Cass and I went to see The Hunger Games the weekend before last. We waited and went to a Saturday afternoon matinee; the midnight opening was just out of the question on a school night. Cass was really excited to see it; she'd read the book in her 8th grade English class (and then quickly devoured the remaining two books in the series), and I was interested to see how well the adaptation to the big screen worked.
There was a pretty even mix of people in the audience -- several adults and teens, naturally, but I was suprised at the number of younger kids (average age=10) that I saw. Cami is 10, and two of her classmates were sitting right in front of us. Cami wanted to go, too, but I told her that I thought it was too violent and wouldn't let her. When we got home, I told her I'd seen some of her friends and she fussed because I didn't let her go. Again, I brought up the violence, specifically talking about kids killing kids and Chris (who hasn't read the books nor seen the movie) mentioned that it doesn't sound much different than Harry Potter, and we'd let her see all of those movies. I just sat there with my mouth open for a minute (mostly because I never expected him to make that counterargument) and then explained that, in my eyes, the violence in THG is different -- there's an immediacy to breaking someone's neck with your bare hands or stabbing them in the gut with a knife that I think is absent with the magical dueling that takes place in HP. Plus, the glee that the Careers expressed as they hunted the other players is just chilling. I think there's a difference between HP and THG as well because Cami views HP as fantasy -- she knows magic isn't real; that doesn't make some of the scary scenes any less scary, but she at least watched at home with us, on a smaller screen, and where we could answer questions, explain what was happening, and discuss all the issues. It's possible I'll let her watch THG when it comes out, but it will be a while before she reads the books. (If you are interested, my friend Amy wrote a great post about the violence in THG and expresses things much more eloquently than I ever could.)
Anyway, on to my opinion of the movie:
First of all, Elizabeth Banks rocked Effie Trinket -- which is funny on its own, because Effie Trinket annoyed the living heck out of me in the books, but I thought she was hilarious in the movie (although not many people did? judging by the lack of laughter, at least). I thought Jennifer Lawrence was excellent, and Lenny Kravitz was surprisingly good as Cinna. I LOVED Stanley Tucci (but I'm a fan of him in just about anything -- he's still one of my most favorite Pucks); I'm a little ambivalent about Sutherland as Snow -- I think what's lacking there is the view of him through Katniss's eyes and that interaction between them that develops as the series progresses. I'm still not sure what I thought about Woody Harrelson as Haymitch though...I think there was something lacking in his performance but I can't put my finger on it. I don't think we get to see his character change and develop as intently as what happens in the book, and to me, that was one of the most engaging aspects of the novel. With Haymitch, we see what The Hunger Games has the potential to do to any of the tributes if they make it out of the arena, and those consequences are almost as chilling as considering what could happen inside the arena. The tributes were all cast appropriately, I thought, though if you hadn't read the book, you might have trouble keeping them straight. I wish more had been done to play up the relationship that develops between Rue and Katniss; that felt rushed. (And I can't believe the drama that has resulted in the casting of Rue and Thresh -- words just can't express my thoughts on this issue. All I can do is just shake my head at the idiocy that abounds.) Peeta and Gale -- eh. I can't really go either way with them. I've seen and liked Josh Hutcherson in a couple of movies when he was younger; he at least is a better actor than Hemsworth, but since Gale is rarely onscreen, that doesn't make much of a difference.
I thought the movie was good, but it wasn't GOOD. It hit the plot points and almost everything was there, but I wasn't emotionally invested in it like I was the books. It just lacked the urgency and immediacy of the books, and I don't think that was because I knew what was going to happen from reading the books. I just think there was a distance to all of the characters. Mostly, I think it's because in the books we're inside Katniss's head the whole time, but in the movie we don't get that benefit (although they could have easily taken care of that by voice overs, especially in scenes where it's just her in the woods and it's all action and little interaction with the other characters). Visually, I thought the movie was stunning; I could've done without so much shaky camera work. A little bit is effective -- particularly when Katniss steps into the dining car on the train and her eyes are jumping from object to object. That's accurate; that helped to feel how overwhelmed she was by all the richness, how she just didn't know where to look first. But there were times when I was glad that we were sitting almost at the back of the theater, because had I been up front and the camera was spazzing all over like that, I probably would've tossed my popcorn.
We bought the soundtrack on iTunes just a week or so ago; it's a collection of songs inspired by the movie, meaning they are not actually in the movie (it's an orchestral score you hear in the film) but they wonderfully capture the mood of the movie. Some of my favorite artists are included: The Civil Wars, Arcade Fire, Neko Case, The Decemberists, Carolina Chocolate Drops, Punch Brothers, and more. The album has a definite alt-country/folk/bluegrass feel, which is PERFECTLY fitting, since the songs are supposed to be inspired by District 12's Appalachian setting. I've been listening to it almost non-stop since buying it.
So...have you seen the movie? Listened to the soundtrack? What did you think?
