Hungry? Why Wait?

Rating: 8/10 (27 December 2012)

When a friend mentioned to me a trilogy of novels that she'd recently gotten into—yes, Brittany, I'm talking about you!—I didn't know what to think. These books (the first of which is titled The Hunger Games) were an odd mixture of teen romance, brutal gladiator-style death match, and satire of the widening gap that separates those of us who are wringing as much out of every paycheck as we can with those who own toilets made out of solid gold. Okay, so that's an exaggeration, but I quickly discovered something about these novels that seemed to appear out of nowhere and take popular culture by storm: they're great.
I mean that. Even though I might have a quibble with a plot point here and some piece of character development there, The Hunger Games series as an intelligent—and often stark—exploration of the reality TV culture that defines our society.
Fast forward two (or so) years. It was inevitable that the books would be turned into movies, and the world held its breath as news of controversial casting choices and what appeared to be questionable alterations to the fabric of the source material surfaced. And here we are: the movie has been released, the dust has settled, and we've been given the opportunity to lay our eyes upon the finished product. And guess what. It's great.
For director Gary Ross and everyone else involved, they were working with a story so crisp—so inherently engaging—that the whole thing seemed to be a paint-by-numbers affair. If they could stick to the narrative and add in a little directorial flair when the occasion called for it, everything would be just hunky dory.
For better or worse, that's exactly what they've done. Some people might complain about the implementation of the "shaky cam" technique employed for the full duration of the two and half hour film, but I found that it to add to the sense of dread that's expertly built from the very first scene. When we're introduced to the twisted world inhabited by the evil Capitol and the corresponding Districts (who exist only to provide said Capitol with resources to keep it going), it's clear that The Hunger Games is a good old-fashioned David-versus-Goliath death match with clear lines drawn between the good guys and the bad.
And the conflict proceeds just as it should. It's a fast-paced, gladiator style bloodbath that keeps its audience coiled in their seats. Even if you've read the novels you're still waiting for some of the marquis moments from the story to unfold just as you'd imagine them (and, familiarity or not, most of them turn out to be just as shocking as the first time you re-read the same paragraph over and over to try and process what you've just seen was actually taking place).
Success though it is, The Hunger Games isn't flawless. For my taste, Haymitch isn't portrayed as the binge drinker that I'd envisioned (he's an alcoholic, sure, but he seems a little too I don't know "with it"), and a few scenes seem to have scaled back for the sake of keep the runtime reasonable. Of particular note is Katniss' introduction in the Capitol; the grandiose spectacle described in the book turns out to be little more than a fleeting "hurrah." The final moments in the arena also feel somewhat rushed.
Still, there's emotional gravity to spare, and even the stoniest heart will find him/herself practicing the three-finger salute on the way home from the theater.
The future of the franchise seems to be in good hands, and I'm primed and ready for Catching Fire to be developed. If The Hunger Games is any indication, it'll be one of the great sci-fi/action sequels to come along in the last few years.