Photo: http://screenrant.com/
By Amanda Ack, Film Critic
Photo: Amanda Ack
One thing can be said of The Hunger Games: it is nothing if not relevant, considering contemporary society’s obsession with reality television.
Unfortunately, while the film dabbles in several weighty topics—oppressive government, classism, the role of schadenfreude in popular entertainment—it never actually says anything particularly new or interesting about them. What we’re left with is a piece of derivative fluff that fails to live up to the hype.
The film centers on Katniss, a 16-year-old citizen of the nation of Panem (which was once America, apparently. We are not made privy to exactly how Panem came to be).
As a result of some truly rotten luck, Katniss must participate in the Hunger Games, a yearly event in which 24 adolescents are forced to fight each other to the death. It’s basically Big Brother with mortal combat, and only one person comes out alive—or so we think.
But let’s not spoil the ending. As the story’s heroine, Jennifer Lawrence displays the requisite amount of grit, though she’s not a particularly powerful screen presence. Josh Hutcherson as “Peeta,” the token love interest, fares a wee bit better. He’s nothing if not likeable and has enough aesthetic appeal to almost make up for the fact that he doesn’t look remotely physically capable of the tasks demanded of the character.
As for the supporting cast, it’s largely wasted on cheap caricature. Everyone’s essentially playing a larger version of a familiar character: Stanley Tucci as the sympathetic slimeball, Woody Harrelson as the lovable drunk, Donald Sutherland as the mustache-twirling dictator.
Perhaps the most criminally underused of the bunch is Elizabeth Banks as “Effie Trinket,” who does nothing but mince about in absurd costumes that could best be described as Dior couture on acid. Wacky costumes aside, everyone is reasonably entertaining—after all, these are veteran character actors—but no one has enough to do.
All in all, The Hunger Games is blandly diverting and inoffensive, which is its largest problem. Its dystopian images may be shocking in the moment, but they’re nothing we haven’t seen before. The film is nothing more than diluted Orwell for the Twilight set—unimaginative, uninteresting, and unimportant.
I’d rather read 1984.
Leave a Reply