25 mar 2012

we went to see hunger games movie last night. i thought it was a good movie.

first - i read the books and found the movie to be fairly true to the book. not that you have to stick to the book in a movie. i found myself thinking at one point, "but that's not what really happened." and remembered that the reality i was comparing the movie to is a fictional book. so... what's correct in the world of fiction? there was a book adaptation and a movie adaptation of a story born in suzanne collins's brain. there is no "right way" with that. so, it was funny to be thinking "that's not right". but, anyway, the movie was pretty true to the book. there were a few little differences but from what i can tell the they were to condense things. can't fit the entire book into a movie.

second - i am not sure you could understand the movie if you had not read the book. the guy i saw the movie with said he got it, and okay, it's a fairly simple plotline, but there were a ton of nuances. maybe that's how it always is with a movie that's based on a book -- you can get the main point, but you miss all the little stuff.

third - the casting was in most cases superb. lenny kravitz as cinna was spot on casting, although i would have wanted to see more of his character. i had my doubts about woody harrelson as haymitch, but he was magnificent. jennifer lawrence made a very good katniss. i don't think i'd seen her in anything, but she pretty much fit the bill of how i had imagined katniss.

fourth - the directing was maybe a bit uneven. i know that katniss is mostly subdued and holds herself inside, and that the times that she comes out of her shell, she's uncomfortable, and it's not that that wasn't portrayed accurately, but... it was... oh, i don't know. just not well done, okay?

fifth - the cinematography was at times a stunning distraction. i am so NOT a fan of the handheld camera. i get that it's supposed to mimic the natural movements of one's head, but it's someone else's hand and someone else's head. it has the effect of making the camerawork noticeable, and the whole point is that the camera should not be noticeable.

sixth - this is not about the movie. the three books would have been better as one book. the second book was pretty much extraneous and the third could have been condensed to four or five chapters and tagged onto the first. the potential here is for a complete dystopian morality tale in one volume. so so so much more portable into the future. lord of the flies, brave new world, 1984, and you know, so on and so forth - all in one volume. not only more physically suited to be a classic, but more condensed and well-edited, it would have been a better book as one book.

that's all i have here. have you seen it? read it? both? neither?