Eeesh... talk about a hyped up movie! I guess it's paying off though, if the early box office reports are any indication, this will probably be the next big pop culture phenomenon the will linger on long after it's welcome has worn off. At least I can take some consolation knowing that something is finally starting to dethrone Twilight as the next biggest craze ever (if you've read my review for Twilight, you know I have a particularly angry hatred for that series). Fortunately the hype didn't really impact my thoughts on the movie. I went in with mostly neutral expectations and didn't buy into much of the hype. After all that said, here is my opinion... The Hunger Games is a massively flawed movie that doesn't live up to it's glowing reputation. Sorry folks, but I gotta tell it like I see it.
The movie takes place in an undisclosed year in the future. It's approximately 75 years from now, and North America has become a semi-apocalyptic dictatorship. The nation is divided into twelve districts, most of which poverty stricken (and no, there are no aliens on District 9). Every year, a government regulated competition known as The Hunger Games takes place, in which 24 teenagers aged 12-18 (one male and one female from each district) go the nation's capital and are released into the woods to fight in a barbaric fight to the death. The games themselves are a yearly reminder of Capitol's authority and as a punishment for a rebellion that took place over 70 years ago. The main character is Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) of District 12. When her 12-year-old sister is randomly chosen to compete, Katniss volunteers to take her place. Shortly afterward, she is shipped off to Capitol and prepares to compete in the 74th annual Hunger Games. At the risk of spoiling anymore of this story... I'm going to stop here.
I know I'm about to piss off a whole bunch of people, but the more I think of what I saw, the more I can't shake how many mistakes this movie made. With the exception of some strong performances (more on that later), nearly every element of this movie is one consecutive fail after another. The story is derivative, the writing is predictable, the costumes look ridiculous, the cinematography is awful, the special effects are unconvincing, and... the list goes on.
Let's get the good out of the way first... the acting. Jennifer Lawrence has been starting to make a name for herself with an Oscar-nominated role in Winter's Bone and another strong performance as Mystique in X-Men: First Class. Once again, Lawrence shows that she is a force to be reckoned with, bringing her natural dramatic range and charisma to the role of Katniss Everdeen. A true talent for sure, at the very least, I'm hoping her widespread acclaim here in The Hunger Games will continue to land her good roles. Josh Hutcherson does a solid job as Peeta Mellark, the male contestant from District 12. With an extensive filmography of already good performances, there's really not much I can say other than he's a talented actor. Add in some strong supporting work from Donald Sutherland, Woody Harrelson, and Lenny Kravitz along with some campy performances from Elizabeth Banks and Stanely Tucci and you've got a mostly successful cast. I don't always agree with the direction the actors were always given, but that's another gripe I'll save for later. The cast itself is at the very least passable, at times even great.
Now let's get the first problem out of the way... the story! It's typical to dismiss The Hunger Games as a shameless rip-off of the cult classic book/movie Battle Royale. 
Now, I don't know if the book's author, Suzanne Collins, was influenced in any way by Battle Royale or if it was just a huge coincidence. Neither one would surprise me, but to be honest, that's not the main problem here anyways. A film being unoriginal isn't really a deal-breaker. Many enjoyable, sometimes excellent or classic, movies have essentially "paid homage" to other works that came before it. There's Avatar (Dances with Wolves), The Terminator (works by Harlan Ellison), Star Wars (Flash Gordon, The Man With No Name Trilogy, Kurosawa's samurai films, and a lot more actually) to name a few. So, when you really get down to it, the fact that The Hunger Games is a Battle Royale knockoff, with elements of The Running Man, a dash of Rollerball, a sprinkled with a little of 1984 for good measure, really isn't that big of a concern as long as the filmmakers can make up for the lack of originality in the other departments. Sadly, they do not.
Now, I don't know if the book's author, Suzanne Collins, was influenced in any way by Battle Royale or if it was just a huge coincidence. Neither one would surprise me, but to be honest, that's not the main problem here anyways. A film being unoriginal isn't really a deal-breaker. Many enjoyable, sometimes excellent or classic, movies have essentially "paid homage" to other works that came before it. There's Avatar (Dances with Wolves), The Terminator (works by Harlan Ellison), Star Wars (Flash Gordon, The Man With No Name Trilogy, Kurosawa's samurai films, and a lot more actually) to name a few. So, when you really get down to it, the fact that The Hunger Games is a Battle Royale knockoff, with elements of The Running Man, a dash of Rollerball, a sprinkled with a little of 1984 for good measure, really isn't that big of a concern as long as the filmmakers can make up for the lack of originality in the other departments. Sadly, they do not.
First problem with the script... the characters. The primary character, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is the only character who comes close to working. She is a noble, skilled, and self-sacrificing individual with reasonably enough development and enough depth to support the story. Her skills and noble attitude appear right from the start, from her adept bow-hunting abilities and her willingness to talk her sister's place as tribute for the games. She doesn't have much of a traditional story-arc, at least not in the manner of which she pretty much remains the same loyal and dedicated individual from start to finish, but the way she faces conflict and remains a likable character you want to see triumph, at the very least makes her passable.
My main gripe, however, is with the "villains," or at least, the characters you're not directly routing for. What's the problem with them??? Most of them are portrayed in a campy or foppish manner with overly colorful and goofy costumes and hair styles to coincide with their over-the-top humorous personalities. Now, before you start saying, "Hey Chris! It's the future, they're supposed to look funny!" let me tell you, that argument doesn't work. 
Now, I can buy that in 75 years from now, fashion will have dramatically changed and might look as strange as depicted in The Hunger Games... BUT there are many things to don't add up. For starters, even though certain futuristic sci-fi movies like The Fifth Element, Demolition Man, or Tank Girl also featured silly-looking fashion styles, the costumes in The Hunger Games just don't clash with the drab or "normal" looking outfits of the heroes. Not to mention, those other movies all had a campy, tongue-in-cheek, sense of humor while The Hunger Games takes a dead-serious tone. The main problem, however, is just how non-threatening they're all depicted, especially the "evil" government. Seeing how campy and goofy they're portrayed, it's hard to buy them as an all-powerful dictatorship. I mean, out of all the movies they could have ripped off, they should have looked to some truly intimidating totalitarian regimes like those from 1984 or V For Vendetta. I can kind of see where they were going with these choices, but none of them really worked.
Now, I can buy that in 75 years from now, fashion will have dramatically changed and might look as strange as depicted in The Hunger Games... BUT there are many things to don't add up. For starters, even though certain futuristic sci-fi movies like The Fifth Element, Demolition Man, or Tank Girl also featured silly-looking fashion styles, the costumes in The Hunger Games just don't clash with the drab or "normal" looking outfits of the heroes. Not to mention, those other movies all had a campy, tongue-in-cheek, sense of humor while The Hunger Games takes a dead-serious tone. The main problem, however, is just how non-threatening they're all depicted, especially the "evil" government. Seeing how campy and goofy they're portrayed, it's hard to buy them as an all-powerful dictatorship. I mean, out of all the movies they could have ripped off, they should have looked to some truly intimidating totalitarian regimes like those from 1984 or V For Vendetta. I can kind of see where they were going with these choices, but none of them really worked.
The last group of characters to take note of are the other teens competing in the Hunger Games. First's there's Katniss' male counterpart, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson). Why he was named after an animal rights group I'll never know, but to be fair, he's an okay character. He was mainly brought in to serve as a love interest that feels a tad bit forced, but as a supporting character, I don't have too many criticisms. The rest of the tributes don't get a whole lot of development. Most are generic, one-note, and evil who thrive off the kills they obtain, while a couple others are more sympathetic. Unfortunately, the black and white contrasts in personalities doesn't add for a whole lot of interesting moments. For starters, it's partially because you can tell right from the start who is going to survive and who is going to die. More importantly, however, is that it makes for a very unfortunate missed opportunity. Because everyone is so generically good or evil, it doesn't allow for a whole lot of gut wrenching moments or questions of choice. Think about this... in an environment where it's kill or be killed and only one can be left standing, emotions would run high and one's true character would be put to the test. When would you be forced to kill against your will or to harm someone who didn't deserve it in order to save yourself? With the exception of one or two moments, the movie isn't willing to go that far or tackle ideas that dark. Again, a missed opportunity.
The film nobly tackles some important subjects like propaganda newscast, class disparity, and reality TV. These are all relevant subjects to satirize and at times The Hunger Games makes a decent point or observation here and there. Unfortunately, once again any relevant satire the movie provides stands in the shadows of better and more interesting material. 
The whole, reality TV/gladiatorial hybrid wore off it's welcome when Arnold Schwarzenegger did it in 1987's The Running Man. Plus, the potentially edgy concept of teens slaughtering each other for sport reeks of "been-there-done-that" thanks to the aforementioned comparisons to Battle Royale. It doesn't help that the PG-13 rating ultimately forces a censored level of violence and brutality that could have helped the movie sell it's satire. Granted, it pushes the rating to it's limits, but still doesn't go far enough. Unfortunately, despite any the movie's worthy attempt at some relevant subject matter, it just doesn't work. Any good ideas this movie has either come off as half-assed or overly familiar.
The whole, reality TV/gladiatorial hybrid wore off it's welcome when Arnold Schwarzenegger did it in 1987's The Running Man. Plus, the potentially edgy concept of teens slaughtering each other for sport reeks of "been-there-done-that" thanks to the aforementioned comparisons to Battle Royale. It doesn't help that the PG-13 rating ultimately forces a censored level of violence and brutality that could have helped the movie sell it's satire. Granted, it pushes the rating to it's limits, but still doesn't go far enough. Unfortunately, despite any the movie's worthy attempt at some relevant subject matter, it just doesn't work. Any good ideas this movie has either come off as half-assed or overly familiar.
Now, in addition to the good performances, if there was one thing that could have salvaged this film, it's the action. And... like all of The Hunger Games' other shortcomings, the action falls flat too. For reasons I can't explain, so many filmmakers have become obsessed with handheld style cinematography, and director Gary Ross is apparently one of them. With an excessively shaky camera, lack of composition, and barely a shred of noticeable choreography, the action scenes are almost impossible to follow. To make matters worse is that in an effort to liven up the finale, the tributes find themselves being attacked by a herd of vicious creatures rendered by some of the worst cgi I've seen in a long time. It's a painfully boring and dull finale that fails to make up for the lack of suspense earlier in the film. Oh sure, every now and then there's a reasonably suspenseful scene, but nothing particularly memorable. Again, it's an unfortunate missed opportunity.
I know I'm in the minority here, but I just couldn't get into The Hunger Games. The solid performances just can't make up for a flawed script, dull action, and lack of originality. The only consolation I can take with this movie is that it's dethroning Twilight as the next big movie/book franchise... and while I didn't like The Hunger Games, it is better than Twilight. I'd say skip it... or at the very least, wait for a rental.
My Score: 2 out of 5!
