Two-And-A-Half Stars
We begin in a dystopian future, one where the remains of the United States exist as 12 districts that are ruled by a cruel, unforgiving authoritarian government. Every year, as a reminder of what led to this, each district must send two teenage champions, one male and one female, to compete in a tournament called the "Hunger Games." In this tournament, 24 champions enter. Only one survives. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), a 16-year-old girl from District 12, volunteers to enter the Games. Joining her from District 12 is Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutchinson). Together, they are put in the near-impossible situation of surviving the Hunger Games, a situation complicated by romance, uneasy alliances, and an unforgiving environment.I've read the first two books of Suzanne Collins' young-adult trilogy, so I should be clear that my expectations of the movie likely vary from those who are unfamiliar with the books. If you are unfamiliar with the novels, don't worry: I won't be spoiling anything. I've done my best to consider this movie both in the eyes of readers as well as those for whom the movie is their first exposure to the world of the books.
The strongest part of the film was, by far, the acting, as the entire ensemble did a splendid job with what they were given. Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutchinson, and Woody Harrelson (playing a previous victor from District 12 named Haymitch), as the movie's three leading characters, all brought their own definitive presences to the screen, and Liam Hemsworth as Gale (a friend of Katniss's from District 12) gave a good deal of weight to someone who wasn't given a whole lot to work with. Lawrence has previously proven her abilities in "Winter's Bone" (which she was nominated for an Oscar), and Harrelson's experience really carries Haymitch's character through the movie (I'll have more on this later). Hutchinson and Hemsworth are a pleasant surprise, considering they are relatively unknown actors, and each one has their own unique chemistry with Lawrence.
But as strong as the acting was, there were other elements that dragged the movie down, or at least prevented from being as good as it could have been (prepare yourselves for Debbie Downer mode). I'll start with the directing, mainly because my complaints in this department aren't very exhaustive. The biggest issue for me was the visual style director Gary Ross chose to utilize. Ross went after a look that mirrors "Cloverfield" and the Jason Bourne series: Lots of jump cuts, shaky camera work, and odd angles that were supposed to create an air of suspense. Yet instead of feeling unsettled, the visual style came off as contrived, a replication of prior films, such as the ones mentioned, aiming to create a similar visual mood.
At times this worked: The moment the Games began, the tracker jackers scene, and the major fight scenes. That's when this style of quick cuts and wild camera movements were the most successful: Capturing the complete chaos of the Games. But this style was present from the film's beginning in District 12 through the champions' training and all the way until the end of the movie. Certain climatic moments throughout the film lend themselves better to a shift in visual style, to one less chaotic and more somber. This would especially aid to distinguish the nature of the Games within the fighting arena and the nature of the districts.
But the most irksome thing about the movie, speaking as someone who's read the book (no spoilers, feel free to keep reading), has to be the writing. It's not that the writing failed in any major capacity, though. It's that there's a good deal of room for improvement, with pacing being the main issue. The movie sped along at a surprisingly fast pace right from the outset, barely giving enough time introduce Katniss, her family, Gale, Peeta, and the general hopelessness/bitterness of life and society in District 12. Considering how integral the theme of rebellion is to the book, the fact that the movie barely touches on this hurts the setting. Almost no time is given to characters' backstories, and while the pieces we manage to get give an adequate picture of who everyone is, the film had time to really delve into each person's nature.
Why spend only five to ten minutes introducing the world that "The Hunger Games" takes place? Why speed through the training process? Taking the time to really establishing characters and setting would add so much more, giving characters more depth and scenes more emotion (speaking as someone who's read the book). It's really due to the actors' performances that we get a decent picture of these characters in spite of the writing. This is doubly so during scenes where either the dialogue is sparse, or when there's a very limited amount of screen time given to establish certain character traits.
There's no narration, which I think would have greatly aided a film that requires the amount of exposition "The Hunger Games" creates. Normally I'm not a fan of characters narrating their own stories (Katniss is the narrator in the books), as I find it to be too simple a way to explain things, but this is a case where I think narration would've worked (along with more backstory). The few flashbacks that are in the movie can't quite stand on their feet without proper context, which is sadly missing. Just look at how "Batman Begins" incorporates flashbacks of Bruce Wayne's childhood into the first act of the movie for an example of great execution of story editing and flashbacks.
And when trying to look at the movie from the eyes of someone who hasn't read the books, the quick pacing and brief character molds can make it hard for that type of audience to grow attached to particular characters and to really notice and root for the rebellious undertones of the movie. But the story's intriguing enough on its own, and even with its rushed nature still covers all the bases of the novel.
What "The Hunger Games" boils down to is potential versus execution. It's not perfect by any stretch, but it's more than an adequate adaptation. I just can't help feeling that Ross missed the mark on this one, if only by a few hairs. I know I may seem a bit critical in this review, but I genuinely enjoyed the movie (as someone who's read the book). There are flaws, as exist in all films, but these are really minor ones even though I go on and on about them. The acting impressed me, and while the other main components of the movie couldn't match, "The Hunger Games" is an overall success. Imperfect, but still a success.
