The Hunger Games

Book-to-movie adaptations often get a lot of crap. Some are deserving of it *cough cough* Twilight *cough* and some are still fantastic movies despite their slight deviations from the book (i.e. Harry Potter series). So when a book as popular as The Hunger Games comes along, everyone is hoping that the movie is going to be great before it is even announced. 

How would you feel walking to your immanent death?

So the question is, does The Hunger Games movie live up to the incredible story that is told in the book? My short answer is kinda, but hear me out. The books are written in a first-person perspective from the eyes of the main heroine, Katniss Everdeen. Because of the first-person perspective, we, the readers, know what Katniss is thinking/feeling/doing at all times. We know how she feels about certain characters, why she acts the way she acts, and what is going through her mind when it comes time to survive. It forms an incredible bond between the reader and the character that simply put, cannot be achieved in the medium of film making. So then another question arises...if The Hunger Games movie cannot convey the connection between the reader and Katniss, does it at least portray the book accurately and favorably? To which I answer an outstanding yes. Despite the fact that the first-person-perspective-bond is not there, the world which Gary Ross (director) has created is spot on as to what is in the books, and fans will be pleased to know that the movie is a very faithful adaptation.


For those of you that are completely oblivious to The Hunger Games, let me give you a spoiler-free summary of the plot. North America is no longer existent, it is now known as Panem, a nation that consists of 12 Districts with a Capitol that, interestingly enough, is in/near Denver. There used to be 13 Districts, until District 13 revolted against the government and the government wiped them out with a nuclear attack. Each district is responsible for a particular skill or export that it provides for the rest of the nation, and the further you get away from the Capitol, the poorer the people get. To remind the people of Panem about what happens when there is a revolt, every year there is a televised tournament to the death called The Hunger Games. In these games, one boy and one girl (ages 12-18 I believe) are picked from each District, whisked away to the Capitol, and given a few days to hone any skills they have and capture the hearts of Panem in order to gain sponsors. They then enter a large arena that is completely controlled by the game masters and the fighting commences until there is a victor. 

Perfectly cast actors. Woody Harrelson was born to be a drunk

With that summary out of the way, let me get to what the movie does well. First and foremost, the actors chosen are literally perfect. Jennifer Lawrence provides us with a powerful performance, where despite the fact that we aren't in a first-person perspective, we seem to know what she is thinking simply by her expressions. On a side note, she is also super hot so that's a bonus! Peeta and Gale are also spot on to how I imagined them so credit has to go to Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth, respectively, for portraying Katniss's better halves. Elizabeth Banks makes an annoying but hilarious Effie, Donald Sutherland makes a great President Snow (I could almost smell the blood and roses from the screen), Woody Harrelson is perfect as Haymitch, Katniss and Peeta's drunk but smart mentor, and Lenny Kravitz portrays Cinna effortlessly. Truthfully, I dont think I have ever seen a adaptation cast so perfectly. Harry Potter comes close, but The Hunger Games is just perfect in that sense. In my opinion, the standout of the show is Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman.

Caesar Flickerman, commentator of the Hunger Games. This is
what ESPN has to look forward to in the future...

Caesar serves as the commentator of the Hunger Games, giving a play-by-play to the audience (who are forced to watch by the way) across Panem. In the books, he is flamboyant, personable, and you get the slightest hint that he might actually care about these kids. Stanley Tucci does a phenomenal job in this respect; capturing the ego, the mannerisms...it's all in his performance. 


Along with the perfect cast, The Hunger Games also does a fantastic job at telling its story. This is not a two-and-a-half hour death match. In fact, the actual Games don't start until about halfway through. But I'll be damned if that wasn't the fastest two-and-a-half hours I've ever sat through. Once again, director Gary Ross knows that he has to create character development in order for this movie to have any sort of poignancy, so he takes his time, but uses it wisely. There are some additional scenes in the movie that are not in the book (because of the first-person perspective) that are done well, and really help to set up the future films of the series. I am normally skeptical when a director takes liberties with a book and changes certain things, but I had no problems with any of the changes in the movie (most likely because Suzanne Collins, the author of the novels, wrote the screen play). And once the action starts, Ross handles it well. I wont say perfectly because I have certainly seen better captured action-movies, but he captures the essence of what is happening. It is just somewhat unfortunate that you lose some of the gravity of the deaths because they cannot be portrayed on-screen. In order to get a PG-13 rating, the teen-vs-teen death match had to be carefully captured, and I am still surprised at some of the things that they were able to show without getting an R. 

Lenny Kravitz as Cinna? Genius. 

But I do have one main issue with The Hunger Games and I think most will agree with me. There is not nearly enough character development of other characters or relationships. Sure Katniss gets plenty of time, as does Peeta. But the bond that they form in the arena? In the book it is a crucial aspect that quite frankly, the rest of the series hinges on. In the movie, I kind of felt like it came out of nowhere and got a few minutes of screen time and that was it. And as for Rue? The amount of screen time and evolution that she got was nearly a travesty. She is one off the most important characters in the first book and I felt like her and Katniss only bonded for what, like three minutes? Five minutes max? I am actually quite sour about that part of the movie, not going to lie.

Jennifer Lawrence + bow and arrows +
accuracy = smoking hot combo.

The Hunger Games is an important movie. This series is going to be around for a while with at least two more movies on the way. For any opening movie in a series, it is important that you dont fail your audience or your material. The Hunger Games completely nails what it is all about. It's as faithful an adaptation as I have ever seen and one of the few times that what I pictured in my mind while reading  the books is portrayed almost exactly the same way on the screen. The director and producers have set themselves up perfectly to make this an exciting and powerful trilogy, so here's hoping that they can keep up the good work. 


May the odds be ever in their favor...


And a side note to all the people who are starting "Team Peeta" or "Team Gale": cut that crap out. This ain't Twilight.


Pros:

• Spot-on, perfect, unquestionable casting. Everyone is exactly how I pictured them and the film is held down by an awesome performance by Jennifer Lawrence
• Accurate portrayal of the tone and the world of the books. You can tell that Gary Ross respects the material and that Suzanne Collins had a lot of influence by being on set
• Very gripping. Even when there is no action, I was hanging on nearly every word that was spoken. Maybe it was nostalgia from reading the books, but regardless I was hooked
• Intense action and about as visceral as it could get without acquiring an R-rating (which would eliminate half of its fan base from being able to see it). The use of shaky cam was frequent, but not to the point where it was annoying
• Additional scenes that were not in the book help to explain what is going on, particularly with President Snow, and sets up the future films perfectly

Cons:

• I always say that a great soundtrack can make a movie exponentially better. Unfortunately, The Hunger Games has a unremarkable soundtrack. For a movie like this, it might have been a classic (in my opinion) if it had a powerful, moving original score. It's like if you took away the score/soundtrack from Drive, Titanic, Tron Legacy, or Inception. Still great movies, but significantly better with emotional background music
• The transition from the first-person perspective of the books means that you lose a lot of the emotion and gravity of the story and its details. This certainly was unavoidable because movies cannot be made in the narrating first-person, but it is an unfortunate side effect 
• Rue did not get enough screen time and/or development. Period
• The ending is kind of abrupt and awkward. But then again, it was in the book too so I cant fault the film makers too much

Rath's Review Score: 8.5/10

And for all you Hunger Games nerds out there, here is a special little treat. Below, is a map of Panem with the current North America below it. It may look like just a bunch of hoopla, but I read up on how the guy made it and it is very accurate. Each District's location is based on what its export is and how the land pertains to that export. It's very impressive. Also, the Capitol is Denver, so in the future we are good to go. Enjoy: