As I watched this dark fantasy I couldn't help but wonder how LITTLE money this movie would have made if it wasn't based on a mega-selling YA book series. After all, dystopian future films rarely hit box office gold: THE ROAD, CHILDREN OF MEN, THE HANDMAID'S TALE etc.. Not to mention either version of LORD OF THE FLIES which was clearly an inspiration for HUNGER GAMES (the Japanese BATTLE ROYALE has never even gotten a formal theatrical release save for some arthouse screenings). Of course, this film managed to avoid the dreaded R rating by soft-pedalling the kills killing kids sequences.

**********Some moderate Spoilers in the review**********

Not having read the books, I come into HUNGER purely as cinema. And, as a movie, it's sadly mediocre.
Jennifer Lawrence is an up-and-coming actress, although it must be said that she is a bit too old (and well-fed) for the part. It's not surprising from a commercial standpoint that the filmmakers quickly move past the dank Appalachian scenes, but, by doing so, it also greatly diminishes the backdrop of the 'Hunger Games' contest.
When the movie moves to the capital for the big contest you see all the glitz and glamour - but, don't get the context of the contrast. Stanley Tucci, Donald Sutherland and, especially, Woody Harrelson provide much needed gravitas to the proceedings. One cool bit is that music producer T-Bone Burnett included some fairly obscure classical music on the soundtrack by the likes of the great Steven Reich (3 MOVEMENTS FOR ORCHESTRA). If the filmmakers haven't seen A BOY AND HIS DOG, I'd be amazed! The pasty-faced heavily costumed capital denizens have an uncanny resemblence to the underground ruling populace in BOY.
On to the games. Here is where HUNGER stumbles the most. You never get the sense of the survival aspect of the contest. We're told that something like a third of the contestants will die from illness, the environment, starvation etc. - but, we only see them die in combat. It's a 2 1/2 hour movie, but there is never a sense of it being a...uh...marathon of willpower. And, the film does a poor job with the scoreboard tally of what contestants are still alive. I understand that the novel is a first person narrative from Katniss' POV so some sense of her confusion and disconnect would make sense; But, the movie contains numerous scenes that Katniss would know nothing about -- so it is very much a 3rd person movie. It's just another example of the sloppy filmmaking here. My biggest problem was with the rules of the game. What rules? It seems like they are arbitrary. The mysterious 'Sponsors' (whose role is never clearly defined) can send either aid or fireballs to incinerate a contestant when they feel like it? Huh? It's stated over and over that this is the 74th year of the contest, yet nobody seems to follow a rule book and the residents still seem amazed that these things occur. Maybe, it's all clear if you read the books.
It's a tiresome trend that films based on other material feel that they don't have to explain themselves to 'outsiders': I.E. WATCHMAN, TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY, COWBOY BEBOP etc. "Oh, it's explained in the book/graphic novel/TV series," doesn't suffice. A movie should stand on it's own. It's great if the underlying material adds depth, but, they should be explicable to everyone.
These frustrations aside, there is the problem of Gary Ross' direction. Jittery camerawork for no good reason. A seeming lack of interest in creating genuine suspense. Screen-filling closeups in every scene no matter the dramatic import. Plus, the film looks cheaper than the money spent on it ($72M). It's an epic of marketing, not production.
Certainly, not awful, but, this is a disappointing start to a 'blockbuster' series.

****************End of Review*****************

I can't say that I will swear off the sequels, but the ensuing films will have to be much stronger to retain my interest.
It's also fun to hear all these tweeners thinking that HUNGER GAMES is at all original. Besides the obvious LORD OF THE FLIES book and movies, there are films such relatively recent films as THE RUNNING MAN, SERIES 7, DEATHRACE and BATTLE ROYALE I & II not to mention THE TENTH VICTIM, DEATHRACE 2000 and going way back, 1932's THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME (by the filmmakers behind the original KING KONG). There are numerous others.
Oh, and most of those films are superior to HUNGER GAMES.

Nobody reads my blog. --sniff--

I enjoyed it well enough, although it certainly becomes weaker the more thought one applies to it, more so than is usually the case.  It's as good as it is in large part because of Jennifer Lawrence (although whoever in the casting department came up with Woody Harrelson deserves a raise).  I think it's greatly compromised by knowing it needs a PG-13 rating; I half-suspect that a lot of the shaking camera was meant less to project an air of chaos and confusion than to obscure violence that might have branded it with an R.

My Gary Ross interview:

http://thephoenix.com/boston/movies/135779-interview-gary-ross-at-the-helm-of-ho...

My Lenny Kravitz interview:

http://westroxbury.patch.com/articles/lenny-kravitz-adds-acting-to-music

thanks for the interviews, but what was your REVIEW?

ed symkus wrote on Apr 25^th, 2012 at 10:30pm:


Well, what did you think of it? In Messageboard speak..............