 |
| The Hunger Games (2012) |
I should probably clarify what I meant in that opening paragraph. There are those occasions where there is so much hype around something and so much buzz and you see it everywhere and everyone's talking about it and it just makes you hate the thing before you've even seen it. That was the case with The Hunger Games earlier this decade. Everyone was going nuts over it, especially in late high school when this movie came out. I could not escape it. It was awful. I hated this franchise so much and I'd not seen a single frame of it. Then they split the final book into two movies which I also despise. You better have a good reason for it, otherwise it's an obvious cashgrab. Harry Potter did it well, as the final book was so crammed with important information that they almost needed to split it into two movies the way they did. From what I've heard, the Twilight movies did this the wrong way, but we'll get to that. So, the final book in this series was split into two movies, and that was the final nail in the coffin as far as I was concerned. I wanted nothing to do with this franchise. And we'll see how it goes down the line, but for now, I'm happy to be proven wrong about at least the first movie in the series.
 |
| Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy |
One of the things that is the most compelling about this film is the treatment of the Hunger Games themselves. They do a surprisingly good job of building enough of a spectacle around the Games to make them seem like not just a method of keeping the Districts in check. The spectacle itself is great to watch in the first act, and we get to see how the Games operate, which is important for a film like this, but what's great is that it never feels too slow. During this section of the film we get important information about the Games, the society, some of the characters and their relationships, and it all works really well, minus one or two shortcomings that we'll get to later. Once the Games begin, however, the tables turn. All the spectacle goes out the window and we, from the perspective of the participants, get a first-hand look at how horrible this event is, as if there were ever any doubt. It's not relentlessly action-heavy, but it gives you just enough to entertain you whilst also continuing to show how these Games operate. There's the perfect balance there, and it's very entertaining. It's also unbelievable tense. The entire time the Games are on, you just feel so uneasy, which is a perfect atmosphere for this film.
 |
| Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mellark |
The characters themselves are... hit and miss. I love what they did with Peeta, and I've always been a fan of Josh Hutcherson, so that works. We don't spend too much time with Gale, but what we get is fine. Katniss' support team is a highlight, particularly Haymitch. I almost wanted to see more of him, as I feel there's still a lot that can be explored with his character, but I believe we'll get that in the future. I was also surprised by how many of the Hunger Games participants were given actual characters beyond 'victim' and 'hunter'. Rue was great, and they did a fine job of setting up her relationship with Katniss early, especially relating it back to Primrose. They also did a good job with Cato late in the film, and they took what I thought was a simple hunter character and gave him just that little bit of depth that I like my supporting characters to have. Sadly, the film fell short at the most important hurdle, as I don't find Katniss herself to be particularly interesting at all. Beyond just being socially awkward (or just telling us that, as she ends up being fine with people) there's no depth to the character at all, again, beyond her relationship with Primrose. I guess part of it is because I'm not a fan of Jennifer Lawrence by any means; I actually can't stand her. Her performance here was fine, I guess, but the character itself never really impressed me, at least not as much as the other mains.
 |
| Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen |
There are also a couple more niggling issues I have with the movie. With any dystopian future reality, it's important to sell the world. If the audience can't believe the world of the film could exist, the story falls flat. And while the film does a good job of selling how the Hunger Games work, it doesn't do as well at explaining how the Games came about in the first place. Yes, it was because of a rebellion, but what were they rebelling? How did the world get to a place where a rebellion was necessary? How did the Districts form? How did the Capitol become so powerful to the point where people have been okay with 74 Hunger Games? I hope future films can answer these questions, because otherwise these are some huge holes to fill. Also, and this is a small thing, but I really hate it when an antagonist has the protagonist at their mercy and then they start monologuing, allowing them a window to escape. Well, it happens in this film, but the monologuing ties directly into how the escape happens, instead of just being a factor. Again, it's a small thing, but it just feels a little lazy to me. Monologue all you want, but if it turns into the method of your downfall, that's not clever. Finally, and this is more of a personal thing, but if you're going to put Toby Jones in your movie, don't waste him. Toby Jones is one of my favourite actors, and I'm outraged that he wasn't given a role worthy of his talents.
 |
| Toby Jones as Claudius Templesmith and Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman |
The Hunger Games (2012) was a surprisingly good time given my prejudice. We'll see if that blinding hatred stands in the next movies in the series, but for now I'm very happy to be proven wrong. 8/10.
Tomorrow: it's Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark.
No comments:
Post a Comment