the hunger games: movie review

I said it was probably coming. After all, how could I *not* review this movie...:)

So, here it goes...

THE HUNGER GAMES

based on the book "The Hunger Games" by Suzanne Collins

The movie stays pretty close to the book, so I'm not gonna summarize it (you can read my other review summary). With a couple minor differences, and a couple deleted characters, and a couple tweaked situations, they still managed to satisfy fans of "The Hunger Games", which is pretty amazing, if you think about it.

There are a couple actors/actresses that really *really* amazed me in their portrayal of their characters, and a couple that fell flat for me. Let me show you...

I was totally impressed with...

GALE. I've always been a big Gale fan, so I was thrilled to have some one play him who actually does an awesome job. Gale doesn't really have that much of a part in book 1 of the trilogy...but when he did act, he did awesome. He's not exactly what I imagined Gale like...he's even better. :D 'Cause for some reason, characters that I imagine never completely take form until I can see an actual picture.

HAYMITCH. Kind of surprisingly, actually. When I first saw a picture of this character, you could say I was shocked. That was *not* what I imagined Haymitch to look like. I guess I thought he'd be huge, old, and bald. But now that I've gotten used to it, I can see that Woody Harrelson is actually *perfect*. And, in the movie he provides some comic relief (which is nice), along with another awesome character...

EFFIE! (you almost have to exclaim her name) She was awesome. The clips that I had seen with her were a little strange, so I was skeptical. I guess she just seemed a little young, a little too tame, and just...weird. But, her prissy Capitol notions are hilarious in the movie. And once pass the reaping, she little comments in different situations are just so cute. Like after Katniss pushes Peeta down she looks at her and just say "Manners!". :) Elizabeth Banks is a lot better than I thought she'd be as little Effie Trinket...

SENECA. So he's not in the first book. But I think it was smart to put him in, 'cause it gives people someone else to look forward too, plus he's supposed to be the Head Gamemaker anyway. The beard was *awesome*. And the character was too. I mean, he was a total Capitol guy...but then near the end you could tell that for him, the games weren't completely about killing off kids. And y'all know where that got him...

CATO. Big, strong, awful, vicious Cato. Wow. He was absolutely perfect. First of all, he's huge...like seriously, he's gotta be the biggest guy in the film. And his facial expressions are just totally perfect for someone as blood-thirsty as Cato. With blood all over his face, he's even creepier. Alexander Ludwig, who would not have been a perfect Peeta (he did audition for that part), is absolutely horrifyingly perfect as Cato...

So those are some of the characters I was most impressed with. Along with them came Rue, Clove, and Prim. They were pretty awesome too...

But then there were those who I didn't care for too much...unfortunately, including Peeta. Maybe it's just that I've always preferred Gale, but not only does Josh Hutcherson not do Peeta justice, he also doesn't look him. That'll probably forever bother me. :D

But...as for content. It was pretty impressive. The Capitol was amazing, and the Seam was great too. The Games were awfully short...and the tributes weren't developed well because of that. Of course, in the book they weren't either...but I guess when Katniss is narrating everything, you get a little more thinking about the tributes...

For stuff to watch out for:

Since it's a sorta violent book, there definitely is some violence here too. Blood splattering, ugly wounds, and that gruesome tracker jacker scene. If you remember the book, you'll know Glimmer got distorted. But the movie will give 'distorted' a whole new meaning...pretty gross.

There's only 1 true kiss. But it's a pretty long one. But then, the book has way more...(betcha some people are disappointed)...

And then, this is sorta a con, the cinematographer was...kinda crazy. The weird angles sometimes made it hard to know what was going on. Or they just made your eyes go weird.

So it wasn't an exact replica of the book, definitely. Everything was kinda compacted together (what else to do you do in a movie??) to take as little time as possible. And you can't really see someone getting dehydrated. But they did an awesome job with what they had.

Definitely a movie I would recommend you go see...but ONLY IF YOU'VE READ THE BOOK. :D

I give it ***** out of ***** stars. :)

P. S. If you *haven't* read the book, and you go see the movie anyway, just FYI, don't start Catching Fire when you get home. Read The Hunger Games first...or you won't know what's going on in the next book.)