really
have to separate the two entities from each other. Those who have read the novel
may still love the film but when even the character of Rue (Amandla Stenberg)
can’t make you cry in a pivotal scene, the job just isn’t done. And finally,
this probably features the most anti-climatic ending to a series entry in quite
a while. Having President Snow (Donald Sutherland) simply walk up some stairs
into a cut-to-black moment just seemed to really give absolutely no closure. I
know there’s still three more films to come, but even each “Lord of the Rings”
film had their own endings. As do each of the “Hunger Games” novels. At least
the film wasn’t a dismal failure and only one scene is reminiscent of something
out of another YA series caught on film (I’m looking at you “Twilight”).
So in closing, if you’re able to approach the film version
of “The Hunger
Games” with a clean slate (and I feel like I did, having read the
novel before the film even came out and just barely catching the film now at
home) then it will at least live up to most of your hyped-up expectations.
Photos courtesy Lionsgate