"The Hunger Games" review

If nothing else, The Hunger Games is a box office phenomenon and will in all likelihood set an all time record. I talked to the manager at the theater where I saw it and found out it sold out all 14 screens for the midnight showing and they even had an overflow 3 AM showing. The mid-afternoon showing I attended was the first of 4 dedicated full time screens not to sell out (for which I was grateful) with about 90%. It'll give a killer boost to the 2012 box office. It, like Twilight, is a combination of marketing skill and dumb luck. With a reported budget of only $78 mil (a good portion of which was apparently spent on costumes), it's even more phenomenal.

As for the movie itself, I call it half step above my Hollywood average at 7 1/2--10. It has some very good elements, and some not so good. The primary examples of the latter are the shaky cam which dominates the first 15-20 minutes (for some reason, not much action going on) and is then used infrequently thereafter, and the weak ending with its eye obviously on the 2 now certain sequels.

The story is hard not to be engaging, obviously. It's been called a rip off of the 2000 Japanese movie, Battle Royale, which I haven't seen, but what HG kept bringing to my mind was the TV show Survivor, and especially Gladiator with its overall theme of individual combat before the mob, chariots used by the contestants for their grand entrance (my favorite scene), and the necessity of winning the crowd. The link to Survivor, in my mind was it's biggest flaw. The "contestants" are introduced in m/f pairs from each district, and they also form alliances, which makes some sense when the goal is money, but not with the ultimate need for all but one to die--even your district partner. The plot does shift a couple of times in that regard, but the incongruity of that plot element bugged me for most of the movie, and in retrospect, still does.

Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks and even Woody Harrelson (out of his normal character), are all excellent in their rolls. Wes Bently and/or his make up artist deserve an academy award for his beard. But Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen (I love that name) is stunning with her mercurial, shifting personality, and beauty which runs the gamut from combat survivor to glamorous charmer--which to the directors credit was created and captured well, and is the movies biggest plus.

I was surprised at how much I enjoyed this series. What always gets me is how the screen adaptation trails way off from the original book in so many adaptations. From your review I take it that may be the case here and once again I'll be disappointed. I'd rather not see it for a bit that be the case. I love that name "Katniss" too. The characters in the book were so well developed, I want that to be true in this case. Thanks for your review I saw several previews last night and kept thinking; is it all costumes and scenery or did Hollywood do the right thing.

Did the book go into, in any depth, the ally/but enemy plot element that bugged me? If it did, that has to be a major difference IMNTBHO.

That's a core element in the story, what were they thinking? Do I have to look up what that text says? Past ROFL I get lost, older generation.

I take it the plot in that regard is the same, which I find totally irrational. It's like saying, OK, you may even fall in love with each other (which.....) but one of you is going to ultimately have to kill the other if you're the last two that survive. For me, that's an impossible situation. Wouldn't it be better, for the stated purpose of the games, hope, to have had the couples only pitted against the other couples?

It seems like, at least in the movie, that they don't even realize that's a possibility.

That's the first thing I thought of, but they're out for the big money. It's entertainment for them, the quality of the story is getting more and more lost. I miss Alfred Hitchcock.

I'm a cynic, but I also believe they still make masterpieces, even more than they used to. I won't give any examples because one person's masterpiece is another's muckyjunk....or something.

If I say I hated, "Avatar", am I safe? I just kept thinking old cowboy and Indian movie with lots of blue. Many thought it was terrific.

I'm kind of mad. I was going to see this today, but you can't here unless you bought your tickets ahead of time. That's never happened so now I'm even more curious as to what the big deal is.

I kind of want to read the books now too. This is a ridiculous amount of fuss; there must be something to it.

Not cowboy and indian... Pocahontas.

But come on, you have to admit that it was a pretty little world they painted there.

what is funny is I saw it lastnight and posted a thread about it ...it is awesome... one of the best movies of all time

Where?

I gave Avatar a 5/10. 10 for it's graphics and beauty, zero for the pagan/native/political bs.

It's a realization of a fantasy for millions of teenagers, much like the Twilight series.

Hence its hype and success.

Yeah, I know, but it looked like it was shooting for something more, which it sort of succeeded at...and sort of didn't. And like I say, if they could do this at will, they'd be doing it all the time. There's something else at work here.