Mar. 21, 2012 - Issue #857: Ben Folds
The Hunger Games
The Hunger Games struggles with an inflated runtime
» The most dangerous Games of all
If all that didn't already seem like a drag, every year two kids are selected from each district, given some rigorous training and thrown into a vast, elaborately booby-trapped wilderness gladiatorial arena where they do battle with the elements—forest fires, hallucinogenic genetically engineered wasps, poisoned berries and bloodthirsty overgrown bulldog-like beasts that at the push of a button materialize out of nothing at all (so much for internal rules or even a modicum of verisimilitude)—and, of course, with each other. The event, now in its 74th year, is broadcast and apparently maintains a rabid fan-base. I guess reality television really is here to stay.
A contestant's success in the Hunger Games is as dependent on showmanship as on survivalist or combat skills. It's not altogether unlike becoming a movie star. And the star of The Hunger Games is that young, talented, apple-cheeked beauty named Jennifer Lawrence, whom you'll hopefully recognize from Winter's Bone. To some extent Katniss Everdeen is something of a reprise of Lawrence's Oscar-nominated lead performance in Winter's Bone: she again plays the eldest daughter of an absent dad and might-as-well-be-absent mom; she's tough, woods-wise, protective of her little sister, a practiced hunter with nothing against squirrel meat. But then Katniss becomes a hopeful in the Games and gets Lenny Kravitz as her personal stylist. Katniss is a strong archer and more mature than most of her fellow contestants, but her big handicap is that she doesn't want to hurt others, most especially Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson, aka Laser from The Kids Are All Right), the other kid from her district who also happens to have a huge crush on her. You can see where this is going.
Helmed by Seabiscuit director Gary Ross, the film is perplexingly belaboured, with a long first half that lingers over the pre-Games activities without really providing much milieu detail or developing the characters. The draggy pacing feels obligatory, dictated by the ostensible momentousness of the occasion, by which I mean to say that The Hunger Games is such a hugely popular book that the movie version simply has to be Oscar-length, ie: well over two hours long. While the hungry hardcore fans might savour every extra minute of running time, for the rest of us it's really a shame that The Hunger Games couldn't have aspired to a fleet, efficient, say, 92 minutes. If it had, I think it would have gotten much closer to becoming the bracing thriller it wants to be. vueweekly.com comments: powered by Disqus
Privacy Policy:
Vue respects your privacy. We will not forward your personal information to any other organization except as required by law, and will use your e-mail address only to respond to your comments. We reserve the right to edit and remove comments for length, clarity and/or if they are illegal or inappropriate. Your email address is never shown to visitors to vueweekly.com. Read the whole policy at: http://vueweekly.com/privacy
Comments policy
Comments go online directly without first being seen or reviewed by editors at Vue. Don't personally attack people, don't be defamatory, don't be spam-atory, don't hawk your band, don't pretend to be someone else, be clear, be on topic, be nice. Read our extended comments policy here. »
We use Disqus for our comments system. What's that all about?
We found that managing the comment community at Vue was easier to do with a system like Disqus. If this isn't straightforward to you, get help here.