|
The Hunger Games, based on the first book in a trilogy by Suzanne Collins about a state-run TV talent show where 24 teenagers fight against each other for food, will capture everyone’s attention this weekend. It’s a movie where its lead character - a headstrong female (take that modern day gender wars!!!) - ponders the question, “If no one watches, they won’t have a game” and, ironically enough, The Hunger Games will probably be the first blockbuster of the year because everyone most certainly will be watching.
Lightly twisted and a bit satirical in its aping of American reality TV appetites, as a movie The Hunger Games hits the stride of its novel counterpart with the help of a solid performance from its lead actress and, due to its heavy romance vibe, certainly appeals to its target audience (teenage girls and their dates), but the actual “meat” of the narrative feels a bit too familiar (2000’s Battle Royale anyone?) to be as visionary – especially with how it is handled - as has been suggested by other critics. While interesting, The Hunger Games weakens in its ability to construct honest complication and shies away from the subversive with its family friendly atmosphere. Yet, the film is a satisfying one; just don’t expect the dystopia to be much of a dilemma.
In the near future, our science gets somewhat fictionalized when an annual televised event pits one boy and one girl from each of the twelve impoverished districts of Panem (formerly America) against each other in vicious battles to the death. The lone survivor wins property, wealth, fame and food for their families; a gift of sorts from their wealthy sponsors and President Snow (Donald Sutherland) and the Gamemaker (Wes Bentley). The rich making the poor kill each other for food and security? Hmm, this theme sounds so very 2012. These televised games are insanely popular and, for one 16-year old, a certain death sentence when she steps forward to take her sister’s place in the games.
Katniss Everdeen, played by a fiery Jennifer Lawrence (who essentially reprises her role in Winter’s Bone as the strong-headed country girl) regards the games as cruel, but feels she – with her bow and arrow skills – has a better chance at surviving than her sister, Primrose (Willow Shields). Of course, she has a reason to survive in her close friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth). Also picked from her district is Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), a boy who once gave her bread when her family was starving.
The two are whisked away to the center of the “Big” and the “Rich” in The Capitol. There, they are given a stylist, Cinna (Lenny Kravitz), and a Capitol escort, Effie (Elizabeth Banks) and are trained by a now drunk, but former victor of the games, Haymitch Abernathy (a solid performance from Woody Harrelson). Once unleashed in the arena, Katniss and Peeta must use their wits and their strength to fight against the rest of the lottery winners while putting on a fabulous show in order to receive food and aid from their sponsors.
With an engaging opening full of haunting echoes from the Holocaust and a somewhat paunchy middle section that undersells its satire with goofiness rather than futureshock, The Hunger Games adaptors - director Gary Ross, book author Collins and screenwriter Billy Ray – arrive at an ultimately satisfying conclusion…even if they do back away from some of the more disturbing elements. The contrast of rich verses poor is significantly detailed in the film’s first lap and drives home the idea after the extravagance of the PR makes you forget these teens are playing to the death.
Yes, there’s violence, but never the amount that seems necessary to the initial mood of the first twenty minutes. Never do we get the feeling of morality in the decision to kill or partner up from any of the tributes. No, the teens are mostly cardboard creations as disposable as the uncaring way these teenagers are treated by adults. Somehow, an episode of Survivor seems to have more of a woeful consciousness among its contestants than this Twilight-esque lover’s triangle which most definitely gets more attention paid to from its plot. Is it a cop out? Not really. Large parts of The Hunger Games simply kick their fair share of ass. Is it a sell out? Well…personally, I wanted more satire (Occupy Wall Street) and more science fictiony gore (Sacrificial Lambs) and less schmaltz (Kissy Kissy Edward or Wolfboy McGee back home?).
The Hunger Games needs to commit. The harrowing message of kids killing kids is undercut by goofball antics of gregarious excess found in honeycomb hairdos and well-placed edits that lessen the impact of the violence the material ultimately demands. You might get caught up in a sweeping romance, but the satire and its implications, during all the PR shenanigans, get a little flimsy. And while a specific theme can’t be hammered out, the survival film remains engaging from a stellar performance from Lawrence who outperforms everyone around her in a role that, most certainly, will make her a star.
The Hunger Games, borrowing ideas from Shirley Jackson's short story "The Lottery" and Stephen King’s The Running Man, isn’t anything new or refreshing (outside of Lawrence’s solid performance) but the movie operates with that ever popular and so hip Young Adult label in mind to much credit and in-the-minute satisfaction. As the opening film in a larger series, it is much better executed than Chris Columbus’ overstuffed Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone adaptation and Catherine Hardwicke’s fruit loop spinning of Twilight.
Reason enough to see it? Why not? After the financial failure of John Carter (a movie I loved), all eyes are on The Hunger Games.
MPAA Rating: 
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
