Monday, March 26, 2012

The Hunger Games

An hour and a half into Gary Ross’ The Hunger Games, the film finally catches up with its limitless hype by delivering a stellar scene of remarkable restraint. As the contestants of the titular game slowly ascend to their enormous battlefield, a countdown makes its way to zero, and then it happens. The sound cuts out, the camera pulls back, and two dozen kids spend 60 seconds of screentime fighting for their lives. Necks are snapped, swords are plunged, blood is sprayed – it’s barbaric desperation at its most effective.

And when the scene ends, we’re right back to where we started: with a painstakingly boring, sloppily paced mess containing fleeting moments of redemption. But I’ve obviously gotten ahead of myself.

In The Hunger Games, 24 young people (ballpark age range 9-21) are chosen by lottery to compete in a popular televised event in which, by the competition’s end, only one winner will emerge. To win, contestants must outwit, outlast and outkill any and everything that comes their way.  Now, I don’t take particular interest in watching a bunch of teenagers kill each other for television ratings (which is, for similar reasons, why I detested the exploitative piece of shit known as Battle Royale), and, from a critical standpoint, there isn’t a whole hell of a lot to work with here.

I’ve heard people say the cast is outstanding… are they really? Haven’t we seen Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci and Elizabeth Banks and Wes Bently and Donald Sutherland and Toby Jones and Lenny Kravitz all deliver much finer work? Me, I found the actors to be struggling amidst the laughable dialogue that plagued the script. The timing and emotion exuded by the actors was on point, sure, but the performances aren’t what’s at fault here – it’s the game that needs reworking.
Basically, The Hunger Games spends an hour and a half setting up its premise, most of which was lost on me. I didn’t retain a shred of the vernacular the characters spoke in, nor did I care to. And, yes, once the game started, the film did pick up, executing its fair share of flashy moments. But then the inconsistencies kicked in, which is the main reason these huge franchise films tend to fail for me.

Sure, continuity isn’t exactly the first thing on the producers’ minds here – making money is. But take, for instance, the sound of a canon, which is consistently used to signify the death of a contestant. Someone dies, a canon goes boom, until, for whatever reason, it doesn't. People die, no more canons. Ten minutes later, someone else dies, and there’s the canon again. Did I miss something?

Also, the point of the games is to outlive everyone else. To do this, our heroine, Katniss, quietly sneaks around the jungle, never making a peep, using her street smarts to get ahead. That is, of course, until one of her friends dies, and she spends a good few hours screaming out her rage, picking flowers, and saying a prayer for the dearly departed. Huh? Isn’t the point to stay hidden and silent? How the hell is Katniss able to get away with this unanticipated burial? I’ll tell you why: because it makes for “heavy” cinema. It’s what the fans of Suzanna Collins’ book paid to see, so here you go.

Now one final point, which, incidentally, isn’t really the film’s fault.

The Hunger Games goes to great lengths to execute its content with accuracy. This includes kids having their necks snapped, getting speared in the gut, being mauled to death by beasts, and so on. All of this is shown on screen, and all of this is issued as appropriate under the film’s PG-13 rating.  Whoever does not see a disconnect here is blind. The new documentary Bully has been slapped with an R rating because the word "fuck" is spoken exactly six times, and never with a sexual connotation. Now, show me one middle schooler who hasn't said the word “fuck” six times, and I’ll show you a liar. Show me a middle schooler who has speared an innocent little girl to death, and I’ll guide you to an institution to psychopathic juveniles.

My point is, not only is The Hunger Games an unevenly paced, mostly boring franchise film (and I do say "mostly" out of pure fairness, because the movie does have its moments), it’s one that is given the benefit of the doubt, simply because it is making Hollywood hundreds of millions. And please, all due respect, but spare me two things: don’t tell me I’d like the movie more if I read the novel, that’s a laughably flimsy argument that I can shit all over. Lastly, stop comparing The Hunger Games to the Twilight films. Is Hunger Games better? Of course, but what the hell kind of praise is that? C-

30 comments:

  1. Considering the review, I was expecting to see a D or an F there, so C is a surprise. I do agree with your point of view and I understand where you are coming from, but it still felt a little too harsh and dissmisive- both you and Sati from Cinematic Corner wrote about the movie in such a mocking way, it seemed! Maybe I am overreading things, don't mind me- I still liked your review! (Still friends, right?)

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Diana Haha of course! But I honestly wasn't mocking it, I genuinely do not understand why continuity errors are so overlooked in films like these. To me (and this is difficult to explain in print without seeming like an arrogant asshole) but it just seems like so many people say, "Oh, well, you know, it's The Hunger Games, so obviously it's not going to make perfect sense," which is a very dangerous school of thought, in my opinion.

    It goes back to the whole "it is what it is" notion of film criticism. That's fine that people like yourself (whose opinions I respect) liked this movie, but you cannot say that the movie was consistent (or made perfect sense) within the world it created. Because it... didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I disagree a fair amount with you, but that was a very enjoyable review. That last line made me LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  4. @Alex Withrow

    You are rigth in saying that the movie didn't make sense in some parts- if I wouldn't have read the books, I would have been confused, too, and this is something that pissed me off during the viewing. I understood where they were coming from and I could fill the gaps, but my friends couldn't, so they were bored, and I always feel so bad when I take my friends to see something they end up not liking.

    Hunger Games, as any known novel translated to the big screen, is hard to handle, because you have two sides: 1.the readers, people who, most of the time, need little convincing (although I wasn't impressed with the film, I still like it and care for it) and 2.the ones who interact with the story for the first time when they see it on screen.

    1 is excited and is willing to let things slide, if things don't turn out as expected, but 2 looks at it like a normal movie and is more judgemental. 1 can create word of mouth, but you need 2 to really make an impact.

    Until now, most of the people seem to have a positive reaction towards it, even with its flaws, although, of course, there are cases, like you and Sati, who just don't go for these types of movies, and I respect that.

    In the end, Hunger Games has its flaws, but let's face it, most of the people going to see it don't expect Oscar-worthy performances or anything to that magnitude; they want to be entertained. The young adults are already crazy about it, and it has reached to older audiences, as well, so it has potential and I think we can say for sure it has reached its target (not completely, but still ok). You didn't like it- that's normal, too; you can't please anyone, can you?

    So what's the point actually? the conclusion? I don't know, but I think you understood what I was trying to say, right?

    p.s. Wow, this must have been my longest comment yet! Why do I care so much? I don't know, really, it's not my favorite book or movie. I guess I like debates, after all!:)

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Pete Ha, fair enough. Boy, I'm glad I took a step back from my first draft, which was rather ruthless.

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Diana Love it. You bring up some valid points, but, to a degree, I think what you’re driving at is that I’d like and understand the movie more if I read the book, which (as I mentioned in my review) is a very flimsy argument. It’s the same exact thing people say to me concerning the Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter films (both of which I hate). Because to that rationale, do I have to read Puzo’s The Godfather to enjoy the film? Or Kesey’s Cuckoo’s Next to appreciate Forman’s vision? No, of course not. We could go on and on, round and round on this topic, but at the end of the day, I strongly believe that a book is a book and a movie is a movie.

    Your second notion, that people just want to be entertained, is something people have been telling me my whole life. And I get it, I really do. Will The Hunger Games win a Pulitzer? God no, for the same reason the film won’t win the Best Picture Oscar. All’s I can say to this is that I am perfectly capable of being entertained by a film. Do I think film’s purpose, as a medium, is to entertain? No way. But, like all artistic mediums, certain types of film can be entertaining while still being worthy. The movie business is just that, a business. And without The Hunger Games’ $152 million pull in seven days, indies movies like The Cove, Precious, Narc, Grizzly Man, Dogville, Amores Perros, Irreversible, and The Rules of Attraction (which are all films released by Lions Gate, the same studio that distributed Hunger Games) may never see the light of day in America.

    I understand the business, and I appreciate what it does, but that certainly doesn’t mean I have to always enjoy the work it produces. Not hating on your tastes at all – I just thought this was a rather weak movie. But by no means the worst franchise flick I’ve seen. (a C- isn’t THAT bad, after all.)

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Alex Withrow
    Hmm...you don't think a movie's role is to entertain? that I have to disagree my friend, but then again, maybe entertainment means something different for each one of us :)

    I didn't realise I tried to make my point by saying the book is better or something like that, I didn't mean to. You are right, though, a good book doesn't always mean a good movie and I should try to treat those two separately- but see, that is point, I can't really do that, I don't know why!

    Interesting discussion!:)

    ReplyDelete
  8. The film doesn't really get going until they actually do get to The Hunger Games, but when it does get started up its entertaining, tense, unpredictable, and very well executed from Gary Ross. I also couldn’t believe that this was his 3rd film after other flicks such as Seabiscuit and Pleasantville, which are both good but are different from this one. Still though, great jobs from everybody involved and I cannot wait for the sequel. Good review Alex.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm considering your comment on twitter where you said you could've been harsher....I'd love to see what your first draft was like if this is a step back! haha

    I definitely see your point about the unevenness, but with things like, say, the cannons that you pointed out, I never really noticed. And I think the burial scene you were talking about worked really well! I felt she was making a statement against the Capitol, like she didn't care anymore.
    My two main problems with it was 1) no really deep emotional connections formed. Didn't happen and 2) calm the fuck down with the shaky cam footage!!!

    Would never dream of telling you you'd enjoy them more with the books by the way, ahaha. The point of adapting a film is that you don't have to have read the books anyway, right?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Great review! I'm so glad I'm not alone in not liking the movie, although there are some reviewers on rottentomatoes that gave it rotten tomato, so I'm not that crazy, I guess :D I love "read the book" argument. Maybe soon they will actually have shelves with the books as you walk into the theatre, since apparantly it is requirement at times.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Diana Oh my god, in no way whatsoever do I think the MAIN purpose of film is to entertain. Instead, I think the purpose of film is to evoke emotion – be it humor, sorrow, dread, love, whatever. As long as you FEEL something, then the movie is doing its job. Now, entertainment can most definitely be a byproduct of these emotions, but I do not think that the primary purpose of movies is to entertain.
    Taxi Driver, Persona, 2001, The Deer Hunter, There Will Be Blood, Shame… none of these movies are remotely entertaining, but they all draw something from me (or rather, things) that are so intensely emotional, it is difficult for me to articulate into words.
    Sure, there are different definitions of what people find entertaining, but in its most liberal sense, I think entertainment and film are in no way mutually exclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Dan O. I agree that, once the game started, the movie picked up. No argument here. And yeah, Ross definitely has an eclectic (if not too brief) resume.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Ruth Okay, was the burial effective? Sure. But that crazy son of a bitch was hunting her ass down… it just didn’t seem plausible that she had a few free hours to carry out that ordeal.

    Couldn’t agree more on the camera work, I didn’t bother to call it out in my review because I figured everyone would be mad at that. Very odd, because Tom Stern is such a reliable DP.

    And, YES, the point of adapting a book to a movie is so the final result is a MOVIE.

    I’m glad those I am in disagreement with are able to carry productive conversations like this. Some people are just relentless in their praise.

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Sati. Thanks. For the most part, it seems you and I stand along, together. Your review was fucking wicked, and I loved it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @Alex - A girl behind us was actually crying her eyes out in that burial scene...I thought that was a bit of an over the top reaction, but twas still a little sad, haha

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Alex Withrow

    But see Alex, for me, in some ways, evoking emotion means to entertain. In my eyes, entertainment means getting a reaction out of me, either it's compassion, or excitement, or attention, or sadness, or disgust, or shock. Hunger is just as entertaining as...I don't know...Mission Impossible? Dark Knight? anyway, like I said, entertainment means different things for different people. All I want in a movie is to make me pay attention, in a good way, either with a well-developed script, funny dialogue, interesting characters, shocking storyline or kick ass sequences- either way, I am moved. Does that make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Haa. Ok, I have read all the books, I pretty much love them. So as you know I was excited to see them(category 1). But I not only noticed Canons you are talking about, I will go ahead and give you one more - after initial bloodbath, Stanley Tucci says 12 of them died. When we see their photos flashed in sky, no one from district 1,2,10,11 and 12 is dead and only 1 of 7,8,9 is dead. That comes out as 15 right there. How did 12 die ?? My basic point is, if I would have been enjoying the movie, I never would have realised it, would I ? My main problem was it never connected to me at any level which book does a very good job of.

    I also agree with you that if you have to read a book to understand movie better, then that is a failure of movie. If you are making a movie on it, it HAS to stand on it's own. But I will still ask you to read the books. It will not make you appreciate this movie better but at least appreciate this Franchise more.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I have no intention of seeing this. My girlfriend went to see it and really enjoyed it, but it's not for me. I won't argue with the lovers of it, because I haven't seen it, but I expect it to be awful.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Ruth My friend cried during the "I volunteer!" scene. (sigh)

    ReplyDelete
  20. @Diana Perfect sense, for sure. We're on the same page, just with slightly different interpretations of the word.

    But also, you meant "Hunger Games" not "Hunger," right? Cuz "Hunger" ain't too entertaining haha

    ReplyDelete
  21. @SDG Now that's a legitimate request, to read the books. I know several people (whose book opinions I trust), who consider the three books to be very well written. Maybe I'll give the first one a shot. Maybe...

    ReplyDelete
  22. @Tyler Yeah man, you would not enjoy it at all. And who could blame you?

    ReplyDelete
  23. How much better would the movie have been if they had just eaten the berries? JUST EAT 'EM!

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Robert I am not even kidding, when they were close to eating them, I thought, "If this happens, this movie might be great."

    But, alas, it didn't, so, it isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I just got home from seeing this movie and I couldn't wait to comment on this blog. I have read all the books and LOVE THEM. I am personally not a huge fan of turning books into movies I think it causes the books to lose some of their magic. Movies, even if they are based on a book should be able to stand alone as a great film. My husband was asking me questions all the way home so obviously this movie had holes and inconsistencies.

    All this aside my biggest complaint was the jerkiness of the camera and how it was out of focus some of the time. It almost gave me a headache at some parts! I understand it was suppose to make you feel like you were apart of the action but I am NOT A FAN! The quick movements were a distraction.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @"C" I definitely agree that there were plot holes, a few of my friends have read the books and have told me things that would've made the movie a lot clearer.

    And that damn camera... so bad. They did that so they could maintain a PG-13 rating. Like, "Well, yes, we're going to have an 18-year-old snap the neck of a 10-year-old, but you won't really be able to tell."

    Yeah... right.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I know I'm probably in the minority here but I actually really dug The Hunger Games. Jennifer Lawrence is a great actress and I found this to be a great popcorn flick that kept me entertained throughout.
    I also don't have a problem with Twilight (the first one anyway), the ones following the original haven't really done much for me, but I don't hate any of them. Not gonna win any friends by saying that but who cares, they're movies for teenage girls.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I actually think a lot of people dug it, and hey, fair enough. I just use this space to tell people how I feel about a movie, you know? We like what we like, and if you enjoyed this (and the original Twilight), then that's all good! Certainly no judgements from me.

      Delete
  28. The Hunger Games is something that I really hate. I know I said I like films like Harry Potter (which more likely I'll never watch again) and LotR (on a technical level), but Hunger Games is to much. It represents what I hate about adapting a book. If it's classic literature the film will be boring but probably have some great performances. If it's today literature (excluding books based on real events) then the film will be full of cliches, bad acted and flawed. And it isn't like you can't make a good film out of a bad book. In Jaws (the book) I rooted for the shark the whole time, than I heard what changes made Spielberg to the book to be better. But this film has a lot of great actors wasted. And this film is named The HUNGER Games, where's the actual hunger. And the sequel is the same EXACT fuckin' thing.
    Is Battle Royale that bad?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did like Catching Fire a lot more than the first one, but I haven't seen Mockingjay yet. Battle Royale has a lot of dedicated followers, but watching kids kill other kids isn't my thing, no matter how stylish it is.

      Delete