The Hunger Games, based on the acclaimed young adult fiction novel by Susanne Collins, opens in theaters this weekend. It follows the story of Katniss, a young girl who must compete in The Hunger Games, a yearly gladiatorial combat to the death featuring one boy and one girl from each of twelve districts– all for the entertainment of the people in the capital. It’s already going to break the box office record for midnight screenings, but is the film any good? Two of our bots caught screenings, one in Salt Lake City, one in Austin, and this is what they thought:
Citizenbot: I loved it. I had an amazing time with the film. There was action, there was drama, there was romance, there was humor, all layered on top of some of the most important social commentary I think we’ve seen in a long time. I love dystopian novels and themes, and this is heavy on the dystopia. Unlike 1984 or Brave New World, I feel like Hunger Games. . . yeah, that could happen. We are that bloodthirsty, we are that greedy. This film seems to capture the zeitgeist of #occupy, the 99% vs the 1%, except in the case of their world it has gotten far more out of control. And a hat tip to Gary Ross, who wrote and directed some of my favorites (Pleasantville, Dave) for taking on this and doing a great job.
Swankmotron: I really liked it. Is it the best movie I’ve seen this year? No. I think that honor still belongs to John Carter. The filmmaker really got out of the way and let the strengths of the story do the heavy lifting. But the casting was also pitch perfect, giving us a top notch product to start with. I read the first few chapters of the first book and got a little annoyed with the writing style. I’m the sort who reads a number of books at once, so it quickly just fell by the wayside. But I knew the story was something I was interested in. I’m very happy to report that the filmmaking in this movie is lightyears ahead of the writing in the book. Overall, I was very pleasantly surprised.
CB: Agreed. If you haven’t seen John Carter yet, beat the crowds going to see Hunger Games this weekend and see John Carter instead– just go see Hunger Games at like a weekday matinee or next weekend.
I think we need to talk about the cast. None of the leads are household names, but we get a great performance from Jennifer Lawrence (X-men: First Class, Winter’s Bone). But the real gems here I thought were the supporting cast: Elizabeth Banks made me hate her. And I love Elizabeth Banks. Donald Sutherland, Stanley Tucci, Woody Harrelson all do exactly what you’d expect from them. Chris Hemworth’s little brother Liam as Gale, a potential love interest for Katniss who we’ll see more of in future sequels, made me excited to see more of him in future films. Lenny Kravitz shows up as fashion designer Cinna, and he’s actually pretty good. I had no idea he could act, outside of that one Simpsons episode where he shows up to teach Homer about crotch-stuffing. So really impressed with the cast all around.
SWANK: I thought the cast was great. And I think Donald Sutherland was too good, because I felt there was more that his character needed to do. Jennifer Lawrence was fantastic and carried the film. I was worried about Woody Harrelson and he really got me invested in the film, to be honest.
CB: That’s funny, because I was worried about Woody Harrelson, too. He really charmed me, though. Considering the future trajectory of this film trilogy, we’re going to get to see more of Donald Sutherland, though. And that’s going to get good. Ditto for Liam Hemsworth.
Now I have to pick a few nits. This movie is long. 142 minutes. And for the first half of the film it feels a little slow. Then, at the same time, I also feel they didn’t set up a few things properly: the stakes and some of the mechanics of the Hunger Games, the supporting characters, especially the other Tributes– especially Rue. So when some of the emotional climaxes occur, there’s not as much payoff.
SWANK: As far as the nits I’d like to pick, my biggest was that I felt this movie was very poorly structured, though I think that was by remaining true to the source material and it needed to be fixed, but they were afraid to piss off legions of fans. The emotional climax of the film is Rue’s fate and the consequences in District 11 for it. Everything else was down hill from there. Nothing impacted me more than that, and that felt like it was halfway through the film. Then the film ends and I’m expecting more because there wasn’t an emotional spike at the end to bring me down. Imagine if Star Wars ended after they got Princess Leia off the Death Star and they just cut the Death Star battle. That’s how this film felt to me.
CB: I completely agree. That was the climax. But I don’t know how they could’ve fixed that. Rue’s death had to happen, structurally, exactly where it did, because it sets off other events both in and outside the games themselves. Let me just comment quickly, that knowing about Rue’s death didn’t diminish its emotional impact for me. I was still blown away. And if this is now a spoiler for you. . .well, wah. The book’s been out for 4 years. And, like I said, knowing about it didn’t make me any less prepared for it.
Overall I’m sitting in 3 1/2 star range, maybe 3 and 3/4 if you want to discuss dystopian politics and themes with me.
SWANK: Yes. Dystopian themes.
This is a perfect story about a struggle between the haves and have nots. This isn’t Earth. This is a planet I expect the crew of the Enterprise to beam down to and say, “What are you people doing?” Much like the sailor at the end of Lord of the Flies.
You can read Swank’s other review here.