The Hunger Games Reviewed I had been dubious about The Hunger Games as a film since I first heard of the project, and I don’t entirely know why. I think the general hype surrounding the whole thing, followed by the “Oh, it’s amazing!” comments, were the main factor. However there was just something about the books that I knew wouldn’t come across well on camera… But enough of that for now (note the use of the world’s least enticing cliff-hanger there). We’ll start with the good. The Hunger Games has done its job, without a doubt. Wikipedia tells me it took the title for highest grossing non-sequel ever and “was positively received by critics”, going on to note “an average score of 7.2 out of 10” from Rotten Tomatoes. On top of this, practically every one of my friends who has seen it, whether they’ve read the novels or not, said it was “amazing”. And they’re right, in a way. I can point out many positive parts of the film. The themes that erupt throughout are overwhelming: feminism, politics, religion, reality television. Also, I think, are references to totalitarian governments like Nazi Germany, and maybe Fascist Italy, with all the Roman influence in the Capitol. We see good old ‘good versus evil’ rear its colossal, weary head, too, in addition to love, sacrifice, social class and identity. It literally deals with just about every theme imaginable, and then some. And if that last paragraph makes The Hunger Games sound like the type of film that will feed you endless dialogue until you fall asleep right before the action, think again. The opening scene depicts Katniss Everdeen (Spell Check is currently getting very angry at me) hunting a deer in some woods that she’s evidently not supposed to be in. Then we have the lengthy chunk of the film spent inside the arena where teens battle to the death. Admittedly, it’s not an all-out gore-fest, but it was never going to be with a 12 certificate; it’s too clever for that, too. The action was well done, overall. Carefully applied, it meant there was never too long a gap between fight scenes, nor was there blood so often you felt bored. Once or twice I did feel the ‘handheld camera’ style – which critics have praised for putting us in Katniss’ shoes – was just used to cover up for some of the actors’ lack of experience in stunts. It was so shaky and fast-moving, so quick to change between shots, that they could have been doing the conga, having a tickling war (don’t tell me you’ve never had one), or both, and we wouldn’t have known the difference. But like I said, all considered, the action was decent, especially for what could be labelled a kid’s film. The acting is satisfactory, with some lines leaning towards the predictable, clichéd or cheesy, but that can be put down to screenwriting and (sorry) America. Jennifer Lawrence who plays Katniss seems toughened and not overly glamorous (though, of course, they couldn’t resist a little), and does a tidy job, as do most of the cast. As a bit of a man-of-the-match award, I would have to nominate Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman. The BAFTA-nominee was suitably manipulative but slimy; genuine but so very false. So multi-talented Gary Ross (director, screenwriter, etc), who has not signed on for the sequel everyone knew would happen, has ticked all the boxes then: critics are pleased; cinemagoers are pleased; filmmakers’ pockets are pleased. Unfortunately, the minuscule, pathetic little box with ‘Sam Lewis’ written above it is not ticked. If I had to say whether this was a positive or negative review, I’m afraid it would have to tip towards the latter. I’m not quite certain that it is the fault of the film or the strangely good reception given to it by almost everyone. When I hear such glowing reviews from friends and critics alike, I expect to have my socks well and truly knocked from one end of the room to the other, fast followed by my feet. So for me, maybe it was a victim of its own hype and success. I didn’t think The Hunger Games was anything special, or worthy of comments like “There have been a number of big-gun literary series brought to screen over the past decade. This slays them all.” Nor indeed Fox News’ more direct approach of “Move over Harry Potter.” It didn’t give me the spine-tingling moments that the Harry Potter franchise mastered, nor did I prefer it in any aspect. However my one main, aforementioned complaint, that is really down to my personal and equally fudged up opinion than anything else, is the setting and feel of the film. The Capitol especially held no appeal for me at all. The wigs and make-up and… blergh! I seem to recall being similarly disgusted when reading the books, as I said in the introduction, and although you could say that the filmmakers had done their job in repulsing me, because that’s what the place is meant to do, I didn’t enjoy watching and I didn’t feel it was real. Without any effort (quite the contrary) I found images of the sets being put together and make-up being applied invading my mind. The Roman influence there was way too OTT and obvious, too. If you are going to style a setting on another, I’d rather it be subtly noticeable, not obvious to anyone who has ever seen a picture of ancient Rome, a complete rip-off. I really don’t know how to conclude, other than by saying that The Hunger Games does exactly what I expected. I entered the cinema hesitant to allow my hopes to be raised, and left feeling smug that I hadn’t. People complain sometimes about films deviating from the original story, but this needed a bit of creative oomph to adapt it from book to film. The whole thing seemed a recreation of the book, done by people who just followed a list of instructions set out by author Suzanne Collins. Contrary to Fox News’ opinion that it Gary Ross has bettered Harry Potter, I will say with utter belief that it is nothing compared to the adaptation of Rowling’s series. Yes, The Hunger Games has succeeded. But it hasn’t exactly broken any barriers, has it? 5/10