Saturday, March 24, 2012

The Hunger Games (21/50 Movies)

When seeing the adaptation of a popular book on the big screen, particularly a popular book you read, as much as you don't want it to be there, there is always going to be that give-and-take in the back of your head, the subconscious checklist of what the movie left in and left out. In 50 years when the future generations of English teachers start putting this book on the syllabus, students might do okay if they decide to be lazy and seek out the movie (unlike the curveball teachers throw when they assign The Natural). There is, of course, the argument that the film and the book represent separate mediums and thus should be divorced from each other. I get it, but I find it hard to do. So I will say this: I think the movie is both good as an A) adaptation and a B) movie in and of itself though it's hard to say if certain aspects of the book that went by the wayside due to time constraints will become a bigger part of the story in the next two installments. Judging by how much money this thing seems to be making, it is inevitable that the sequels will be made.  It will be interesting to see what details might come back, if at all. There are a few small additions here that I actually enjoyed too, particularly one in the end. This is a pretty streamlined effort with some power to it although movie makers who are not Paul Greengrass (okay not Paul Greengrass making the Bourne films) need to go to some action movie bootcamp to learn how to film fight scenes as the scenes in the arena get so frenetic it was hard to tell what was going on. For the most part, I liked the casting. I was probably most worried about the how the scenes would be played at the Capitol, but overall I didn't find them too cheesy or distracting. People say we get the science fiction that reflects the time we live in.  If that's true, judging by this, that's pretty chilling.


No comments:

Post a Comment