Warning, this review contains frequent references to Battle Royale. If you are tired of hearing this comparison, please move along. I have not read the books, so I saw this movie from a blank slate.
My biggest problem with the movie is that it failed to portray the real horror of what exactly is going on. This government is forcing 12-18 year-old kids to fight and die for others' amusement. That's a truly horrifying prospect, but Hunger Games treats it as if it's an everyday occurrence. And in the context of this movie, it might very well be an everyday occurrence, but the audience can't possibly adopt that mindset. Battle Royale shows the Games for what they are: cutthroat, violent and incredibly emotionally taxing. It showed me what goes through a person's mind when he is forced to kill his best friend.
The big problem with a contest-style movie being portrayed from a first-person perspective is that you automatically know who is going to win. Battle Royale averted this problem by portraying the story from a variety of viewpoints. It switched between first and third-person perspectives and focused the battle on several different characters. The winner of the contest was never a clear choice, as no one character could be identified as a "main" focus. In Hunger Games, there is no tension or suspense in the storytelling. In fact, the most tense moment in the film lasted for five seconds near the end of the movie when the couple contemplated eating the poisonous berries, thus letting the Games end with no victor.
If you're going to make a movie about children cutting each other to pieces with various pointy things, stop shaking the damn camera! I know this sounds terrible, but I paid money to see teenagers killing each other and dammit, I want to see what's happening.
There is a big problem with your violent, child-assassination movie if I find the culture of this world and the side-characters more interesting than the actual fighting and maiming. Seriously, my favorite character was not the main girl whose name I can't remember. I liked the blue-haired douchebag who hosted the contest. What was his story? I want a movie made about him instead! Also, when I saw the former champion mentor guy, my world exploded when I thought that Owen Wilson was actually doing a good job portraying an interesting character. Imagine that! Owen Wilson is actually ACTING! But then I realized that it was Woody Harrelson and the world promptly un-exploded.
I don't understand what point the movie is trying to get across. It leaves me with so many unanswered questions. Are the Games bad? Do people want to abolish them? What is it about Districts 1 and 2 that they train children to fight from infancy? Why do they train gladiators, but no other district does? If people hate the Games so much, why are they content to surrender their children to die for such a vile practice? If people don't hate the Games, then why don't they all train fighters to bring fame and respect to their district? What was so special about the little black girl that prompted the districts to rebellion? She was a cute little girl, sure, but why should I care about her? Surely she wasn't the first innocent girl to die in the previous 70 Games? What was the deal with the large-chinned guy who stayed behind in District 12? Why was he in the movie? Does he even care that his best friend is kissing another man? I think so, but all he ever does is stare blankly off-screen, so I can't be sure. Why did the other kids trust the blonde guy after he joined their alliance? Shouldn't they know that he is untrustworthy after clearly saying on national television that he is in love with the girl they are trying to kill? Why did they trust his judgment from the very beginning?
All in all, The Hunger Games was an average movie. I liked it, but Battle Royale is by far the better film. I know it may not be fair to compare the two films since they were intended for different audiences, but I can't help it. They are just too similar for me to separate them.
My biggest problem with the movie is that it failed to portray the real horror of what exactly is going on. This government is forcing 12-18 year-old kids to fight and die for others' amusement. That's a truly horrifying prospect, but Hunger Games treats it as if it's an everyday occurrence. And in the context of this movie, it might very well be an everyday occurrence, but the audience can't possibly adopt that mindset. Battle Royale shows the Games for what they are: cutthroat, violent and incredibly emotionally taxing. It showed me what goes through a person's mind when he is forced to kill his best friend.
The big problem with a contest-style movie being portrayed from a first-person perspective is that you automatically know who is going to win. Battle Royale averted this problem by portraying the story from a variety of viewpoints. It switched between first and third-person perspectives and focused the battle on several different characters. The winner of the contest was never a clear choice, as no one character could be identified as a "main" focus. In Hunger Games, there is no tension or suspense in the storytelling. In fact, the most tense moment in the film lasted for five seconds near the end of the movie when the couple contemplated eating the poisonous berries, thus letting the Games end with no victor.
If you're going to make a movie about children cutting each other to pieces with various pointy things, stop shaking the damn camera! I know this sounds terrible, but I paid money to see teenagers killing each other and dammit, I want to see what's happening.
There is a big problem with your violent, child-assassination movie if I find the culture of this world and the side-characters more interesting than the actual fighting and maiming. Seriously, my favorite character was not the main girl whose name I can't remember. I liked the blue-haired douchebag who hosted the contest. What was his story? I want a movie made about him instead! Also, when I saw the former champion mentor guy, my world exploded when I thought that Owen Wilson was actually doing a good job portraying an interesting character. Imagine that! Owen Wilson is actually ACTING! But then I realized that it was Woody Harrelson and the world promptly un-exploded.
I don't understand what point the movie is trying to get across. It leaves me with so many unanswered questions. Are the Games bad? Do people want to abolish them? What is it about Districts 1 and 2 that they train children to fight from infancy? Why do they train gladiators, but no other district does? If people hate the Games so much, why are they content to surrender their children to die for such a vile practice? If people don't hate the Games, then why don't they all train fighters to bring fame and respect to their district? What was so special about the little black girl that prompted the districts to rebellion? She was a cute little girl, sure, but why should I care about her? Surely she wasn't the first innocent girl to die in the previous 70 Games? What was the deal with the large-chinned guy who stayed behind in District 12? Why was he in the movie? Does he even care that his best friend is kissing another man? I think so, but all he ever does is stare blankly off-screen, so I can't be sure. Why did the other kids trust the blonde guy after he joined their alliance? Shouldn't they know that he is untrustworthy after clearly saying on national television that he is in love with the girl they are trying to kill? Why did they trust his judgment from the very beginning?
All in all, The Hunger Games was an average movie. I liked it, but Battle Royale is by far the better film. I know it may not be fair to compare the two films since they were intended for different audiences, but I can't help it. They are just too similar for me to separate them.