THE HUNGER GAMES (2012)
director. Gary Ross
writer. based on the novel by Susanne Collins
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutchinson, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks and Donald Sutherland
"May the odds be ever in your favor."
~ EFFIE TRINKET
ONE LINE SYNOPSIS: every year a boy and a girl from each of the twelve Districts are chosen at "the Reaping" to compete at the annual Hunger Games; a reality show where they must all fight to the death, until only one "tribute" remains.
THOUGHTS: let's get this out in the open straight away = yes, it's basically Battle Royale (2000)... so what? Battle Royale is more or less a regimented Lord of the Flies, which itself is inspired by Peter Pan (oddly enough, Golding wanted to the explore the darker reality of an island ruled by adolescent boys). Each is different and unique in its own way; and people have stolen from the best since the dawn of man. For me the Hunger Games does a fantastic job in both character and commentary on reality TV. Without ever overtly hammering home the mirror it holds to modern reality shows, it clearly paints a vary scathing picture. I loved the "show element"; how people can donate by send you simple survival items like water or bandages; how people need to like you, care for your story, how you dress, what you say, it all matters in gaining "allies" in the viewing public. The visuals are stunning, the politics of "entertaining" the views was fascinating. The pacing is perfect; you spend just enough time in each 'section' of the film, from District 12, to the capital, the chat-show circuit, training, then the actual games. Excellent plotting, excellent pay-off; I tip my hat to director Gary Ross.
Jennifer Lawrence is utterly compelling as Katniss Everdeen. I finally get why so many love her as a strong heroine for girls; she's loving, bad-ass, determined; without ever being sickly sweet or "noble virgin". The entire cast is excellent, to be fair. LOVE Elizabeth Banks; and in-fact the film does a great job of making you care for characters who initially seem rather unlikeable or who you assume will be nothing more than a 2D antagonist (esp. Banks and Harrelson). My sole complaint is I'm not sure how I'm supposed to feel about the love triangle. Surely everyone cares more for Peeta/Katniss than Gale/Katniss; purely because Gale (while pretty and a nice guy) has barely any depth and vastly less screen-time with her to build a bankable romance.
OVERALL
Fiiiiinally I "get it". This film was a joy, from start to finish; I get why people loved it so much. Fantastic pacing, not too heavy on the special effects, not too self-indulgent at any moment. An excellent film from start to finish; and while not as brutally honest as Battle Royale, it has a more satisfying conclusion.
~ rating: 5 out of 5 [grade: A+]
FUN FACT: director Gary Ross has previously been nominated for the Oscar in writing for Big (1988), Dave (1994) and Seabiscuit (2004) (as well as nominated for Best Picture for Seabiscuit).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE (2013)
director. Francis Lawrence
writer. based on the novel by Susanne Collins
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutchinson, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks and Donald Sutherland
"I did know Rue. She wasn't just my ally, she was my friend. I see her in the flowers that grow in the meadow by my house. I hear her in the Mockingjay song. I see her in my sister Prim. She was too young, too gentle and I couldn't save her. I'm sorry."
~ KATNISS EVERDEEN
ONE LINE SYNOPSIS: a year after surviving "the Hunger Games" surviving tributes Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Hutchinson) are forced to once against enter the games; as surviving tributes from the last 25 games compete against one-another for one last shot at freedom.
THOUGHTS: re-reading my review, I feel I'm not conveying my enjoyment enough. I DID thoroughly enjoy the second instalment; it had so many wonderful qualities that I so adored from the first. The only problem is (ultimately) we are merely revisiting old ground. It's not surprising the first half was vastly more interesting than the second; because the first half was giving us new exploration (their lives having won, the rebellions, the victory tour, interactions in the Capital now they are winners, not merely just tributes). But eventually they have to return to the games, and in that I became quite bored. It was basically a less interesting games from the film before, getting sillier and sillier (acid fog, CGI killer monkeys, spinning clock, blah blah). It's such a shame, because the first one is just brilliant. Some moments are truly moving, such as visiting Rue's district. I cried. And again, the cast is fantastic, and Elizabeth Banks STEALS IT with such wonderful depth to the originally depthless Effie. Stanley Tucci is as full of joy as before, and another surprisingly endearing performance of Lenny Kravitz seals the deal. But in the end the film's just... pointless, really. GOD KNOWS how the last two instalments will go. In many ways it makes me thinking of the Matrix's trilogy. The first one stood on its own, and just ticked all the boxes. The second two tried to expand on ideas already succinctly expressed in the first one. What's the point? Also the lack of LGBT characters (and Finnick could so easily have been gay) is... annoying (considering how much of the Capital is quite clearly influences by LGBT people). When the first one finished, I instantly popped in the second because I couldn't wait another minute before watching. Had I owned the third, I doubt I'd have managed to watch it, even now. Damn, this sounds way harsher than I mean. But I enjoyed everything I enjoyed because it was the same as I enjoyed the first time round (but, sadly, THE SAME is the most important part of that sentence). Last thought = MY GOODNESS Sam Clafin was beautiful... I have developed quite a crush
OVERALL
In many parts it is as exciting and scathing as the first film; but the ultimate "games" get far too silly and far too complex. Like the Matrix: Reloaded (2002) before it; an excellent concept is revisited, and starts getting a little too "grand" for its own good. Hopefully the last two instalments don't follow the same pattern as the Matrix: Revolutions (2003) and descend into painful absurdities.
~ rating: 3 out of 5 [grade: B]