The Hunger Games

I enjoyed the Hunger Games, but I didn't love it. Before seeing it, most of the complaints I'd heard about it were that it didn't follow the book. I haven't gotten around to reading the book yet, so that wasn't an issue for me. Personally, I had three main complaints:

1. Shaky-cam. Why hasn't this died yet? It drives me crazy when people don't listen to the public. Anyone old enough to direct a movie knows by now that almost everyone hates shaky-cam. This is not new information. This is not up for debate. It's like escort missions in video games; it's hard to believe the people who make movies/games/etc are still unaware of how many people hate certain elements. Some people get annoyed by shaky-cam because they can't tell what's going on. Some people actually get nauseous. At best, some people have learned to ignore it, but it's not anyone actually looks forward to it. Never has anyone seriously said, "This would have been a better movie if they'd attached the camera to a washing machine." Shaky-cam is no longer edgy and it was never artsy. Its intention is to make you feel like you're part of the action, but all it really does is make it look like the movie was directed by a five-year-old. I can excuse shaky-cam if there's a valid reason for it, specifically "found footage" movies like Cloverfield. But in a regular movie, it's inexcusable.

2. Slow start. It takes a very long time getting to the titular contest. It's justifiable, and it's interesting to learn more about the universe, but for me it was a bit hard to sit through. It felt like the first half of the movie was exposition, and the second half was shaky-cam violence.

3. Kids killing kids. I know this is a weenie complaint, but it's hard for me to watch a movie about kids as young as 12 fighting each other to the death. Obviously there's more violent movies out there, but this movie seems to be trying to fill the Harry Potter/Narnia niche, and the subject matter seems a little grisly for that target audience. However, there's a few saving graces - first off, the tone of the movie makes it clear that the Hunger Games are a very bad thing, and the contest is much reviled by its participants. So it's not like they're actually glorifying the violence.  Also, the deaths themselves are not very graphic, thanks to the aforementioned shaky-cam.  (Of course, if this is their only reason for using shaky-cam, why is it in so many non-violent scenes as well?)

One odd thing that is bothering me is the way this movie is perceived by some of my friends. I have two friends (only one of which has actually seen the movie) who dismissed the Hunger Games as being part of the Twilight genre.

...I just... I don't even... I mean, where do I even begin? Seriously, are we talking about the same movie? Look, I don't want to be rude here, and you're entitled to your opinion. I honestly don't give a flying carp whether or not you liked The Hunger Games, but you can't just say "the Hunger Games is too much like Twilight" without saying something to back that statement up.

Twilight is about a teenage girl who falls in love with a vampire. The Hunger Games is about twenty-four children who are forced to fight to the death in a government-run contest. I know, it's amazing Stephanie Meyer hasn't sued for plagiarism. Sure, there is a small romantic side plot, but it probably doesn't even add up to fifteen ten minutes of the movie. Honestly, there was more romance the The Terminator. Now, I will say that Hunger Games does set up a potential love triangle that will probably get more screen time in the second movie. So I guess you could pre-judge the sequel for being Twilight-esque, assuming you're so sheltered that you think Twilight invented the the love triangle. But even then, we're not discussing the sequel here, or the book trilogy for that matter. We're discussing a single movie called The Hunger Games, and wondering in what universe it shares any similarity with Twilight.

If I had to compare The Hunger Games to another movie, I'd say it mostly reminded me of The Running Man. Dystopian "crapsack world", life-or-death contest watched by a sadistic society, you get the picture. The real difference is the tone; Running Man concentrated on the action, while Hunger Games spends more time on the world-building.

The comparison with Twilight just instantly pisses me off.  I'm trying to analyze myself to see why it's such a berserk button for me.  I think it's because the world really needs more movies like The Hunger Games.  Female-driven stories that aren't about finding the perfect man.  I've noticed this movie is being marketed towards girls (especially after seeing the toys mixed in with Barbie in the toy aisle) and yet it's nothing like your typical chick flick.  I came away from the movie thinking of it as sort of an anti-Twilight, really.  Some people said Twilight set feminism back 30 years; well, more movies like The Hunger Games could be the answer.  That said, I hope Hunger Games does attract a few Twilight fans. Twihards could use a dose of the feminism that's present in The Hunger Games. It's definitely a step in the right direction, anyway.

Anyway, complaints aside, I still enjoyed the movie, and I can't wait to read the book. I hope it makes a lot of money, and the director uses that money to buy a tripod for the sequel.  Btw, if you want to read a more thorough review of The Hunger Games (rather than just a rant against shaky-cam and Twilight comparisons), from someone who's actually read the book, please check out my cousin's blog here.