"The Hunger Games"
2012
PG-13
Produced by: Nina Jacobson, Jon Kilik
Directed by: Gary Ross
Written by: Gary Ross, Suzanne Collins
Starring: Stanley Tucci, Wes Bentley, Jennifer Lawrence
Lionsgate

3.92/5 Stars
Consensus: Among the best of the recent "teen-fiction-to-film" genre The Hunger Games is both gripping and intense and provided many thought provoking ideas. Well worth the watch and filled with cool moments, its short comings are very over-lookable and the film is both endearing, gripping and intense overall.

Plot: In the not distant future, and after a horrific war, each conquered districts of a tyrannical nation must offer up two "tributes" for a nationally broadcast "Hunger Games." These tributes are 2 children between the ages of 12-18 that must fight to the death in an arena. In an effort to save her sister heroine "Katniss Everdeen"(Jennifer Lawrence) volunteers in the death match and uses her wits and marksmanship skills to survive both the match and the politics that surround it.

Directing: The entire film had a sense of gritty terror well incorporated throughout it. I've never read the books (I hear tons of complaints from fans of the books) so I'm blissfully unaware of "inaccuracy" shortcomings the film may or may not have. The film has solid directing throughout and does a wonderful job at maintaining a harsh sense of dread and intensity necessary for a film with such a plot line. The relationship between Katniss and Peeta Mellark(Josh Hutcherson) seemed underdeveloped and sudden, although it should be understood that Katniss had ulterior motives for developing a relationship with Peeta at such a rapid rate, more of their back story could have been focused on. Overall Gary Ross did a solid job at directing the film by keeping our adrenaline levels high. ****

Acting: Here the film suffers a bit more as some actors feel extremely forced or generic in their roles. Especially the other tributes in the film and most specifically Josh Hutcherson. The acting isn't totally horrendous on all accounts however, Jennifer Lawrence in particular was both convincing and appealing in her role. In fact many of the actors did a splendid job at maintaining a quite terror about their persona as the plot thickened. Again Jennifer Lawrence is a prime example of this and reflects her character in a way that it is easy for audience to connect with what she is thinking and feeling within the story, she generate pathos and builds the intensity of the plot seamlessly  Josh Hutcherson, on the other hand, appears to be going through the motions and looking pretty, he isn't unbearable but he could be happily replaced with far better actors. ***1/2

Editing: This was one of the best elements of this film, the intense closely shot footage was seamed together quickly and violently, giving both mood and attention to the main plot of the film. Especially for what one would expect with another "popular-teen-book-gone-big-screen" film, wherein one usually finds generic and "invisible" editing, which gives an un-relatable and cookie-cutter feel to the film, The Hunger Games is far more interesting. The rapid and intense use of editing was such a breath of fresh air and made this film stand out in a very good way. *****

Art Direction: Between the decadent poor of Districts 11 and 12 to the outrageous and flarish fashions of those in the Capitol, the art direction in this film was again suprising and extremely well done. The juxtaposition of the extreme poverty and outlandish styles of rich Capitol dwellers gorging themselves on the cruel extermination of children was brilliantly executed. It created a world that truly came alive and was fascinating to see. This and the editing were the best aspects of this film. *****

Cinematography: The footage is well shot and reflects the despair and intensity found in the rest of the film. Although the cinematography seems to lose its quality as the film goes on, the shooting is still well done. Again the beginning of the film, in the scenes shot in District 12, the cinematography is much better done than the rest of the film, but the rest of the film is passable as well. ****

Screenplay: Although passable, the screenplay never found the fluency one would hope for from a film like this. It got along fine but only had a couple good moments, the dialogue was chunky at times and it seemed as if there were parts that were not well thought out in the transition from book to screen. Indeed I've read and heard many a complaint about the screenplay's lack of faith to the original novel, I will again state I have never read the books and cannot claim infringement in this aspect. That said the author of the original novel helped with the screenplay so this may serve as some recompense to parties wishing to lament about disloyalty in this aspect. Beside what I'm ignorant of  the screenplay was mediocre, but had one of the most intense and gripping plot lines I have seen in a film. For that reason I say the screenplay is good, even if the dialogue isn't up to Tarantino standard. ****

CGI/Special Effects: In this aspect the film suffered the most as the CGI was both cartoonish and painfully obvious. Although we must take for granted that many CGI moments within film will look obvious, these animated creatures looked so sloppily green screened it was painful and left a lot to be wanted in both realism and intensity due to the obvious fabricated nature of the creatures. An unfortunate direction in an otherwise great film. Not that I care to much, the plot is great. **