Moral Cowardice, Hackitude
New York and NPR critic David Edelstein has delivered one of the better rip jobs on…I was going to say The Hunger Games but his criticism is really all about director Gary Ross and his expedient white-beardo ways. Here’s the audio.
Ross “has a penchant for showbiz satire,” Edelstein says, “pleasant in Pleasantville but ruinous in Seabiscuit — a great book about the torturous underbelly of horse racing turned into a lame, movie-ish period piece . He approaches The Hunger Games like a hack. The film is all shaky close-ups, so you rarely have a chance to take in the space, and the editing is so fast you can’t focus.
“The film gets some things right, like the shots of Katniss running through the woods, the canopy of trees above her streaking by. And it has an astoundingly good Katniss in Jennifer Lawrence. She’s not a chiseled Hollywood ing√©nue or a trained action star — she looks real. And without words, she makes it clear that Katniss’ task is not merely to stay alive but somehow to hold onto her humanity.
“A few other actors register in spite of the speed-freak editing. Josh Hutcherson has a strong, sorrowful countenance as Katniss’ fellow District 12 contestant, Peeta. Stanley Tucci in a blue bouffant as a talk-show host, Wes Bentley in a manicured black-fungus beard as the games’ high-tech coordinator, and Donald Sutherland in a white mane as the demonic lion of a president are all you could hope for.
“There’s a terrific score by James Newton Howard that captures moods — wistful, mysterious — that the director fails to evoke. The Hunger Games leaves you content — but not, as with the novel, devastated by the senseless carnage. It is, I’m sorry to say, the work of moral cowards.”
I mentioned this in another post but the real flaw is the skewed pacing. I get the feeling there was a great film that was left on the cutting room floor. Wonder if that will emerge in the obligatory DVD version.
reno — yeah, the oscar-nominated cutters of the box office blockbuster currently breaking records should fix those ‘flaws’ …
Only thing i’m interested in here is the score by James Newton Howard, love his work.
Scoot – Yes, clearly a past oscar nomination and big box office mean a film is above criticism.
I get the feeling that critics — okay male critics — are really missing the boat on this one, not getting the bigger picture at all.
the Movie Godz are in a coma
Katniss? What an idiotic name for a character. When a writer is reaching so hard to be “clever” with a character name, it usualy is a sign that the character per se needs propping up to be interesting.
I won’t go so far as to say Ross approached this like a hack, but he was the safest possible choice to direct this material and took absolutely zero risks with it. The film is basically the book (which, let’s face it, is not Shakespeare) – no more, no less – and I was fine with it on that level. But this material could have been so much more.
Somebody in another review mentioned Verhoeven, who would I think would have absolutely NAILED every aspect of this. The satire would have had more bite, the violence would have been more impactful (and more, well, violent), etc.
Instead, the studio cheaped out in more ways than one, and went with a merely competent craftsman they knew would appease the rabid fan base in the safest possible way. The material needed a Howard Hawks, but it got a W.S. Van Dyke instead.
Basically, they went for strict translation vs. making a great movie. Not the first time it’s happened (see also: Harry Potter) and it won’t be the last, but it saddens me to think what might have been.
“…Gary Ross and his expedient white-beardo ways.”
I know these words but it doesn’t make any sense.
Verhoevn is all wrong for this because this isn’t satire. It’s way more allegory than it is satire.
“I get the feeling there was a great film that was left on the cutting room floor.”
I heard the same thing about Seabiscuit too, and I believe it.
@Sasha Stone
Most male critics enjoyed the movie and gave it a good review. Jeff just has his panties in a bunch because he was completely wrong about this movie doing well at the box-office or that those who see it will actually enjoy it (see that podcast you guys did together and his review). He also still thinks anyone with a positive review is saying so just because it’s a popular series predicted to make a lot of money. So everyone else is a mindless drone except for him and others who hate it
How can an “informed” movie critic dare to lay the blame for the film not being what they imagined on the director’s shoulders? Does he not understand that Gary Ross was hired to direct the film in accordance to the wishes of the producers and the studio executives who marked this as a billion dollar plus film series. They had even more a say to what ended up on the screen than Gary Ross. They’re the ones that tested the film, marketed the movie, built up the buzz and need to make sure they can get 4 box office bonanzas out of the series. They didn’t get into the Hunger Games for movie series that would break even with Betatape sales in the Congo.
Gary Ross isn’t Bert I. Gordon.
It’s a good movie.
Lawrence owns it. Harrelson owns it. Sutherland owns it.
Gary Ross does everything in his power to fuck it up, but fails…barely.
Give the sequels a proper budget and real director and the sky’s the limit, kids.
The novel “devastated” Edelstein? Time for him to do a little more reading.
Pretty much all of the names have some sort of historic or literary significance. Katniss, besides being a plant, has leaves that are pretty distinctly in the shape of an arrowhead.
What is the point Sasha? Because I’m not ‘getting’ it either.
What Cerulean said. Exactly.
I have not seen Hunger Games but I loved Seabiscuit and I think Pleasantville is a great movie. I think Ross is 2 for 2 in a big way.
“The film is all shaky close-ups, so you rarely have a chance to take in the space, and the editing is so fast you can’t focus.”
YES. It’s especially noticeable in the fight on the cornucopia. It’s all jerky and close cropped and it’s bewildering. But then it occasionally pulls back, leaving all the combatants and much of the cornucopia in the same shot and it’s great. Then it’s right back to the unintelligible visual noise.
Surprisingly, I didn’t mind the shaky cam until that final fight. I thought it mostly worked, especially in the establishing shots of district life early in the movie, and did add to the intimacy of telling the story primarily through the protaganist’s eyes.
It never really worked for any of the fights though, but it didn’t bother me too much because the movie wasn’t sold as an action movie and barely contains any action. On the other hand, it bothered the hell out of me in the later Bourne films (I think the 2nd is the worst offender with shaky cam hell), but those had tons of long, extended, and (presumably) elaborate action scenes that are completely incoherent to anyone not high on massive piles of coke.
The second unit blew up a giant pile of old luggage.
In slow motion.
From 4 different angles.
That is literally the biggest action scene in the whole movie.
Oh- spoiler alert.
thanks you fery much
Bisnis Indonesia
Blogger Indonesia
Rejeki seo
EDUBLOG
Yurosie blog