The most charismatic mainstream film in a long time

Rating: 8/10 (6 November 2013)

In the run-up to "Catching Fire", I realised it was about time to finally knuckle under, and watch the first "Hunger Games" movie, which I've been previously put off because it looked like a bunch of whiny teenagers running around a forest killing each other, and a society of very camp people in ridiculous clothes watching. Well, to be fair, it kind of...is. It's also probably the most human "blockbuster" film of the last twenty five years, defying narrative obscurity, massive CGI set-pieces, smarmy heroes, and people posing about trying to look "dark" and "cool". "The Hunger Games" is small-scale, intensely personal, and well-crafted. So why does everyone like it then, in this age of over-kill? I honestly don't know, because it's not at all your average blockbuster.
All this said, there's no denying that there really isn't anyone in the cast who, pardon the pun, really sets the screen on fire. Most of the cast are acceptable enough (Jennifer Lawrence, Hutcherson, Hemsworth, BAnks, Tucci, etc) with only a few duffers. (Kravitz, Ludwig)The main thing is, though, there's a strong story at work here, and Lawrence's rather opaque performance as Katniss Everdeen shows depth in places, which hopefully will be exploited in future movies. She's a good heroine for this film, don't get me wrong. She's just nothing special as an actress.
Director Gary Ross has excelled himself here, with a very subtle film. The action scenes have been intentionally filmed in a very realistic, low-key fashion, where things aren't glorified, or "stagey" in any way. In a film about a world which glorifies killing, this is a very wise choice, and adds immensely to the threat. For once, the threat has been calculated very simply, with the assumption that less is more, and the minimalistic sense of danger is more powerful than any one of countless CGI-driven action movies out there, because the threat, to, is human. It's "Lord of the Flies", meets "First Blood". It may all be set in the future, amidst elaborate trappings, but what it boils right down to, is a very dark tale about survival.
It's relevance to contemporary society cannot fail to be missed. How long before we're watching things like this? How long before our society will be taken over by camp, garish people like this? It isn't glorified in any way, and the implications are all very explicit. It's a sugar-coated critique, and, like the best dystopian fiction, it is done in a very extrovert fashion, to make the point all the clearer. It isn't a complex film, like say "The Dark Knight", but what it is, is an intelligent film, with more balls in it than any dozen other big budget "epics". It never loses sight of its' human characters, as shallow as they may be. The plight focuses on concerns so simplistic, that we don't need hours of moping about and soap-opera. It's about kill or be killed. That's all you need. And the drama remains poignant and undiluted. People fall, and we see their leg bloody and wounded. For once, we're not treated to computer-game like visuals. These are real people here. We feel their pain. Nothing is over-done. It's a film about simplicity, and, unlike every other "dark" film out there, is actually grounded in the laws of reality, however romanticised the story itself may be.
Along these lines, is James Newton Howard's score, very stripped back and poignant, and yet, it isn't in any way intrusive, hence allowing for the retention of the atmosphere of reality. Rarely has a major film been so unashamed to fly in the face of cinematic tropes. The action, of course, is limited, and you're more likely to be surprised than excited by this film, because of its' stylistic bravery.
The only thing, which IS especially modern, is that there is that creeping "sequel" mentality. There's a feeling of restraint to the sub-plots, especially Donald Sutherland's President Snow, who looms intimidatingly, promising great things, but doesn't get a chance to do anything. Similarly, the political unrest in the districts is glimpsed briefly, and the ending hints strongly at the events of the next "chapter" in the saga. For any film, even if the sequels are already in production, the story should have a beginning, middle and end. It should be self-contained, and not rely upon the fact that we're going to see the next film. Because it's thinking like that which stops second films from being made. As it is, "Catching Fire" looks set to be incredible, probably better than this, with more political intrigue now that we've got all the introductory work out of the way. The only sad thing is, no Gary Ross for the sequel. Regardless, though, this is a solid action/thriller, which stylistically feels like a grittier, more honest seventies movie, but one which has a profound relevance for contemporary society. Entertaining, and with more charisma than you'd ever imagine.