Hunger Games the movie
*This is a review of the movie which was on a separate page, but I decided to get rid of my pages and add the content to my posts list.*
I went to see The Hunger Games movie a couple weekends ago, and my overall impression was a good one. I think the filmmakers did an excellent job casting, especially for Katniss. I think that some of the choices of Woody Harrelson were different, but that as a whole, his performance as Haymitch was great. Lenny Kravitz's performance as Cinna was at times a little incongruous, but if I give him a little slack for not being an actual actor, I find that I'm okay with it; he certainly looked the part perfectly. Elizabeth Banks also looked the part of Effie Trinket perfectly, and I think that her choices for the attitude and affectations of a Capitol citizen were spot on.
Some of the scenes they added that weren't in the book were a point of contention for some viewers. I understand, however, that they were necessary. Because the filmmakers didn't include voice overs of Katniss' thought (which I think it was wise to leave out), they had to show the audience the decisions of the gamemakers so that there wouldn't be any confusion when we lost Katniss' assumptions about the gamemakers' decisions in her own thoughts.
When I spoke with other viewers, I also found that many were upset about the scenes from the book that were not included in the movie. When the movie was over, I found that I was so happy with the end result that I didn't really miss them. Probably the most stark omissions were the injury to Peeta at the hands of the Mutts that meant that he had to lose his leg and the treatment of Katniss and Peeta in the hovercraft and Capitol. I think they chose to leave these details out because they would be difficult to shoot (they didn't want to have to use CGI, extensive make-up, or rigging to fake an artificial limb on an actor who didn't need one) or because it would be out of step with the way the movie was shot (neither Katniss nor Peeta looked like they were on death's door in the final scene of the movie within the arena so to shoot extensive scenes where Peeta and Katniss are treated by officials as practically invalid would not make much sense for viewers).
There were only two main points where I thought the filmmakers were remiss. I think that if they wanted to appeal to wide audiences, including those who did not read the books, then they needed to explain what a mockinjay was. From the portrayal in the movie, someone who didn't read the books might think that it was just an alternative name they have for mockingbirds in the future. As the film is, viewers get no impression of the rebellion the mockinjay engenders. I imagine they will have to include a more in-depth explanation in subsequent movies of what a mockinjay is when Katniss becomes a mockinjay. Also, I was quite disappointed that the filmmakers made the Mutts in the arena look like pit bulls rather than the wolves they are described as in the book. As wolves with the eyes of the other tributes, the Mutts could possibly be werewolves of the other tributes which adds to the fear they create. It also explains even more the insidious nature of all of the muttations and therefore the depraved intentions of the Capitol and President Snow. As dogs in the movie, the Mutts are only an immediate but passing fear with little clue to the dark intent behind them. I can only imagine that the decision to make them look like dogs was an intent to separate The Hunger Games from other recent fantasy movies where werewolves are prominent.
All in all, I think that the film was a very true adaptation and an engaging and entertaining film in its own right. I would recommend it for all who read the books - I don't think you'll be disappointed on the whole - and for anyone who likes a well-rounded action movie. Even those who don't tend to like fantasy or science fiction works will find that the elements of fantasy are not too other-worldly in The Hunger Games, and they will get engrossed in the tributes' struggle.
I went to see The Hunger Games movie a couple weekends ago, and my overall impression was a good one. I think the filmmakers did an excellent job casting, especially for Katniss. I think that some of the choices of Woody Harrelson were different, but that as a whole, his performance as Haymitch was great. Lenny Kravitz's performance as Cinna was at times a little incongruous, but if I give him a little slack for not being an actual actor, I find that I'm okay with it; he certainly looked the part perfectly. Elizabeth Banks also looked the part of Effie Trinket perfectly, and I think that her choices for the attitude and affectations of a Capitol citizen were spot on.
Some of the scenes they added that weren't in the book were a point of contention for some viewers. I understand, however, that they were necessary. Because the filmmakers didn't include voice overs of Katniss' thought (which I think it was wise to leave out), they had to show the audience the decisions of the gamemakers so that there wouldn't be any confusion when we lost Katniss' assumptions about the gamemakers' decisions in her own thoughts.
When I spoke with other viewers, I also found that many were upset about the scenes from the book that were not included in the movie. When the movie was over, I found that I was so happy with the end result that I didn't really miss them. Probably the most stark omissions were the injury to Peeta at the hands of the Mutts that meant that he had to lose his leg and the treatment of Katniss and Peeta in the hovercraft and Capitol. I think they chose to leave these details out because they would be difficult to shoot (they didn't want to have to use CGI, extensive make-up, or rigging to fake an artificial limb on an actor who didn't need one) or because it would be out of step with the way the movie was shot (neither Katniss nor Peeta looked like they were on death's door in the final scene of the movie within the arena so to shoot extensive scenes where Peeta and Katniss are treated by officials as practically invalid would not make much sense for viewers).
There were only two main points where I thought the filmmakers were remiss. I think that if they wanted to appeal to wide audiences, including those who did not read the books, then they needed to explain what a mockinjay was. From the portrayal in the movie, someone who didn't read the books might think that it was just an alternative name they have for mockingbirds in the future. As the film is, viewers get no impression of the rebellion the mockinjay engenders. I imagine they will have to include a more in-depth explanation in subsequent movies of what a mockinjay is when Katniss becomes a mockinjay. Also, I was quite disappointed that the filmmakers made the Mutts in the arena look like pit bulls rather than the wolves they are described as in the book. As wolves with the eyes of the other tributes, the Mutts could possibly be werewolves of the other tributes which adds to the fear they create. It also explains even more the insidious nature of all of the muttations and therefore the depraved intentions of the Capitol and President Snow. As dogs in the movie, the Mutts are only an immediate but passing fear with little clue to the dark intent behind them. I can only imagine that the decision to make them look like dogs was an intent to separate The Hunger Games from other recent fantasy movies where werewolves are prominent.
All in all, I think that the film was a very true adaptation and an engaging and entertaining film in its own right. I would recommend it for all who read the books - I don't think you'll be disappointed on the whole - and for anyone who likes a well-rounded action movie. Even those who don't tend to like fantasy or science fiction works will find that the elements of fantasy are not too other-worldly in The Hunger Games, and they will get engrossed in the tributes' struggle.
Comments
Post a Comment