Sunday, March 25, 2012

Hunger Games is a buncha hype - 3.25 stars out of 5

Rottentomatoes' audience has rated post-apocalyptic action movie Hunger Games at an exceptionally high 4.7 stars out of 5 as of tonight, the Sunday following the week of its release.  Even a Sunday morning showing at the theater near me was packed enough that I had to wait for the 2nd showing.

This movie has grossed $155 million in North America in its opening weekend, the highest for a non-sequel flick, and $214 million worldwide according to Reuters.

And most of this, in my opinion is thanks to the hype that has surrounded the book.  I found this movie to be just enough interesting to watch on DVD.  The first 10 minutes almost had me leaving from the constant camera shaking and rapid-fire switches from one camera to another a la eMpTV shows.  I had to close my eyes intermittently to give my brain a rest from the dizzying shots.  And the sets and costumes were way overdone.

Don't read further if you haven't watch the movie but plan to, unless you don't mind the spoilers below.

I haven't read the book, nor do I plan to.  From the sneak previews, I'd thought the contestants in the death match were trained for years prior to facing off, when in fact most were just a bunch of average Joes and Janes picked and thrown into a jungle a few days after their names were picked in a random drawing.  This pros vs. average Joes didn't make much sense, especially with 12 year olds who seemed grossly out of place in this competition.  There was much that didn't make sense about the story line, such as:

  • Just what was the role of the sponsors?  What did it take for a sponsor to send help to their contestant (Tribute) of choice? It seemed as if every time Katniss Everdeen got help was because Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson's character) begged the sponsors on her behalf.
  • Why would Cato (main bad guy) take "loverboy" Peeta Mellark as a member of his subgroup assembled to hunt down Katniss?  It should have been obvious Peeta was on Katniss' side, and could have easily killed some members of this group while everyone was sleeping.
  • The show's organizers were manipulating the results excessively.  This certainly deflated from the "survival of the fittest" aspect of the Hunger Games, and was a turnoff, especially from the constant changing of the rules; first there was to be one winner, then two, back to one, and finally two.
  • 3/4th into the movie, and the producers made an announcement to the Tributes as their one and only announcement.  Then, a few minutes later they made a second announcement.  Who's in control here?
  • The Tributes were told prior the Hunger Games that many of them would die of starvation, dehydration, infection etc., rather than being killed.  I can't recall if anyone who died suffered any of these fates.  Most of them were killed by arrows, spears and sword action. One was slammed against a wall, and another's neck was snapped with bare hands.

I would put this movie in the same genre as Twilight.  Mildly amusing and probably suited for a teenage audience.