(Please note, this review addresses the content for both reader and non-readers of the books, but to note, I have personally read the material before seeing the film.)
I always empathize for the director and screenwriter of book-to-film adaptations. Whether the book is merely a few pages long or a few hundred pages, the creative team must fit in what could be minutes or hours worth of material into a one to three hour time span and either evoke a very faithful or very provocative transformation. Even more importantly, the film must still be a great movie at its core. The Hunger Games is the first in a popular book trilogy and falls under the same questions – does it succeed? In the end, fans of the book should be fairly pleased with the faithful adaptation while fresh audience members, while most likely overwhelmed by the amount of information they must encapsulate along with a lack of complete emotional empathy, should be at least interested in the fascinating themes and imagery the subject matter has to offer.
The Hunger Games follows 16-year-old Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), who lives in District 12. Each year, the 12 Districts must give a tribute of a boy and a girl to fight in the annual Hunger Games on live television until there is a victor. When the time comes for the year’s reaping ceremony, Katniss’ sister, Primrose Everdeen (Willow Shields), is chosen. To save her sister, Katniss volunteers and is paired with Peeta (Josh Hutcherson). Together, they travel to the Capitol with Effie (Elizabeth Banks) and Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), their mentor, to be showcased and trained before they must enter and attempt to survive the year’s Hunger Game.
The weakest sections of The Hunger Games come from a lack of emotional connection and amount of information being thrown into audiences. The main issue that I think most non-Hunger Games audience members will have is the lack of a complete emotional resonance. There are some definite emotional highlights but it becomes more rare to see the film take more time and care with characteristics and backgrounds. The result is a story that doesn’t properly draw you into moments such as the film not properly explaining or expanding on the relationship between Katniss and other tributes. Whether it’s weaker acting from some of the periphery characters or a plot that glosses over the information fairly quickly – this problem becomes much more of a frequent problem. The general flow of information as well becomes an issue unto itself, especially for people that haven’t read the books. Expect some confusion as the film tries to delicately balance an overload of information and a pacing that sometimes glosses over some finer points, creating some strange dialogue trees. A conversation about a blown up arsenal, for instance, comes up even though the established dialogue was never set up previously. Take note Hunger Games newcomers – even with a fairly long running time, the film doesn’t linger on its exposition.
Otherwise, however, The Hunger Games is a fascinating aesthetic and thematic journey that should be of interest to most audience members. Director Ross and crew take a lot of pride in choosing and sticking with their visual choices, for instance, which defines the film. From the color correction to the documentary-style cinematography to the extreme costume design differences, there’s as much of a 1984 inspiration as well as something more from a period piece like Seabiscuit. Clean white police uniforms with a strange futuristic twist clash brilliantly with the downtrodden, early 20th-century look of the denizens of District 12. These consistent choices help to sell an authentic world, especially as the games begin. These aesthetics also fall into some great acting, especially from Hutcherson and Lawrence who put on a heartfelt performance, even when the script may not make the most sense or feel contrived. Lawrence, especially, is captivating as a stalwart teenager dealing with the life-and-death scenarios put before her. These scenarios are also the fascinating reasons why, I believe, both fans and non-fans will find some interest in the core film. The script and the narrative arch do little to deviate from the intended book’s arch, which, although may be convoluted at times or may not always result in a perfect cinematic moment – the themes are still interesting to explore and touched upon and creating a situation that should appease people that have read the source material and still fairly coherent enough for newcomers with some added exposition. An added emphasis on the Gamemaker, for instance, helps emphasize the reality show nature of the film without feeling too unnecessary.
The Hunger Games concept may not be completely unique unto itself and may not completely resonate with non-readers, but the film itself is both a faithful adaptation and a pretty fascinating journey from start to finish. Audience members who haven’t read the book will feel a bit overwhelmed by the material and characters that sometimes quickly come and go, not helped by minor plot holes and an emotional core that doesn’t always resonate. However, fans of the book should be fairly pleased with the final outcome of a very faithful adaptation along with some interesting additions, and non-fans should be fairly intrigued by the dystopian future created by Ross and his team along with the great casting. All-in-all, The Hunger Games is a solid and timely film that evokes questions of our own media consumption in the present day.
Director: Gary Ross
Running Time: 142 Minutes
Rated: PG-13
The Wie muses: *** ½ out of *****
John! Thanks for the great review. I think I’ll actually make it to the theater to see this movie.
No problem Casey! Hope you like it.