The Death Of Stalin (Armando Iannucci, 2017) is based around a satirical retelling of the days following Stalin’s death in the USSR (and thus historical accuracy was not a priority to the director). Steve Buscemi stars as the future Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev during the rapid grab for power between the remaining politicians in the following days.
Despite overlooking, condensing or disregarding various elements of the historical events, the director still decided to give the audience some form of historical context to the events of the film. In the first and last scene, white text is used to keep the audience up to speed with the history surrounding Russia at the time. Along with this, there are various excerpts from Soviet articles of law to complete a more basic version of the same purpose. However, the most inaccurate way of giving historical context is through the use of giving the name and rank/title when each important historical figure is introduced as several of the titles given are merely the one that they are most famous for such as Molotov being named as Foreign Secretary despite having been removed from his position in 1949 and only regaining it after Stalin’s funeral.
Despite the fact that the topic is based on one of the darkest areas of 20th Century history, this film is a great black comedy. The most successful element of the comedy was the dialogue with Steve Buscemi getting some of the funniest lines as Khrushchev, especially “the room is only 75% conscious” when discussing with the other characters in the scene whether to get a doctor for Stalin. To build upon this, I also found it entertaining how the cast kept their original accents (mostly American or British based) which made the line delivery even funnier with a prime example being Jason Issacs keeping his Scouse accent in his role as Zhukov. Along with this, several of the comedic moments still hinted at the dangers of living in the Soviet Union as they originate from a fear for Stalin’s wrath early in the film as seen through the scenes in the theatre directly after the opening scene.
In conclusion, The Death of Stalin (Armando Iannucci, 2017) is an interesting interpretation of the events that it depicts although it is not a good display of the way they happened. I also feel that its comedy only appeals to certain groups of people. My overall rating is 4.1 out of 5 stars.
The version of Blade Runner (Ridley Scott, 1982) I most recently watched was The Final Cut released in 2007. In the (once) distant future of 2019, Humanity has created robots known as Replicants to act as a labour force. After an incident, Blade Runners become responsible for hunting down Replicants for retirement/destruction. Once 6 Replicants arrive on Earth, former Blade Runner Rick Deckard (played by Harrison Ford) is tasked with tracking and destroying them.
The film’s themes and symbolism were extremely fascinating to me, even more so than in its sequel. Through the split of perspectives between the protagonist and antagonist that keep them separated until the climax of the film, the plot allows the audience to view the question of whether Replicants should be considered to be living from both sides of the argument within the film’s world to obscure the line of good and evil within the film. Along with this, it can be rewarding to watch the film multiple times attentively in attempts to catch subtle details that foreshadow various moments in the film and theories surrounding it such as whether Deckard is a natural Human or a Replicant with even people who worked on the film having different interpretations on the theory. My personal belief is that Deckard was human in the film.
The film’s central antagonist – Roy Batty (played by Rutger Hauer) – was incredibly deeply written throughout the film with his desperation for survival being key to his characterisation which culminated to the intimidating scene where he confronts and eventually kills his creator. However, I feel that he lost this early into the confrontation between him and Deckard when he decided to fight in only his underwear and the later shot of him smashing his head through a wall made me laugh with a vague reminder of the “Here’s Johnny!” scene from The Shinning (Stanley Kubrick, 1980). Despite this, Harrison Ford’s performance was still able to be portray the fear that Deckard would have felt within the scene.
One thing that I found particularly interesting was the depiction of technological developments. Most notably, I found it interesting how the creators of the film believed that by 2019, Humans would have begun space travel and advanced robots but that they wouldn’t be able to create more modern or streamlined cameras. Overall though, I feel that Blade Runner (Scott, 1982) created an intriguing setting for its story to take place in which gives a sense of a deeply industrialised future.
In conclusion, Blade Runner (Scott, 1982) is a cinematic masterpiece and can easily be considered essential viewing for Sci-fi fans. My overall rating is 4.5 out of 5 stars.
The film adaption of 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968) is often seen as a science fiction masterpiece among many film fans. The film was developed and released concurrently with the novel of the same name (written by Arthur C. Clarke) and both are based on Clarke’s short story The Sentinel released in 1951.
My favourite part of the story was the second act on Discovery One and the conflict between the crew and HAL 9000. The characters in this part of the film are the most explored and the plot is most interesting and understandable. Unlike the other sequences, the plot flows naturally and remains focused on a single element instead of cutting things short like the sequence before where it changes to the second act.
I enjoyed most of the visuals in the film as I felt that it was an intriguingly detailed look at how space travel could work to the point of considering things that most Sci-fi films may ignore. I could see the interior of the ‘space plane’ in the second sequence as becoming a reality in the early decades of widespread space flight. The film’s look at space travel overall was very intriguing as it was released at the height of the Space Race and just over a year before Apollo 11 and man first landing on the moon. Although I do think that the early 21st Century could have been a believable time-frame for widespread space travel (at least between Earth and the Moon on a regular basis) at the time it released, the interiors of vessels such as Space Station Five and Discovery One seem closer to a Utopian view of space travel given how white and pristine everything appears.
However, I did find some music choices unusual such as when the motif opening score was played over an ape destroying a skeleton with a bone seemed humorously out of place. On the topic of the opening sequence of ‘The Dawn of Man’ went on for far, far too long as what was shown in roughly the film’s first 20 minutes could have been shown and explained in at least 5. Along with this, I felt that the ‘star-gate’ sequence also went on at least slightly too long as it was nothing other than random visuals of space that gave me distinct reminders of other Sci-fi franchises and eventually led to me making jokes to myself in reference to those reminders.
Something that I feel lessened the impact of parts of the film was my knowledge of sci-fi media that have been released in the 52 years since 2001: A Space Odyssey and how often certain plot-points in the film have been used across Sci-fi, such as A.Is turning against their creators seen in HAL (which was later used in The Terminator franchise) and ancient civilisations shaping Humanity and being responsible for major technological and evolutionary advancements in the obelisks (later seen through the Forerunners from the Halo franchise). Although I do enjoy the former when done right – such as with HAL in this film – I do see that it has been overused, something made even worse with the amount of the mediocre pieces of media using it as a centre to their story. As for the latter, I regularly hate it and the only place I have tolerated it was in Halo given the way it has been explained in its expanded media.
In conclusion, I found 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968) to be an underwhelming disappointment and I likely won’t bother to watch the sequel 2010: The Year We Make Contact (Peter Hyams, 1984). However, I do recommend that any fan of film or science fiction should personally experience it at least once. My overall rating is 2.3 out of 5 stars.
Saving Private Ryan (Steven Spielberg, 1998) was a war film is set in the aftermath of the D-Day landings in Normandy as a small group of US soldiers are ordered to extract a single paratrooper who’s brothers had all been killed in battle while the Allied forces push through Europe.
Across the film, Spielberg places a focus upon the horrors and brutality of the Second World War and refuses to glamorize war like certain other war films had prior to its release. The best example of this is the second scene based around D-Day itself (specifically on Omaha beach) that lasts roughly 20 minutes. Behind the scenes, the film crew went to massive lengths to make it appear as realistic as possible by creating 100 specially designed models to replicate injuries sustained during WW2 and the results are a dark masterpiece. One of the most striking parts of this scene was how there were multiple shots based on showing dying soldiers and the terrors that those involved in D-Day had to live through.
Unlike other films, shaky-cam is used to great effect to build upon the bleak atmosphere within the action scenes which combines with a more washed out and desaturated colour pallet to create a gritty feel to the film which acts as a way to distinctly separate the action scenes from the rest of the film. At certain points in the film, a filter used on the lens led to any bright colours in a shot stand out in such a way that I found to be distracting and clashed with the rest of the film’s aesthetic style. An example of this early into the film was during the shot where a pair of American soldiers shoot a pair of Czech conscripts with the fire in the background being too distracting in my opinion.
Despite the fact that the majority of the narrative is fictional, some of the basic elements of the film do have origins within the Second World War, specifically how Private Ryan was loosely based on one of the Niland brothers (Frederick “Fritz” Niland) who fought in the 101st Airborne Division. There was also an actual Sole Survivor Policy introduced during WW2 that allowed for people to be returned home if all their siblings died in combat. However, as with all historical films, there are multiple inaccuracies (both historical and scientific) in the film which are often used for dramatic effect. The first of these is the mission itself, there would be very little to no chance that someone of the General’s rank would personally order for an entire team to be sent out to rescue a single Private as they would be far too involved in helping to coordinate the overall invasion of Occupied Europe.
In conclusion, Saving Private Ryan (Steven Spielberg, 1998) is a spectacular Second World War film that any fan of war film should watch with the Normandy battle being one of Spielberg’s best directed scenes. My overall rating is 4.8 out of 5 stars
As Quentin Tarantino’s directorial debut, Reservoir Dogs (Quentin Tarantino, 1992) established many of the filmmaker’s most well known auteur features while also showing his ability to create a masterpiece with so little to work with. When it came out, the film also gave a new look upon the crime genre through its focus on the aftermath of a significant event.
There are 4 flashbacks across Reservoir Dogs, most of which are used to create and expand upon the twists of the plot. The exception of this is the scene of Mr Pink escapes the police which is used only to fill in a gap of how the character made it to the warehouse. The second and third flashbacks are used to give context to the heist from the perspectives of Mr White and Mr Blonde respectively (the latter’s real name being Vic Vega) and hint at reasons for their motivations. The key reveal of the film of Mr Orange being an undercover agent then places an extended flashback centre frame that brings the viewer back to shortly before the opening of the film – in a similar way to the ending of Tarantino’s next film Pulp Fiction (1994) – and shows part of the heist escape from the point of view of Orange and White. However, unlike Pulp Fiction, the film then returns to present as Orange attempts to get the other gang members to turn on each other before getting everyone apart from Pink (who tries to escape) shot and either dead or wounded.
The use of a non linear storytelling allowed for the suspense and action of the film as it lets the focus of the film to be on the character drama within the warehouse while keeping the audience intrigued by twists that are created through the structure of the film, such as Orange’s true identity, while also allowing for a better balance of dialogue and action than would otherwise have been possible if the plot took place chronologically.
Across the film, Tarantino uses the heist as a macguffin as a point to build upon the character and hold the attention of the audience whereas other directors would focus the film on the events of the heist. As a result, the film is somewhat less violent and bombastic than Tarantino’s future films although the overly bloody action that he has become known for is still present, such as in the ear cutting scene or whenever characters are shown to have been shot.
In conclusion, Reservoir Dogs (Quentin Tarantino, 1992) is an example of what an auteur director can create on a low budget and rightly placed Tarantino on the path to becoming a well known director. My overall rating is 4.2 out of 5 stars.
Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009) is Tarantino’s 6th film and the first set in a ‘historical’ setting which – unlike his next two films – follows an alternative history where World War 2 ended sooner in a swift and more explosive way through a combination of a revenge plot and a secret Allied mission. This alternative history element of the film is hinted at in the initial inter-title as it is presented with “Once upon a time…” which is often used to refer to fantasy stories and juxtaposes the general tone of both the opening sequence and the film as a whole.
Christoph Waltz gave a great and chilling performance as the film’s active antagonist Hans Landa, with it adding to the tension within scenes when he appears, such as in the opening chapter of the film, in the film’s first half while becoming over-dramatic closer to the end of the film. The most well performed time the former point is displayed is through the opening sequence when, after going on a monologue of the similarities between man and beast followed by a moment of silence, he plainly forces the farmer he’s speaking with to confess the truth.
One of the sequences I enjoyed the most was the bar scene around the middle of the story given its combination of levity and tension with it being an example of Tarantino creating a sequence that expertly uses both a moment of shock and a build up of suspense (either for those who initially know about the gesture or those rewatching it). Along with this, a joke I found myself enjoying more than I thought I would was when one of the characters mentions that it would have been suspicious to leave immediately which seemed to act as a reference to how most films and TV shows often do exactly that through using similar locations for exposition purposes only with the scene also being an example of Tarantino’s use of realism in films to contrast to the action and violence within them.
Similar to Pulp Fiction and other Tarantino films, Inglourious Basterds uses inter-titles to divide the film with the first chapter lasting around 20 minutes with tension steadily rising until its climax. At the start of the sequence, I found the choice of non diegetic music intriguing due to it sounding like that used in a ‘standoff’ sequence combined with traditional piano notes. Another detail I enjoyed was the way that characters change between English and other European languages seamlessly as it acts as a way to separate the characters while adding to the complexity of the film with characters giving away their identities through various means linked to this, such as Hicox (played by Micheal Fassbender) giving a British hand gesture while undercover in the aforementioned bar scene which – in classic Tarantino fashion – leads to a violent gunfight or how Landa tricks the protagonists into revealing themselves through their speech (something becomes evident when he ‘congratulates’ one of them on their accent). However, I do see that this could be seen as off-putting to those who are not used to watching foreign films although I feel my opinions would be hardly altered if I hadn’t seen many foreign films prior to watching Inglourious Basterds.
In conclusion, Inglourious Basterds (Quentin Tarantino, 2009) is a bombastic and entertaining film from start to end and is filled with Tarantino’s best auteur features. This is one of my favourite Tarantino films alongside Pulp Fiction. My overall rating is 4.5 out of 5 stars.
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 (Francis Lawrence, 2015) is currently the final film adaptation of The Hunger Games book series and continues on from The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 (Francis Lawrence, 2014) as an adaption of the same book. The point it picks up from is the early stages of Peeta’s attempted recovery from brain washing and District 13 planning the final stages of their plans to take down Snow’s regime. After a fairly calm set of sequences used to open the film, a majority of the film is action centric – especially in the second act – as Katniss makes her way through conflicts against President Snow’s forces in District 2 and the Capitol. Within the Capitol, Katniss and her team initially act as propaganda but she soon redirects them to trying to personally capture Snow. After a long conflict across the Capitol, President Snow is captured and imprisoned with President Coin of District 13 stating she will be the leader of the newly united Panem. However, after seeing that she’s just as corrupt as Snow, Katniss decides to kill Coin at Snow’s execution. In the aftermath, Katniss returns to the remains of District 12, distraught by everything that has happened to her but begins to rekindle her relationship with Peeta. The final scene is set several years later with Katniss and Peeta now having a peaceful life with two children as Panem rebuilds itself.
As always, the actors give strong performances for their characters with this film containing one of my favourite character based scenes in The Hunger Games film series, the conversation between Katniss and Snow in the aftermath of the battle. The reason I find President Snow a compelling antagonist is that – even when he has lost all control – he still speaks calmly and manages to manipulate those around him, specifically how in the aforementioned sequence his final words with Katniss eventually makes her choose to kill Coin instead of him. Linked to this, President Coin is an interesting character as she’s a mirror of Snow at her core but her merciless nature is often covered up by a veil of other emotions and manipulates her actions to alter the views of her enemies and rivals unlike how Snow openly threatens and kills those he sees as threats. Examples of this is how she sends Peeta to join Katniss while knowing his brainwashed orders had a high chance of reactivating (thus putting the team in danger) and how she turned all of Snow’s remaining allies against him by framing him for bombing a large crowd of Capitol civilians and Peacekeepers she had ordered which brought the second rebellion to a bloody end sooner. Another character that I thought had a satisfying, yet more subtle, development was Gale Hawthorne (played by Liam Hemsworth) who had a single character arc that slowly progressed across all 4 films as he gained more prominence within the plot of each film. Through this film specifically, he is presented as becoming cold and detached for the Capitol and its allies during the conflict which forces the rift between himself and Katniss to widen after their friendship became strained from Katniss’ actions in the arena during and between the 74th and 75th Hunger Games – specifically in regards to her relationship with Peeta – and gives his character distinctive changes between his first appearance in The Hunger Games (Gary Ross, 2012) and the climax of this film.
Even though this film released before it, upon my recent rewatches, I noticed that the sequence of Katniss and her team fighting the mutts reminded me of Hawkeye’s fight against Outriders in the later parts of Avengers: Endgame (Russo brothers, 2019). Despite the fact this is likely a coincidence and that the similarities are mainly aesthetic based choices (along with the fact that the main character in both sequences mainly used a bow and arrow), I still like this. Along with this, I enjoyed the way this film explored The Capitol and how the grand metropolis it once was has fallen from grace and nearly reduced to ruins from the effects of the rebellion against it.
My biggest problem with the film is the portrayal of the final battle against the Capitol as – instead of a normal conflict – it follows Katniss making her way though the streets and facing elaborate traps set up to stop attackers (with some of the stupid ones including black ooze and lights) with Katniss and Peeta occasionally playing Panem’s equivalent of two truths and a lie when I would have much preferred to have seen the standard, boots on the ground, battle that likely happened off-screen as the main force made their way to President Snow in the centre of the Capitol which we only see the start and end of as the rebels cross paths with Katniss. However, this is due to the fact that it is a direct adaptation of the Mockingjay book where the events are roughly the same (an excuse that can be applied to most story based problems) although it still makes President Snow appear incredibly incompetent. There is also the issue of how characters react to certain situations, such as how Katniss and most of her team still somehow trust Peeta despite his brainwashing causing him to try to kill Katniss and causing the deaths of others.
In conclusion, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 (Francis Lawrence, 2015) is a competent end to The Hunger Games film series and it was better than I remember it being but I still believe that the first adaption of Mockingjay was better. However, like I mentioned at the end of my review for The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 (Francis Lawrence, 2014), this would have been better if both Part 1 and Part 2 were a single film. My overall rating is 3.5 out of 5 stars.
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 (Francis Lawrence, 2014) is the first of two films created as an adaptation of the third Hunger Games book – Mockingjay – with Part 2 being released the year after. The plot follows directly from the ending of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (Francis Lawrence, 2013) and covers the beginnings of the second rebellion against the Capitol from inside District 13 as Katniss becomes the Mockingjay and symbol of the rebellion. Most of the film explores her adapting and evolving into this new role and the pressures it puts upon her while fearing for Peeta after his capture at the end of the previous Hunger Games. During this, the film portrays the effect that Katniss and the Mockingjay has on the people in the Districts with the sequences of District 7 and 5 individually rising up while showing President Snow’s responses.
I feel that the story being split into two films allowed for certain sequences to feel more atmospheric than they may have been otherwise, such as Katniss walking through the remains of District 12 which was mentioned to have been destroyed at the end of the last movie. Once Peeta is rescued from the Capitol, the character’s design effectively displays what he has been through while imprisoned in the Capitol. Along with this, the actor perfectly portrays the same thing with his reintroduction with him looking cold and soulless as Peeta attacks Katniss. One of the reasons this performance was so shocking and well handled is because the actor Josh Hutcherson stated in an interview that he was enthusiastic to explore this element of his character. I also like the small sequences where the Districts rise up against the Peacekeepers and the Capitol with District 5 and the destruction of the dam being particularly impactful as it not only acts as an important moment to allow for District 13 to infiltrate the Capitol but also shows how willing the population of Panem are to risk their lives for the cause of bringing down Snow due to their desperation for freedom which is something I feel is missing in other sci-fi films based around the premise of a rebellion against a dictatorship (such as the original Star Wars trilogy).
However, I feel that the film was limited by the decision to split the story between two films as it led to moments where the pacing felt very slow and scenes seemingly going on for too long which made me think that the story could have fitted into a single film given how short this film was and my issues with its followup, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 (Francis Lawrence, 2015). Despite this decision, I’ve heard from those who have read the original book that it still leaves out certain sequences from it.
In conclusion, I believe that The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 (Francis Lawrence, 2014) is an adequate adaptation of the book that it is based on but it would have been more enjoyable if both of the Mockingjay films had been combined into one longer film with sequences being made more concise or outright removed. My overall rating is 3.8 out of 5 stars.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (Francis Lawrence, 2013) is the first of 3 sequels to The Hunger Games (Gary Ross, 2012) and – like the original film – is a direct adaptation of the second book in The Hunger Games trilogy (which goes by the same name). It follows the main characters Katniss and Peeta in the aftermath of winning the 74th hunger games in the last film which shows the lasting effects the games have on those who survive them and how they never truly escape the games. After the pair of victors go through a victory tour across Panem’s districts, it is revealed that the competitors of the next hunger games will be picked from previous winners only which forces Katniss back into the arena in an even deadlier event as the seeds of rebellion begin to secretly grow. I feel that the events of the film is a great escalation of its stakes while still keeping similar story beats to the original film (something done due to the way the story is told in the book it is based on).
Just like the previous film, Donald Sutherland gives a fantastic performance as President Snow with the character maintaining his manipulative nature such as with his announcement of the Third Quarter Quell containing previous winners which gives him the possibility to not only remove Katniss but also several others who attempted to discreetly disobey him, and how several of his actions towards Katniss being to confuse or disorient her. However, his more human side is also shown in this film through the scenes he has with his granddaughter. Out of the new characters introduced, my favourite was the District 4 tribute Finnick Odair (played by Sam Claflin), mainly for his personality and the way his character is explored as the film progresses with him initially coming across as self centred and arrogant but once the games start, these traits are presented having been shields to his true personality. On more recent viewings of the film, I have also come to enjoy the character Johanna Mason (played by Jena Malone) due to her attitude towards things happening around her, such as when she shouts and swears at the fact that she’s been forced to compete in the games a second time.
Across the first act the different ways characters deal with the effect that surviving the hunger games has on them is covered with Katniss having PTSD from her experiences by seeing one of the tributes she killed while hunting and her mentor Haymitch (played by Woody Harrelson) having fallen into alcoholism and depression after surviving the 50th Hunger Games/Second Quarter Quell 25 years prior – something also explored in the previous film – along with how most of the tributes attempt to make themselves sympathetic as a way to try and have the games cancelled by the demand of the Capitol’s populous. Another thing I think was well explored in the film is the way the different environments are presented such as the contrast between the Capitol and the Districts they oppress with most of District 12 (the district that several of the main characters in the first two films come from) being filled with rundown buildings and District 11 looking like a heavily armed prison.
My only real issues with the film are from my personal opinions on some of the designs, most of which are still justifiable, such as how the helmet redesign of the peacekeepers in the film makes it look like a combination of Halo’s ODSTs and Top Gear’s Stig. However, the design is fitting for their expanded role in the series of the faceless and cold hearted enforcers of the antagonists – similar to the Galactic Empire’s Stormtroopers from Star Wars – which is also mirrors their more violent and brutal actions in the film. Despite this and other off putting design choices (which likely do not affect other people who watch the film), I have very few issues with this film, especially since most of my main issues of the first film were rectified in this one such as the removal of shaky-cam footage which makes the film look more professional.
In conclusion, I feel that The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (Francis Lawrence, 2013) is an example of a film’s sequel being better than the original through how it expands the world it takes place in while also creating stunning visualisations of sequences from the book that it is based on. Along with this, it is my favourite of The Hunger Games films. My overall rating is 4.5 out of 5 stars.
The Hunger Games (Gary Ross, 2012) is a sci-fi film based on the book series of the same name and based in a dystopian future and in a world that is created from a combination of elements of life from the past and present of the real world taken to their darkest extreme. The film is set in a post apocalyptic North America (which has been renamed Panem and ruled over by a dictatorship) and follows the 74th year of the nation’s annual event The Hunger Games, a brutal gladiator based contest that forces 2 people from each of the 12 districts into an extended fight to the death until there’s only a single survivor as punishment for rebelling against the Capitol, something that is explained to the audience in the film’s opening for those who may not have read the books. The first hour of the film follows the set up to the contest within District 12 as Katniss Everdeen (played by Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (played by Josh Hutcherson) are chosen for the Hunger Games – with Katniss volunteering to protect her younger sister – and their experiences in the Capitol during the run up to the event. Once the event starts, the film focuses on Katniss as she attempts to survive the brutality of the Hunger Games while also showing how other characters try to help and undermine her from outside the arena. Eventually, the pair find a way to subvert those who control the games and ensure their own survival in the short term but putting themselves in greater danger in the future.
Despite the fact that I have not read any of the Hunger Games books (and therefore unaware of how accurate the performances are to them), I believe most of the actors did great jobs in their roles and portrayed their characters well, something that continued into the other three Hunger Games films. The two best characters in the film are the main protagonist and antagonist of the film series, Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss and Donald Sutherland as President Coriolanus Snow. Sutherland seems perfect for his role as he gives off a sense of his cold and manipulative personality whenever he appears and how he always speaks with a sense of calmness in his voice, no matter how events turn which gives off the belief that he always believes that he upholds his control and composure even in the most dire situations, effectively as he slowly loses control in the later films. Another element I like about the film is the way the dystopian setting is presented as being incredibly different to our own society and yet chillingly similar to it. The main way it is presented as being similar is how it is an extreme version of the normalisation of death and violence in entertainment (and how it has evolved and changed through history) with the hunger games themselves appearing as Roman style gladiator matches combined with modern reality shows such as I’m a Celebrity. This concept is partly displayed through the ways that those in charge if the games try to force the competitors together and apart while keeping them within certain places of the arena to entertain instead of just unleashing everything they against the competitors or forcing all 24 competitors to immediately fight to the death inside a small stadium size arena. Along with this, like most dystopian films, the society is presented as a dictatorship which acts as a reminder that the planet may only be a single disaster away form them becoming commonplace as they still exist in an isolated state in the modern day.
However, I feel that shaky-cam was used too much, mainly during the sequence of the 74th Hunger Games starting as I feel it was used amateurishly and rarely added to sequences where it was used. Although beyond this and some examples of outdated CGI, I have very few issues with this film but this is based on the facts that I have not read the books they’re based on.
In conclusion, The Hunger Games (Gary Ross, 2012) was an excellent start to the film series and has a compelling narrative in an interesting setting regardless of whether or not you have previously read the trilogy of books (although it is greatly enhanced if you have read them) and the cast give great performances. My overall rating is 4 out of 5 stars.
Andrew Elton's Film Studies Blog 