The Hunger Games needs protein and carbs
About The Hunger Games, the much-anticipated adaptation of Suzanne Collins’s bestselling Young Adult novel, directed by Gary Ross and starring Jennifer Lawrence, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Lenny Kravitz.
1. We liked the novel, an engaging melange of Shirley Jackson’s The Lottery, the reality show Survivor, the Japanese action movie Battle Royale, the grandpapa of dystopia George Orwell’s 1984, among other sources.
The filmmakers like the novel too much. Hunger Games the movie is overly stately and respectful: it proceeds at about the same pace as a reading of the book. Unfortunately, reading the book takes more than two hours.
2. While Jennifer Lawrence is excellent as the protagonist Katniss and the guy who plays Peeta is perfectly cast (milksop), we don’t feel like she’s in any real danger. And she’s supposed to be fighting for her life.
3. The competition is short on thrills.
4. We see Liam Hemsworth at the beginning, after which we have to subsist on tiny rations of his Liam Hemsworth-ness. Yeah, we know that’s what happens in the novel but this is a movie. During the parts that dragged we pondered the essay question: Liam or Chris?
5. Lenny Kravitz looks great. The gold eyeshadow does something for him.
6. The cliché about the book being better? Repeat.
7. Almost forgot: Bad geography. We have no idea where any of the combatants are in relation to the “cornucopia” or what the terrain is like. Everybody’s running, but we don’t know where to or from.
Ricky pointed out that the combat situation requires plenty of wide shots but all we get are close-ups. Is this a low budget movie?
Answers to questions you might be asking, unless you wandered onto this site purely by accident >>>
March 23rd, 2012 at 08:17
Chris! Siempre.
March 23rd, 2012 at 18:12
Haven’t got the round to reading the series but I’ve heard the Battle Royale (or Running Man) comparison many times. Maybe the movie needs Beat Takeshi.
March 23rd, 2012 at 18:48
Re: Hemsworths. This confuses me, because both are handsome in their own way – though Chris kind of disappoints me when I see pictures of him in civilian gear. Liam can be hot, but he still has that “totoy” vibe.
Then again, both of them do have unfortunate taste in women, so…
Advantage: Chris, by a slim margin.
March 24th, 2012 at 13:08
Mas-type ko si kuya. Also, Liam gets a low grade for dating Hannah Montana.
March 25th, 2012 at 14:11
Read it friday then saw it yesterday. I prefer chris. I agree with henyo about dating miley.
March 25th, 2012 at 18:51
Disappointed with the film. although I think it was able to capture the atmosphere of the book,I felt that a sense of urgency and fear was missing in the battle field. Noted that the film is pg 13, but i was kinda hoping for more blood and gore. Like how Battle Royale rattled me. And I simply can’t make my peace with how clean they look even at the end of the battle, to think that they were in the forest for more than a week (i think, i don’t remember exactly how long the game took place in the book). They should look more dingy and more cuts and bruises than that.
March 26th, 2012 at 03:53
i’ll be on the lookout for the dvd. there may be scenes that the producer may have held back to make the movie more teen-friendly (same teens who play world of warcraft-type games!)
and i’ll be waiting for the next movies. they don’t have an excuse to be low budget since the first one earned a lot!
March 26th, 2012 at 19:55
chris is more rugged and gruff; liam, a would-be don draper. chris for now, liam when he becomes don draper and finally gets rid of miley.
the movie looks a little too polished. i like the grit and dirt of battle royale.
March 26th, 2012 at 22:23
I would think that the fact that “the filmmakers love the novel too much” is a big plus? We’ve seen a lot of film adaptations (of very good books) that are trash, at least this film was faithful and well-made. The story was treated with respect, the material was dealt with seriously. Imagine other filmmakers giving it the cotton candy treatment – I would imagine there’d be 15+ minutes of showing fluff that is the Capitol.
I agree that the part showing the actual hunger games somewhat dragged, but the first half of the movie I think captured the book perfectly. In the words of J. Lo (and pls don’t let my mention of her discredit me to your eyes. haha!), it gave me the “goosies.”
But yes – the book is still better than the film.
(Curious though – which movie do you think is better than the book? I can’t think of one. The Lord of the Rings trilogy comes to mind, but it may be as good as the book, not sure though if the movies are better.)
April 2nd, 2012 at 19:45
@Kuyakoy I can think of one: Forrest Gump.