The Hunger Games - Film Review
Mar. 25th, 2012 07:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat[According to the news...The Hunger Games made a record breaking 155 million in its debut.
Also everyone wore hoodies today in support of the unarmed black teen who was killed in Florida by a white neighborhood watch volunteer.]
So, went and saw The Hunger Games after church today. The audience looked like the cast of The New Girl, Gossip Girl and Vamp Diaries...basically all 20-30 something couples. Few little girls. And a lot of men. It's not a Twilight audience, more reminiscent of Harry Potter, actually. And The Hunger Games...is in some respects more haunting than Harry Potter. It's not as nice a film or as comforting. I used to call Harry Potter my comfort books, I would not say that about the Hunger Games.
The audience was quiet though and not a lot of text messaging. Also, very crowded. Reminding me of why I don't like movie theaters. There's no leg room in them. Also you have to wait in line for the bathroom.
Prior to the film listened to an absurd exchange:
Gal: Whose your favorite character? Mine's Peeta.
Guy: Well...while I read the books, about halfway through the reading, my brain stops registering words and it just becomes a film inside my brain, so I can't remember the names and they get reduced to three syllable words if that.
Gal: That's interesting...
Guy: So who is Peeta again?
(The rest was muddled).
The movie though was quite good, a lot better than expected. I always go in with low expectations - because films adapted from books that I enjoyed or loved often don't work or live up to expectations. The film in my head often doesn't match the film onscreen, although I'm not like the Guy above, I see the words. It's Not the music video I half-expected from the trailers and hyped-up soundtrack. There's no Taylor Swift ballad or a Rap number. There are no songs at all during the movie - outside of the one that Katniss sings. I'm guessing they role during the credits, which I did not stay for.
In some respects I prefer the film to the book - it's more compact, less meandering, and we get more focus on what is happening outside of Katniss. First person close pov can be ponderous at times. So, the satire comes through a bit more as a result of not being hampered by the first person close pov. The Hunger Games is also an example of how you can balance emotional and satirical elements without becoming offensive (to the very people you agree with) or muddled. Having seen others attempt to do the same thing...and either fail on the side of "over-kill" or are far too subtle/muddled ...the Hunger Games filmmakers hit just the right balance. (Joss Whedon and Ryan Murphy should take notes.)
The acting is pitch-perfect. Surprisingly so. Jennifer Lawrence is as good, if not better here, as she was in 2010's Winter's Bone - the film which garnered her an academy award nomination and won her the part. And Woody Harrelson plays Haymitch with the cynically sly edge of pained resignation coupled with rebellious calculation. They remove Haymitch's drunked antics at the reaping from the film - which is just as well since it would have extended the sequence and brought unnecessary humor to the proceedings. In the book it works - but in a film, most likely not. As for the two male leads, Josh Hutchinson has the edge...with more screen time, and manages to convey the charisma and the innocence of Peeta in the novels. The boy who falls in love with Katniss from afar, but can never quite win her. It's not really an unrequited love tale or a star-crossed lovers one. It's anti-violence, anti-reality show tale.
The filmmakers make the smart move of focusing on character, performance, and dialogue, over special effects, eliminating some of the more horrifying acts of the games. No mutated creatures that bear an uncanny resemblance of all the tributes who died - thank heavens. Not something I wanted to see on film, and if they had attempted it, would most definitely have pulled in a R-rating.
Throughout, I found myself thinking of several recent horror movie trailers that I watched last night - and appears to be shockingly similar in concept. People come to a wilderness park, and a bunch of unseen people in a computer lab orchestrate various types of horrifying obstacles to appear in the park for either entertainment or to see how they will react - like rats in a environmental dome. Agatha Christie's Ten Little Indians on Steroids. Also reminds me uncomfortably of courses that I took in behavioral and social psychology as well as the current reality show craze (which is basically social psychology done for entertainment). The threat isn't the creatures coming at you, those are just pawns or rather tools or toys of the Game-master, the true threat is the man behind the curtain creating them - a trick Frank L. Baum the creator of The Wizard of OZ came up with first - with his manipulatively sly Wizard.
The Hunger Games for those who have not read the novel is simple enough - it takes place in the distant future, in a United States that was ravaged by War and Civil Unrest. A centralized government has sprouted up at its center much like the centralized government in Whedon's Serenity and Firefly series. The centralized government, run by "President Snow", well played by a subdued and grandfatherly Donald Sutherland, who holds most of his conversations trimming his roses, keeps the 12 surrounding Districts, where it obtains its fuels and food and power in control through an annual intimidation tactic of taking two children from each district and entering them in The Hunger Games. The children will fight to the death in reality game show that bares a sly resemblance to Survivor, the far bloodier Battle Royal, and Stephen King's classic Running Man. Every portion of their lives in the games is telecast to a national audience. Complete with commentators explaining the challenges of the games, and giving a play-by-play of the action. But they don't stop with the Games, there's a "romantic" sub=plot that is equally sly and satiric, more so here than in the books - because we are distanced a bit more from it and less inside Katniss' head.
The love-triangle aspect is under-played here as it was in the books. For Katniss is as oblivious to the romantic intentions of either male as she was in the novels, her focus solely on her sister, Prim, who she is responsible for and their survival, along with the rest of their district. She plays up the romance - to save Peeta's life and her own - after Haymitch explains its necessity. But has little time or energy to focus on it. Her feelings for Gale are equally subdued, she cares about him, but her focus is solely on her sister Prim.
When it first came out, people compared it to Twilight, but it actually has more in common with Harry Potter. The romance is played like a reality show - such as the Bachelor or
Dancing with the Stars. All smiles and sunny looks. Katniss plays up the role of the "girly girl" who is so much in love - to keep herself and Peeta alive. But it is clear that she doesn't love him, she's doing everything possible to survive.
Much like the book it is based upon, the film demonstrates how violence destroys us. Kato towards the end of the film tells Katniss to kill him, that he's ready, that all he knows and is good for is to kill - to be the pride of his district, because he can kill. The proper solider. And he looks so much like Peeta, whose deepest fear is becoming Kato.
Even if you haven't read the books or avoided them, the film is worth seeing for its message is an important one. It holds a mirror up to our society, our values, shows what happens when taken to the extreme, and asks if we are willing to pay the price.
Also everyone wore hoodies today in support of the unarmed black teen who was killed in Florida by a white neighborhood watch volunteer.]
So, went and saw The Hunger Games after church today. The audience looked like the cast of The New Girl, Gossip Girl and Vamp Diaries...basically all 20-30 something couples. Few little girls. And a lot of men. It's not a Twilight audience, more reminiscent of Harry Potter, actually. And The Hunger Games...is in some respects more haunting than Harry Potter. It's not as nice a film or as comforting. I used to call Harry Potter my comfort books, I would not say that about the Hunger Games.
The audience was quiet though and not a lot of text messaging. Also, very crowded. Reminding me of why I don't like movie theaters. There's no leg room in them. Also you have to wait in line for the bathroom.
Prior to the film listened to an absurd exchange:
Gal: Whose your favorite character? Mine's Peeta.
Guy: Well...while I read the books, about halfway through the reading, my brain stops registering words and it just becomes a film inside my brain, so I can't remember the names and they get reduced to three syllable words if that.
Gal: That's interesting...
Guy: So who is Peeta again?
(The rest was muddled).
The movie though was quite good, a lot better than expected. I always go in with low expectations - because films adapted from books that I enjoyed or loved often don't work or live up to expectations. The film in my head often doesn't match the film onscreen, although I'm not like the Guy above, I see the words. It's Not the music video I half-expected from the trailers and hyped-up soundtrack. There's no Taylor Swift ballad or a Rap number. There are no songs at all during the movie - outside of the one that Katniss sings. I'm guessing they role during the credits, which I did not stay for.
In some respects I prefer the film to the book - it's more compact, less meandering, and we get more focus on what is happening outside of Katniss. First person close pov can be ponderous at times. So, the satire comes through a bit more as a result of not being hampered by the first person close pov. The Hunger Games is also an example of how you can balance emotional and satirical elements without becoming offensive (to the very people you agree with) or muddled. Having seen others attempt to do the same thing...and either fail on the side of "over-kill" or are far too subtle/muddled ...the Hunger Games filmmakers hit just the right balance. (Joss Whedon and Ryan Murphy should take notes.)
The acting is pitch-perfect. Surprisingly so. Jennifer Lawrence is as good, if not better here, as she was in 2010's Winter's Bone - the film which garnered her an academy award nomination and won her the part. And Woody Harrelson plays Haymitch with the cynically sly edge of pained resignation coupled with rebellious calculation. They remove Haymitch's drunked antics at the reaping from the film - which is just as well since it would have extended the sequence and brought unnecessary humor to the proceedings. In the book it works - but in a film, most likely not. As for the two male leads, Josh Hutchinson has the edge...with more screen time, and manages to convey the charisma and the innocence of Peeta in the novels. The boy who falls in love with Katniss from afar, but can never quite win her. It's not really an unrequited love tale or a star-crossed lovers one. It's anti-violence, anti-reality show tale.
The filmmakers make the smart move of focusing on character, performance, and dialogue, over special effects, eliminating some of the more horrifying acts of the games. No mutated creatures that bear an uncanny resemblance of all the tributes who died - thank heavens. Not something I wanted to see on film, and if they had attempted it, would most definitely have pulled in a R-rating.
Throughout, I found myself thinking of several recent horror movie trailers that I watched last night - and appears to be shockingly similar in concept. People come to a wilderness park, and a bunch of unseen people in a computer lab orchestrate various types of horrifying obstacles to appear in the park for either entertainment or to see how they will react - like rats in a environmental dome. Agatha Christie's Ten Little Indians on Steroids. Also reminds me uncomfortably of courses that I took in behavioral and social psychology as well as the current reality show craze (which is basically social psychology done for entertainment). The threat isn't the creatures coming at you, those are just pawns or rather tools or toys of the Game-master, the true threat is the man behind the curtain creating them - a trick Frank L. Baum the creator of The Wizard of OZ came up with first - with his manipulatively sly Wizard.
The Hunger Games for those who have not read the novel is simple enough - it takes place in the distant future, in a United States that was ravaged by War and Civil Unrest. A centralized government has sprouted up at its center much like the centralized government in Whedon's Serenity and Firefly series. The centralized government, run by "President Snow", well played by a subdued and grandfatherly Donald Sutherland, who holds most of his conversations trimming his roses, keeps the 12 surrounding Districts, where it obtains its fuels and food and power in control through an annual intimidation tactic of taking two children from each district and entering them in The Hunger Games. The children will fight to the death in reality game show that bares a sly resemblance to Survivor, the far bloodier Battle Royal, and Stephen King's classic Running Man. Every portion of their lives in the games is telecast to a national audience. Complete with commentators explaining the challenges of the games, and giving a play-by-play of the action. But they don't stop with the Games, there's a "romantic" sub=plot that is equally sly and satiric, more so here than in the books - because we are distanced a bit more from it and less inside Katniss' head.
The love-triangle aspect is under-played here as it was in the books. For Katniss is as oblivious to the romantic intentions of either male as she was in the novels, her focus solely on her sister, Prim, who she is responsible for and their survival, along with the rest of their district. She plays up the romance - to save Peeta's life and her own - after Haymitch explains its necessity. But has little time or energy to focus on it. Her feelings for Gale are equally subdued, she cares about him, but her focus is solely on her sister Prim.
When it first came out, people compared it to Twilight, but it actually has more in common with Harry Potter. The romance is played like a reality show - such as the Bachelor or
Dancing with the Stars. All smiles and sunny looks. Katniss plays up the role of the "girly girl" who is so much in love - to keep herself and Peeta alive. But it is clear that she doesn't love him, she's doing everything possible to survive.
Much like the book it is based upon, the film demonstrates how violence destroys us. Kato towards the end of the film tells Katniss to kill him, that he's ready, that all he knows and is good for is to kill - to be the pride of his district, because he can kill. The proper solider. And he looks so much like Peeta, whose deepest fear is becoming Kato.
Even if you haven't read the books or avoided them, the film is worth seeing for its message is an important one. It holds a mirror up to our society, our values, shows what happens when taken to the extreme, and asks if we are willing to pay the price.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 12:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 01:11 am (UTC)But, in some respects it worked better for me - because more tense and compact, and less meandering. Also they didn't hammer on points. Collins tends to hammer you a bit over the head, the film is leaner.
Plus it is very well cast, everyone works beautifully.
I cried in the film and didn't in the books. Also had a chill go down my spin in a few places...which didn't happen in the books. I think the reality show aspect fits film medium better than books - in books they tend to over-play it, here it's disturbingly realistic and packs more of an edge.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 01:16 am (UTC)I have a very dark image in my mind of the story. I see Kat's world as brutal and depersonalizing, with her struggling to assert herself against it. I don't care about the romance part of it much at all.
That doesn't mean I'd only like the film if it's that dark, but it's the way I interpreted the book.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 12:26 pm (UTC)The bright colors are the Capital and they are garish. Effie has a clownish garishness to her, that is both satirically amusing and horrifying at the same time.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 07:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 02:41 am (UTC)I'm really looking forward to the second film now! I know they haven't started to make it yet... but since this one is making record amounts of $ I'm pretty sure they'll start filming soon!
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 12:16 pm (UTC)So, yes, there's definitely another one.
And everyone's signed up for all three or four. They may split Mockinjay into two movies.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 12:58 pm (UTC)I wonder if the 2nd and 3rd books of the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo trilogy will also be divided into multiple films? They didn't set new box office records, but I'm sure they made enough $ to justify doing all three books (at least I hope so).
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 04:29 pm (UTC)In addition, while they have the actors signed on for all three, David Fincher, the director, has yet to committ to the project. And Fincher probably deserves 90% of the credit. And..it's a lot more expensive to make than the Hunger Games because of the A-list talent involved,
you have Fincher and Craig.
I think they plan on making all three - but there are problems.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 04:55 pm (UTC)But yeah, I'm not sure I would want to see more without Fincher, he created a real feeling of tension.... That movie still haunts me.
Hunger Games doesn't seem to haunt me, I wish it did.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 10:08 pm (UTC)On Girl? Well... Here's the post where I discuss GWDT along with Whedon and a La Femme Nikita and my issues, read at your own risk:
http://shadowkat67.livejournal.com/659259.html
There's actually an interesting conversation in the comments thread about how unrealistic and fantastical Larsonn's tale really was - from a Swedish perspective. [But I advise skimming over or skipping the stuff on Whedon and the comics..we are "highly" critical of both.]
This review of the Swedish film - is not critical of Whedon at all and probably safer to read, but I'm guessing less interesting.
http://shadowkat67.livejournal.com/661946.html
If you choose to read either? Keep in mind - I wrote them over ten months ago and can't remember most of it, and jumping down my throat or the commentators throats for something we wrote ten months ago isn't very productive. ;-) My tastes depend on which direction the wind is blowing.
Will state...that unfortunately for GWDT, I was nearing my saturation point on this particular trope and violent serial killer/mystery fiction in general. (I'd read back to back Storm of Swords, The Hunger Games, GWDT,
Ghost Story, and saw Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, GWDT, Nikita, The Wire, Fringe, and tried to read Feast of Crows...as well as re-read sections of Game of Thrones and Clash of Kings. As a result - I got burned out. Of the books and items I read? The only one's I clearly recall are Storm of Swords, The Hunger Games, and Fringe (it was the most recent.)]
In any event? I blame GWDT and George RR Martin for my romance novel
binge. Also work, but that's another issue.
As for Hunger Games - it haunted my dreams last night, and stays with me now.
The themes in that series resonate for me on a deep level - and the levels of satire and meta are amazing for a YA novel and mainstream film.
So, I'm the complete opposite. For various reasons, many personal ones.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 10:36 pm (UTC)I was comparing the movies of Girl w/the Dragon Tattoo (US version), which I found haunting, to the movie of Hunger Games which doesn't haunt me at all (although I had loved both books a lot).
Oh I see at the end of your reply (above) that you are haunted by the movie of Hunger Games... I'm happy to hear it. I may see it a second time to see if I get more out of it upon a second viewing.
Anyway, I loved LOVED reading your critic/review of the Swedish film of 'Girl With the Dragon Tattoo' since that is just what I was doing in my head: listing all the inconsistencies between the book & movie and wondering why they felt they should send Blomquist to jail then, or why they altered so many of Lisbeth actions....
The US version of the movie had a lot fewer inconsistencies (that movie was tighter than the Swedish version IMO).
And for the record: I would never jump down anyone's throat (I'm into avoidance rather than conflict), I certainly wouldn't dream of doing it almost a year later! LOL
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 10:59 pm (UTC)http://wrongquestions.blogspot.com/2012/03/hunger-games.html
While I don't always agree with the reviewer - she does articulate some of my own issues with the books and the film. My main problem with the film is the same one I had with the books...it's a bit too neat. (That said, oddly, I felt less manipulated by Rue's death in the film than in the books - I didn't cry in the books at all. But I did cry in the movie. The Rue/Katniss relationship worked better, it was more subtle. In the books - Collins hammers us over the head with it.)
Read another review - this time by Kristin Cashore - who left at the 90 minute mark due to motion sickness. Very odd review. It was as if we saw two separate movies. She rants at length about the shaky camera work - and I'm like, what shaky camera work? Outside of the hallucination scene...I didn't see any. Must be highly sensitive.
I'm not sure its fair to compare GWDT to Hunger Games - because GWDT has a top-notch director and high production value, while Hunger Games is B list. Gary Ross (Pleasantville) is no Fincher - not by a long shot. I went into the Hunger Games with low expectations - because, it's a popular YA novel with an obsessive fanbase. Much like Harry Potter - very hard to do much with that. GWDT technically has a big fanbase, but a vastly different one, and we also have the Swedish films. LOL!
My mother loved Lisbeth in the Swedish films. She felt Naomi Rapace owned that role. (shrug)
And for the record: I would never jump down anyone's throat (I'm into avoidance rather than conflict), I certainly wouldn't dream of doing it almost a year later! LOL
Assumed as much. You don't appear to be the type. But the way things have been going lately...it pays to be careful. Really not into conflict much myself. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 11:33 pm (UTC)Thank you so much for that movie review link, that was a very good/interesting review...
no subject
Date: 2012-03-27 12:44 am (UTC)It worked for me.
Really interesting isn't it how differently we perceive things? We really aren't watching the same thing.
There's a great post somewhere...that says: "You're friends aren't watching the same tv shows you are, and that's okay." - it's about people who are technically watching the same thing - but have polar opposite experiences.
I'm sorry you didn't like the Hunger Games film. Mileage varies. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2012-03-27 01:37 am (UTC)and you aren't the only one who absolutely loved the camera work, Felicia Day tweeted that she thought it was perfection, exactly what she would have hoped it would be. I totally respect her (and your) opinions on the subject.
That is partly why I'm thinking I might see it a second time, because I think I would see it without the filters of expectations, and be more open to what it actually is.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-27 12:53 pm (UTC)Comparing a teen sci-fi flick to a David Fincher film is a bit like comparing a Hostess cupcake to a Jacques Tourres chocolate cupcake with raspberry cream filling. ;-)
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 05:08 pm (UTC)Of course, in a movie I'm sure we'd see a lot more of the outside events, which Mockingjay especially skips over because Katniss by that point just doesn't care and barely pays attention. I could see the movie wanting to spend more time on that... but even so, I think it would be better suited to a 3-hour movie rather than splitting the book in two. A 700-page book, I understand why they want to split, but Mockingjay I think is still in the 400-500 page range.
Then again, I haven't seen any of the movies they've split-- I actively avoid Twilight and I never got around to seeing Harry Potter 7. Maybe they could pull it off, but I just don't see any good break points to split that book.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 06:18 pm (UTC)I mean if all you are interested in is the action scenes? Than yeah, one movie easy. But if you care about the quieter/non-action sequences and relationship building bits - then two movies.
Harry Potter was two films for the quieter moments. Movie one = the camping trip and search, Movie two=the war.
Mockinjay1 = the rescue of Peeta, the formation of the Rebellion - with the cliff-hanger being the invasion of the Capital.
Mockingjay2 = The invasion of the Capital and the Aftermath.
Or...Mockingjay 1 = the War
Mockingjay 2= Assignation/Aftermath
Keep in mind that there are two climatic points in Mockinjay:
1) The invasion on the Capital and win
2) The aftermath - what Katniss does
That should be split into two flicks.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 07:54 pm (UTC)And then there's the invasion of the capital, killing the hostages, and the assassination.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 09:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 10:18 pm (UTC)I hope they tone down the 'wedding' stuff though. That part actually annoyed me. In fact, they could skip the wedding dress stuff entirely and I'd be fine with it. (Though, of course, they would need to continue playing the star crossed lovers on tour).
no subject
Date: 2012-03-27 01:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-27 09:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 08:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 09:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 05:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 06:10 pm (UTC)But Mockingjay definitely needs two films, it like Harry Potter is too crowded and felt rushed in the books.
I think we may get more on Johanna and Peeta in the films - since we are outside of Katniss' pov a bit more. We also might get more build up of Gale and the bombs. (Although I admittedly have no desire to actually see Peeta being tortured or Johanna for that matter. That can happen off-stage.)
I think they might stretch them out - if the series proves to be a money-maker like the Twiligh flicks was. (And it is - it broke Twilight's record and all opening records for this date. Not surprising has a bigger cross-over audience than Twilight. There were a lot of men in the theater I saw it in.)
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 07:52 pm (UTC)Basically there's more to THG than swooning over Edward or drooling over Taylor Lautner's abs.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 09:25 pm (UTC)Basically there's more to THG than swooning over Edward or drooling over Taylor Lautner's abs.
It certainly helps that Collins has a broader vocabulary than Meyer, and a bit more to say. THG also hasn't gotten the critical backlash that Twilight has. As far as I can tell - it doesn't appear to have spawned the number of haters and mockers ...although I can't think of many books in recent memory that have done that. People either REALLY love Twilight or they REALLY hate it. There doesn't appear to be a middle ground. While with THG - it seems people tend to like it or are ambivalent - THG's fandom reminds me more of HP and Buffy. It has a more cult following. Add to that..it's not about vampires - I think vampires/werewolves and gothic horror has reached its saturation point finally. It's monsters are human and it's sci-fi horror over fantasy...which is at least different.
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 01:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 04:20 pm (UTC)This. Exactly. It's where the book didn't quite accomplish the satiric feat that the movie so effortless does. Because it's hard to subtly get that across in a book. That fourth wall break - shining a light on our own complicity in regards to reality shows. (It's why I often call Hunger Games the anti-Twilight in my head.)
spend more time in District 12 at the beginnning to set up where she's coming from, don't gloss over the "hunger" part of the title, don't get rid of the scene of the District 11 folks sending Katniss bread as thanks for Rue),
They did try, but there wasn't a lot of time.
We see Peeta giving her the piece of bread, throwing it out to her in the rain - but guilt-ridden for not giving her more. Her excitement over getting a piece of bread from Gale during their hunt. (In the book she has a full picnic, so making it just a piece of bread helps.)
I'd forgotten what District 11 gave...for Rue, and wish they'd kept that in. Instead they went with the uprising (which is vaguely referenced in the later books). And agree - I sort of wish they kept that in. But I can see why they left it out.
Other subtle mentions of the hunger bit? Rue's starvation and eating everything Katniss has.
Foxface eating the berries. And Katniss destroying the food supply the others were guarding. But they are rather subtle. The books underlined it more. I gave them a pass...because there's a lot there to put in a 2 hour movie without losing the pacing.
Another thing they left out - was Katniss on board the ship worrying about Peeta's leg being cut off and convinced they were going to do something to him - when all they did was fix his leg. (Which I'm glad they took out of the movie - felt it was over-kill in the book and unnecessary...)
no subject
Date: 2012-03-26 01:42 pm (UTC)I went to see the film with a friend, who's only read the first book. She commented that it was me that introduced her to the series, and I admitted that my friends and I have pretty much thrown the trilogy at everyone we know. But it is an excellent if heartbreaking series, and a message that I think we as a society need to hear-- certainly the quiet, contemplative horror of the film was a stark contrast to all the previews that aired with it, which were full of explosions and action and death with no real acknowledgement of the realities of violence.