Sometimes I really wonder what the criteria for "the next big thing is," because to me it seems really inconsistent. Why is a boring story about a bland, useless sack of teenage sociopathy having to choose between a possessive, borderline rapist stalker and a dull, uncaring asshole of a monster (because those are obviously her only two possible choices) so popular? Is it just because teens are told that it's the new thing, and that they have to like if they want to be cool?
I think about stuff like this because sometimes something will come out and become massively popular, and I can't figure what it is that made it so huge when I'd seen it done before, but the most that happened was perhaps a bit of a cult following. Take "Twilight" for example. That was not the first time someone thought to themselves "Hey, vampires are sexy." The first notable example one would probably think of would be "Interview with The Vampire" back in '91, which is actually a good vampire story, as opposed to Edward and Bella's "epic," and far more heartbreaking and tragic, but don't forget the chairman of the board himself, Dracula. And I'm not just talking about the Coppola version. Even the original Bela Lugosi film is actually pretty sexy. And it does it while remembering the vampire is A BAD GUY. What a novel concept, right?
But where were the Louis backpacks and LeStat posters on the walls of teenage girls? LeStat was way more of a bad boy than Edward freaking Cullen, not to mention better looking and more charismatic. Oh, and he was actually bad, which is a nice touch. Not to mention Antonio Bandaras' character of Armand, who Jacob Black wishes he could be as gay as. Where were the "Team Lugosi" t-shirts? Where were the soccer moms fantasizing about Christopher Lee?
"Bitch, you couldn't even handle this."
The point here is "Why Twilight?" It's been done before, and done much better. At least those other films had the decency to get vampire lore right.
And now we have "The Hunger Games," another "young adult" book series. Now, I didn't even hear of this until the movie was set to come out, but my friends who read it informed me that it was very good. Then again, I was told the same of "Twilight." Then again, I was also told the same of "Harry Potter," which actually was quite good. So...coin toss?
The thing that struck me most about "The Hunger Games" was the story. This was because when it was described to me the first time, the very next words out of my mouth were "Soooo it's "Battle Royale," huh?" And without fail the person describing it to me said "What's that?" By then I was in full snob-mode and said with a fair amount of incredulity "You've never seen "Battle Royale?" Oh man."
Of course they'd never seen "Battle Royale." Why would they have seen it? An actual good movie where you have to read subtitles? Forget that. I need to catch up on "Jersey Shore."
Ok, I know what this looks like but seriously, it's a good flick. What? It is!
Fans of "The Hunger Games" have probably heard enough about "Battle Royale" to make them sick at this point, because I know that people like myself certainly brought it up enough to make sure that they'd never watch it, simply out of spite. But there is a reason we bring it up, and that's because it's pretty freaking identical to "The Hunger Games," only it's not backed by a raving mob of fangirls and soccer moms.
Which brings me back to my original point once again: Why this instead of "Battle Royale?" What's the big difference?
Ah. I see.
Oh right. Heaven forbid our violence be disturbing. Gotta get the kiddies in the theaters to watch people KILL EACH OTHER. That's good old fashioned family entertainment. As long as the girl and boy hook up at the end, then you can do whatever the hell you want and call it teenage oriented. You know who else had a happy ending? Mickey and Mallory from "Natural Born Killers!" Let's show the kids that! It's a romance!
Still a better love story than "Twilight."
Geez, that's the longest opening tirade yet. Should probably talk about the movie I saw at some point, huh? I suppose I'll get to it, seeing as it's what I do here.
As is probably evident, I went into "The Hunger Games" with the mindset of "Okay, movie. Impress me. Show me what all the fuss is about." Maybe not the healthiest attitude, to be sure, but it's hard to not be a tad cynical with something this huge. And that's particularly true when the fan base is partly composed of the teenage demographic which, let's face it, has the absolute worst taste in movies. So yeah, I was skeptical.
After seeing "The Hunger Games," I'm left at something of an impasse. While I thought that it was a well put together film, in fact it's made far better than most teen blockbusters are, at the end of the day I still don't get the "why this" aspect of it. Is it good? Yeah, it's pretty good. Is it a sweeping, multi-billion dollar saga to rival "Lord of The Rings?" No. The story is pretty weak sauce. Having not read the trilogy, I don't know where it goes from here, but as for the first installment, I'm not picking up much of a sense of epic.
Before I say enough negative stuff to give the impression that I didn't like "The Hunger Games," let me be clear: It's a very well made film. It really is. The visual style is quite striking, albeit a bit shaky and jittery with the camera at times, and it does do a very good job at transporting you to a different place. If "The Hunger Games" does one thing quite well it's to immerse the viewer in the world they have created. Now, whether or not the world makes sense is another matter, but it still immerses you.
And when it has to be dramatic and emotionally charged, for the most part it is pulled off very well. In particular, the opening 20 minutes is among some of the best dramatic moments, during what is known as "The Reaping," which is just a really sinister way of saying "a lottery." I know some complaints were made about "The Hunger Games" starting off slowly, but to be honest with you I thought that was some of the best stuff in the movie.
Look at that suit. Richard Dawson would be proud.
The first hour focuses on their training and the whole rigamarole behind the game, which is basically a TV show which follows the battle to the death that these kids are forced to participate in. It's essentially "Battle Royale" if it were "Ender's Game" if it took place in ancient Rome as interpreted by "The Running Man." If that makes sense. In any case I found the exploration of the theatricality involved, and the fact that almost everyone involved is totally aware how much of a hollow, flashy, soulless spectacle it is to be the most interesting part of the film.
As far as action goes, despite the shaky cam being abused a bit, for a PG-13 film it did come off as reasonably brutal, at least as far as that rating can take you. I personally think they could have gone a bit further with the violence and kept a PG-13 though. I get the feeling most of that came from the fact that these are kids being killed, and less about what you see. I think a bit more gratuity would have helped the film's impact, but for being PG-13 it was well done. It's just hard to not compare it to the many other films with similar plots, all of them I remember being a hard R rating.
Of course the biggest selling point of any "saga" is the story. In a bit of a surprise, despite my problems concerning the Games themselves (which I'll get to), this is a story that I wouldn't mind seeing the rest of. The reasons for this aren't for the characters, but just the idea of where the plot is going to go next. I'm not invested in the plot so to speak, but I'm interested in the possibilities of where it goes next, if that makes sense.
As far as cast goes, I don't know. Jennifer Lawrence is/was an indie-circuit darling, and supposed to be this rocking Titan of Acting, but honestly for a good portion of the movie I found her to be fairly bland and uninteresting. Most of the time she just kind of stood there with her mouth hanging open looking like she was trying to remember whether or not she set the TiVo to record "Scrubs." It's one thing for Katniss (stupid name #38 for this film) to be scared and speechless but Lawrence just plays her so boring, with the exception of a handful of scenes where she's mad.
"Meh. I'll shoot you with this arrow. I guess."
That was actually the biggest problem for me with Katniss, was that she really didn't display much emotion at all. I kept waiting for her to go off the deep end, and she starts to, but that never really pans out. Even after she's watched her friend die in her arms, which would have been quite moving had it not been kind of forced, and she's had her "MENDOZZA!!!" moment, after that's done she really never gets too upset. What I had been hoping for was for Katniss to pick up her bow, say "All you bastards are dead" and reenact "Rambo: First Blood Part II." Instead she just has a good cry and goes home. Way to protagonize, protagonist.
And the whole time we're being told that Katniss is the great hope of these Games. She's the one that has the best shot at winning, even more so than the trained killers from the rich districts that volunteered for this thing, I'm guessing just because they want to stab something in the face. No, these guys are ranked lower than Katniss to succeed, because she shot an apple.
I got a much bigger kick out of Woody Harrelson as Haymitch (stupid name #65) their mentor and former Hunger Games winner, who has turned into a slopping drunk to deal with the torment of helping send young people off to die. There's some real pain in his performance, and it was quite effective. Even Lenny Kravitz as their producer Cinna (#89) was actually quite good in a similar role. I also thought that the quiet fatalism of Josh Hutcherson as Peeta (#115) had a nice, quiet dignity about it, especially when he starts sabotaging his own chances to make Katniss look better, giving her theoretically better odds at surviving. I liked that, and it would have made for some pretty gripping and dramatic moments if "The Hunger Games" hadn't chickened out on itself.
Yeah, here's where I start having some problems not with the cast or the way the film is made, but the story itself. This could have been a brutal, tragic tale but it really just ends up playing it way too safe, and comes off as blatantly catering to the demographic that it's trying to ensnare. It's odd to say that considering how many young people get slaughtered, but it's the way they handle the ending that really kind of spoiled my experience a bit.
The whole point of these games is that there can be only one winner. Everyone else is going to die. That's the way it's been for 73 years up to this point, and to change it would be stupid, since the entire reason for the games to exist is subjugation of the districts being forced to supply these kids. To change the rules would make the regime look soft, which is against everything they're trying to do. Well, this may be spoiler-heavy for anyone who hasn't seen the movie or read the book, but all you have to do is remember that it's a movie for teens to realize that there's no way that "The Hunger Games" is having either the main character or her love interest die. Because you see, there can be more than one winner. Only there can't. Except when there can be.
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!!!! (except when there can totally be more than one)
They try and make it so that the guys running the Hunger Games kind of shoot themselves in the foot by implementing a "two-winner" special rule in an attempt to try and appease rioters in a district that (SHOCK!) had one of their young people killed in the Games, but it really doesn't make any sense. First of all, the entire reason the district was rioting was because one of their children died. But I crunched the numbers, and assuming that the "winning" rate between all the districts is statistically even, that particular district has lost roughly 138 kids over the years to the Hunger Games. Are you telling me that they only now care enough to riot? Was 139 just the final straw? It seems to be the case because it's only now that the regime is scared enough of this rioting to change the rules that have been in place for the better part of a century.
The second reason that doesn't make any sense is the fact that it's really a meaningless gesture for the regime to do for the district that is rioting because the rules are absurdly specific and transparently tailor-made for Katniss and Peeta, who aren't even from the rioting district. Who is this suppose to appease? You think that district is going to be totally okay with the fact that both of some other district's kids made it back when both of their kids are dead? What do they care at that point? They'll still be pissed off.
Thirdly, let's say that they actually succeeded in placating the rioting district with this two-winner amendment. That's rendered completely useless at the end because when Peeta and Katniss are the last ones standing, they revoke it anyway in a "MWAHAHAHAHA!!! WE'RE EVIL!!!" moment which is bashing-your-forehead-on-the-desk-stupid. Did they think the people that were mad weren't going to get mad AGAIN when you overturn the thing you did to make them not mad?
And finally, why is the regime even bothering in the first place with trying to make everyone happy? You have abducted children as young as 8 years old to FIGHT TO THE DEATH FOR YOUR AMUSEMENT. I don't think any amount of PR is going to get around the fact that you are an evil, tyrannical bunch of douchebags. When the hell did the notion of doing someone else a solid ever seem like part of your business model?! I just have to keep going back to the question "Why do they care if people are happy?" They have to know that the districts hate them.
"Jennifer! I'm glad you're here! I think my wig is plotting against me, and I'm freaking out."
You would also think that a clearly advanced society would not be forced to do these barbaric acts to subjugate its people in the first place, since the technology they are using in the Games could easily be used to utterly crush any resistance immediately, considering that based on what I saw, they literally have the power to instantly create any damn thing they want. But given the fact that in the city they're pulling stuff out of the aether, while people in the districts appear to have never seen a flush toilet before, I'm not sure that a rebellion is a real threat to this government. It would be like the hordes of Mordor versus a country full of pandas. I think the pandas would surrender.
At least it wouldn't be a threat if they didn't have these comically villainous games which unsurprisingly do little except guarantee that the Districts are never going to not be thinking about rebelling. I guess I'm just not seeing the Big Picture of the plan here. I mean, it just seems so over-the-top cartoonishly evil. Although that may have to do with Donald Sutherland and his eyebrows.
When you look like a cartoon villain, I guess cartoonish villainy is inevitable.
This whole "changing the rules" thing really tainted my impression of the film. It came off as insultingly convenient, almost like they panicked halfway through the final act and were forced to pull something out of their asses to make it so they could both get out of this alive. While these are valid complaints to bring up, the reason for it lies in the fact that it's a movie for teens, and we can't have dark stuff happening to make it so the two attractive people don't hook up at the end. Of course the end of "The Hunger Games" implies that darker things are in store, but it still felt like a cop out.
On an up note, I did appreciate how Katniss and Peeta aren't really "together" at the end. That would have been the easy way to go, and while they dip their toe into those well-tred waters, it's not all the way there. It's more of a lie that's grown into something they both are contemplating making real, which is much better. But since one of the last things you see in the movie is Jennifer Lawrence and Liam Helmsworth staring intensely at each other across a crowd while she's holding hands with Josh Hutcherson, I'm guessing that "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" will involve a love triangle. Because we can't have a movie for teens without THAT. Heaven forbid.
THE BOTTOM LINE - I spent a lot of time complaining about the things in "The Hunger Games" that bugged me because I felt they took away from what was otherwise a pretty solid flick. Am I going to read the books? Probably not. Will I watch the others when they make them? Sure. Would I still rather be watching "Battle Royale?" Yup. Even so, Recommended.
