The box office success does not make "The Hunger Games" less disappointing

Rating: 5/10 (13 April 2012)

After I finished watching "The Hunger Games", it remained a profound mystery to me how such a mediocre movie could possibly have received so warm welcome from public and critics alike. That was something so surprising, so puzzling, and - let us face it – so annoying, that I decided to use the elimination technique to find out what exactly had made "The Hunger Games" so attractive to such a diverse audience.
It could not have possibly been the story – poorly written, shallow and strikingly unentertaining. While I have not read the book that served the basis for the movie, I am almost certain that the original story written by Suzanne Collins lost most of its depth, intrigue, and punch in the process of being adapted for the big screen.
As Samuel Goldwyn famously said, "We want a story that starts out with an earthquake and works its way up to a climax." "The Hunger Games" employs the opposite strategy - it starts quite lethargically and ends quite anticlimactically.
Specifically, the movie begins with the boring, barely watchable cliché that drags for quite some time until the main characters finally leave the coal-mining District 12 on the train that takes them the Capitol where the 74th Hunger Games take place. The travel on the train and the preparation for the games are a little livelier, mostly because of the excellent diverse set of the vivid supporting characters played by the battle-hardened, experienced acting crew (Stanley Tucci, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Toby Jones) fittingly joined by Elizabeth Banks, Wes Bentley, and Lenny Kravitz.
The games themselves are suspenseful and engaging enough, but also a little dull, far from mind blowing. I am not even talking about such an extravagant luxury as character development: following the regrettable pattern from the preceding parts of the movie, the game scenes fail to demonstrate anything even remotely original or even slightly thought provoking.
The ending is almost unprofessionally weak and disappointing, especially taking into account that "The Hunger Games" is expected to have sequels. Not only there are no cliffhangers that would keep us wondering and almost no hints that would keep us intrigued, but there is also even no sense of completeness of the piece; the abrupt ending creates an impression of a semi-finished, half-done job.
If not the story, what could have possibly made "The Hunger Games" so dear to the hearts of the millions of the moviegoers? I doubt that it was special or visual effects, that happened to be mostly basic and unimaginative. If you do not believe me, simply try watching a movie with truly well done special effects ("The Lord of The Rings", "Pirates of the Caribbean", "Inception", "Avatar", or even "Hugo") and then compare it with the undistinguished, unoriginal averageness of the effects in "The Hunger Games".
The directing, only slightly better than average, can easily be eliminated from list of the features that make the movie worth watching. It is not surprising therefore, that Gary Ross would not be directing the sequel of "The Hunger Games".
The acting on the other hand was mostly solid and convincing, although the poorly written story and dialogues did not leave the actors much room to express their talents. It was almost painful to watch the excellent performance of Jennifer Lawrence wasted on such an unworthy of her talent movie.
On the technical side, camera work and editing were quite unimpressive to say the least. Sometimes they were simply horrible. More than on one occasion the incessant wobbling of the camera combined with the frequent image flickering was physically painful to the eyes. At times, the picture on the screen was changing so rapidly that it made some scenes (including the final fight) hard to follow and almost confusing.
And yet, what is the secret of the popularity of "The Hunger Games"?
I think that the answer is simple and complicated at the same time. Of course, we should not write off the popularity of the book, the exceptionally well-done trailer, and the skillful and highly effective marketing campaign.
The main reason, however, seems to be that the movie tells a basic, convenient, easily digestible story, preying on the unfortunate misconceptions, toxic stereotypes, naïve illusions, and hidden desires that rack the fragile souls of the teenagers, young adults, and even older and supposedly wiser generations of moviegoers.
Sadly, instead of stimulating independent thinking, so important for teenagers and young adults, "The Hunger Games" readily conforms to their stereotypical expectations and eagerly indulges their primitive fantasies.
That is what happens when authors too literally follow the famous (faulty) principle declared long time ago by Samuel Goldwyn: "Pictures are for entertainment, messages should be delivered by Western Union."
knowyourmovie.blogspot.com