Year: 2012
Director: Gary Ross
Writers: Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray, based upon Ms. Collins' novel
Stars: Jennifer Lawrence
Josh Hutcherson
Woody Harrelson
Donald Sutherland
Toby Jones
I always like to list Toby Jones when he's in a film. The man is an amazingly underrecognized character actor. He played Karl Rove in "W", Truman Capote (perfect casting if it ever existed) in "Infamous", and, of course, was the voice of Dobby in the Harry Potter films.
The film, for those who haven't read the book, is about a dystopian future where the remaining 12 districts of a country are forced to atone for their rebellion seventy odd years earlier by each sending two of their kids (one girl and one boy) between the ages of 12 and 18 to fight one another in the Hunger Games, from which only one child is allowed to emerge alive.
The main character, Katniss Everdeen, volunteers to take the place of her younger sister, Primrose in the games when Primrose's name is chosen.
That's all that i'll say about the story because i don't want to be accused of spoilers.
This is an excellent film. It is almost 2 1/2 hours long, and i barely noticed the time passing. Starting with the screenplay, which was co-authored by the author of the book, to the performances to the special effects, the only gripe that i have with it is the directing, which i'll get to later.
Jennifer Lawrence is perfect as Katniss. She looks and acts exactly as i imagined Katniss would when i read the book. She's been acting for six years, including playing Mystique in "X-Men: First Class", but i still hear reporters refer to her as "unknown actress Jennifer Lawrence". Well, maybe that will change now. Josh Hutcherson was cast as Peeta Melark. Let me say this about Mr. Hutcherson... his forte seems to be walking around looking stunned and that's unchanged here. He wouldn't have been my first choice as Peeta, but he works since the character only seems to exist in the book or movie as a catalyst for Katniss. Donald Sutherland is wonderful as president Snow, and Stanley Tucci rocks as Caesar Flickerman, the master of ceremonies for the Hunger Games with the biggest set of artificial teeth that i think that i've ever seen on the screen.
There is also a hint of political commentary in the film. We are rapidly turning into a society of plutocrats and everyone else and this is evident in the film. When you see the ramshackle, falling down houses that the people of district 12 live in and then the absolute splendor of the inherited wealth and position of the capitol, you can't help but think about the people who make millions or billions of dollars per year in our society by depriving their workers of all but the bare essentials of existence.
THE GOOD: I think that the filmmakers did an excellent job of turning the book into a film. Purists may not like the changes that were made, but purists in my opinion don't seem to understand that if they just turned the book into a film word for word, the film would be ten hours long. They did a great job of hitting the highlights of the novel while jettisoning or changing those things that were necessary to the main story. Trust me, purists... everything that you loved in the novel is here.
THE BAD: I wasn't really crazy about Ross' directing. This is only his third film, and his first in nine years as a director, so i hope that his style is evolving and will even out some in the coming films. My biggest gripe with the directing was his overuse of hand-held cameras. I understand that directors use these with increasing frequency to put the viewer "in media res" (in the middle of things), but, when used to the extent that he uses it in the first hour of the film, all it really did for me was to make me nauseous. Fortunately, for the rest of the film, he shows real restraint in his use of hand-helds.
THE UGLY: The film is brutal. I guess that the novel could be seen as brutal as well, given the subject matter, but the novel was bereft of the splattering blood and explicit scenes of teenagers hacking each other to death with bladed weapons. I think that this is a perfect example of what's known as "ratings creep". In other words, ten years ago, this movie would have been rated R, and i think that it should have. I think that part of the reason that it wasn't is because the books are classified as "young adult" novels, so about half of the anticipated audience would have been locked out by an R rating. If i had a fourteen or fifteen year old, i would definitely let them read the books, but not watch the movie.
All in all a terrific film for older teenagers and adults, but, like the new crop of Batman movies and the Harry Potter films, be cautious about bringing your younger teenagers and kids to it. It is very violent and moderately bloody.
Peace.
Randal
No comments:
Post a Comment