Fifteen minutes after five and a small line had already formed in front of the doors of the movie theater. Four hours later, and it tripled in size. The fandom stood eagerly awaiting the midnight release of novel-turned-movie The Hunger Games with one question in mind. Will it do the book justice?
The plot takes place in post-apocalyptic North America, called Panem, which is made up of twelve districts. Because of a rebellion that stirred up almost a century ago, the Hunger Games were created to maintain fear within the districts. These games require a boy and girl from the ages of 12 to 18 from each district to be sent to a gruesome fight to the death within a harsh terrain. Only one can survive.
Jennifer Lawrence did an outstanding job of portraying the protagonist, Katniss Everdeen. Lawrence captured the quiet turmoil and independence of her character very well. The other character’s personalities are revealed through very subtle actions, like when Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson, is seen with puffy eyes as he boards the car to leave his district for the Hunger Games. Woody Harrelson, who plays Haymitch Abernathy, in all honesty, did better than I expected. Effie Trinket, portrayed by Elizabeth Banks, delighted the audience as the comic relief. The casting may not have been what many expected, and not to mention sometimes there is, to put it quite simply, almost a cheesy quality in some of the scenes.
However, the cinematography was beautiful, and the setting, even more so. Using tricky camera techniques, the audience understands the difference between a scene of peace and chaos.
Audiences who have never read the series are in for a treat, however, the original Hunger Games fanatics may leave the theater feeling fascinated as well as disappointed. The film failed to capture quite a few details within the storyline that were crucial to the book. The underlying political struggle that begins building within Katniss toward the end of the first novel fails to make an appearance.
The film also fails to captures the depth of a lot of the story and characters. The deviation from the book is really noticeable, not in the sense of plot, but with the exclusion of minor details within the book.
As one who read the books, I can assure you that the book is far better than the film. But before I cast a shadow and leave your head hanging, let me give the movie credit. Like any novel-turned-film, you cannot expect over 300 pages of information to be crammed into a two-hour film. The character development and plot deviation has to be done for every movie, so new audiences don’t get confused and overwhelmed with the amount of information being hurled at them. A film should be a simpler version of the book, and director Gary Ross, as well as the writers and producers of the film, did a great job at getting the point across—mostly. One thing they could have made more clearly was the political factor, or the rebellion building in Katniss. But the books will dish out at least two other films, so I don’t expect the political struggle to lay dormant for long.
To expect the book to be played out for you in a film, line by line, is silly. Going into the theater thinking you’ll get the same depth as the book is even sillier. The film left me feeling satisfied, and eager for the next installment, to see what the girl on fire will do.
*PHOTO LINK:http://screenrant.com/the-hunger-games-movie-reviews-benk-160624/