The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games falls neatly into the bracket of films that have been based on bestselling novels of enjoyable (though not great) quality (The Da Vinci Code, Twilight, some of the Harry Potter catalogue et al), but have still made a gazillion dollars at the box office. However, also like a lot of those films, The Hunger Games also fits into that equation by being a film that delivers a basic level of entertainment, but no more. This is double disappointing in this sense as the film has a great first act, but goes quickly off the rails thereafter. To paraphrase an old football staple, this is a film of two halves. Taking place at an unspecified time in the future in the new nation of Panem (though obviously a fantastical version of North America), a boy and girl are selected at random from each of the nations twelve districts to fight to the death on live television. The film focuses on the "tributes" of District 12, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) from their selection, preparation and then participation in the "Hunger Games". As the main premise of the film is not an original concept in any way (a novella, The Lottery, with a similar subject matter was published in the 1940's) it needs something to help poke it's head above the waterline. This it does in great fashion in the opening segment. The nation of Panem is superbly rendered, not only in its buildings and infrastructure, but also in its garish fashions and appearance of the characters (Wes Bentley's facial hair has to be be seen to be believed). You do get the sense of being in another time and place. As soon as the actual "games" begin though the film starts to unravel. It's basically just too Hollywood and when compared to its obvious predecessor Kinji Fukasaku's outrageous Battle Royale, it looks very slim indeed. Though it is naughty to make direct comparison of films in reviews its justified here as it proves the point about where The Hunger Games takes its eye off the ball. In Battle Royale, a class of unknowing school children are gassed and within ten minutes of regaining consciousness are out on an island with instructions to kill or be killed. They're terrified, the audience is aghast, it's shocking to watch. In The Hunger Games we are shown scene after scene of the tributes preparing for battle and by the time of the competition most of them appear to be blood thirsty killers relishing the battle ahead. As that is the case, you actually don't really care who survives and who doesn't and any sympathy you may have had has been lost amongst the snazzy uniforms and make-up. It also doesn't help that even without reading the books you don't doubt for a single second if Everdeen and Mellark will survive or not, so, basically, where are the thrills? Also, any political statements it has are muddled because of this approach (Chronicle had more social commentary than this and that film had a mere cats whisker of a budget in comparison). What is meant to be horrific you'll just meet with a shrug of your shoulders....you felt sorrier for the participants in The Running Man..and they were criminals! This feeling of reduced threat may be partly explained by the somewhat odd choice of Gary Ross as director. Ross hasn't directed a live action picture for eight years and his back catalogue hardly smacks of cutting edge film making. Indeed he appears to make up for that lack of experience by employing the old shaky camera technique, but it doesn't work and at times the editing is awful. That could partly be explained though in respect of the kerfuffle around the films certificate, though you're living in a dream world if you think the studio didn't cut the film on purpose to get a lower certificate (i.e. more bums on seats). If you want further evidence along those lines perhaps the producers could explain to us all how, in a nation where everyone is supposedly starving, why does virtually everyone look in the rudest of health? (OK, it's obviously because pretty people sell movies and realistic depictions of famine do not, but the point is still valid). Acting wise, it's two of the lesser names that take the plaudits. Elizabeth Banks (buried under wig and a ton of make up) is great as the purposely OTT presenter / tributes guide to the games and it's Hutcherson (blowing Lawrence out of the water) who gives a great performance as a youngster in love and the rest of the madness be damned. As for Lawrence herself, this is basically just a performance for the MTV crowd. She's more than acceptable, but compared to her performance in Winter's Bone this is a backwards step acting wise (though it's obviously not publicity wise, he types cynically). Woody Harrelson (as a character called, wait for it, Haymitch Abernathy....yep, there's so many odd names in this film you'll think you've stumbled into the Coen universe) as a drunken mentor and past champion of the games is a cliche too far as well. The film is best summed up by the appearance of some very dodgy looking CGI monsters at the end (don't ask). It's just confirmation of the disappointment you'll feel, as what could have been a brutally brilliant film descends into childish farce.

The OC Film Sting Final Verdict
What's good is good and what's bad is bad. This is clearly a film for a younger audience (no problem with that), but it's blunt where it could have been sharp. If the studio and producers had given the viewers a bit more credit on the brain front this could have been a cracker. Rating: 6/10.