Film Review: The Hunger Games

Certificate: 12A (intense violent thematic material and disturbing images - all involving teens)
Directed By: Gary Ross
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Sam Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks, Wes Bentley, Stanley Tucci, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Toby Jones
Budget: $78 million
Runtime: 142 minutes
Trailer: Watch

The Hunger Games is an adaptation of the three-part fictional series penned by Suzanne Collins, set in a post-apocalyptic world where two children chosen are from each of the twelve districts are forced by the state to compete in a battle to the death. When young Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) volunteers herself as District Twelve's representative in place of her sister at the annual Hunger Games, she embarks on a rigorous training programme with a drunken tutor (Harrelson) in the slim hope coming out the brutal contest as the sole survivor. All cheery stuff then.

Collins' work has often been compared to author Koushun Takami's novel Battle Royale (also adapted to film by Kinji Fukasaku), in fact resembling the concept so strongly that The Hunger Games has invited criticisms of being a direct copy of it. Certainly, despite Collins' adamance that she had never heard of the Japanese cult classic before writing, the conceptual similarities are undeniable. Indeed, the ideas and themes aren't new, inviting comparisons to earlier fictional works such as William Golding's Lord of the Flies or Stephen King's The Running Man. Indeed, this isn't an original piece by any stretch of the imagination.

The premise can be a little difficult to swallow. We are told that there was a big war where afterward as you do, people decided to hold barbaric sacrificial games in order to ensure it doesn't happen again. Riiighhht. There's no real purpose to it, no real justification save some twaddle about remembering this unexplained cataclysmic event (oh the irony), other than it for whatever reason satiates the sadistic apetites of Panem's elites (the fractured nation which rose from the ashes of the former USA). Annoyingly, The Hunger Games never explains how its scenario came to be other than suggesting this past 'event' somehow manifested into a dystopian society where children are forced to kill one another. Such a desultory leap in logic creates an air of incredulity, further compounded by the fact that this supposed future seems to have done away with even most basic of household conveniences and postmodern norms. Such an 'intellectual quandary' only serves to beg for answers as to why. Yes, one might argue that this sort of thing shouldn't be considered in a coming of age teen-series based on a pubescent girl thrust into a death match, but such misnomers make the whole plot feel bitty.

When events do finally take to the battlefield, an enclosed forest space teeming with all sorts of weaponry and genetically modified nasties resembling Zool's hellhounds from Ghostbusters, The Hunger Games instigates an annoying habit of flip-flopping its narrative which one can only assume was intended to be dramatic. Alliances between combatants are forged, and changed, then changed again as the games' inflexible rule of only one being able to survive supposedly creates false pretences among the competitors' motivations. This is largely illustrated through Peeta (Hutcherson), the fellow citizen from District Twelve lucky enough to win the Hunger Games lottery. But rather than create a satiating mystery to our protagonist's inclinations, the constant dithering and failure to take a firm line with any story arc becomes frustrating.

If you're looking for something more meaningful here, one could point to a poignant parallel with today's 99% in the impoverished districts of Panem and the 1% living in the lavish Capitol. In a throwback to something resembling Louis XIV's court, an aristocratic Europe with computers, The Hunger Games dwells mercilessly on the privileged's enslavement of the wider populace dwelling in the twelve districts. It certainly invites some evocative comparisons to today, and actually paints a somewhat disquieting picture on the hopelessness of the average human being in its dreary divide of circumscribed citizens and their opulent oppressors. Ironically perhaps though is how The Hunger Games actually conforms to the empty spectacles designed to distract those dissatisfied with our current situation. It's very easy to become seduced by the notion that this film is actually a much deeper commentary on things like violence, inequality, feminism and an effete media elite. The reality however is that it doesn't actually have much to say on any of these issues, merely raising them in some sort of populist appeal without adding any substance.

Regardless of unoriginality, this is still a very well filmed piece of work. The Hunger Games neatly conveys the idea of gory teen violence with smoke and mirrors, carefully disguising brutality as a suggestion rather than something outright visual. Indeed, all the gore and sex in the books have been cleverly, if not impressively toned down here. Much of the kids bludgeoning each other over the head with bricks is alluded to rather than the actual observable crunch into bone while any sexuality is all but censored. Not that the fate of any of their characters seem to matter much anyway. A lot about The Hunger Games feels perfunctory where, particularly in the case of Woody Harrelson's Haymitch, set up as one of the most interesting characters, is horribly underused. You will find yourself caring little for their journey's or wrench at their inevitable fates. This is true even of Katniss, a seemingly blank sheet who elicits very little in way of personality. Yes, she might be overawed by events, or maybe an example of how girls can also be stoic, but good god girl show us something other than the fact you can use a bow and arrow.

For all its wheezing and allusions to something deeper, you can't help but feel that The Hunger Games amounts to nothing more than a spectacle. It merely toys with grittiness, avoids real brutality when it comes down to it, and never really pushes the boundaries of any issues or themes it raises. The fact that it goes on for two hours and twenty-two minutes like this can also be tedious. Following in the footsteps of Harry Potter and Twilight, it remains to be seen if it will reach the same dizzying heights, although the odds probably aren't in its favour.

Film Review: X-Men: First Class

Like much of its catalogue, Marvel's X-Men is a flagging franchise whereby its last outing, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, appeared to put the proverbial nail in the coffin. The latest rendition however in the form of X-Men: First Class provides a surprisingly refreshing reboot as Marvel looks to give the series the same defibrillation treatment as her other offspring.

First Class is an origins story beginning in the atomic age of the 1960s. Sebastian Shaw (Bacon), a former Nazi geneticist, has a twisted vision of a glorious future where mutants rule the Earth. In order for his dream to be realized however he must first eradicate its current occupants, humans. As Shaw seeks to manipulate the Cold War climate toward nuclear armageddon, it is down to a young genetics expert, Charles Xavier (McAvoy), and Shaw's former test subject, Erik Lehnsherr (Fassbender), to form a crack-group of mutants who can stop him.

Firstly, First Class is an absurd piece of alternative history. One could sit and anally pick at how the SR-71 'Blackbird' aircraft used in the film cannot hover and that its first maiden flight was in 1964, not 1962 as the film suggests. But it is more the glaring gaps pertaining to the plot which really require one to suspend belief. For example, how and why is there a blue mutant child in Charles Xavier's pantry, of all places? Likewise, the attempt to offer a rationale behind Magneto's silly hat only raises more questions than it answers. If muggle Russians made one for Shaw to prevent telepathic mind-reading, then why doesn't every non-X person have one? Further, does Beast really believe his special syrum will work to cure his deformity and allow him to keep his powers, even if said powers hinge on his deformity? Yes, there are massive logic loops, and yes, it is pretty dippy in places, but fortunately First Class is good enough to get away with it.

More pertinent than its historical accuracy and other curiosities is the tale at heart; how the X-Men came to be. Naturally then, the most interesting mechanic at play is the character development of Charles and Erik. Charles will probably raise the most eyebrows, with McAvoy playing a role somewhat removed from the humble qualities embodied in Patrick Stewart's Professor X. Yes, Xavier is still super-intelligent, but he is also a cocky little shit constantly chasing skirt. The true brilliance in McAvoy's performance however are the little flickers he gives of the person Charles later becomes. Erik's story is more straightforward, but equally fulfilling as we are introduced to his origins at the infamous Auschwitz concentration camp. Fassbender captures a certain pathos, manifested in his rage against Shaw as he takes to hunting Nazis in a very Ian Fleming's Bond sort of way. His journey follows a logical progression in that his experiences at the hands of the Nazis elucidate the incompatibility of his and Charles' world views, ultimately providing a satisfactory explanation to the pair's eventual split.

Unfortunately however First Class stutters and loses a bit of its narrative drive during the second act after Xavier assembles his mutant team. At one point Shaw offers Charles' 'X-Men' (and women) a chance to join him, but it isn't quite clear why some make the decisions they do. This is due to a lack of character development for the 'lesser' participants, compounded by both the film's reliance on plot and the casting of too many characters. Because First Class is so heavy on pushing the plot forward, most characters and themes become lost in one-dimensional cheese. Token moments such as the "let's all have codenames!" and Mystique and Beast's 'character' arcs of 'mutants who just want to be normal' almost ruin it.

One redeeming quality is First Class' many comic moments. Notably, one of the best is when a special cameo growls at Charles and Erik to go fuck themselves. But it is Xavier who gets the last laugh right at the end with a cheeky quip about hair loss. Likewise, whether intended or not, some of the location headers that pop-up are simply inspired; 'Super Top Secret CIA Base' or 'Russian Country Retreat' being personal favourites. Nerds might also smirk at the appearance of half the actors from the Command & Conquer games, Ray Wise again reprising his role as a smarmy politician and Michael Ironside as a grizzled military commander. Indeed, there's a lot to enjoy and First Class' humour doesn't detract from a film that otherwise takes itself pretty seriously.

While First Class isn't, well, first class, you'll still find enjoyment here. Yes, it has its problems; chaotic, poorly thought out in places and even a bit over-long. But it does just enough to make itself a perfectly watchable, if not bizarre take on the Cuban Missile Crisis. Above all it offers hope for the future of the franchise.