There was always going to be a lot of pressure on the people behind this movie. The Hunger Games book's have such a huge following of dedicated fans, and so if the film-makers got it wrong, there'd be hell to pay. Thankfully, The Hunger Games is a good adaptation - albeit, one that may not please all fans.
The story of The Hunger Games goes a little bit like this. In a country called Panem (basically the ruins of North America), there are 12 districts and a capitol. Every year, the Capitol holds a televised event called The Hunger Games where 1 boy and 1 girl are chosen from each district to fight to the death in an arena. The capitol holds this event as a way to show their power over the districts after they won a war against them a long time ago.
The movie sticks to the plot of the book quite well, although it does cut out quite a bit and that may anger some fans depending on how much they loved the book. As a reader of The Hunger Games, I didn't mind the cuts mainly because I understood that they couldn't make the movie too long, so they had to happen. Plus, while they may bother the book's readers, the cuts don't impact the story.
Although, at some points I did wonder whether those who hadn't read the books would be able to follow it as easily as I did.
When it comes to acting, The Hunger Games is excellent. Jennifer Lawrence is great as Katniss, and while it took a little while to convince me, Josh Hutcherson does manage to deliver as Peeta. But my favourite character had to be over the top district 12 representative, Effie Trinket, played brilliantly by Elizabeth Banks.
For all those fans out there worrying The Hunger Games would end up like Alex Rider, and Twilight (get horrible movie adaptations, basically), then you can stop worrying now. While The Hunger Games may not please the hardcore fans, most people who liked the books should be pleased with the movies' version of events.
With a good mix of action, comedy, and romance, The Hunger Games is a must see.
Our video review:
2 comments:
Good review. It has the slightly grubby, cobbled-together look of a futuristic flick from the ’70s, but that is part of its charm. It’s also a lot better than any of the Twilight movies, which isn’t saying much, but it isn’t sappy, mopey, or just plain bad and that’s all that matters.
Thanks, and I agree. Shame about Twilight as well, because while it was always going to go for a female audience, it still had potential to be entertaining for both genders. Never mind, I guess. Nice wordpress blog btw, you've got some good reviews as well! I liked your fb page, and thanks for liking mine. :)
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.