I'll start by putting those ridiculous Twilight comparisons to rest. Literally the only thing both of these franchises have in common is that they are based on a series of novels, and focus on younger protagonists. That's it. You can argue that both also have a love triangle at their center but that's really doing The Hunger Games a disservice. There are hints of it, but it's much more complex than the pining, forced "they fancy each other cos we said they do" rubbish from Twilight, nor is it the focal point of the story. But putting aside any story comparisons, The Hunger Games differs from Twilight in one very crucial way - it's a good movie.
The story takes place in a future that has been devastated by revolution leading to war. When society finally built itself back up, the ruling class set up 12 districts populated by the lower class. But in order to ensure they stay in control this time they implement The Hunger Games. Two young people between the ages of 12 and 18 from each district, forced to fight to the death until only one remains. 16 year old Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence - a bit of a stretch admittedly) volunteers as "tribute" when her little sister's name is chosen at random to compete. She is joined by Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), a boy she knows but doesn't seem to be very friendly with. Along with the other tributes they are trained and packaged to appeal to the masses before they enter the arena, 23 of them never to leave.
When I first heard the plot I, like many others I'm sure, immediately thought
Battle Royale. And there is no denying that both concepts at least are very similar, but they couldn't be any more different as movies.
Battle Royale is entertaining but it's a completely OTT gorefest with very little - if any - actual story or character development. Most of
The Hunger Games focuses on the preparation for battle, building up some very interesting characters and relationships as it does. In fact one of the main strengths of this movie is its pacing. No scenes feel tacked on, out of place or overlong and the story just flows. But when we finally do get to the combat things are cranked up to 11. Believe me, even after some cuts the violence is pretty full on. Director Gary Ross get's around having to show anything too gruesome or visceral by use of some very effective shaky-cam. In fact it may even serve to make things more tense and impactful. From the time they step off those podiums it's edge of the seat stuff all the way. The action only lets up for the romantic subplot, but before you start rolling your eyes this actually works. For one these are likable, believable characters and two, well, let's just say all is not what it seems. I won't say any more for fear of spoiling things.
Performance wise it's a pretty flawless affair really. I'm not sure what else can be said about Jennifer Lawrence, but if you only know her from
X-Men: First Class then prepare to be blown away. Not that she was bad in that, but she didn't really have a chance to shine as part of such a large ensemble. Here she is back in
Winter's Bone territory, and in my opinion actually delivers a more impressive performance. She really never falters, or over does it. She makes Katniss likable, brave and someone we want to root for, but never just the "hero" archetype either. She also handles the more emotional scenes expertly. Lawrence is supported very well by Hutcherson, who I did have some reservations about. He doesn't light up the screen or anything, but then I'm not sure his character is really supposed to. Comic relief (of a sort) is provided by Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, a former winner in the arena and mentor to Peeta and Katniss. He's awesome, as always, but doesn't get near enough screen time. Also providing a few lighter moments is Elizabeth Banks as the inappropriately joyous Effie Trinket. Stanley Tucci also does a great job as talk show host Caesar Flickerman. A different actor could - and would - have hammed this character through the roof, but Tucci just makes him believably larger than life, with a hint of a sinister side. Liam Hemsworth is fine as Gale, who I believe plays a much bigger part in future installments, but here he's really hardly in it. Likewise Donald Sutherland as the right bastard of a President. Also, a few of the other tributes can be a bit annoying. Watch for the "bad guy" of the bunch who plays arrogant by half smirking and flinging his head back to the left
So any problems? Well as good as the movie looks, it can't really be called much of a spectacle. We see glimpses of the surrounding environment but never get a sense of the full scale of it. This doesn't hinder the story, but it would have been nice to get a proper feel of the world these characters inhabit. Also, there are a few little things that I'm sure were better explained in the book. I know this is pretty much unavoidable with these adaptations but I would have at least liked a proper explanation of how exactly the artificial arena is controlled for example. At one point some (artificial? Robotic? Genetically engineered?) dogs literally pop up out of nowhere and it's a bit of a WTF moment. It also suffers from that open, wait for the sequel feeling a bit at the end. I mean I knew it was going to be left unresolved obviously, but it could have maybe used a few stronger scenes to play things out. Small niggles though, in an otherwise great movie.
The Hunger Games rejects Hollywood gloss and romanticism in favor of depth and smarts. Lofty themes are present but it also works as sheer white knuckle entertainment. Brilliantly acted and directed and packing an emotional wallop - for sci-fi fans it's a must, but if you are a movie fan at all I'd recommend it.