If I were to review the movie in a word, it would simply be "sell-out"; selling the soul of the book just to reach a wider audience.
Even before I went to see the movie, I knew the screenwriter's job for this movie is going to be difficult. With the whole movie as first person account of Katniss, it won't be easy to convey her emotions and feelings without making most of the movie a background narration of her thoughts. Yet, the movie surprised me at a more fundamental level. How can the screenwriter ignore the very first word in the title of the book: Hunger. How did the director accept the screenplay in which no one ever goes hungry or thirsty in the arena? For someone who has read the book, the needless pain and suffering that the tributes endure is central theme of the book. The movie decided to chuck that all out, dumbing it down to a glorified reality show. Even at that, they did a poor job of not even taking 5 minutes to show "Why Hunger Games". All they offered was a written paragraph preceding the movie and a short movie on the history of Panem. Right from the word go, it looked like a lazy attempt at screenplay because they were not competent to recap the background.
The casting of the movie was also a disaster. Except for Katniss, Effie, Senaca, and President Snow, everyone seemed out of place. It was hardly believable to see people with well built bodies, perfect hair and skin when they are supposed to come from a food-deprived district. No wait, the audience would believe it because the movie didn't even take time to explain the poverty and hunger in the districts. Movies sometimes take liberties from the book to make it more compelling and consistent. An example here would be the story of how Katniss got the Mockingjay pin. But what was surprising is that they even decided to change what the blast did to Katniss' ear. How are they going to explain her hearing the force field in the second movie? More screenplay liberties, I guess. I wanted to rip my hair off when they decided to dumb down on the emotional connection Katniss established with Rue, when they decided to skip the emotional conflict in Katniss and Peeta's mind on their fake love, the dumbed down signaling between Haymitch and Katniss. Yet, the movie wastes time visiting twice the story of Peeta in is young days having crush on Katniss and still unable to explain the whole burnt bread saga, the emotional Katniss when she sees the dress she has to wear for the reaping without any background to its significance, and so on.
Sure the movie will now be more popular because most people don't care to read the book and they won't understand all the levels the movie fails to deliver. And when they won't understand, it will probably be attributed to mysticism rather than incompetence.
Even before I went to see the movie, I knew the screenwriter's job for this movie is going to be difficult. With the whole movie as first person account of Katniss, it won't be easy to convey her emotions and feelings without making most of the movie a background narration of her thoughts. Yet, the movie surprised me at a more fundamental level. How can the screenwriter ignore the very first word in the title of the book: Hunger. How did the director accept the screenplay in which no one ever goes hungry or thirsty in the arena? For someone who has read the book, the needless pain and suffering that the tributes endure is central theme of the book. The movie decided to chuck that all out, dumbing it down to a glorified reality show. Even at that, they did a poor job of not even taking 5 minutes to show "Why Hunger Games". All they offered was a written paragraph preceding the movie and a short movie on the history of Panem. Right from the word go, it looked like a lazy attempt at screenplay because they were not competent to recap the background.
The casting of the movie was also a disaster. Except for Katniss, Effie, Senaca, and President Snow, everyone seemed out of place. It was hardly believable to see people with well built bodies, perfect hair and skin when they are supposed to come from a food-deprived district. No wait, the audience would believe it because the movie didn't even take time to explain the poverty and hunger in the districts. Movies sometimes take liberties from the book to make it more compelling and consistent. An example here would be the story of how Katniss got the Mockingjay pin. But what was surprising is that they even decided to change what the blast did to Katniss' ear. How are they going to explain her hearing the force field in the second movie? More screenplay liberties, I guess. I wanted to rip my hair off when they decided to dumb down on the emotional connection Katniss established with Rue, when they decided to skip the emotional conflict in Katniss and Peeta's mind on their fake love, the dumbed down signaling between Haymitch and Katniss. Yet, the movie wastes time visiting twice the story of Peeta in is young days having crush on Katniss and still unable to explain the whole burnt bread saga, the emotional Katniss when she sees the dress she has to wear for the reaping without any background to its significance, and so on.
Sure the movie will now be more popular because most people don't care to read the book and they won't understand all the levels the movie fails to deliver. And when they won't understand, it will probably be attributed to mysticism rather than incompetence.
Tell Your Friends