"The Hunger Games," the Young Adult Franchise That Ended Up Being a Very Dark Treatise on the Effects of War, Comes to Fitting Conclusion.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2

The Hunger Games series has been a pleasant surprise (both the books and films) because it started out as a knockoff of Battle Royale but ended up becoming a meditation on war and revolution. The final two parts, while too blatant in their message, do not glory in the war, but rather analyze it. The first part was about propaganda, which made it interesting, if a little on the boring side. Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) spent the bulk of the film as the symbol of the rebellion, which meant she filmed a bunch of promotional videos for the war, but spent very little time in the actual war. It felt like a cheat, both for the audience and for Katniss. In Part 2, however, Katniss gets involved in real war.

If Part 1 was about the effects of propaganda and symbols in war, Part 2 is about actual war. An early scene has Katniss arguing with Gale (Liam Hemsworth) about bombing a compound and the collateral damage it could cause. Katniss worries about every death since she had to kill so intimately during the Games, but Gale thinks that even people mopping the floors of a Capitol compound deserve to die. The film actually leaves it up to the viewer who is right as innocent people do die, but positive results ensue. What is notable is the fact that such an issue is brought up at all. In most films, especially young adult films, there are simply good guys and bad guys. In The Hunger Games, it’s more of a gray area. It’s important that a franchise aimed at young people contains such a debate, because war in the real world has collateral damage. But in most popular movies and videogames aimed at young people, there is none.

Despite Part 2 being a meditation on war, it is still an action movie for the most part. Director Francis Lawrence (who has helmed the series since the second film) has an eye for action, and things are kept fresh rather than letting them devolve to nothing but bombings and shootouts. The best sequence of the film is reminiscent of Lawrence’s work on I Am Legend as the heroes spend a tense night in tunnels, fleeing mutated horrors that would have been right at home in Legend (this time the CG is a bit better, though).

While there is plenty of action, the film keeps focusing on the characters’ reactions to it. Katniss is the reluctant warrior, only fighting because she must. Gale is the bold warrior, willing to do whatever it takes to end it. And Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), newly released after being tortured and brainwashed, is the damaged warrior. Peeta’s condition foreshadows nearly every major character: this rebellion will leave you damaged, but there is hope. Once again, The Hunger Games is a franchise that, for better or worse, does not shy away from the effects of violence and war. The heroes do not celebrate, even when they win.

As for that “better or worse” part, any film that wants to get big ideas across runs the risk of becoming preachy, and Part 2 definitely falls into that trap a few times. The amount of speeches about war and rebellion in this film is staggering. It seems like every five minutes someone is giving a speech to remind us what the movie is about. It makes you want to yell, “I get it! This movie is about war and its consequences!” The film, which is a bit long, probably could have shaved ten minutes off its screen time by nixing a couple of these redundant speeches. Also, just like in Part 1, characters spend too much time watching screens. It’s hard to not feel silly watching a screen featuring characters staring at a screen.

Despite these minor squabbles, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 is a fitting end to the series (which probably won’t really end and will be expanded upon within a few years). The series truly found its tone and look in the last few films, ditching the glitzy Capitol of the first two films and flooding the last films (quite literally in one scene) in darkness. The colorful world gives way to concrete and despair as the series focuses on war. Hats off to The Hunger Games series. It could have easily been fluff spoon fed to the masses of young fans, but ended up being a surprisingly dark, if not heavy handed, treatise on war and its effect on everyone.           

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 receives:

Random Thoughts - SPOILERS

I couldn't help but think about Dante and Randall's conversation about the Death Star in Clerks. Turns out Gale and the contractor have the same view of laborers for evil empires...

I don't know why Gwendolyn Christie is in this film. She has maybe two minutes of screen time. 

The treatment of Philip Seymour Hoffman was handled as deftly as possible. He's reduced to a series of reaction shots here and played up as the silent plotter behind it all. I suppose it works.

"Mockingjay," Despite Being the First Part of a Cash Grab, Is Pretty Good and Might Even Make You Think

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1

The Hunger Games series has become popular enough (among diverse groups, not just teenagers) that comparisons to other young adult series make less and less sense.  The first (The Hunger Games) and second film (Catching Fire) were still similar to other properties because of the love triangle and youth contest aspect, but things change with Mockingjay – Part 1.  To be fair, it is similar to other properties in that they decided on a cash grab by dividing the last film into two parts (more on that later), but the subject matter of the film has certainly changed.  First, no more Games.  This is refreshing since the only real problem I had with Catching Fire was that it was a little too similar to the first film.  Now, they took that fire of rebellion from the first film and dove right in.  This is no longer a young adult series about figuring out your place in the world and picking the right boyfriend; this is a full blown war film with brutal elements of physical and mental warfare.  And the series is better for that brutality because it gives the audience, young and old, something to think about in regards to the real world.

Mockingjay picks up where Catching Fire left off.  By bringing an end to the Hunger Games, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) unwittingly started a revolution between the Capitol and the rest of the Districts (with District 13 taking charge).  Now Katniss is left to dwell on the last Games, shouldering the blame for Peeta being left behind.  But the leader of District 13, President Coin (Julianne Moore), and past-Gameskeeper/current-revolutionary Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) want Katniss to be the face of the revolution.  They want her to be the Mockingjay that rallies the rest of the Districts to fight the Capitol.  What follows is a mix of war and propaganda that reminded me of the “Join up!” scenes from Starship Troopers.

The use of propaganda in the film is interesting because it takes what could have been a cookie-cutter revolution film and turns it into something a bit more thought-provoking.  It’s not that revolutions aren’t interesting, but how many films do we really need that simply state, “Autocratic rulers bad, common people good”?  I think everyone, even the youth of the world, understand that.  The use of propaganda shows that war isn’t just about the physical battlefield.  On top of that, it brings up questions about the ethics of propaganda.  Katniss is first tasked with filming a revolution commercial in front of a green screen.  This goes as badly as you can imagine.  Unfortunately, the film plays it for laughs rather than commentary.  No one thought it unethical to fake a triumphant war moment for Katniss.  (Slight SPOILER with the rest of this paragraph and the caption of the picture below.)  And when they do decide she should actually be involved with the war, it’s not because they want it to be real, it’s because Katniss isn’t a good actress and needs a real moment to respond to.  This is where the film is at its darkest without even acknowledging it.  Katniss goes into the field and her presence leads to an attack in which many people are killed.  This spurs the propaganda video the revolutionaries need.  The problem here is that no one points out that the attack would not have happened if Katniss hadn’t been there.  Hundreds of people are killed for the sake of a viral video for their revolution, and no one bats an eye. 

"Now Katniss, you're absolutely sure that nothing bad will happen to us because of your visit, right?"

That is not to say that Katniss doesn’t accept blame in the film.  She blames herself for Peeta’s capture.  What is upsetting is that she could not have possibly saved him, but she could have decided not to go into the field and be bomb-bait for hundreds of people.  She has no issues with that and simply chalks the attack up to Capitol evilness.  Katniss should be a little more skeptical at this point since she’s been used as a pawn by others for two films now.  This is possibly overthinking it all, and hopefully more issues like this are focused on (and if they stick to the book, they will be) in the second part.  Still, it seems like someone should have at least been angry about what caused the attack instead of sitting around patting each other on the back for creating such stirring propaganda.

The propaganda obviously brings up plenty of issues in the film, but it is also a bit of a weakness, as well.  It isn’t just Katniss making videos.  President Snow (Donald Sutherland, looking as crazy-eyed evil as ever) gives speeches throughout, and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) gives a series of interviews trying to dissuade everyone from fighting.  What this means is that a large portion of the film is presented on screens.  So the audience is basically watching videos along with the characters of the film.  There really isn’t a way around this, but it’s easy to see why some might label this film “slow” or even “boring.”  This might be where younger audiences split with the older.  I’m not sure the propaganda issues that came to my mind will be what younger viewers focus on.  Regardless, watching characters watch screens is not visually compelling cinema. 

This brings me to my only true issue with this film: it should not be a two part event.  It’s not that this film drags on, it just repeats itself at times.  For instance, Katniss visits the bombed out District 12 near the beginning of the film to see the true extent of the Capitol’s atrocity, and later in the film she is sent back to District 12 to…see the true extent of the Capitol’s atrocity, but this time on camera!  It seemed like they could have killed two birds (mockingjays?) with one stone with that scene.  Once the second film comes out, I imagine the total running time of Mockingjay will reach around four hours.  That would be far too long for a single movie in this series, of course, but I think the story of this final book could easily be pared down to a three hour movie.  This just felt too much like a cash grab from the studio.  It doesn’t take away from my enjoyment of Mockingjay – Part 1 or anything.  It’s just that we’re going to end up with two “pretty good” movies when there might have been a great one. 

Speaking of great, everything that has made this series beloved is back for this third installment.  All of the performances are fine once again.  The new additions are welcome; Julianne Moore is a perfect choice for Coin, and it was nice to see Marhashala Ali (House of Cards) as Boggs.  There is a bit less action this time around, but the war scenes are handled quite well.  Director Francis Lawrence has truly given this series a signature look and that continues with this film.

Most importantly, Mockingjay shows how this series has grown up.  It’s a movie aimed at the young, but it is filled with adult issues and ideas.  In fact, there is an argument to be made that this could be rated R.  There are quite a few scenes of brutal violence, and the body count is extremely high.  And Finnick’s speech late in the film, though it is ignored by the characters (and most likely, the audience) reveals some very disturbing things that he was subjected to in the Capitol.  I honestly think if the film had focused on what he was saying a bit more, the rating may have changed.  This is all a positive, by the way.  Even though the propaganda scenes left me wanting more conflict, and the film repeats itself, it’s still a very enjoyable and rewarding experience.  The fact that a movie meant for people half my age made me think this much is a testament to how good this series is.  It’s just too bad we have to wait an entire year to see it end.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 receives a:

I Know "The Giver" Looks Like All Those Other Young Adult Dystopian Movies, but It's a Bit Different...and It's Decent...Watch It, I Guess...or Don't...Whatever.

The Giver

This is The Giver at its best...save the chase sequences for Divergent.

Young adult (or YA) dystopian thrillers are quite prevalent of late with the popularity of The Hunger Games series to the point that many films, such as Divergent, don’t feel very different.  Because of this popularity, it was inevitable that Lois Lowry’s beloved novel The Giver would be up for adaptation.  Fans of the book will likely come away pleased (as long as they are willing to accept the inevitable changes an adaptation brings), though regular audiences might not see enough here to differentiate this from other properties.  The Giver deserves a bit of attention, however, if for no other reason than the fact that the filmmakers refrained from tacking on a love triangle.

The Giver is similar to other properties (or other properties are similar to it, since the book was written long before most of the other franchises) in that it takes place in a vaguely futuristic society in which individualism is seen as dangerous, and everyone should accept whatever fate the elders hand down to them.  The other mainstay of YA dystopian thrillers concerns the past.  In films like The Hunger Games or Divergent the characters know of a past that led them to their “harmonious” societies, but it is a fictionalized past drilled into them by the ruling class.  In The Giver, they simply don’t know about the past…and don’t want to.  It was decided that only one person, the Receiver of Memory, will keep all of humanity’s memories (good and bad) as a way to guide the elders so that the same mistakes are never made again. 

This makes the central idea behind The Giver compelling, both on the screen and page.  The message that the world, no matter how ordered and peaceful, isn’t worth living in if actual humanity ceases to exist is important, especially for younger viewers.  In fact, it might be even more worthwhile for older viewers who might be jaded about how awful the real world can often be since most can probably agree that our sometimes crappy reality is much more worthwhile than a society in which we have family “units,” receive daily “injections” that destroy our emotions, and are allotted “comfort objects” as children. 

Director Phillip Noyce (Salt) does an excellent job of making the world of The Giver the type of place a modern-day audience member would despise.  First off, it’s in black and white.  The world itself, not just the movie.  In an effort to create “sameness,” the creators of this society removed color along with memory, freedom, independence, and pretty much anything else that makes life enjoyable.  I was happy to find that the bulk of the movie is in black and white.  I was worried they would change it up fearing that teens would avoid a black and white movie (the previews, however, were almost completely in color).  The stark images of this society capture the mood of the book.

Of course, any adaptation of a book is going to include changes to the source material.  I was okay with most of the changes, but a few hurt the movie more than helped it.  First off, the attempt to add action to the climax of the film felt like pandering to an audience used to brutal fight scenes in their YA movies.  It didn’t look very good, and it just prolonged the movie rather than add suspense.  Second, and more importantly, it changed the world a bit in that it made it seem like more people knew about the past other than the Receiver and the Giver, and regular people seemed to be capable of feeling emotions at times, even if they had their injections.  All of this was done to add conflict, but breaking the rules of the established world weakens and/or alters the film’s message.  But perhaps I’m just being nitpicky since I read the book very recently.

Slight issues aside, The Giver still sets itself apart from the rest as a more thoughtful film.  This is helped immensely by the casting of Jeff Bridges as the Giver.  He looks a bit goofy (he tends to stare around with his mouth open) at times, but in his scenes with the Receiver (Brenton Thwaites, who holds his own in scenes with Bridges but seems to be on autopilot in the rest of the film) Bridges shows that he was the best choice for the role.  His voice is naturally tailored to deliver sage-like advice.  In fact, the film’s biggest flaw is that there are too few moments between Bridges and Thwaites.  It seems that the film is in too big of a hurry to insert some unnecessary action.  Ironically, those action moments are incredibly boring compared to the scenes with Bridges in a library.  Ten more minutes of memory sharing with Bridges would’ve have improved the film immensely. 

The rest of the cast is impressive, featuring Alexander Skarsgard, Katie Holmes, and Meryl Streep.  (Oh, and Taylor Swift is in the film for no discernible reason.)  Skarsgard and Holmes are fine as the Receiver’s brain-washed parents, and Streep is fine, but she seems unnecessary.  For one thing, her character, the Chief Elder, barely exists in the book, yet here she is given the villain role.  It would have been more effective if the villain had remained the faceless “Sameness” that pervaded society.  Also, it isn’t a good sign that her character first appears as a hologram.  It made me feel like the rest of her performance, and character in general, was phone in.

The Giver, despite its flaws, ultimately stands apart from the rest of the pack of YA stories.  Its message is similar, but dealt with in a more somber fashion.  In fact, the film is only weak when it tries to be like the films it should be striving to be different than.  This movie was never going to out-gross or replace The Hunger Games, so it’s unfortunate that the filmmakers even tried.  Despite itself, The Giver is a movie worth seeing, and, more importantly, thinking about.

Random Thoughts

I'm just going to ramble a bit about differences and interpretations that bothered me a little bit.

The mopeds or whatever were silly.  So was the Asher/drone scene.  It just took the whole escape-with-a-baby thing (which is pretty silly already) about five steps too far.  I can't help but laugh at the image of Brenton Thwaites (or his CG approximation) plunging into rapids clutching a baby.

Meryl Streep flat out mentions war.  How does she know about war?  If she's so afraid of information getting out, why allow the Giver to live at all?  Just kill him...problem solved.

I get the sled theme and all, but that ridiculous sled ride on lunch trays (or whatever they were) looked like garbage.  

This movie would have just been so much better had they not felt the need to pep it up.  It's as if someone was on set saying, "This for teenagers!  Remember that!  Every ten minutes someone either needs to do something slightly sexual or violent or both!  Otherwise everyone will already fall asleep!  Don't give me that look!  I'm already letting you do the artsy-fartsy black and white!"  Obviously I'm joking a bit, but it felt that way every time some random moment like that happened.  I get that the book isn't action-packed, but people obviously read it without throwing it down because of the lack of action.  I mean, if there can be teenage movie about romance that don't have tacked on action sequences, why can't teenage movies be about society and humanity without tacked on action sequences?

The Giver receives a:

"Catching Fire" Proves That "The Hunger Games" Has More To Say Than Other YA Franchises

Directed by Francis Lawrence, written by Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt, starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Jeffrey Wright, Elizabeth Banks, and Philip Seymour Hoffman - Rated PG-13

Much like the unfortunate deputy, the Capitol has no idea what's about to happen.




The first Hunger Games movie was a welcome departure from the usual young adult adaptation fluff.  Typically, a young adult (or YA) series is either skewed too specifically to its young audience (the Twilight series), or its world is too complicated, or wacky, for the non-readers (insert any of the failed YA franchises here).  The Hunger Games worked because it had something for everyone, and the setting was recognizable.  You had the love triangle business for the tweens, but you had the social satire for the adults.  Sure, the satire wasn't very subtle, but it left you with something to think about.  Plus, there was a strong cast that made you care about the characters.

Catching Fire doesn't simply continue the story of The Hunger Games, it enhances it.  The appropriately titled film (and book) takes the injustices hinted at here and there in the first installment and puts them at the forefront.  Heroine Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) can no longer be the quiet pawn in the government’s game.  She has become a symbol, and it’s impossible for her to keep a low profile.  Because of this, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) has to push Katniss back into the spotlight, so he can destroy her and any hopes for a revolution that she might represent. 

This is a fairly basic story as far as dystopian films go.  An impoverished populace must fight their rich overlords.  What makes it different is that this is not a film about planning.  Katniss is truly a game piece that each side uses, often without her knowledge.  Since she is kept in the dark, the audience is as well, for the most part.  The film diverts from the book (which is told only through Katniss’s perspective) with a few scenes with Snow and the new head Gamemaker, Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), but the bulk of the film is told through Katniss’s eyes.  This is important because it leaves some mystery to what could have been a very boring story.  Katniss is an unwilling symbol of freedom that needs to see firsthand the atrocities being committed throughout society.  Instead of boring secret meetings in which plans are hashed out then performed, we get to see Katniss react to the extreme poverty gap.

The Hunger Games is a series that requires you to suspend disbelief and accept that this world, in which the nation’s youth are forced to kill each other for entertainment, exists.  As a free society, the audience may find it hard to believe that humans could ever let things get so bad, but historically, it happens (some would argue it’s happening right now).  Some might think, “How is Katniss so gullible?”  But she is the product of the world she was born in.  There is no grand revolution to celebrate because it hasn’t happened yet.  In fact, it was attempted years ago, and the district that rebelled doesn’t exist anymore.  So her frame of reference for revolution is the opposite of, say, an American’s.  To Katniss, revolution means everything you know and love will be destroyed.  So it’s important for her to see the discontent firsthand.

Director Francis Lawrence, writers Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt (credited as Michael DeBruyn, for some reason), and author Suzanne Collins have done a fantastic job of showing the divide.  Collins, of course, laid the groundwork, and Beaufoy and Arndt focused on the best examples, but Lawrence (no relation to star Jennifer) should get most of the credit for presenting it all in a very effective way.  He sticks with the first film’s style by following most of the characters from behind as they walk into scenes, but he has improved upon the original.  Perhaps it’s only because there was more money available, but Catching Fire simply looks better than the first film, which means that the differences between the rich of the Capitol and the suffering of the poor are that much more realistic and powerful.  The staging of most of the film in general is quite effective with the characters small in the frame and the surroundings towering around them.  It created a feeling of the world bearing down on all of these characters.

Who cares about the world bearing down if you don’t like the characters, though?  Thankfully, Catching Fire has enough talent for you to get on board with most of the characters involved.  There are some great actors involved with this, including two Academy Award winners (Jennifer Lawrence and Philip Seymour Hoffman) and two more nominees (Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci).  These four acclaimed actors are joined by returning stars Josh Hutcherson, Elizabeth Banks, Toby Jones, Donald Sutherland, and Liam Hemsworth, to name a few, and a few newcomers in Jeffrey Wright, Amanda Plummer, Sam Claflin, Jena Malone, and Lynn Cohen.  The fact that there are even this many roles to be filled by recognizable actors shows that this is no throwaway movie for tweens.  Because of the size of the cast, however, most of the roles rely on screen presence alone. 

Most of the actors are given at least one scene to show off a little bit, but there’s not enough for them to do to stand out in any way.  But it is certainly nice to see the likes of Jeffrey Wright and Amanda Plummer in small roles.  The most high profile new addition would be Philip Seymour Hoffman.  His character takes the place of Seneca Crane, aka the guy with the crazy beard, from the first film.  Hoffman looks pretty much like he does in any other movie, but he gets to play up the ruthlessness in this role.  Hoffman is perfect for any role that requires him to seem indifferent to characters around him. 

As for the returning stars, nothing much is going on with them.  Lawrence and Hutcherson both do fine in continuing their fake romance while realizing how bad things are around them.  Banks is still pretty much a walking costume, which is kind of the point with her character.  And Harrelson is still the comic relief as the constantly drunk, but wise, former victor.  If there is a slight fault to the film, it is that his character’s alcoholism is treated so lightly, but laughs are hard to come by in the bleak world of the film, so it’s not a terrible transgression.

Catching Fire, despite the love story and social commentary, is still a bit of an action film, as well.  Since the focus is more on the problems with society than it is on the titular Games, the action is pretty scant until the last hour or so.  But that last hour is filled with plenty of tense moments.  Once again, this might be because of a larger budget, but the action looked better this time around, especially the special effects.  Director Francis Lawrence has used computer effects to his detriment before (I Am Legend), but that may have been simply because the technology was not yet up to snuff.  Either way, it looks great now, as nothing in the Arena segment seemed overly fake or manufactured.

Overall, Catching Fire improves upon the original and solidifies the series as something more than the passing fad that other series were.  There are some big themes about society and life in general behind the blood and love of the story.  Will the tweens focus more on the love triangle and pick which “team” they are on?  Probably.  But for those of us who don’t care who Katniss ends up with, there is a seriously enjoyable movie beyond that love story. 

Interesting Directors Should Stay Away from Stephenie Meyer

The Host...a Stephenie Mey-- I mean, Andrew Niccol film.

The Host comes out on Friday, and I'm sure the readers of the young adult (YA) novel it is based on would watch it if it was directed by anybody.  Why, then, is it directed by Andrew Niccol, the man behind Gattaca, Lord of War, and The Truman Show (he wrote the screenplay)?  Niccol is an interesting director; a filmmaker who is capable of creating worlds and compelling stories.  Wouldn't it be better if he devoted his time to a more serious film and left this YA stuff to a journeyman director?

Sure, The Host might not be terrible.  Honestly, based on the trailer, I think it looks like a step up from the Twilight series.  But both properties are based on books by Stephenie Meyer.  This means that it is probably intended for screaming tween girls, and it will be watched by those girls no matter what (although I'm not picking up any Twilight-like buzz about this one).  The premise of the story, humans taken over by aliens, seems par for the course for Niccol, so maybe his decision to direct isn't too nefarious.  But still, there's bound to be some other, better property out there that he could have attached himself to.  This isn't a one time problem, either.  This has been going on for a while.

It all started with Twilight (or T1, as I'll call it).  Catherine Hardwicke dropped all of her indie cred to make that (shudder) hugely popular film.  She had been making movies like 13 and Lords of Dogtown.  Those movies are for and about younger people, too, but they are infinitely more interesting than Twilight, which was a series mainly devoted to the question of which boy the main character would choose.  Hardwicke would've been a fine choice if she had decided to put her stamp on the series and stay with it for the long haul.  But she stopped after one film and her career looks less and less interesting each day.  Plus, the film she made looked like it was made by a directing program rather than a human. 

T2 took away director Chris Weitz.  I found his installment to be the best of the series, but only because I liked a montage featuring a Thom Yorke song (and who knows how much he had to do with that, anyway).  There was nothing that different between that film and the first, though.  Weitz had made American Pie and About a Boy before this.  He is capable of better things, evidenced by his latest film, A Better Life.  He rebounded nicely, but he never should have jumped on the Twilight train.

T3 stole David Slade from us.  He had directed Hard Candy and 30 Days of Night.  Oh, and he also claimed to hate the series and wouldn't even watch it at "gun point."  This is the perfect example of how directors will sometimes take a money job instead of attempting to produce original work.  Slade, of course, issued a statement claiming it was just a joke and he eventually came to love the series, but that was just damage control.  He wanted money for a high profile job.  And what did he do?  He churned out another film in the series that is utterly indistinguishable from the rest.  Most infuriating of all?  He had made a hard-R vampire film before in which the vampires were vicious monsters.  He goes from predatory beasts to shiny, porcelain-skinned wimps? 

Give me...$2 million.

Make that...$4 million.

The fourth installment of the film was actually divided into two for the now obligatory cash grab established by the Harry Potter series.  Bill Condon inexplicably directed the last "two" films.  Condon had previously directed Gods & Monsters and Kinsey.  Not exactly the background one would expect for a director meant to tackle the most action-heavy installment of the series.  To his credit, the action isn't terrible, and the films are sort of coherent.  But, once again, there is nothing about these films that set them apart from the rest. 

That is my biggest complaint about all of this.  These directors have all made films that show a bit of style on their part.  Why, then, would they latch on to this banal series that was only meant to please the already-crazed fans?  I know that the simple answer is money, and that it most likely the correct answer.  But why didn't they attempt to make these films their own?  There are many ways to tell a story visually, but they all just went the same plain route.  Were their hands that tied?  Or are these directors so artistically dead inside that they would take a job for a paycheck and make no attempt to attach their signature to the film?  How do you make some artistically valuable work, then turn around and jump for the money? 

This sorry trend continues with The Host, but hopefully that film turns out to be more like an Andrew Niccol film and less like a Stephenie Meyer adaptation.  It is possible for this to happen.  Just look at the Harry Potter series.  The first films were directed by the boring Chris Columbus.  There was a built in audience, and the producers just wanted a cookie-cutter adaptation to bring in the kids.  Then, as the series and audience grew older, they brought in some actual talent with Alfonso Cuaron, which set the darker and more entertaining tone for the rest of the series.  Twilight never had its Cuaron moment.  This is why the Potter films will be fondly remembered for years to come, and the Twilight films will probably be remade in five years. 

 

I don't care that the Twilight films are plain.  They're not intended for me, anyway.  I just wish the producers would stop hiring interesting directors and that the interesting directors who do get asked would start turning them down.  It is possible for a crappy YA series to hire the boring directors that the source material deserves.  D. J. Caruso directed I Am Number Four, Daniel Barnz directed Beastly, Stefan Fangmeier directed Eragon, and Richard LaGravenese directed Beautiful Creatures.  Sure, none of those films reached the popularity of Twilight, but the directors played no role in their demise because they were all just journeymen directors there to do a job and move on.  At least those series had the decency to stay away from the talented directors.

It looks like that other giant franchise, The Hunger Games, has taken notes.  Plain director Gary Ross isn't returning for the next installment.  But they didn't go fishing for an over-qualified director.  Instead, they've hired Francis Lawrence to direct the rest of the series.  Is Lawrence a bit of a name?  I guess.  But he isn't interesting enough to get upset about.  I'm sure he'll do an adequate job, the kids will be happy, and then everyone can move on.  Hopefully the producers of the next Stephenie Meyer adaptation are taking notes... 

Hey guys, mind if I just kind of hang out for three movies while you play your Hunger Games?

 

"The Hunger Games"

Directed by Gary Ross, Written by Ross, Suzanne Collins, and Billy Ray, starring Jennifer Lawrece, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, and Stanley Tucci - Rated PG-13

The Evil Kurgan was entered in The Hunger Games at age 2...he won in less than an hour.

The Hunger Games is being called the new Twilight, but don't let that keep you from enjoying it.  This new franchise, adapted from the immensely popular young adult series by Suzanne Collins, can only be compared to that other tween series because it is aimed at young people and is wildly popular.  You could argue that a potential love triangle connects it to the vampire/werewolf series, but the similarities stop there, thankfully.  I say thankfully because, no offense to the Twihards out there, The Hunger Games is a film that should be enjoyed by older viewers as well as young, male as well as female.  This isn't a movie boyfriends should have to be dragged to, this is a film they should want to see as much as, if not more, than their significant others.

 

 

The Hunger Games is set in a dystopian future in which North America has been divided up into 13 districts of a new country called Panem.  The 13th district rebelled years ago and was turned into a forbidden zone.  To remind the people of that district's betrayal, all districts are forced to select (sacrifice) a male and female "tribute" between the ages of 12 and 18 to battle to the death until only one is left.  These are the titular Hunger Games and they are presented to the public as a kind of disturbing, sick reality show. 

Typically, the tributes from the upper districts are fodder for the tributes of the lower districts.  In other words, people from Districts 1-3 are rich enough to train kids for the Games whereas tributes from Districts 10-12 are so poor they struggle to stay fed, much less train.  The heroine of The Hunger Games hails from District 12, which is basically the coal-mining Appalachian region of today's United States.  Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is the main provider for her father-less family.  She hunts with her friend (boyfriend?) Gale and looks after her sister, Prim.  When Prim is selected to be tribute, Katniss volunteers for her, essentially giving up her life for her sister's.  Once Katniss is whisked away to the Capitol, the film really starts to take off.

The main thing The Hunger Games excels at is world-building.  Panem seems like a real place, despite the ludicrous styles of the people there.  It's a simplified world that accentuates class struggle and what it's like when you have some people destined to always be poor and others to always be rich.  Katniss and her fellow tribute Peeta gaze at their surroundings in wonder because District 1 might as well be another planet compared to their dreary, miserable home.  This obviously begs the question of the sustainability of such a government, but the film doesn't delve too deeply into that area (it is hinted at and will certainly come up in the sequels).  The only problem with this set up is the exclusion of the middle Districts.  Sure, 1 is a metropolis compared to 12 and people won't stand for that for too long, but what about 4-9?  Are these Districts decent?  How do they feel about the government?  Hopefully, it will be covered in the sequels. 

The opulence of the Capitol should be enough to hold people over, though.  The styles of the everyday people are like that of pre-revolution France.  You have this upper class that is comical in its opulence (it looks like Lady Gaga picked out everyone's clothing and makeup) contrasted by this poor lower class who know only misery.  District 12 has an effective, gritty feel to it and District 1 is a shiny, futuristic beacon of hope (or maybe impending doom). 

The setting trumps every other aspect of the movie, but that doesn't mean the characters are uninteresting.  Katniss makes a compelling heroine because she is methodical but has that hint of weakness that makes her more human.  Peeta is a bit dull, but that may be due to a lack of screen time more than anything.  Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), their mentor for the Games, is amusing because he is drunk and bitter, but there's a missed opportunity there to make him more of a meaningful character.  The rest of the characters are fine, if one note.

The actors all do a decent job.  Lawrence holds the screen well.  Stanley Tucci is a stand out as an “American Idol”-type host.  Harrelson is having fun, but seems restrained.  Sutherland is enough of a presence to work as the scheming President Snow.  No stand outs, but more importantly, no atrocious performances, either.  The only red flag is the casting of Toby Jones in such a miniscule role. 

Action is just as important to this film as setting and character, though.  The film, after all, is named after this extremely violent event.  If you can get past the disturbing thought of children killing each other for entertainment, then the action of the film is compelling. It's toned down a bit from the book (although some scenes are still quite brutal for a PG-13 rating), but the survival elements are handled well and things move quickly.  I wouldn't sell this movie as an action film or anything, but it works. 

As a standalone film, The Hunger Games has enough going for it with the setting, characters, and action to keep casual filmgoers entertained, but there is another audience that is going to dissect this film: fans of the book.  I have read the book and found it enjoyable for what it is.  As far as the film is concerned, this is a very faithful adaptation.  Sure, things are changed and characters are dropped but that is necessary when adapting a novel.  My only complaint is the lack of screen time Rue gets, but I can't imagine fans having any serious issues with this adaptation.

But this review has mainly been for the people who haven't read the book; the people who only know of The Hunger Games as the new Twilight.  Sure, there are droves of very young people going to see this movie and that usually means people over the age of 18 will hate it.  There is an exception to every rule, though.  The Hunger Games may be a tad simplified but that doesn't mean interesting questions aren't raised and important themes aren't addressed.  While it isn't high art, it is entertaining and it makes you think at least a little.  That's not the "new" anything, that's something to look forward to in the cinema these days.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I feel the need to mention Battle Royale since that Japanese film is very similar a far as the actual Games portion of the movie is concerned.  I think this film is more than just an American version of that film, though, and the sequels will hopefully prove that to be true.

There is a bit of missed potential in truly exploring society in this film.  It just seems a bit ridiculous that everyone would be that giddy about a group of kids killing each other.  No one stands up to claim this is wrong.  And it's been going on for 74 years?  I get that the government is restrictive, but surely a large scale revolt would have happened by now.  Not that big a deal, I guess, but the film would be a bit more realistic if at least some people in the Capitol seemed to think the Games were a bit savage.

Didn't get a chance to mention it above, but I liked the camerawork of the film, even if it did get too shaky from time to time.  It gave the film, especially the moments in District 12, a stark feel that clashed nicely with the polished Capitol.