Movie Review: 'The Hunger Games'

Rating: 3.5/5 
by Brian Kesler

Jennifer Lawrence made a smash with her tour de force performance in 'Winter's Bone,' for which she was nominated for an Academy Award. That film relied on a pitch-perfect performance as she was in nearly every shot. So it is with 'The Hunger Games,' where Lawrence gives another brilliant and subdued performance. The film could have easily fallen apart without her, but she has a special gift and the film works.

The picture is based on the best-selling novel by children's writer Suzanne Collins. The idea of watching people kill one another on a reality television show isn't new. David Cronenberg's morbid masterpiece 'Videodrome' deals with the very issue, and that was back in the early '80s. But Collins treats it as more of a spectacle, a sort of 'Gladiator' of the future. That's what really makes the plot interesting, the idea that not only is it a reality television show, but an enormous festival that everybody attends and carries on about. I can't think of any festivals of the like that exist anymore. The best examples are the gladiators, as mentioned earlier, and the bull fights in Spain near the beginning of the 20th century.

Lawrence (billed third?) plays Katniss, a small town girl with a talent at hunting. Bow-and-arrow style. It's almost time for the contestants to be chosen for the annual Hunger Games and her younger sister has reached the ripe old age of 12, and will have her name put into a random drawing. Katniss comforts her sister and assures her that her name will not be picked. She was wrong, and in order to spare her sister, Katniss volunteers to take her place. The Hunger Games are an annual showdown of a bunch of kids and teenagers set loose in a simulated forest to kill one another. Last one alive wins. Really, does anyone think this is likely to happen? Well, Newt Gingrich suggested that poor black kids be hired to clean toilets in public schools, so you never know, I guess.

The film spends a great deal of time drawing out the preliminary contests and exercises to the event, and it was this section I liked the most. I only wish it had been longer. Much of it exists in montage form, and it kills the pacing. The only contestants we truly get to know are Katniss and her potential love interest Peeta (Josh Hutcherson - eleventh billed?). There are two dozen contestants we know nothing about. It would have been a joy to build more of a mystery around Rue, a smart young girl who plays an important part during the actual games, or illuminate the character of a young man who carries the climax of the contest, which loses tension due to his part being underwritten.

The costumes and make-up of the film are wild and contemporary and bizarre, but I fear they will date the film prematurely. Vainly sporting the wild hair and costumes are Elizabeth Banks, a woman with what seems like a pretty worthless job - she essentially drinks and complains - and that great actor Stanley Tucci, who is the male equivalent to Meryl Streep. Tucci plays a talk-show host and commentator, and from the devilish gleam in his eye, you can tell he enjoys every minute of it. Woody Harrelson plays Katniss' and Peeta's trainer, and he performs well as usual.

One thing I'll defend about the film is it's camera work and editing. It's the type of camera work and editing I'd usually condemn: quick cuts, lots of steady-cam work, and a sometimes obscure compilation of images. Here, however, it's done strategically and wisely. The novel is written in present tense, which is unusual. It puts us in the moment, experiencing everything with Katniss, and keeps the possibility open that Katniss may not live. The filming style is an echo of that narrative. It gives the sense that what we are watching is happening now, as opposed to most movies which we subconsciously assume happened in the past.

That said, there is one thing that 'Videodrome' handles perfectly which 'The Hunger Games' does not. The violence is haphazardly avoided in this picture. It isn't strategically manipulated, just avoided altogether. This undercuts the moral center of the novel which, in effect, advocates against finding entertainment value in violence. The audience never truly grasps a sense of the disturbing nature of the whole ordeal, and that's a shame. Because of this, the picture allows something it's trying to condemn: entertainment at the expense of violence.