Ern's Hunger Games review

Initial Reaction:

I knew I loved this movie about 25% of the way through it because I found myself on the edge of my seat, totally invested. The movie succeeded in touching me emotionally, entertaining me fully, and even surprising me. I thought the tone, intensity, and emotion of the book were spot on. It felt like the same material. The shaky camera in the beginning was an annoying attempt to make the movie seem serious, but they used the shaky camera better in the arena. It was cool to get to be in the position of spectator. In the books, you are so in Katniss’ head that you don’t know what it would be like to watch the Hunger Games as a Panem citizen. Now we do. The television show element was something the book couldn't bring as well as a movie could.

The movie’s messages are the same as those in the books. Really, it’s about how staying kind, honorable, and continuing to value others’ lives, even in the most dire circumstances, is a powerful rebellion against the status quo. The status quo is about staying as comfortable, rich, numb, and distracted as possible, worrying about our own problems. We are going through an economic depression and are mostly consumed with our own lives, survival, stress levels, and images (how we are looking to others). Jennifer Lawrence said that the movie is a warning of what our society could be like if we became desensitized to trauma and to each other's pain. Continuing to step in for the Prims of the world is what will stand out and inspire, both in a future dystopian fantasy world and our violent, lonely, uncertain world today.

Comparison with the books:

Yeah, the movie not as good as the books (and anyone watching the movie without having read the book might get a little confused), but that’s a high bar.  The fact that they added in scenes and changed a few things brought some tension even to someone who has read the book and knows what’s going to happen. There was an element of surprise because of it. While parts of me always wish that movies were exactly like the books and the visual images in my head, this isn’t possible. 

One can only hope that the movie offers an interpretation that is interesting, unique, and true to the most important parts of the book. So if there was a fault in this movie, it was that it was too close to the book. I’ve already read the book and there is no reason for a movie unless it brings something new to the table. It’s important to stick with the book as far as key themes, characters, scenes, and (most of the time) plot points. But there is wiggle room for creativity. 

One change I liked was that Katniss just shoved Peeta up against a wall. She didn’t push him through glass and have him cut his hands. In a movie, this would have come across as melodramatic. This isn’t a Lifetime movie. We saw her anger manifest physically, and that was enough. Lawrence really sold that moment.

The performances/actors

While Jennifer Lawrence was great, Ern was more impressed with Haymitch and Peeta. They really came across as the characters in the books. Haymitch was always entertaining and multifaceted. There was one false moment for me when Haymitch put his foot on Peeta’s chest. It just didn’t feel right. Peeta did not get awesome or turn into Neo from the Matrix halfway through, like in lots of action movies, which was good. Gale was all wrong, both looks-wise and acting-wise. The sets were merely ok and the costumes were pretty great. Stanley Tucci was perfect and hilarious. Effie was fine.

Answering some of the haters: Issue #1- Jennifer Lawrence is too healthy looking to play Katniss

Jennifer Lawrence is a little too curvy to play someone who  grew up in a nation that starves people to keep them in line. Yeah, she can hunt for food, but she mostly hits squirrels. We love Lawrence’s healthy, gorgeous body and refusal to diet. We love real women’s bodies in movies. However, this is one time where a smaller girl might have fit the story better. Still, I wouldn’t trade Lawrence for any other actress. Since everything else about her was perfect, the physical traits are a small complaint. It's a small price to pay for that performance. 

Issue #2- “Oh, the premise isn’t very original. Kids have to kill each other just like this in Battle Royale.”

Aw, shut up, trolls. Battle Royale wasn’t the first to do this either. This is an old concept and formula. There is nothing wrong with taking on an old idea if your iteration on that idea is fresh and the best iteration in a long time. People were saying the same thing about Warrior. Yeah, it’s a boxing movie and if you are any good at predicting movies, you will predict all of it. But added to the formulas in both Warrior and The Hunger Games are compelling characters that we love, powerhouse scenes, good action sequences, relevant messages, and a whole lot of heart. Everything is an iteration. Just make it a good one.

Issue #3- “The film is hypocritical, since it tells us not to be like Panem’s Capital spectators, but it also has us watching violence for entertainment.”

The Capital people are watching children actually die, so it’s a tad freaking worse. It’s reality TV for them. The books are condemning voyeurism. We should feel worse about watching The Jersey Shore than we do about watching The Hunger Games. (As Gale said, “What would happen if we all stopped watching?” There are certain entertainment choices we make that don’t reflect quality and keep banality around.) Sometimes you have to show some violence to show how bad violence is.

Overall, I enjoyed watching this immensely and nothing ticked me off too much.

Movie Grade: A-

Stay tuned for our list of casting ideas for the second and third books.