I’m prefacing this review with the fact that I have not read
any of these books, and have a limited idea of what they are about. With that
said, it shouldn’t matter, but it felt like it did matter, just a few times in
the movie; nothing too big, though.
The Hunger Games is set in a dystopian future where
war has left the world in tatters, what’s left of society is segregated into 12
“districts”, and the “hunger games” itself is a competition where two kids from
each district are forced to compete to the death in a confined jungle “arena”.
That’s the plot of this movie, and I like it; it’s
essentially a parabolic tale of society’s affinity for voyeurism and sadistic
competition. I haven’t seen the movie people claim this rips off (Battle
Royale), but it seems similar to other movies like The Running Man and
Death Race, where mortality is exploited for reality television. On top
of that, though, The Hunger Games has layered on a very clear--and
literal--representation of class warfare, with its caste system of “districts“
where one class of affluent people is dependant upon and oppressive of the
lower class. All of that is great, and the film actually presents that world
very well, so it feels similar to something like Children of Men (without
the subtlety), and I was even reminded of the city of Ba Sing Se on Avatar:
The Last Airbender; that’s just me. Those are great comparisons, in my
opinion, and I mean them to be complimentary.
For some reason Gary Ross is not directing the sequel, and I
don’t know why. There is no problem with the direction of this movie. The shaky
cam adds to the idea that we’re seeing reality unfold, so I don’t get why
everyone was so unsatisfied with the job he did. Everything that he was
responsible for worked here. The pacing is good. The staging works, even though
parts of the “futuristic” settings and wardrobe feel like a bad ‘80s music
video, and there are some moments where the action looks like kids playing in
the park. Other than those small things, the movie is directed very well.
Jennifer Lawrence is great. Her performance as Katniss
Everdeen made me believe that she’s not some great hunter or warrior, but she
has the strength of character to persevere. She’s reluctant to play their
“games”, both those of the competition and the pomp and circumstance which surround
them. Everything about her seems authentic, except for anything that has
anything to do with Peeta.
Therein lies the singular problem I have with The Hunger
Games, and it’s what makes me fearful for the future films in this series. Why
the fuck does Peeta even exist? The only purpose that character serves is to
show how great Gale is, by comparison. Everything about Peeta says the
character we’ve been shown that Katniss is should have nothing to do with this
Peeta jerk. He has absolutely no reluctance toward playing the politics of
these games. He willfully joins the other tributes to hunt Katniss. He’s a
creep, and don’t even get me started on the fact that he can camouflage himself
entirely, using only what exactly? Mud and berries? Oh, but he decorated
cakes! Forgive me. Anyway, his presence and that entire love story completely
ruined the end of this movie, for me, because it made absolutely no sense. What
really makes me hate Katniss and Peeta together is that it’s a parallel to
something the movie is actually meant to deride. Within the movie, the show’s
producers (or whatever they should be called) decide to exploit the
“relationship” between Katniss and Peeta for *spoilery reasons that I‘m not
going into*. The show’s producers create an “angle” with this relationship, and
that’s precisely what the movie is doing with the relationship. The
relationship is unnecessary, and we know Katniss should not have anything to do
with Peeta, but the movie makes it happen, anyway, just so it has another plot
device.
Like I said, I haven’t read the books, but I would guess the
sequel sees the Katniss/Peeta storyline turn into a Katniss/Peeta/Gale triangle
where, for some reason, Katniss actually can’t choose between the two of them.
If so, I do not look forward to seeing Twilight redux, where Katniss is
turned into some imbecilic Bella Swan with a bow and arrow.
Whether or not the sequel will be any good, The Hunger
Games does happen to be roughly 95% of a really good movie… if only Peeta
was, I don’t know, killed to death. Definitely recommend checking it out.
-JOHN
For a second opinion check out Steven's HUNGER GAMES REVIEW
-JOHN
For a second opinion check out Steven's HUNGER GAMES REVIEW
omg John. I luuurve Peeta. I think the movie doesn't do him justice. Great review though ;-)
ReplyDelete~2
psstt... you should really read the books--they're awesome.
Yeah, I imagine the character is probably fleshed out more in the books, like Rue; that's another character I'm sure was more complete in the books.
DeleteYou would understand the Peeta thing more if you read the books. For example, they make it clear in the books that he wasn't hunting her with the Career Tributes--he was trying to get in with them to protect her. That said, I agree that a movie should stand on its own, and in that regard, it doesn't. Great review!
ReplyDeleteThanks!
DeleteYeah, it's definitely a problem with the movie not standing alone. Although, if he was supposed to seem like a good guy, the movie absolutely failed, in that regard, with me; he came off like a complete jerk, in my opinion.
I've read the books and I agree that the movie people f*cked up the Peeta part.
ReplyDeleteIMO in the book, Katniss says she has no romantic feelings for Gale, no sexual chemistry. In the movie he's hot and they definitely have chemistry.
IMO In the book Katniss finds herself feeling chemistry with Peeta, and acting upon that attraction above and beyond what's required for the "show." In the movie, they had no chemistry at all.
See, if she has no romantic feelings for Gale, that's something else entirely. The movie completely fucked that up, and if Peeta is supposed to seem like someone she should want to be with, then the movie definitely fucked that up, too.
Delete