The Hunger Games

[chris_gerrib]

Monday evening, I left work and went to see The Hunger Games. I've not read the books, so I have no idea how closely the movie mirrors the book, but I did think Hunger Games was a great movie. Although I did like John Carter, I felt Hunger Games was the better movie. This is in part due to the fact that film-makers have been riffing on Burroughs' stuff for almost a century now, while Hunger Games is new. Hell, Lucas "borrowed" so much stuff that I'm surprised Burroughs didn't get a writing credit! For more cogent comparisons of the two movies, let me suggest you read John Scalzi's always interesting thoughts.

Other Hunger Games items of note:

Jennifer Lawrence did a great job showing Katniss' reluctant faking of the romance between her character and Peeta. I thought Woody Harrelson played the grizzled old vet wonderfully. I also thought Lenny Kravitz took what could have been a one-note character and made him interesting.

This may be a spoiler, but there was a sequence where some of the game contestants teamed up to hunt some of the other contestants. This team was portrayed egging each other on and otherwise operating with the dynamics of a street gang. It was a valuable reminder that attacking anything, especially other humans, is not a natural act. It was also a valuable reminder that kids are much more subject to peer pressure than adults.

The movie ran for two and a half hours, so it was definitely long, but unlike the Lord of The Rings saga, I couldn't identify a single scene I would cut. If it was in the movie, it needed to be there.

Comments

[j-cheney.livejournal.com]

We've got both of them on the 'to rent' list. (WE rarely see anything in the theatre.)

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

I rarely go either, but John Carter does benefit from the large screen. Hunger Games not so much.

[j-cheney.livejournal.com]

Good to know. I jsut don't know if we'll make time for JC before it disappears off the big screen...