The Hunger Games
Movie Review
The Hunger Games
by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B
Released: March 23, 2012
Directed by:
Cast:
For a movie with the word "games" in the title and based on a book written for young adults, "The Hunger Games" is startlingly un-frivolous. This is serious business, this matter of a dystopian future America in which every year two dozen teenagers are forced to fight to the death! As campy as the premise is, and notwithstanding how tongue-in-cheek most of the other movies that have used this scenario have been, the big-screen version of Suzanne Collins' novel takes it seriously.
Which isn't to say the movie's not entertaining. In fact, treating the material with gravity rather than levity increases its capacity to thrill us: the higher the stakes feel, the more invested we are in the story. As directed by Gary Ross ("Pleasantville") and adapted by him, Collins, and Billy Ray ("Shattered Glass"), "The Hunger Games" is exciting and solid, as intently focused on its goals as its protagonist is on hers. It feels like it was made for grown-ups, even though it probably wasn't.
The bleak tone is established immediately with somber views of impoverished District 12 and its weary, resigned inhabitants. Among them is Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence, not far from her Oscar-nominated role in "Winter's Bone"), a diligent teenager who cares for her widowed mother (Paula Malcolmson) and 12-year-old sister, Prim (Willow Shields), by sneaking out of the district boundaries to hunt small game with a bow and arrow. (Well, "sneaking" might not be the right word. There's a sign on the fence warning that it's electrified, and Katniss casually climbs through a gap in it.) Katniss is headstrong but smart enough not to openly question the oppressive government that keeps her district in poverty. Her apparently platonic friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth), on the other hand, is angry.
Today is the Reaping, wherein each of the country's 12 districts chooses a boy and a girl at random to send to the Capitol to compete in the Hunger Games, wherein 24 participants enter an arena and fight until 23 of them are dead -- all televised and packaged as entertainment. The winner's district gets extra allotments of food and other federal magnanimity for the next year, plus praise from the coldly tyrannical head of state, President Snow (Donald Sutherland). Treated like a cross between the Fourth of July and "American Idol," the Hunger Games are held every year as a reminder of the government's power over the people, to prevent uprisings (although why anyone would rebel against a country ruled by Donald Sutherland is beyond me).
Katniss ends up as District 12's female tribute this year, with Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), the baker's son, also chosen in the Reaping. They're whisked away to the Capitol, a gleaming, futuristic city populated by gaudy rich people, to train with the other tributes before they're turned against each other. Their "mentor" is Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), a drunken stumblebum who is District 12's only living Hunger Games winner. (I THINK THE GAMES MESSED UP HIS HEAD.) Their chaperone, a Capitol representative, is the vibrantly colored Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), whose creepy enthusiasm at the Reaping ceremony makes that intense scene even more unsettling.
The Games do eventually happen, and they're lethal. What's interesting is that they don't feel like the only reason for the movie to exist. Instead of rushing to get the story to that point, Ross lets the preliminaries play out, to give some weight to Katniss' life (and, to a lesser extent, Peeta's). Because of this, and aided by Lawrence's steely, mature performance, the Games themselves don't feel like a sensationalistic gimmick. This isn't a movie about a death match; it's a movie about Katniss Everdeen, who must participate in a death match.
Ross' matter-of-fact treatment of the deaths, when they do come, is jarring in the way it nudges the movie's PG-13 rating without getting expressly gory. (For me, the violence was more graphic than I thought it would be, but not as graphic as it would be in reality.) Part of the story's point is to condemn the sort of mentality that would see the Hunger Games as entertainment, so it makes a certain thematic sense for the movie not to seek to entertain us with realistic gruesomeness. Let's be honest, though: the reason the violence isn't graphic is that the studio didn't want an R-rated movie. Given those restrictions, Ross does pretty well, though his overuse of shaky, handheld cameras -- either for faux grittiness or to obscure some of the gore -- is exhausting.
There's a bit of satire in the TV portions of the Hunger Games, presided over by the smiling host Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci, his teeth enhanced) and piped into every home, but not a lot. Scrutinizing our reality-show-craving, entertainment-starved society is only part of the point. The larger theme is Katniss asserting her identity and individuality, and inspiring her fellow citizens to do the same (at least eventually; the rebellion is saved for the next installments in the trilogy). Because an action hero needs a love interest, and because young-adult fiction needs romance, Katniss and Peeta make sparks during the Games while Gale broods back in District 12 -- but that aspect of the story is kept to a minimum, thankfully, walking the line between pandering to the young female audience and turning away the young male audience.
And that's good, because the story has general appeal. Collins' novel felt cinematic to begin with, as if it was always destined to be a movie, and this treatment basically does it justice. It could use more Effie, more of Katniss' stylist Cinna (Lenny Kravitz), more of game-master Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley), and more Haymitch -- always more Haymitch. It could probably use an actor with more presence than Josh Hutcherson as Peeta, too. And it skimps too much on explaining the nature of this society, how things work day-to-day, and how they got that way. But it's effective anyway, both as a standalone sci-fi action drama and in laying the groundwork for the trilogy. I, for one, welcome our new arrow-wielding overlords.
Grade: B
Rated PG-13, some fairly strong violence: this is not for young children
2 hrs., 22 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.


This item has 12 comments
March 23, 2012 at 10:49 am
Nice reference to The Simpsons. I'm glad this was a good adaptation and am looking forward to seeing it!
March 23, 2012 at 11:18 am
i just wanted to say: THANK YOU. FINALLY someone gets it! i wish more people would understand that this series (and the movies that will come from it) aren't about the hunger games. they're not about the urge for survival, or rebellion, or criticism of reality TV. yes, they have all those aspects but in the end, what this series is really about is how that urge for survival, how that rebellion, how that exaggeration of current reality TV affects KATNISS. it's a coming-of-age story when it comes down to it, and this is what really makes it different from all the other previous movies and literature with a similar theme.
sure, the movie will never be perfect (i haven't seen it yet, but i've been reading reviews and there seems to be consensus on what the weaknesses are), but the concept in itself is strong, whether that translates well to the screen or not.
March 23, 2012 at 3:50 pm
I'm guessing that the purpose of the romance plot line between Katniss and Peeta will become quite apparent with the next movie, and the back-story of the society will be revealed as well. Just a guess. Great review. I'm looking forward to seeing it tonight.
March 24, 2012 at 12:24 am
I could not agree more about how overused the shaky, handheld camera bit was. I had no idea what was even happening when Katniss was wrestling with that dark haired girl with the knife at the cornucopia. Why do directors think that's a good idea??
March 24, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Probably 15 minutes into the movie, I leaned over to my boyfriend and said in a very quiet and considerate whisper, "I'm already getting sick of the shaky cam." And I knew, in my heart of hearts, that you would say the same thing.
March 25, 2012 at 10:11 am
I thought the casting was excellent. The adaptation was good, but some pivotal moments fell a little flat for me (ex, the berries at the end). But all in all I enjoyed it.
About Eric's last paragraph, I agree completely. My wife and I were talking with some family who hadn't read the books yesterday after the movie. There was a lot of subtle gestures or comments that directly referred to this back story, but they were completely lost on those that hadn't read the book. I don't think that it could have been done any other way, though, without the movie ending up 4 hours long.
I wonder how they will handle the 3rd book (which isn't very liked) on the big screen.
March 25, 2012 at 2:28 pm
I took my 4 teenaged daughters to the midnight premiere and it was clear that most of the attendees were caught up in media enraged peripheral issues (Team Peeta vs. Team Gale!?) than in the fundamental themes of the story. Yes, this is a coming-of-age story of Katniss, but it is a coming-of-age story where Katniss lives in a world where children and young adults are forced TO FIGHT TO THE DEATH. Such horrors seemed lost on most of the overzealous fans of the Hunger Games.
I would have enjoyed a bit more terror in the eyes and actions of the fifteen or so sacrificial lambs unlucky enough to be chosen to be tributes. Depicting this horror would have made a much more powerful film.
Solid B, I agree, with a lost opportunity for an easy A.
March 27, 2012 at 9:47 pm
The shaky camera work was very effective -- I felt sure I was going to lose my lunch and wanted to hurl throughout the movie. I usually don't have to pay $12.00 to do this.
March 29, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Uh oh Eric, did you break your rule?
There are a number of places that show you've read these books before watching. ;)
Some of those details weren't in the movie, just the books. I noticed only because I've read all though, so I guess it's ok.
Reading this review, I feel like you really like this IP (intellectual property). And you already have 3 more confirmed movies for the last 2 books, ha!
March 29, 2012 at 4:45 pm
Uh oh Eric, did you break your rule? There are a number of places that show you've read these books before watching. ;)
I don't have any "rule" against reading the book before the movie comes out. Where did you get that idea?
April 1, 2012 at 7:45 am
The book author was a screen writer first ...
Though I think the movie does a good job of conveying, through nuance, a lot of the story. Haymitch, of course, gets two kids every year who have no chance and are just going to be slaughtered. Of course it messes with his mind.
April 1, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Some great points here, Eric. I thought it was a good, though not perfect movie. I thought the first half (pre-games) was nearly perfect. The second half I had more issues with.
But overall I thought Jennifer Lawrence was brilliant and was suprised how much I loved Woody Harrelson as Haymitch. And I disagree with you on Peeta -- I think he conveys well the relative innocence of Peeta against the survivalist that is Katniss.