Tags:
A thorough and long review of the Hunger Games Adaptation
I don’t know how many of you have seen me review something before, so I’ll warn you in advance, I’m fairly thorough. SPOILERS past here, so I assume you’ve seen the film or read the book.
Entry Preconceptions:
Going into this film I had read both the original work by Collins (only the first one) and, as a counter-point, seen the 2000 film Battle Royale. My at a glance understanding of each was fair. Battle Royale was fun, and engaging, while offering emotional depth for each character. As for Collins’ novel…it was a mixed bag for me. I despised her present-tense prose style and constant flashbacks to the Gale situation (I’ll discuss this more later), but thoroughly enjoyed the survival elements and political/acting strategy of the plot. The characters were fairly engaging, but there were few actions by any of the characters that struck me as especially unique (also having both read Animorphs and Harry potter, both of which addressed many of the character archetypes in Collins’ work) but they were played in a passable way. I found the book interesting, but not quite interesting enough that I felt compelled to pick up the sequels. I was aware of the trailers, but I did not follow development.
Thoughts on the film as a standalone film (without regarding it as an adaptation):
Overall, I was pleasantly surprised by the film. They keep the plot moving very quickly, the visuals were stunning, and they managed to keep exposition to a minimum—which in a sci-fi universe is not an easy thing to do.
The actors, actresses, and acting were another pleasant surprise—not so much because of who they were, but the fact that each and every one of them was able to convey emotion. We got tone-of-voice changes, facial expressions, the whole works. Considering the annoying modern trend towards drugged-out acting, this film managed a nice sigh of relief.
With regards the cinematography, as I mentioned before, the CG work was stunning, and most of the panning shots were great. I recognize that many of the shots are fairly close ones where the characters fill much of the frame, but I felt that this helped to both lend to the sense of paranoia, and to help capture the acting. The thing that I’m on the fence about is the excessive use of “shaky-cam” shooting—while this leant itself very well to scenes of combat and concern, there were a few calmer bit which I think could have been pulled off just as well with quick panning shots, especially a montage at the very beginning of the film, detailing the protagonist’s home town.
Do I have any critical remarks? As I said before, I had Battle Royale in the back of my mind going into this film, and one thing that BR did well that HG skipped was the fact that, in BR, you recognized that the majority of the contestants were trapped in that scenario too, and that they all knew each other personally, so that each and every one of them was thinking about their humanity and you felt a strong connection to them as an audience. Hunger Games managed this with the two protagonists, one supporting protagonist, and one of the antagonists. The rest were either cannon fodder, or obvious antagonizing forces. Granted, BR had obvious antagonizing forces too, but it certainly didn’t have cannon fodder. I realize though, that this is more the fault of the source material than the attempts of the filming crew.
Thoughts on the film as an adaptation:
Before I share my opinion, I wanted to quickly make you aware of my standpoint on adaptations: a good adaptation is not an exact translation, we do not need everything to be exactly as depicted in the book, and the characters do not need to be exactly as depicted in your head (the latter is impossible); rather, a good adaptation is able to convey, generally, the same conclusions, tone, and character profiles as the work itself.
Based on this, Hunger Games joins the Narnia films and City of Ember as a third case where the movie actually manages to surpass the novel. The cinematography kills off the annoying present-tense narrative, and the Gale flashbacks are cut entirely—yet they still managed to keep him in there just enough to make sure that the audience retains an understanding that he’s there. Further, I felt that Gale was played more aloof in the book, and that this depiction helped to bring him back down to a human level. Cinematography also leant itself to a more-intense playing field (Collins’ imagery left me feeling that much of the arena was open or wooded in a non-dense way), and helped to make the final combat scene move (Collins’ version felt slower in comparison).
All the remaining characters, general plot points, and tone made it into the film.
Conclusion:
It’s a good genre flick—nothing uniquely groundbreaking, but they did manage to bring out all the best that could be managed with the source material and as a genre movie rather than an artful one. I’d give it a 9/10; go see it.
I heard that it was difficult to follow sometimes as they omitted a lot Katniss' extra narration tidbits. Did you feel this way?
Or did you just not notice?
I didn't notice at all. The cinematography and acting really did all the exposition for you. If your eyes are open and you have both empathy and good hearing, then it's really easy to follow.
In fact, I'd argue that it was easier to follow than the book, but I'd need to re-read it again to be sure.
At some parts in the book I was a little confused, especially since Katniss goes from "I'm trying not to die here" to "omg Gale and Prim".
Yeah, the postmodernist idea of scene-jumping. Don't worry, that's the part I was talking about with regards to Gale in my review. They've mostly been cut, and the few remaining pieces are short, and concise.
Yeees.
Down for seeing this movie. My friends who all went to see it all loved the book (which I can't say the same for) and went for like midnight viewings and stuff so they're all so biased and compelled to say "omg best movie ever!" so now I'm more inclined to go see this. Eventually.
On a whim today I decided that I'll do Script Frenzy.
So I've been plotting and making characters and holy hell is it fun.
I went to Wonderworks today as an early birthday trip. It was quite interesting, although the lines for the bigger attractions were frustrating. I thought the architecture was the coolest part. It's built to look like an upside-down mansion. When you walk inside, you have to go through a "gravity portal" so that you are "upside-down," too. It was freaky, to say the least. You feel as if the walkway is tipping sideways, and it's very hard to walk on. I was OK until my mom started freaking out behind me. Then I just grabbed on and tried not to "fall off," because I really thought they had rigged it to turn a little. There is this giant, multicolored tunnel that spins around the walkway, and it freaks your senses out.
I also got to walk on the beach for a minute or two, before it started pouring. And I got ice cream, and had the first burger I've eaten in months. All in all, it was a pretty good day.
That place is so cool! Did you ride the bicycles that loop upside-down? :D I went there once, a long time ago. I loved how on the outside they even had some trees and a mailbox hanging from the edges of the roof outside.
Yes, although we couldn't get it to go upside-down. Did you see the fire hydrant in the corner, as well? It was really neat. I didn't get to do the Mind-Ball thing or the roller coaster simulators due to ridiculously long lines. We ate at Johnny Rockets afterwards, which was so good! We went to the Cherry Grove pier. We always visit it when we're in Myrtle Beach.
The fact that in my IA I am putting down Little Women and A Christmas Carol is both awesome and depressing. Depressing because I need to reread the books, awesome because it makes me giggle. I may also include Child's History of England.
IA?
© 2024 Created by Z. Powered by