It's the same.
But different!
So lately I've been watching The Hunger Games and glanced over my
review of it here on Cinema Won. It just comes across as
inadequate to me. And I never really got into what exactly makes it
good. The acting is adequate, not Oscar material, but surely
memorable. The effects are standard, and a little more than I expected
to see from tiny Lionsgate (Again, REALLY NOT TINY- CW).
review of it here on Cinema Won. It just comes across as
inadequate to me. And I never really got into what exactly makes it
good. The acting is adequate, not Oscar material, but surely
memorable. The effects are standard, and a little more than I expected
to see from tiny Lionsgate (Again, REALLY NOT TINY- CW).
But that is not what makes the movie great.
I have very little problems with the plot, and the writing. It
was already tempered to perfection by Suzanne Collins. Although
strange enough, the writing certainly contributes to it, it
is not the thing that sets this film aside from all the rest.
I have very little problems with the plot, and the writing. It
was already tempered to perfection by Suzanne Collins. Although
strange enough, the writing certainly contributes to it, it
is not the thing that sets this film aside from all the rest.
 |
| This is my third time captioning this movie. I've got nothing. |
It's the directing. Novels typically paint a clear image in your
head of what a character goes through. You can see the trees, smell
the air, hear the birds. Most book movies lean more towards the 3rd
person approach, with the audience being outsiders looking in.
Although The Hunger Games does have 3rd Person elements in it, it
leans more towards the 1st person. And it pays off. The camera is
tossed around to simulate Katniss running through the woods, or
nervously glancing at her assembled fellow District 12ers. You hear
and only see as much Hovercraft as Katniss does (no birds eye views).
They even edit in the ringing of her eardrums when they get blown out
and her hallucination (or did they just make a Youtube Poop?).
And it works. So well. The directing makes The Hunger Games
personal. You don't feel like these characters are just some made up
bullcrap you read in a book, but living, breathing people. It's a new
kind of approach to book movies, try to include every possible detail
present in the book, and for the most part, no more (though people's
reactions to The Hunger Games was a good touch). And when you have a
controversial, golden story to go by, all the better.
head of what a character goes through. You can see the trees, smell
the air, hear the birds. Most book movies lean more towards the 3rd
person approach, with the audience being outsiders looking in.
Although The Hunger Games does have 3rd Person elements in it, it
leans more towards the 1st person. And it pays off. The camera is
tossed around to simulate Katniss running through the woods, or
nervously glancing at her assembled fellow District 12ers. You hear
and only see as much Hovercraft as Katniss does (no birds eye views).
They even edit in the ringing of her eardrums when they get blown out
and her hallucination (or did they just make a Youtube Poop?).
And it works. So well. The directing makes The Hunger Games
personal. You don't feel like these characters are just some made up
bullcrap you read in a book, but living, breathing people. It's a new
kind of approach to book movies, try to include every possible detail
present in the book, and for the most part, no more (though people's
reactions to The Hunger Games was a good touch). And when you have a
controversial, golden story to go by, all the better.
The Hunger Games gets 6 stars out of 6
No comments:
Post a Comment