The Hunger Games: A Comparative Review

I just got back from watching the film adaptation of The Hunger Games with my wife. Overall, I enjoyed the film. I felt it had a good balance of action and story. If I hadn't read the book, I probably would have loved it. As it is, I had a good time, but I have a few beefs.

*BELOW HERE THERE BE SPOILERS*


The first issue I had with the film was the shaky camera work. This is the primary criticism I would still have had if I had not read the series ahead of time. We right now have technology that makes it possible to erase shakiness in film. Therefore, the only reason for a major Hollywood movie to NOT do this is stylistic. This was a poor choice on their part. The only other problem I had not to do with their choices in adaptation was that their is a scene where Katniss goes to sleep in a sleeping bag and wakes up without one.

Now starting at casting. Katniss was well done. Haymitch was fine: I didn't love his performance, but he did a fine job looking the part. I feel that Gale was too beefy in his appearance and Peeta was not beefy enough. President Snow was excellent. I liked Seneca Crane, but his portrayal struck me as someone new to being head gamemaker, even though dialog established that he had years of experience. Most of the rest of the casting was fitting, though unremarkable. I wish Rue had looked a little more like Prim (even just putting her in pigtails would have helped), but my wife caught the connection, so I'm probably being too picky.

The lowpoint of the adaptation for me was cutting out the part of Peeta's story where "even the birds stop to listen." That is arguably my favorite moment in the entire series. Cutting it felt like a jab to the heart.

On the other hand, the absolute highpoint of the film, adaptation-wise, was the bowl of nightlock berries left for Seneca Crane at the end. Absent from the book, this scene communicated volumes about President Snow without a single line of dialog. Top notch.

In regards to major plotlines, I have mixed feelings. For example, I felt that the fabrication of Katniss's feelings for Peeta was unclear, while in the novel the confused feelings of trying to stay alive, experiments with first love, and obligation for his childhood gift of bread were beautifully communicated. My wife, however, was able to see without my telling her that her feelings were, if partially genuine, primarily motivated by Haymitch's strategy, so again, I may be too picky.

The plotline of Rue's death and her district's response was an interesting change. In the novel, they sent her bread. In the film, they were immediately incensed to riot. Now, I understand how the bread is a less exciting response than a mob. Also, it does tie well into the rest of the series to show the beginnings of a revolt. But I liked the bread. It was sweet.

Now, arguably the worst handling of a plotline is the way they changed Haymitch's growth. The novel did a good job of showing him change from a full-on alcoholic, to a man willing to stay sober to help two young people he believed in. In the movie, however, he showed signs of liking Katniss too soon and too often. Realistically, he shouldn't have been shown to like her at all. Respect, yes. Believe in, sure. But it's very clear in the book that even when he approves of her individual actions, he does not actually like her.

There are many other changes I could harp on: the differing origins of the Mockingjay pin, the inferior explanation of the origin of Muttations, the absolute neglect of explaining what happened to District 13… but all in all, these don't matter. When I first left the theater, I said to my wife that I considered it a good movie, but a poor adaptation. As I've thought more, however even that is too harsh. I would say now that I disagree with almost every artistic decision they made in adapting the story, but I am still pleased with the overall result. And you know what? That's pretty darn good.


PS: If you're looking for other Hunger Games adaptations, I recommend The Katniss Chronicles. It is a free audiodrama made by some very skilled people, who I feel did a fantastic job portraying Suzanne Collins's work.

Dark Knight Review (As Many Spoilers As It Takes)

Before I get to the meat of the article, I have some small house-keeping matters to take care of. First of all, thank you to DVD 1138 for the reminder to post. In truth, I extended the week a couple days for the sake of a friend who planned to see the movie last night. No clue if he did, but I gave him all I could. Second, I have a confession and a proclamation to make, basically both at once. For those who don't know, I just haven't happened to ever read Lord of the Rings. I've meant to pretty much since I knew about it, but I never got around to it. Well, now I have, and I'm making my way through Tolkien's classic work. I know these have nothing to do with The Dark Knight, but I thought it worthwhile to mention. Now, on to the review!

*************************************************************************************
Spoilers may begin at any point beyond this line
*************************************************************************************
Section One: Things I Less-Than-Loved
I refuse to ever just say "I loved it" and go no further. If I can find an intelligent criticism to make, I'll make it. I was struck by a couple odd points in this film, and here are my thoughts on them.
1) The film took a little bit to grab me. Not long, mind you. Just a minute or two. By the time the Scarecrow showed up, I was in. And it could be that the people sitting right next to me had something to do with it too, because while they shut up as soon as the movie-proper began, they did talk right up to it, even into the logos. So I'll forgive this point and account it to unfavorable viewing conditions until I can afford to see the film again.
2) I knew it was coming. I saw it in the previews. It's not a big deal. But I love the classic Joker look, and wish it could've appeared in the movie.
3) Jim Gordon's speech at the end. WAY too cheesy. I can appreciate the point it was making, but first of all, it contradicts itself (he's the hero we deserve, but not the one we needed... he's not a hero, he's....), and second, he ended the movie by saying "he's... a DARK KNIGHT." Yes. Thank you for reminding us of the title of the movie. As if we couldn't see it coming with people constantly calling pre-Twoface Harvey Dent "Gotham's White Knight." We didn't need to be told "He's beginning to be Batman" in the first movie, and we don't need to be told to whom the name "Dark Knight" applies now.
Section Two: Things I Loved (In roughly linear order)
1) The Joker. Man-oh-man. I have always loved the Joker. He is my favorite all-time villain. No other character have I found who can believably embody pure evil and chaos so completely. And they did him right. Yes, he looks different, but I don't begrudge him his appearance, I only mourn that the look I know and love has never been put in a mainstream movie (for an indie film, go see PATIENT J at Batinthesun.com). And though I said it before, I must say it again: they put the Joker's soul in this film. This is actually what I love about Elseworlds is to see how much you can change in a character without disturbing who they really are, and this movie just shot up next to Red Son among my favorite Elseworlds. When he explains his father was the one who cut his face, I thought "Okay, at least it's terrible enough to really mess him up," but I was a little disappointed. When I heard him give another revelation to Rachel Dawes than to the crime-boss, I nearly exploded with wicked glee. They managed to maintain the Joker's questionable history, and inserted that he changes what he says to, I believe, whatever he thinks will scare his victims the most.
2) "No, no, no... I shoot the bus driver." No more appropriate scheme to present the Joker to the world exists than this.
3) Harvey Dent disarming a witness on the stand. Few times can anyone seem so incredibly badass while keeping their cool. I find myself incapable of disliking Aaron Eckhart in any role, and this was no exception.
4) 'The Magic Trick.' My father has commented more than once that some woman said of the movie "There ought to be some way to let parents know a guy get's a pencil through the forehead." I don't see what their problem is--parents tell children not to run with sharp objects, and now they have an object lesson to prove the point! Not to mention, further detail the pure random evil of the Joker.
5) Faking Jim Gordon's death. I honestly believed he'd done it. I didn't like it, and I shouldn't have fallen for it, but I believed it and respected Nolan for doing it. I think the fact that his son was named "Jim" too was what helped me accept it, because it was a possible work around. Had I thought, as my friend Drew did, of the fact that he wasn't yet "Commissioner Gordon" and there was no way he would die without it, I would've been less likely to fall for it. But it was masterfully done, either way.
6) The potato peeler. Anyone else notice it among Joker's Knives?
7) Joker's jailbreak. Only asking for a phone call. Using that call to simultaneously kill everyone with one of his crazy disciples and get away at the same time. Somehow defeating a cop while unarmed (or he snuck a knife into the holding cell, I don't know) and putting the cop under a knife. All further the Joker's fantastic evil.
8) Rachel Dawes's death. I never liked her. Most fans attributed this to Katie Holmes, but I was not one of them (though I admit Maggie Gyllenhaal did a better job). Batman simply cannot have a childhood friend, nor a longtime love waiting for him, and few moments of the film were quite so satisfying as when she died in a burst of flame and rubble. That this also created Twoface was the icing on the cake.
9) The corruption of Harvey Dent. Killing Joke, anyone? This was masterfully transferred from Gordon to Dent, and the fact that it succeeded where it had previously failed makes it all the more ominous (If you don't know what I'm talking about, read The Killing Joke. Those who know me personally may come over to read it anytime they like). This shows the essence of both Joker and Twoface. Joker, in his reckless abandon for anything and anyone, including himself, so long as he creates chaos, and Twofaces complete and utter subordination of himself to fate. Not to mention, he looked more like Twoface than I thought any live action version could ever achieve, even with prosthetics and/or CGI.
10) "This is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object." This speech is the greatest single assessment of the Batman/Joker relationship. EVER.

I loved much more about the film, but figured I'd keep it to 10 things I love for both (relative) brevity and dramatic effect. There's a lot more I could say discussing the movie, but no review is perfect or complete. If I didn't mention it in the "less than love" section, just assume I liked it. For further reading about the movie, check out Criticinema (not sure if you guys capitalize the second "c") and their reviews.
************************************************************************************
No More Spoilers
************************************************************************************