In a review of The
Hunger Games, Joe Neumaier of Daily
News (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv-movies/hunger-games-look-away-masterpiece-movie-article-1.1047256)
praises the movie for its creativity and action. Neumaier starts his review by
discussing the similarities and differences between the book and the movie-the
movie being darker and tougher than the book. He then summarizes the movie and
goes on to talk about its perfect casting choices- his main point of support.
Neumaier describes each character and shows how the actor/actress chosen to
portray him/her fits so well. Neumaier keeps an enthusiastic tone throughout
the review, and it makes him seem more credible because of it. His choice of
words when discussing the cast (toothy, horrific, malevolent, perfectly cast,
drunken) makes the cast seem rich and interesting.
The
focus of the positive review was mostly on cast and director, and
conflicts/themes. He agreed completely with the casting choices and elaborated
on how each member fit the character perfectly. He also talked about how
incredible and natural Jennifer Lawrence's performance was. Neumaier praised
director Gary Ross for letting Jennifer Lawrence be herself in the role,
instead of pushing her to be something she's not. The conflicts and themes of
the movie are "better and scarier than its source book, and aims an angry
eye at our bloodthirsty, watch-anything-and-cheer culture." At one point
in the review Neumaier made references to the Twilight movies, calling the Hunger
Games "a feistier triangle than the Twilight films." He compared Lawrence to Kristen Stewart of Twilight, criticizing Stewart's poor
performance against Lawrence's strong one. This reference is important because
there are a lot of movie watchers who dislike the Twilight films, so by Neumaier proclaiming his own dislike and
praising The Hunger Games, he might
succeed in attracting viewers.
Joe
Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal
wrote a negative review of The Hunger
Games (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304636404577296011819867778?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304636404577296011819867778.html).
He started off talking about how the movie was cheesy and lacked feeling. He called
the movie unoriginal, saying that the concept can be seen in past movies such
as The Most Dangerous Game and Spartacus. He did think that Jennifer
Lawrence’s performance was great though, but criticizes the slow moving script
in the first part of the movie. Morgenstern calls the camera work “maddeningly
twitchy” with scenes moving at a relentless pace once the second hour starts. He
then summarizes the movie and finishes by calling this movie a “clumsy
adaptation.” His tone is bored, like he’s seen this all before, which is
evidenced when he calls the film and its concept unoriginal. Words such as “relentless,”
“maddeningly twitchy,” and “famine” are used to convince readers that –in Morgenstern’s
view- this movie is not worth watching.
This
review’s focus lies mostly on the script, technique/style, plot, and
conflicts/themes. Morgenstern expresses his distaste that the script veered far
away from the book in that none of the first-person narrative qualities of the
book were kept in the movie script. He commented that he enjoyed the book far
more than the movie for this reason. He also had problems with the technique
and style used, like the shaky camera in the action scenes. The plot and
conflicts/themes he found to be unoriginal and only appealing to younger
audiences. Referencing the book was an important part of Morgenstern’s review
because it clearly outlined the differences between that and the movie. Fans of
the series might be less enticed to see the movie after reading his review if
it seems as if the movie is missing too much. Movies such as The Most Dangerous Game, Spartacus, Battle Royale, and The
Running Man were referenced to point out the so-called “unoriginality” of The Hunger Games and may serve to
dissuade people from watching this movie if they didn’t like the other movies
that were mentioned.
In
Neumaier’s positive review he states, “[The
Hunger Games movie is] better and scarier than its source book, and aims an
angry eye at our bloodthirsty, watch-anything-and-cheer culture.” Having read
the book, I agree with this statement. The
Hunger Games is the only movie I’ve seen so far that I have liked more than
the book. I think the movie brings a darkness that the book sometimes lacked. The Hunger Games makes a clever
statement about our culture and where the power is concentrated. Although I disagree
with most of Morgenstern’s negative review, I agree with him when he says “[Jennifer
Lawrence] was, in fact, already a professional actress, and she’s doing it
again in The Hunger Games-not playing
a version of herself, though that could also be so, but playing another version
of the same character with the same sort of calm and grace.” Jennifer Lawrence
was obviously the perfect choice for the role—both sides even agree on it. She
seems so natural in the role, like she does in other movies, although she had
very little experience before she started in big movies.
The
review that seems most convincing to me is the Neumaier’s positive one. The thing
that stands out about his review is his enthusiasm about the plot and Jennifer
Lawrence’s performance. After reading his review, it made me want to watch the
movie again. He makes the plot seem full-of-action and exciting, and convinces
readers that Jennifer Lawrence’s performance is not to be missed. Another important
aspect of Neumaier’s review is he connects to the deeper message behind the
movie-the issue about where power lies. This connection to the real world makes
the movie seem more interesting and relatable, which are important qualities of
a film.
If I
were to write a film review I would include the fact that I liked the movie more
than the book (which is very rare for me!) This would be important to include
because often times people like the book more than the movie. I would
include-agreeing with Morgenstern-the darker edge that the movie gives the
story, and why it’s better because of it. Since the movie is a bit darker than
the book, I think it appeals to a wider audience, rather than the teen audience
that the book was meant for. The movie never got boring or slow (for me) and I left
the theater thinking about the deeper message behind it. I would also want to
include (for fans of the book) that the movie can never contain as much information as the book, but in this
instance, the movie had just the right amount of info. I would definitely talk
about Jennifer Lawrence’s amazing performance and also the other wonderful
casting selections. I loved the technique and style that was used in the movie.
I thought some of the choices regarding color were interesting. Toward the
beginning of the movie, a grayscale was used to represent poverty-stricken life
in District 12. As the movie progressed, warmer colors were used to emphasize
the excitement and scene difference. I probably wouldn’t mention the use of a
shaky camera because this technique tends to turn some people away. I thought
it worked for this movie, but some might not like the idea of it. Other than
that, because I liked it so much there’s not much else I would leave out. I enjoyed
the film very much and now want to see it again.
