The Hunger Games
トーク情報- riidoroma
riidoroma After I finished watching "The Hunger Games" it remained a profound mystery to me how such a mediocre movie could possibly have received so warm welcome from public and critics alike. That was something so surprising, so puzzling, and - let us face it – so annoying, that I decided to use the elimination technique to find out what exactly had made "The Hunger Games" so attractive to such a diverse audience.
- riidoroma
riidoroma It could not have possibly been the story – poorly written, shallow and strikingly unentertaining. While I have not read the book that served the basis for the movie, I am almost certain that the original story written by Suzanne Collins lost most of its depth, intrigue, and punch in the process of being adapted for the big screen.
- riidoroma
riidoroma Specifically, the movie begins with the boring, barely watchable cliché that drags for quite some time until the main characters finally leave the coal-mining District 12 on the train that takes them the Capitol where the 74th Hunger Games take place. The travel on the train and the preparation for the games are a little livelier, mostly because of the excellent diverse set of the vivid supporting characters played by the battle-hardened, experienced acting crew (Stanley Tucci, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Toby Jones) fittingly joined by Elizabeth Banks, Wes Bentley, and Lenny Kravitz.
- riidoroma
riidoroma The games themselves are suspenseful and engaging enough, but also a little dull, far from mind blowing. I am not even talking about such an extravagant luxury as character development: following the regrettable pattern from the preceding parts of the movie, the game scenes fail to demonstrate anything even remotely original or even slightly thought provoking.