So over the weekend, I went to see
The Hunger Games.
I'd read the book and reviewed it. I was optimistic about the movie because the book is an adventure story that would translate well to screen. It may be told in first person present tense, but that's to make the action more immediate. Sure, things about Katniss' personality would be lost with the transfer to screen, but with the casting of Jennifer Lawrence, I thought she would communicate Katniss' instinctive distrust of others well. I greatly admired her performance in
Winter's Bone and think that was the role that got her chosen for Katniss.
Overall, the movie was good. I'm glad I went to see it. Will I trek out to the movie theater to see the second one? Probably not. I will rent it on DVD and enjoy it in my home. I don't go to the movies a lot. I prefer to watch DVDs. The movie has to be really special for me to make the effort to go out of my way. Johnny Depp basically can get my butt in a theater but not much else. (And OMG, I saw the trailer for Tim Burton's Dark Shadows, and it looks like it will be a hoot. I may be going to the theaters again sooner than I thought.)
Getting back to the movie that I'm supposed to be reviewing, I thought this was a good adaptation. The script changes minor things. Some minor characters are not included, but it is understandable, and I liked the color commentary during the Hunger Games which wasn't possible in the book due to the narrative constraints. Stanley Tucci was wonderful as Caesar and bless them for keeping Caesar's hair blue. It was almost like I pictured it. (I pictured it a little more poofy.)
As for the two young male leads, Gale doesn't have a very big role in this installment so the actor didn't make much of an impression. I can't say yay or nay on him. The young man playing Peeta was very good. I was especially impressed with his interview scene with Caesar. I think he did a good job.
As for the adults, I already said Tucci was good. Elizabeth Banks was unrecognizable in her makeup, and I think her costumes and makeup helped her as much as her acting. She certainly stood out as Effie Trinket. The makeup people really deserve praise for her. The lipstick and fake eyelashes in this movie were unbelievably creative. I'm not up on current fashion, but if fancy eyelashes weren't hip before, I think they will be now. When Woody Harrelson was announced to play Haymitch, I believe the general consensus was he would be wonderful in the role, and the general consensus was correct. In fact, I think I like Haymitch more now after seeing Woody in the role. He'll be who I picture when I finally read Mockingjay. The fact is, I didn't really care for Haymitch in the books, I wasn't drawn to him. He had no charisma in the text, but Woody brings that and I think it was a quality Haymitch needed.
One complaint I have is the director's use of shaky camera motion and quick cuts to establish locations. This is very prevalent at the beginning of the film and made me groan. I whispered to my friend sitting beside me that I hoped the whole movie wasn't like that, and I'm not one to notice direction much, especially on first watch. After the movie, another friend complained of the closeups on mouths and faces. We often didn't get a good look at a scene because we were zoomed in on someone's lips. She wondered why they built impressive sets if they were only going to show them for five seconds. I did notice this at one point briefly because the camera seemed to be having trouble keeping up with two people having a conversation. It seemed sloppy.
So overall, the actors were good, the adaptation was good, the sets and costumes were good, but the direction was a little lacking. I'd give the movie a letter grade of B. It would take an A grade to get me back in the theater to see the sequel, but I doubt my absence in the theater will hurt the profits much for the sequel. It is guaranteed to be a success.
