The Hunger Games-attachment0

The Hunger Games

Movie Information

The Story: In an oppressive future society, lottery-selected 12-to-18 year olds are pitted against each other in a fight to the death known as the Hunger Games. The Lowdown: Reasonably exciting and entertaining film that will likely mean more to fans of the books than to the casual moviegoer.
Genre: Dystopian Sci-Fi Action
Director: Gary Ross (Seabiscuit)
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Wes Bentley
Rated: PG-13

If I had read the books, I would perhaps have had a greater emotional involvement with Gary Ross’ film adaptation of The Hunger Games—though reading the book shouldn’t be a requirement to get the good out of the movie. And while I recognize the positive impact of the local and area filming—as well as the positive impact that a huge hit like this has on a movie year stuck in the doldrums—the best I can say about the film on its own merit is that it’s massively OK. Strip away the often silly production design and the even sillier “futuristic” make-up and costuming (in the future, will everyone with money really dress like they’ve stepped out of a touring company of The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert?), and there’s a reasonably solid action picture underneath. No more—despite intimations of something weightier and subversive—but certainly no less.

Assuming for the moment that there’s anyone out there who doesn’t know the premise, the film is set some vague time in the future when North America has become something called Panem (which is Latin for bread) that is divided into 13 districts lorded over by a capital referred to as the Capitol—but which comes across a lot like the Emerald City. It’s controlled by President Snow (Donald Sutherland, smartly underplaying). In order to memorialize when the Capitol successfully put down a rebellion by the 12 outlying districts 75 years earlier, the rulers have established the Hunger Games. This also serves to continue to punish the rebel districts and to demonstrate the absolute authority of the Capitol. The idea is that two contestants—called tributes—between the ages of 12 and 18 are chosen from each district by lottery. The hapless 24 are then pitted against each other in a fight to the death in the woods—with only one winner. (Kind of like ancient Rome without the coliseum, but with children and TV coverage.)

The story focuses on Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence in a role not very different, albeit sometimes more glamorous, from the one in Winter’s Bone), who hails from District 12 (which would appear to be located in Shakycam, Appalachia, where they’re too poor to afford a tripod). She’s unusual in that she volunteered to become a tribute in order to take the place of her little sister. Of slightly less interest is her fellow tribute, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), who once threw her a loaf of burned bread from his mother’s bakery. (Why he’s called Peeta, I don’t know. Maybe he was named by a Bette Davis impersonator.) There is, of course, some kind of burgeoning romance here, which is not only complicated by the oafish hunk back home (Liam Hemsworth, The Last Song), but by the reality that one of them has to die in the games. There’s a double-mickey plot twist for this, which I won’t reveal, but which—like most of the film’s surprises—you’ll probably predict.

There are agreeable bits in the film. Woody Harrelson as the pair’s perpetually soused trainer gives quite the best performance in the film. It’s hard to actually fault any of the performances, but most of the actors just aren’t given especially memorable material to work with. The games themselves are exciting enough—if numerous points are pretty predictable—but I doubt I’ll remember much about them down the line. The whole film, while adequate and entertaining, feels altogether too safe. (Well, they picked the right director for safe.) Certainly, it’s too safe to make the kind of subversive impression suggested by the whole concept of an oppressive government and an extreme version of reality TV. Without reading the sequels or knowing anything about them, I have a pretty good idea where this is leading, and the follow-up films may be a bit braver than this one. As it is, this one is solid enough, but for a non-fan fairly unremarkable. Rated PG-13 for intense violent thematic material and disturbing images—all involving teens.

About Ken Hanke
Head film critic for Mountain Xpress since December 2000. Author of books "Ken Russell's Films," "Charlie Chan at the Movies," "A Critical Guide to Horror Film Series," "Tim Burton: An Unauthorized Biography of the Filmmaker."

12 thoughts on “The Hunger Games

  1. Jeremy Dylan

    Good couple of weeks for Woody Harrelson, between this, RAMPART and GAME CHANGE.

  2. Dionysis

    You’re more kind to this film than some other reviews I’ve read, but less so than still others, so maybe it’s just right.

    I have an instinctive aversion to any film that is hyped so much in so many places.

  3. Edwin Arnaudin

    We’re in agreement here. It’s a kid-friendly telling of what seems like an ambitious, R-Rated story, and for a 2.5 hour film, it sure feels rushed. Few characters and ideas are developed, and because Ross shies away from gore, there’s little sense of danger. The Tributes may as well be fighting with Nerf weapons.

  4. Jim Donato

    Lord Of The Flies + Running Man / A Handmaid’s Tale = Hunger Games?

  5. Edwin Arnaudin

    How is this still playing? It’s no MIDNIGHT IN PARIS…

  6. Big Al

    “How is this still playing? It’s no MIDNIGHT IN PARIS…”

    I feel the same way about “Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”, but then I was a little disappointed by it, so maybe I’m unduly biased. I REALLY wanted to love it so….

  7. luluthebeast

    Still on 593 screens for a huge total of $247 per screen. I guess close to 700 million just isn’t enough for the shirts.

    But John Carter was # 1 in DVD/Blu-Ray sales, not that it’s going to help it. I still think it was a pretty good movie.

  8. luluthebeast

    [b]A (blank) and his (blank) are soon (blanked)[/b]

    A melonhead and his Kindle are soon short-circuited?

  9. Ken Hanke

    Still on 593 screens for a huge total of $247 per screen. I guess close to 700 million just isn’t enough for the shirts.

    I presume those were the Friday figures? It still pulled in over a thousand at one theater here last weekend.

    A melonhead and his Kindle are soon short-circuited?

    I had something a little more generally understood in mind.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.