Home > Movies, Reviews > REVIEW: The Hunger Games

REVIEW: The Hunger Games

Jennifer Lawrence onset for The Hunger Games

May the camera be ever in your face.

To be honest, I’m not sure if I can review The Hunger Games. I mean, I saw it last night among friends and a packed theater on a pretty big screen with fairly astounding sound. I watched a movie I thoroughly enjoyed and would have no problem recommending to everyone I know. The Hunger Games is a really good dystopian science fiction action adventure for the whole family that, if incredibly profitable, will lead to at least two more movies adapted from the popular Panem Trilogy of books by Suzanne Collins. It’s a great movie and is well worth the ticket price to see if you can. But it has one problem that I hope somebody else is mentioning. Cos every reviewer on earth is going to talk about all the great things about this movie–and there are a lot of great things.

Jennifer Lawrence plays Katniss Everdeen, a coal-miner’s daughter from District 12 of Panem. The world has ended in a nuclear holocaust and now all that is left is the nation of Panem, divided into 12 districts. They go from 1 to 12, richest to poorest, most populous to least. In order to maintain oppressive power, the Capitol forces each of the 12 districts to offer up two Tributes–a boy and a girl between the ages of 12 and 18, inclusive. These Tributes fight to the death on live TV throughout the entire nation in an annual contest called Survivor. … I’m kidding, it’s called the Hunger Games. When Katniss volunteers to save her 12 year old sister from being sent to her certain death, she’s sent to the 74th annual Hunger Games alongside Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), a boy she is loath to kill because he saved her life and she’s yet to thank him for it.

Those are the great things–the actors, the script, the costumes, the premise, the concept, the universe, the emotion. There are some alright things, too: music, sound design, world-building outside of costume design. Let no one tell you this movie is bad. It’s a really damn good movie. But if someone tells you this movie is nauseating, ask them to clarify if they mean from the violence (which is kept brutally and mercilessly intact, but mostly offscreen) or from the fact that this is perhaps the worst shot best movie I have seen in years. The ratio of piss-poor cinematography to otherwise quality of this movie is perhaps the highest I have ever seen in my life. I watched this movie on a gigantic screen–the way movies are meant to be seen. But there was not more than five shots in this movie that gave me useful visual information.

I swear on my life, this chaos cinema handheld shaky-cam thing has to stop. People say Cloverfield was the beginning of the end, but I honestly beg to differ. Cloverfield is one of the best, most deliberately shot movies of the 21st century, where every shot is designed to convey the maximum amount of visual, emotional and narrative data. You always know what’s going on in that movie and you always feel stressed out and under assault. Even at times of peace in Hunger Games, the camera was doing its damnedest to make sure we never saw more of any person than an eyebrow. It got so bad that people were asking who the characters were onscreen–not because they were unfamiliar with them, but because they never saw them. I never got a sense of location or scale or size in this movie because it was deliberately shot to obscure any and all of those things from being conveyed.

Go through the movie and ask yourself–quietly and in your head, mind you, don’t ask the person beside you out loud while checking your text messages–how many people are at the reaping? How many people live in District 11 when you see it on screen? What is the general layout of the arena? What is the design of the stage the perfectly-cast Elizabeth Banks is standing on as Effie Trinket? How big is the train car? How does Katniss’ hotel room connect to the rest of the suite? How does her house in District 12 relate spatially to the town square? Is there a fence between her and the outside world, or does she just walk a few miles and start hunting? Based on the first shot, who is Katniss embracing underground just before the Games begin?

There is not a moment in this movie where shooting it conventionally wouldn’t have improved it dramatically. We might lose the close up on Katniss’ lips as she’s drawing back her bow, but we’d be able to tell what the heck she was shooting at. Gary Ross did a good job, but Tom Stern (the cinematographer) was also the director of photography for Gran Torino, and Gran Torino didn’t look like this. Changeling didn’t look like this. The Exorcism of Emily Rose didn’t look like this. I don’t know who to blame in this scenario, but I can say one thing: if Matthew Vaughn had been directing this movie, I would’ve known what the crap was going on.

By no means should you think that I think The Hunger Games is a bad movie. It’s a great movie. It’s a fine movie that I recommend for more reasons than I can count, not least because its protagonist is a smart, capable and wounded young girl who doesn’t need a protector or a fighter to save her. If the preteen girls at my screening need someone to look up to, I’d be far happier that it’s Katniss than some useless coward who sits around letting things happen to her and being sad that her father bought her a car. But its cinematography is no better and may in fact be worse than Battle Los Angeles, and I wish I were exaggerating. THREE STARS

Note: Yeah, the camerawork bumped it down half a star from the 3.5 it deserves. It bugged me that much.

Advertisements
  1. The Family and I
    February 26, 2014 at 3:40 pm

    Nearly a year after you wrote this, I have only just seen the the movie. Having read the books I was waiting for the rest of the family to finish reading them so we could all arrange to see the movie(s) together (parents, aunts, uncles even my grandmother!). One should never see a movie based on a book, before reading the book. Books are always superior in every way. They give you everything a movie cannot for obvious reasons.

    But there ARE great movies based on books, and with today’s technology even more so than ever before. To say I waited impatiently to be able to finally see this movie is an understatement. I love books, and I love movies – in a big, big way. I imagined this sweeping spectacle of brilliance that laying this epic, futuristic survival adventure to film would add to the “paper experience”. The only thing as good as a book, is when film makers paint in the authors details better than you yourself imagined while turning pages.

    It was a crushing disappointment. So much so that I came online to see if it was just me – with so many reviews for so long raving about how fabulous this movie was, what then, did I just watch? Did I see a faux-film of floor scraps taped together or some other bootleg made from discarded screenshots of the real thing? But no, here on your page you have said far more kindly than I, what it was I just saw.

    Had it not been for the efforts of the young actors who were terrific, I would have shut this “movie” off 20 minutes in. I am so glad I missed the chance to see it in the theatre – I was nauseous in our living room in front of the 40″, any bigger and my cookies would have certainly been chucked. I suffered through it hoping it would get better, it didn’t. It was nearly impossible to follow because all I kept thinking was “why did they shoot this like a bad 80’s afternoon soap?” they must have had some kind of budget – they managed to come up with some brilliant futuristic city-scapes here and there, so why the crummy camerawork and cheesy scenery in the other 95%?

    When you read it, the story is big. Really big – the desperation of the districts, the opulence of the Capitol, the utter outrageousness of it all. When you see this version of the movie it all becomes small and insignificant – like a play put together by drama students and filmed in their backyard on a Saturday afternoon because someone got a new handycam for their birthday.

    Although initially we were all aiming to co-ordinate for a big screen experience before it left the theatres here, we (all 8 of us) have unanimously decided to not even bother with Catching Fire – none of us wants to experience more of whatever that was.

    Out of 5 – 2 stars max (for the actors)

    Out of 10 I could go as high as 4, but again only for the actors – the horrible cinematography and the lazy screenplay negate what little else may have been decent done.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: