The Hunger Games (2012)
I've never read the book this is based on. Then again, sometimes it is better to watch the movie first, since the book takes the same story and goes into a lot more detail, while after the book the film is almost inevitably a disappointment by comparison. ("American Psycho" is a big exception to this rule.)
I've been a big fan of Jennifer Lawrence since "Winter's Bone" though I don't think her performance here is on quite the same level. Surprisingly I found myself really impressed by Josh Hutcherson's performance, who some may recognise as 'Clapton Davis' from last year's horror comedy "Detention" (the fast-paced slasher comedy with aliens, time travel and grizzly bears).
In his role as Katniss' sidekick in the games he is able to turn on the charm when he's interviewed, but he is also able to show personal vulnerability. It is also his job to express fear and discomfort while Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss remains stoic.
The story is that in a dystopian society the survivors of some unstated catastrophe are separated into different districts. To keep them from causing trouble to the current authorities they make a show of power by taking two children in each district and forcing them to compete in a fight to the death. The competition takes the form of a reality tv show with interviews with the contestants in the run up to the games and sponsors who want to take advantage of particular contestants' popularity.
I'd heard a lot of negative responses to this film comparing it unfavourably with "Battle Royale". I'm not sure I agree. Obviously one element where "Battle Royale" is superior is the level of violence. This film is aimed at too young an age group to be overly gory or brutal in its depiction of the games, whereas "Battle Royale" is a very dark film aimed at an older audience so the gore flows freely. However, "Hunger Games" spends a lot of time on the period before the games start in order to develop the main characters and set up the whole twisted culture of the games.
Josh Hutcherson and Jennifer Lawrence convey very real people with history together and with various side characters they must interact with. In "Battle Royale", by contrast, we start the games with very little idea of who the characters are, with all out information about their backgrounds generally conveyed by quick flashbacks. The main protatogonists of "Battle Royale" have to be developed within the context of the tournament itself and many of the side-characters have stories completely unrelated to them. "The Hunger Games" instead keeps its attention firmly on the perspective of the protagonists and does not waste much time on the other contestants. "The Hunger Games" is firmly centred around the plight of the two main protagonists from their particular district.
Cartoonish moment from Battle Royale: Enthusiastic girl presenting an instructional video which explains the rules of the game. She gets very excited over an axe saying "this one's super lucky!"
Takashi Kitano's superb performance as the teacher who announces the games for the children in "Battle Royale" is practically comic as he portrays an eccentric half-mad teacher showing instructional videos related to the tournament hosted by a cute smiling presenter. Don't get me wrong, "Battle Royale" is a lot of fun. However, "Hunger Games" is trying to get the audience to take this bizarre premise seriously and has a harder task on its hands as a result.
I can't pretend that I wouldn't have preferred a more violent movie. I don't feel like I'm letting this movie off the hook because it's "for kids" either though. I really felt involved in the plight of the protagonists and I felt that the film did a great job of world building.
My main criticism would be that the political side of the games wasn't always as fleshed out as it might have been. There's one point where we are shown that an event in the games sparks riots in one of the districts. We don't really get a very good impression of what precisely is going on in that district, but then again developing that further may have poorly affected the pacing of the film.
I'd heard that the fire CG effects looked fake. Quite apart from the fact that effects, whether practical or visual, often still require some level of imagination from the audience, I still feel that I cannot agree. I thought the flames were pretty convincing, very pretty and was really impressed by the sci-fi concept which led to the effect being introduced.
I suppose I can understand how some might think the film could have been more visually arresting and might blame the director for using a less ambitious directing style than they'd prefer. Yet on the other hand, in spite of the sci-fi setting, the world felt remarkably real and the director gains excellent performances from his cast. Perhaps the director of "Constantine" will give more of the visual treat that some people wanted when he directs the sequel "Catching Fire", but I worry that he won't be able to handle the characters quite as well.
In spite of pretty uninspiring reports about this film, I loved it. Good solid sci-fi movie which really carries the audience along when it introduces them to this brave new world (see what I did there?).
A+