In Theaters: The Hunger Games ***

So, yeah...I'm writing this review well after virtually everyone on the planet has seen, talked about, and dissected The Hunger Games, when it will serve no useful purpose other than to satisfy my ego-driven desire to put all my opinions into print.

My bad.



Because virtually everyone on the planet is now familiar with the general storyline of this film, I'll make my synopsis of the plot very brief.  The Hunger Games takes place in a dystopian future wherein all the nations of North America have collapsed, giving way to a new country called Panem, a country divided into 12 districts of varying affluence surrounding a rich, decadent capitol city.

Via opening captions, we learn that, in response to an uprising among the districts, the government of Panem set up the Hunger Games, an annual event in which two children -- one male, one female -- are chosen from each district by lottery to participate in a sort of a child-on-child-battle-royale-to-the-death, for the purpose purpose of punishing and pacifying the oppressed masses.  The reasons why they chose this particular route are a little murky -- more on that later.

The heroine of the story, Katniss Everdeen, is a teenager who volunteers to participate in the Hunger Games after her younger sister is chosen in the lottery.  Her district-mate in the games is Peeta Melark, the son of a baker who is, as we find out eventually, harboring a years-long crush on Katniss.  Once chosen, the two of them find themselves thrust into a foreign world of modernity, technology, and people with really weird clothes and hairstyles.  And, eventually, they make their way into a forest "arena" and all kinds of violence and murder ensues.

Perhaps greatest compliment that I can pay this movie is that it captures the feeling of its best-selling source novel almost perfectly.  Maybe I just share a similar wavelength with the filmmakers, but virtually every scene in the movie looked precisely as it did in my head when I read the book.  Very few film adaptations are able to accomplish this feat and, for that, the director Gary Ross -- whose credits include the brilliant Pleasantville and the not-brilliant-but-very-satisfying Seabiscuit -- gets my kudos.

However, due to its remarkable faithfulness to the source material, the movie inherits most of the novel's flaws as well as its strengths.  So, while it is, for the most part, an exciting story with compelling action sequences, the action takes place in a shallowly developed world with many obvious questions that remain unanswered.

For example, seeing as how the majority of the unwashed masses in the districts seem to fear the Hunger Games more than they celebrate them -- unlike the obvious historical parallel of gladiator games in ancient societies -- why then do they all feel compelled to watch?  I mean, I get that they're trying to make a commentary on our current society's obsession with reality TV and violent entertainment.  Indeed, the contestants and organizers are always talking about the need to give the audience a good show.   But, it seems like a stretch for people to be fearful and resentful of the Games while, at the same time, being obsessive and voyeuristic like today's reality TV audiences.  Why would anyone outside of the contestant's friends and family tune in at all?

Also, it's never clear -- in neither the book nor the movie -- why this is a successful means of pacifying the oppressed populous.  I mean, I suppose it keeps them fearful, but that doesn't seem to be the point and, honestly, simply executing 24 random children every year seems like it would be more effective.  No, instead, we learn -- in a conversation between the President of Panem and the organizer of the Games -- that the Games' purpose is to give people hope...but not too much hope.  But, then why so many reminders as to how unlikely victory is for any one contestant?  And, once again, if there's only one victor in a country of presumably millions of people, who are the Games giving hope to?  For the record, no one outside of the capitol seems all that hopeful.  

At this point, you're likely saying something along the lines of:  "Chill out, dude, it's only a movie."  You're right, it is only a movie, and it a well-made one at that.  The characters are compelling and sympathetic, the action is exciting, and the film successfully builds tension all the way to its final scenes.  I'm mostly nit-picking.  But, in terms of story-telling, The Hunger Games falls short of its most obvious literary parallels -- Harry Potter (because of it's massive popularity among both young and adult audiences) and Ender's Game (because of its dystopian tone and its focus on children committing violence) -- precisely because the world it creates is made of such flimsy stuff.  That doesn't mean it's not enjoyable, it's just not transcendent.

I won't go into the political allegories that might be in play in the story.  That's been done elsewhere and I can't add anything to it.  I'll just say that I don't really think that Suzanne Collins -- the author of the trilogy -- was trying all that hard to make any commentary on today's politics or society.  There's just not enough detail about the world of Panem to make any coherent point.  Instead, she's focusing on the violence and the peril of her characters, which isn't really a bad thing.

My snobbish pretentiousness aside, the one element of the novel that I found most annoying -- the gratuitious, Twilight-inspired love triangle -- is actually less annoying in the movie.  I read the first book of The Hunger Games trilogy a little over a year ago and found it to be an enjoyable read, until the end when (SPOILER ALERT) it becomes obvious that, although the very fate of the entire world will hinge in the outcome of the story, readers will be more worried about which boy Katniss decides to marry.  Will it be Peeta or Gale (the hunky dude that Katniss goes hunting with that I forgot to mention earlier)?  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, it appeared to be Team Edward vs. Team Sexy Werewolf all over again. It was because of this revelation that I decided not to read the other two books.

Don't get me wrong, the romantic element is definitely there in the movie.  But, it's not as forced and ham-handed as it was in the book, for which I was grateful.  Now, I've been told that I'm wrong and that the love triangle is a secondary element to the larger story.  So, while I'm not excited about it, I may have to give the other books a try.

(Note: I didn't actually read Twilight or see any of the movies, but I know enough adult women who were creepily obsessed with the teenage boys in those books to have gotten the gist of the story's central conflict and to be wary of seeing similar dynamics play out in literature and movies created  for a similar audience).

Anyway...moving on...

The movie is propelled by the strength of Jennifer Lawrence's performance as Katniss.  Katniss is in virtually every scene so, if she didn't work, none of it would.  Lawrence brings both remarkable gravitas and the necessary vulnerability to the role, adding more complexity and strength to the character than what I read in the book.  I wouldn't bet against her receiving her second Oscar nomination for the role.  Lawrence is, quite simply, on the verge of being a big damn deal.

Alright, I've said more than enough.  For those of you that made it this far into the review, you have my deepest respect.  To sum up, I'll just say that this is a worthwhile movie whose mass appeal is well deserved.  It won't blow your mind or anything, but it will certainly entertain you for a couple hours and, unless you're a snob like me, you'll be satisfied in the end.

Trailer #2
The Hunger Games — MOVIECLIPS.com