Los juegos del hambre

There's almost nothing to say about a movie like The Hunger Games -- it's been so worked to death to be a successful blockbuster that all of its edges, the things that make a film good or bad, have disappeared. It just exists as a spectacle, a finished product that defies any critical lens.

I could go on about the particulars of the adaptation -- the ridiculousness of the entire Capital setting, or the sometimes disorienting shakycam work, or the great cast of adults patiently playing supporting characters -- or the source material -- the gestures at social commentary, the way that the story protects Katniss from ever having to morally sully herself -- but they all seem to be beside the point. Look. The movie has the things that happened in the book, but in a movie, competently shot and acted, with absolutely no risks taken. If you liked the book, or want to learn what this whole Hunger Games thing is about without having to read the book, you'll probably like this. It's a digestible film, even an enjoyable one, but in the end it's not really interesting or memorable. But to be fair, it wasn't meant to be.

This is not so much a review, everything has already been said in the other postings, but rather my experience with this movie and book.

OK, look, I'm probably old enough to be the grandfather of most of the people submitting reviews to this movie. I am not into the teen age drivel that seems to be everywhere you look these days but .....

I first heard about the story when the book came out. It seemed you couldn't turn around without hearing it being discussed everywhere. The enormous hype made me mildly curious, but not so curious that I wanted to read the book. Fast forward several years: the book had been out, the movie hade been out, the DVD had been out and only then did I accidentally stumble across the DVD at the library. I could check it out for free and if I didn't like it I could turn it off after ten minutes ... so, why not?

I immediately found myself captivated by the beautiful cinematography and background theme and despite the over-the-top and ridiculous costumes and makeup of the people in The Capitol I decided to continue watching. I was drawn deeper and deeper into the story and the characters and after about a fourth of the way through I knew I was hooked. The acting, starting with Jennifer Lawrence, was exceptionally good. I have to go through about 25 movies before I find one that I can say I absolutely loved ... this was a 25er.

To finish my story: unbelievably, when I returned the DVD to the library, on a table in the lobby of the library where they sold used books cheaply, I found a mint condition copy of the book (the big paperback format) for fifty cents. I grabbed it. I began reading the book when I got home and couldn't put it down even though I already knew the story. Collins' writing style was as captivating as her story and the very few differences between the movie and the book were not worth mentioning. Actually, I thought the movie version of the ending was better (just couldn't imagine Rue as a werewolf).

I now own, and have seen and read, all of the books and movies of the franchise and consider them among some of the best entertainment of my life. SO it seems the old adage is wrong because you really CAN teach an old dog new tricks. Other young adult movies came out after 'The Hunger Games' which tried to capitalize on the same type of theme and they, by comparison, have failed miserably in my estimation.

One of the things I liked the most about reading 'The Hunger Games' was the intensity of how it was written. Feeling the story seemed maybe even more important than reading it, so when I went to see the movie, my expectations were very high.

On the upside: Great performance by the main characters, excellent visuals and well directed.

On the downside: The book gives a lot of context as to how the characters feel and how things have come to be the way they are. The movie changes a number of things to make it at all possible to show the story and for me the choices made took down the quality of the story a bit. To give at least some context, it took the movie a while to get really started and even despite that, some of the characters, again in my opinion, didn't really develop in depth the way they should.

Long story short, I liked the movie and thought it was a nice adaptation from the book, but it lacked a bit the intensity from the book.

The Hunger Games is ought to be the next big thing like Harry Potter, except it already started in a darker and more serious tone than any other young adult fantasy book films. The film did a good job executing its grit and thrills. Decent directing and amazing performances. The filmmakers did a fantastic job bringing Suzanne Collins' book to life. It's not the usual kind of blockbuster that focuses to its loudness. It's a film with moving drama and has its suspense.

It's pretty easy to understand everything about this story and its world. We get to know most of it and the entire film is intriguing and undeniably entertaining. The cast brings most of it to life. Jennifer Lawrence is simply fantastic as Katniss. Josh Hutcherson is okay but does not tie with Lawrence. Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Wes Bentley, Donald Sutherland, and Stanley Tucci didn't get a lot of screen time but they were good to their roles.

The movie is great in suspense and drama. It doesn't have a lot of score which makes it moving and compelling. The moments of Katniss in the arena are stirring. Thrilling music score is a great effect to these sequences. Unlike our blockbusters these days, the film doesn't focus too much to the CGI and the explosions. There isn't really much explosions here. Surprisingly, the filmmakers aren't lazy to create a non-CGI set(except the chariots). There is, of course, still CGI here but not as excessive as our modern blockbusters. The action is pretty good with the shaky camera. It's nicely shot gives enough momentum and excitement. Most people complain to that though. Lastly, the production design is beyond decent.

The Hunger Games is thrilling and solid enough. Decent filmmaking made it spectacular. It's amazing and intriguing enough to start a big series. It succeeds to become a solid and one and not a lackluster like Twilight or I Am Number Four. I don't know what else to say about it, but it's silent, gritty, and compelling.

Overall it is great to see the novel brought to life on the big-screen. First of all, kudos to the actors - each does a marvelous job with their roles. Harrelson, Lawrence, Hutchinson, Tucci, Banks and the rest of the cast - they all nail their characters and do them honor.

The heart of the story is intact, unfortunately there are many significant elements from the novel entirely missing, or changed to the point they lose the depth of meaning they were intended to have. Unlike some of the sub-plot and story elements left out of the Potter and LOTR series, these missing and adulterated items matter greatly, and lessen the quality of the movie. I will give the producers credit for building Seneca Crane's role in an effective way that answers many questions for those that have not read the books.

Finally - production values. You will suffer significant eyestrain after 2.5 hours of glaring close-ups. All of the action is shot so close and is so muddled it is almost impossible to determine what is happening. The chariot display is shown either to close or too far away, and in both cases so fast that the impact of the glorious entrance and introduction of the tributes is lost. The CG shots (thankfully there are few of them) look like leftovers from a Syfy channel production. This may be the worst big-budget production to hit the big screen in years. Although Ross worked well with the actors, he did not handle the action epic elements well at all. The cinematography is atrocious and the whole production looks cheap.

You will enjoy the movie, but you will also wish for the grand and respectful care-taking that was given the Potter and Lord of the Rings franchises.