Saturday, April 7, 2012

Just Call me Roger...

Ebert that is.

I ended up seeing The Hunger Games twice on opening weekend with two different groups of people. One group really liked the movie, the other hated it. I still can't decide what I think.

The movie was so hyped that I knew on some level I would be disappointed because there is no way it could or would compare to the book.

The pros:
  • It was a good film adaptation. The movie hit on the major plot points and didn't change anything that was sacred to the book.
  • I liked seeing The Capital and the people that lived there brought to life. Upon my first reading of the book, I didn't really picture the people looking that strange.
  • While Haymitch wasn't anywhere as miserable as I thought he should have been, I liked the relationship he had with Katniss and Effie especially.
  • Elizabeth Banks as Effie was great.
The cons:
  • I thought the actor who played Peeta was so flat and uninteresting.
  • There was no characted development particularly when it came to Katniss and Peeta's relationship.
  • I don't think the movie really got across the point that The Hunger Games was not just a reality show for people who lived in The Capitol (Captial?) but that it was put in place as a punishment for the Districts. I guess I pictured forced public viewings rather than Mom and Prim watching at home.

But here is the BIG THING.

I was SO distrated by the cinematography! I thought it was so weird that the camera kept focusing in on random things like a curl of hair or a ring. I guess it was supposed to be arty but I hated it. Also, I know they had to skate through the battle scenes to give the movie a PG-13 rating but it felt like the movie was supposed to be 3 hours long and they hit fast forward to fit it in 2.5 hours. It was so fast my eyes couldn't focus on anything and I felt like I wasn't actually watching it. (Picture someone standing right in front of you waving something really fast in your face and trying to figure out what it was.) The way they filmed the movie was so shaky it was too Blair Witch for me.



  1. Amy I completely agree! I HATED the cinematography because I felt like I couldn't get a good look at anything. It's the same way they filmed Bourne series and I hated it then too. It gives me a headache. I think it's partly because I have bad eyes anyway that make focusing on things hard because I know others who it doesn't bother at all. They use the hand-held cameras and it moves too much. I also didn't like that the panoramic views were so few and far between. The zoom shots are cool and all but not for seeing the whole picture. I still enjoyed the film (not as much as the book, of course) but I was frustrated with it.

  2. I thought the cinematography made the whole thing feel more intense, especially with all the close up shots. I really liked it, but I can see how some people wouldn't. *shrug*


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...