Thursday, 26 June 2014

Film Review - The Hunger Games (2012)


The Hunger Games
Director(s): Gary Ross
Genres: Science Fiction | Young Adult
Duration: 142 Minutes
Release Date: 23rd March 2012
IMDB Rating: 
Butterfly Rating: 
Trailer: See Here
Buy From: Amazon | Ebay
In a dystopian future, the totalitarian nation of Panem is divided between 12 districts and the Capitol. Each year two young representatives from each district are selected by lottery to participate in The Hunger Games. Part entertainment, part brutal retribution for a past rebellion, the televised games are broadcast throughout Panem. The 24 participants are forced to eliminate their competitors while the citizens of Panem are required to watch.

When 16-year-old Katniss's young sister, Prim, is selected as District 12's female representative, Katniss volunteers to take her place. She and her male counterpart Peeta, are pitted against bigger, stronger representatives, some of whom have trained for this their whole lives. Will they survive, and will the the odds be ever in their favour?

This film is an adaptation of a novel.
Please bare in mind that during this review, there may be spoilers referring to scenes in the novel.

When it comes to reviewing The Hunger Games film, it's very difficult, having read The Hunger Games, to not compare the two. Of course, one was produced first and another was produced with the aim of being based of of the original, not exactly like it, so it surprised me when I had reached to end of the film and I'd ended up enjoy the film much more than I had the novel. Exactly why this happened I don't know, but I do know that I'm much more excited to watch Catching Fire than I was eager to read Catching Fire.

I think one of the biggest and best selling points for the film was how the world that I adored had been brought to life infront of me. I'm a sucker for details in films and the designers and those creating the amazing world of Panem and the Districts did a phenomenal job of recreating the world I had grown to adore previously, if not made it so much better. The vividness involved, the large scale scenes of Panem and even the tiniest of scenes; Katniss in her bedroom, the room she was in with Cinna right before the Games, even the train furniture, it was all so perfectly chosen to mimic the novel and it blew me away. The contrast between Panem and the Districts too was much harsher and much more real when placed in front of my eyes, the dullness of the clothing, the difference in the world they lived, yes it was prominent and clear in the novels, but I much preferred the experience of viewing it rather than reading it and that only meant the film gained bonus points for that.

There were of course moments in the film I didn't appreciate; the fact that the pin was found, not given frustrated me a lot more than it should, and the fact that there wasn't as much opportunity to see and feel the games as I did in the book, however, I was also pretty glad that the film didn't drag out unnecessary scenes such as Katniss walking, hunting, walking, drinking and so on, there was a lot more action, the action I was promise in the novel, so for that reason it was so much better. I did actually really like the additional scenes they added to the film, some from Catching Fire and some were added freestyle and usually that annoys me about book-to-film adaptations, but the scenes with President Snow were so brilliant it made him a much better villain that he was in the books and it was easier from a viewers point to dislike him and the game-makers much more and much better than you could in novel. I think for me personally, it was seeing the world of the games from both the inside with the characters and from the outside, with Haymitch bartering with the sponsors to the game-makers making pieces of their game, down to the simplest of details of creating the games and how it was all so well made to seeing more of Gale and his feelings about Katniss being in the games. There was just so much more to like and enjoy in the film and I'm not ashamed to say I liked it much more.

The final selling point for me in the film was Katniss. Now now, before you all get distressed, we know I didn't like Katniss in the novel at all, I found her, sufferable when reading from her perspective, however, because the film was in much more of third person perspective just focusing on Katniss more, I found I connected to her much better and I could relate to her feelings and her actions so much more than previously and I think that could be down to Jennifer Lawrence's acting skills and Gary Ross as a director. They ensured that Katniss still had that unlikeable quality to her, constantly unimpressed and angry at the choices life has dealt her, but how they developed her character throughout the film, to appreciate the skills of the other tributes, to honour how lucky she was to survive, but also actually make her 'romance' with Peeta so much more believable than it was in the book was brilliant. Peeta was also hugely likable as he was in the novel, but I do think that Josh Hutcherson wasn't the right choice of actor; he almost made Peeta come across as weak and unstable which I didn't really like, however, what little of Gales we did see was portrayed very nicely by Liam Hemsworth, so from an acting point of view, it wasn't all that bad.

I think in the end, it was something about the cinematic experience that had me enjoying The Hunger Games more then it's novel counterpart. Favourite scenes from the novel were taken and expanded brilliantly, especially the hounds in the end, I swear to you, I definitely thudded my ceiling, I jumped so high, and the wonderful choice to keep to music rather than song for a lot of soundtracks was such a good choice because the music and background sounds really added to the feel of the film and even the most silent of moments with no outer noise was just so fantastic, it's so difficult to fault those parts. I did struggle with some of the CG areas of the film; they were too unclean and too unfinished and could have been smarter in areas, but that didn't take away from the experience too much. In truth, I think the film took everything I loved about The Hunger Games and gave it to me ten fold, it gave me a beautiful experience of the world and it made me finally connect better to some to some of the characters, as well as understand more about the games on a viewing level since that is how the games are meant to be viewed, so I felt like I was watching the games with Panem rather than being in the games with Katniss and I much preferred that. The relationships were much more believable through sight than through words and I actually just find it really difficult to hold much against the film.

In my opinion, I don't think you should force yourself to read the book beforehand. To me personally, it made no difference because I didn't really enjoy reading The Hunger Games, so my expectations were much lower and I think that's why I enjoyed the film much more, however, I would advise you not to watch it in a darkened room if you haven't read the book because there are moments were you might just have a heart attack.

13 comments:

  1. Hmm, I saw the film first, and then read all three books. For me, the film was OK, but wouldn't have pushed me to read the book. I did that based on a rec from a trusted friend. Reading the book expanded on the film and made me appreciate it so much more. This is actually why I tend to prefer seeing a film first (blasphemy, I know, but it's my preference). After reading the book, I did appreciate the film more.
    I love your descriptions of the world building in the film - they made me want to rewatch. :) I certainly agree that Lawrence makes Katniss more likeable, although I think this was partly simply because we weren't inside her head. :P Oh, and the added scenes were really wonderfully done - a great example of how different mediums can be used to tell the same story.
    The only things I disagree on are your statements about the actors playing Peeta & Gale. I think Josh Hutcherson makes a lovely Peeta, and I don't find him weak or unstable at all. Liam Hemsworth, as the passionate, hot-headed Gale, was completely wooden, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's actually really good to see your thoughts on the film! I have to say, had I watched the film first, I would have been encouraged to read the series, but I'm glad I did it the other way, it gave me more of an insight, and I'm glad I read the first two books before this film too with the crossover between the two! Thank you for disagreeing actually, was nice! :D

      Delete
  2. Yay, I am so glad that you really enjoyed the film, I think that's why it did so well because of the ability to connect with the audience with the close up camera angles. I really liked Katniss as a character too, even though she was unlikable you could kind of see why she would act like that in her maturity. Great review Amanda!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Jeann! I do think it did well because Katniss was much better in film version!

      Delete
  3. It's always interesting seeing film reviews when someone didn't like the book - they're so different that it's no wonder there are often varied opinions! The Hunger Games movie was alright for me, but Catching Fire is SO SO SO SO much better - I hope you get a chance to see it soon, because I'm really interested to see what you think :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't worry Emily, the Catching Fire film was, I agree, better still, so you're going to love that film review! I'm glad my review could surprise a few people though ;)

      Delete
  4. I was a mite disappointed when I first saw the movie...I actually loved the shaky camera, buuuuut, they missed so many details! And I felt all the awesome dialogue was gone and no one felt right. But Catching Fire? OMG CATCHING FIRE IS THE BEST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN ADFJASLKFA SORRY BUT NOT SORRY. *ahem* I'm a huge The Hunger Games fan. Like books, movies, the works. I love it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know Cait, I know, Catching Fire was better, but just got to wait for that review ;) I can tell you're a fan, can't wait for Mockingjay: Part 1 I bet! :D

      Delete
  5. I enjoyed the film and I'd read the book beforehand. The film makers kept to the style and the tone of the book, so that made it work for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, that's what worked for me, the world and the atmosphere was the same.

      Delete
  6. I have to admit to being disappointed with the movie when I saw it. It wasn't what I had been expecting, and it was an okay film but I didn't like it as much as an adaptation. But Catching Fire.... AMAZING!!!!!!!!!! I love that film so much, not just a brilliant adaptation but a brilliant movie as well. I think it's different because you didn't enjoy the book. people who loved the book all seemed pretty disappointed, so it was such a nice surprise when they took all the criticism on board when making Catching Fire. That movie rocked!

    I actually thought Josh Hutcherson was a weird pick before I saw the film, but then I really enjoyed him in the role. Peeta is a bit weak at time, he relies on Katniss a lot in the first book so I thought he portrayed him well. I really like him in Catching Fire too, in the end I think he really becomes Peeta. Liam Hemsworth, on the otherhand, didn't really impress me much in either film. I don't think he's very talented as an actor, he has like one face. He's the boy version of Kristen Stewart, haha.

    Very excited for the Catching Fire review!!!! :) :) :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh man, Liam Hemsworth IS the boy version of Kristen Stewart! Bwahaha!

      Delete
    2. Aww, I like Liam, my bad clearly! I think the cast wormed their way into my heart eventually, but that was more in Catching Fire than The Hunger Games! Clearly everyone's going to look forward to that review! :)

      Delete

We appreciate the time you take to leave a comment and do our very best to reply as soon as possible.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...