Recantly, Ado and I went to Hunger Games at
Midtown Arts Cinema, also known, as Ado puts it, as beatnick central. What you have to understand about this theater is that it adjoins a semi-rowdy bar called
The Highlander, which is known for its pitcher of tots (used to be an actual pitcher of tater tots, but the ones at the bottom got so soaked in grease as to be inedible, so it's now just a mass of tater tots served on a plate-- still called a 'pitcher of tots,') and the free availability of PBR and cocaine inside. Air hockey, pool, indoor smoking and restrooms that are undoubtedly cesspits of venereal disease round out the package.
The Midtown Arts theater to the south is generally characterized by a third-world kind of feel. Screening rooms are smallish, and the seating is flatter than traditional theater seating, putting you lower behind the person in front of you-- if they're wearing a church hat, God help you. Screens are generally small, but close. Ado got to experience a small flap when a dirty landgrab went down in the second AND third rows, but I'll let her tell it herself:
We purchased tickets in advance, having heard this Hunger Games movie was quite popular. So, knowing we were sure to get seats, we arrived about 15 minutes before the film started, and headed into one of two screening room options. We chose Theater 1, on the ticket-ripper's advice, and headed in. The room was tiny, and already very full. And what's with people in theaters? Why does everybody, knowing it's going to be a packed house, feel the need to still leave that buffer seat between them and the strangers sitting next to them? Swine flu? Highlander regulars? Just sit next to them. But I digress.
The Rooster and I enjoy each other, and we like to sit next to each other in a theater. Luckily, we found about eight open seats in rows two and three, so we made our move. Just as we were gearing up to sit down for two hours of murderous child exploitation, we hear an "um, those seats are saved." Oh, ok, let us just move to the row behind, which had several open seats. Same girl: "um, those are saved too." This is where the Rooster starts to get his feather ruffled. He plainly looks at her and says, "you can't save eight seats." She begged to differ. Rooster will tell his side of the story...
So, what Ado is too kind to mention is that this woman looked like Whoopi Goldberg. I'm not kidding. She didn't have the Sister Act II paunch, but she was working on it. She had the dirty, earthen look to her that said: if she had a child, it would undoubtedly breast feed well into its fifth year. I hated her. She was saving like twenty percent of the theater and doing it without a shred of moral repugnance at her act. Ado wouldn't let me engage with the woman for long (fearing, no doubt,
Whoopi's cruel wrath) so I simply told her that her position was ridiculous and left it at that.
Some gents in the next row up were kind enough to move one seat closer to a stranger so we could sit on the two end seats. The dudes, who were clearly life partners of some sort, were just tickled pink with the situation unfolding directly in front of them, and were actively jeering Whoopi. They were downright hilarious, and their handholding somehow didn't threaten Ado's and my relationship. Or really the sanctity of marriage, but what do we know about that? I think Ado wants to describe the motley crew that eventually slimed into the "saved" seats...
I'm not gonna lie, I didn't want Rooster to engage this woman because I feared her friends were going to be Brock Lesnar-esque. I mean, who has the stones to save eight seats unless the people you're saving them for play for some professional football team? Well, I was wrong. The group of misfits who slowly trickled in was quite a sight. I was lucky enough to get a full crack shot courtesy of the pudgy fellow sitting directly in front of me, and the gent sitting in front of Rooster had a fro so wild his friends slid a drinking straw into it (gross), and it stayed. And he was wearing a velvet smoking jacket. Like a jackass.
Rooster here again, and, with the seating melodrama beat to death in the above paragraphs, it's on to the movie review! We're going to proceed along a set rubric here-- each of us will talk about things we liked, things we disliked about the movie, and then we'll place it between two movies of similar quality. You'll see how it works.
The Hunger Games, I've been told, depicts a post-apocalyptic world. I came in with no prior knowledge of the storyline, so all I saw was Stanley Tucci, with purple hair, as seemingly the
only television personality, which I guess is a good indicator that the apocalypse has come to pass. The whole thing reminded me of North Korea, with the outlying provinces at near-starvation levels while the privileged few consume Olympic sized pools of cognac, quarterly. I don't know that North Korean children would be healthy enough to have a good war, but that's beside the point.
The premise is that each 'District,' as a punishment for a past rebellion against the 'Capitol' some years ago, must pay a yearly penance of two children, one of each gender, to compete in the Hunger Games, a no holds barred competition of, well, murder. The children are of various ages and weights, such that there are small, meek players that are destined to be killed within minutes of the competition's start. The object is to remain standing, and to be the last one doing so. The winner gets to keep his or her life.
The competition is broadcast to the Districts with live feeds streamed from too-conveniently positioned cameras in the battle area, where the children wield weapons with varying success against their fellow 'tributes.' I won't tell you what happens, but I will tell you what I liked about the movie.
I liked the movie's political bent, making itself into a haves vs. have nots platform for thought. I liked Stanley Tucci, despite my disparaging remarks above, and I liked its version of the totalitarian state. The violence allowed and perpetrated by the state was just limited enough to be believable, but just horrible enough to be shocking. The state's efforts to control the media lent realism to the fictitious regime. The attention to detail, I thought, was good.
As to what I didn't like, there is, in the middle of this movie, a death scene (spoiler! OMG! Someone dies!) that is so drawn out, it makes you want to actually leave the theater, murder a homeless man, and then come back for the cut. The scene is so overdone, it gets you looking at your watch, which helps you keep in mind that this movie runs for 142 minutes, which can be a very long time if you're sitting downwind of Whoopi and the gang. So, the movie's stubborn desire to make sure you REALLY get it is probably my biggest gripe. I could have used someone less Kristin Stewart-y in the main role, but where are you going to find a 17 year old Anna Nicole Smith these days? The drama club has taken over Hollywood, and the salad days, my friends, are over.
So, to put it between two movies with similar entertainment value:
The Hunger Games is better than
Sherlock Holmes , but not as good as
Jurassic Park.
Now, for my (Ado's) review of the film. The premise, although we've seen it before (Running Man anyone?) was great. Kids being forced to battle to the death to honor their corrupt 'Capitol', and having it all broadcast live for their horrified families to witness? Um, awesome! But for some reason, I didn't care one bit about any of the characters in this film. Maybe it was the names: Katniss, Primrose, Peeta? I don't relate to girls named Katniss and Primrose. And Peeta just sounds like the way Lois from The Family Guy says 'Peter.' I'm always confused when authors and screenwriters feel the need to give the characters in their storylines weird names. I thought about it the entire movie. Jennifer Lawrence was a good choice for the lead, considering she pretty much just reprised her role in Winter's Bone. A girl from rural W. VA, poor, no dad, spending a lot of time walking around outside and hunting for food. But I do think she was a worthy pick.
I had more complaints about the film than raves. First, it was WAY too long. Maybe if the filmmakers cut out the extended close-up shots of Katniss' distressed face, they could have shaved off about 30 minutes. For someone who was literally running for her life, she did spend a lot of time pausing for various, unknown reasons. Let see here, OH, the rule change 3/4 of the way into the film, that was SO lame! I get it, no one wants main characters to be killed off. But I find it hard to believe the Capitol (in real life, obvi) would change the game just to foster some sappy love story angle. That was unrealistic. One victor, that's it. This may sound creepy and morbid, but I expected it to be a little more violent. I'll give the filmmakers a pass on that one, seeing as they needed the PG-13 rating to attract the tween fans of the books. The only other serious gripe I had was the introduction of the dogs at the end. In my opinion, that was dirty pool. The game was going a little long, so they bring in rabid, mutant dogs to speed up the killing process? Why? Give the kids time! They'll whack each other eventually.
I loved the sculpted facial hair of Seneca Crane! It was like Color Me Badd all over again. Effie Trinket's outfits were outrageous, and I loved every scene she was in. In my opinion, Elizabeth Banks stole the show! The Capitol style in general was eye candy, and it made me want to live in the future just so I could strut around with pink hair, and crazy, bright, futuristic, but still kinda 80s-looking clothing. Although, with my luck, I'd be stuck in District 12, so I'd have to wear that prairie-style garb.
I'd put The Hunger Games above The Running Man (better clothes, no bad accents) but below Castaway (Tom Hanks and Wilson were more captivating than Katniss and Peeta).
May the odds be ever in your favor.
