"Retribution" Serves Up Action and More Action

I am a hardcore fan of the "Resident Evil" film series, so I must admit that I went into the latest installment--"Resident Evil: Retribution"--a little biased.

However, I needed to see "Retribution" twice before I could fully wrap my head around it enough to write a review. I enjoyed the film the first time I saw it, but it wasn't until my second viewing that I fully realized its full awesomeness. (For anyone who hasn't seen the film, I'm going to be including some mild spoilers in this review.)

As a huge "Resident Evil" fan, I went into the film with expectations based on trailers and commercials. (I actually made that same mistake with the previous movie, "Resident Evil: Afterlife.") But once I knew what was going to happen, I could just focus on what really matters--the action, fight scenes and zombie shooting.

"Resident Evil: Retribution," directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, picks up where "Afterlife" left off, with a horde of soldiers from the evil Umbrella Corporation descending on heroine Alice (Milla Jovovich) and a ship full of survivors. After being captured by Umbrella, Alice must fight her way out of Umbrella's base of operations. 

Alice is pursued by former ally Jill Valentine (Sienna Guillory), who is being controlled by Umbrella. But a team that includes a few well known faces from the video game series--Ada Wong (Li Bingbing), Leon S. Kennedy (Johann Urb) and Barry Burton (Kevin Durand)--show up to help Alice. Unfortunately, with the exception of Ada, the movie did not give any background information of these new characters.

"Resident Evil" films are not heavy on plot or character development, and usually tend to focus more on action and scares. "Retribution" focuses even more heavily on action than any of the other movies in the series since the 2002 original. The movie does not have many slow moments when the characters are not running from or shooting at something or someone.

The main thing that impressed me about "Retribution" is how, out of all the films in the series, it most resembles an actual video. The Umbrella facility is made up of numerous large bunkers designed to simulate real cities. The characters have to go through these simulations to make their way out of the base, similar to how players in a video game have to go through levels or explore different areas.

"Retribution" actually has numerous references to the original "Resident Evil" movie. Like in the first film, Alice and her crew are trapped in an underground Umbrella facility with only a few hours to escape before the base is sealed off for good. Michelle Rodriguez--Jovovich's co-star from the original "Resident Evil film--returns as good and bad clones of her character Rain. Also, "Retribution" brings back the Red Queen, the homicidal computer that orchestrated the events of the first movie. I'm not sure I like the Red Queen's return since it feels a bit like a stretch and like it was done just to tie "Retribution" to the first movie or because they ran out of villains.

The special effects and cinematography were another impressive aspect of the film. I especially liked the slow motion opening sequence. Unfortunately the 3D effect is not nearly as good as it is in the previous movie. The 3D in "Afterlife" is the best I've seen in any live action movie and really added to the movie going experience, but in "Retribution" the 3D is only a distraction.  

One of the taglines for the film is "The Ultimate Battle Begins" and that is true, but "Retribution" feels like the first half of a two-part finale to the series, which I heard would probably be concluded in a sixth film even before this one was released.

"Dark Knight Rises" Over the Top

I must start out by saying "The Dark Knight Rises" is an amazing film. In fact, it's the best film I've seen in the theater this year. Not only does it live up to the first two films in Christopher Nolan's Batman film trilogy, but it also exceeds them in some ways.

"The Dark Knight Rises" takes the best of "Batman Begins" and "The Dark Knight" and rolls them up in one over-the-top package, serving as a very fitting conclusion to the series. It has a madman villain and a massive scale plot to take down Gotham City. Then again, what good Batman story doesn't have those things.

Picking up eight years after the events of "The Dark Knight," the film sees most of Gotham's citizens remembering Harvey "Two Face" Dent as a hero and believing Batman to have killed him. Bruce Wayne, played by Christian Bale, reluctantly returns from a self-imposed exile from society after a terrorist named Bane stages attacks in the city.

In "The Dark Knight Rises," Nolan once again does a masterful job of mixing together themes and events from the Batman comics in a more realistic setting. The film draws from some well known story arcs, especially Knightfall--the arc that introduces Bane to the comic--and Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns--an alternate world story where an older Bruce Wayne returns from retirement.

"The Dark Knight Rises" is a pretty fast paced film. It has a complex story and plenty of action so, while it does feel like a long film, it's the type of film that makes you want it to keep going. (Unless of course you drank too much soda and really need to use the restroom.)

However, even though I did love "The Dark Knight Rises," I don't think it is as good as the previous film. "The Dark Knight" is such an excellent film on so many levels that it is very difficult to top. Heath Ledger's chilling and disturbing portrayal of the Joker mixed with the right amount of humor in "The Dark Knight" is perfection. Of course, there is a reason why the Joker is considered to be not only one of Batman's greatest foes, but also one of the greatest comic book villains of all time.

"The Dark Knight Rises" focuses more on Bruce and his personal struggles than it does on his alter ego so the film doesn't include as many scenes of him in the cape and cowl than I expected. The film also doesn't feature as much of the character Selina Kyle--better known as Catwoman in the comic--as I hoped for. Selina's back story is hinted at as being similar to that of the comic book version but isn't explained in any real detail. In the film, Selina is a cat burglar and con artist who gets wrapped up in Bane's plot.

Speaking of Catwoman, a lot of people questioned whether actress Anne Hathaway could pull off the role of Selina Kyle. I'll admit Hathaway wouldn't have been my first choice, but I think she is a phenomenal actress and I trust Nolan's casting choices. Many, including me, thought the same about Heath Ledger and of course he proved everyone wrong. I'm used to thinking of Hathaway as the "nice girl" in movies but she completely captures Selina's sultry, sarcastic attitude and toughness. She doesn't go as over the top with the sexuality (nope, she doesn't brandish a whip) or affinity for cats as most previous portrayals such as the 1960s "Batman" television series and the recent "Batman: Arkham City" video game.

Julie Newmar's Catwoman costume

I also have to take a moment to discuss the costume. To me, it appears as if the Catwoman costume is mostly inspired by the one made famous in the 1960s series by Julie Newmar. I think the costume used in the current comics looks realistic enough to be used in the film. Actually the costume in the film seems to incorporate elements from different Catwoman costumes, including the goggles from the current comic costume. I think the thigh high boots with the six inch heels are a bit much, even though it turns out they do have a pretty cool use.

Tom Hardy also does an amazing job embodying the character Bane, even if he doesn't provide as chilling or compelling a villain as Ledger's Joker. The film mixed parts of Bane's back story with its larger, overall plot and made Bane as imposing intellectually as he is physically.

It goes without saying but I'll mention anyway that Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman and Morgan Freeman all repeat their stellar performances from the first two films as Bruce Wayne, Wayne's butler and closest confidant Alfred Pennyworth, lawman Commissioner Jim Gordon and Wayne's second closest ally Lucius Fox.

Many of the film's events and plot twists are predictable, especially if you are familiar with the Batman comic story lines. While predictability might be a major flaw in some other movies, it works in the favor of this film because it adds to the excitement. When I was watching the movie, there were a few points where I was anxiously anticipating certain events that I knew were coming. In every instance the film provides a more than satisfying pay off. 

From this point on I'm going to discuss a few last thoughts involving some specific plot details from the film so here is the obligatory spoiler alert.

I'm somewhat of a purist so I like a film to stay as close to the original material as possible. I don't mind some deviation, especially when the translation is a different take on the original book or comic as is the case with the Nolan Batman films. 

I think Nolan did a great job adding some small nods to the comic in the films but I have to mention the whole Robin thing. Only because I am a major Nightwing/Dick Grayson fan, I would have so much loved if it turned out that Joseph Gordon Levitt's character John Blake's birth name was Richard Grayson. If that happened, my head might have actually exploded. I know that is too much to ask for because it wouldn't necessarily make sense for the character to have changed his name but I couldn't help hoping for that the entire time I was watching the movie. 

Throughout the film, it is strongly foreshadowed that Blake would eventually take over for Bruce Wayne. I realize that his characterization and background--being an orphan and a cop and figuring out Batman's secret identity--is an amalgamation of the various Robins from the comic, namely Grayson, Jason Todd and Tim Drake. So in the end, when we find out that John Blake isn't his birth name I was just waiting to hear "Richard" or "Grayson" or something. Hearing his real first name was Robin is a decent nod to the comic but I wish they took it one step further and used one of the names from the comic.

Speaking of supposedly original characters, the fact that Marion Cotillard's character Miranda Tate turned out to be Talia Al Ghul was the worst kept secret in recent movies. Despite all the denials from Nolan and Cotillard, everyone knew. The only problem I have is that "Miranda" was suddenly in a League of Shadows (or League of Assassins in the comic) style outfit before the reveal, which made it even more obvious. But I'm just glad it turned out to be true because it was the perfect way to bring the story back to Ra's Al Ghul's plot to destroy Gotham from "Batman Begins."

I think the ending tied up the trilogy in a very fitting way while leaving the story open, which illustrates how life goes on and the war on crime is never ending. I do like that Bruce faked his death and ended up with Selina. I always liked her better as a love interest for Bruce than I did Talia. And whether Robin ends up using the name Nightwing or becomes Batman or just uses his own name isn't important. It's enough to know the he is taking up the mantle and that the story goes on even if this film series is over. 

"Spider-man" is Indeed Amazing

Many people were left scratching their heads when Marvel Entertainment and Columbia Pictures announced a couple years ago that they were rebooting their Spider-Man film franchise.

Considering it's only been five years since the release of the last film in the original trilogy, the obvious question was whether or not we really needed the series restarted so soon. While the quality of 2007's "Spider-Man 3" screams "Yes," the quality of "The Amazing Spider-Man" gives a resounding "eh, maybe."

Don't take that to mean "The Amazing Spider-Man" is a so-so film. Actually, the movie is (pun intended) amazing. The story, the acting and the special effects are all incredibly well done.

Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man. Image credit: Sony Pictures

The one problem is the film, which sees Andrew Garfield donning the iconic skin tight red and blue suit, is a little too reminiscent of the 2002 "Spider-Man" that starred Tobey Maguire. Both movies show the origin story of Marvel Comic's popular web-slinger Peter Parker a.k.a. Spider-Man, including his life as a nerdy high school kid living with his aunt and uncle, being bitten by a genetically engineered spider and becoming a super-powered costumed vigilante. Both also include a love story between Peter and a female character from the comics. 

"The Amazing Spider-Man" does deviate from the original film in a few important ways. The most notable is that the new movie focuses more on Peter searching for answer's about his dead parents and the secrets his father, scientist Richard Parker, kept before his death. In this version of the story, Peter discovers his father worked on genetic experimentation at the large company, Oscorp.   

Another big difference is the film's love interest is Gwen Stacy--a character more well-known to fans of the comics--rather than Spidey's traditionally known girlfriend Mary Jane Watson. (Fans of the comics also know that Peter dated Gwen before he met Mary Jane.) In addition, the villain is the Lizard, not the most famous Spider-Man adversary, the Green Goblin.

The casting has its ups and downs. Garfield is a convincing Peter Parker, capturing his awkwardness and bringing a little more humor and personality to his Spider-Man persona than the character had in the 2002 film. Emma Stone, who played Gwen, sparkles on screen as always, but I originally thought she would have been more suited to play Mary Jane. Stone excels at playing down-to-Earth, quirky and smart women like Mary Jane. However, in the film, Gwen has all of these same characteristics so all of Stone's talents are put to good use. Garfield and Stone have a natural chemistry on screen that makes the hot girl falling for the school nerd very believable.

Veteran actors Martin Sheen and Sally Field pulled off the roles of Peter's Uncle Ben and Aunt May flawlessly, but didn't quite match the performances of Cliff Robertson and Rosemary Harris, who made the roles their own in the 2002 film.

As a movie itself, "The Amazing Spider-Man" gives the audience plenty of action along with an engaging story. It does leave a few questions unanswered, but those will undoubtedly be addressed in the sequels.  It is definitely a must see for Spider-Man fans, but unfortunately it doesn't veer far enough from the formula of the original.

"Resident Evil: Retribution" Trailer is Finally Here!

The long awaited full length trailer for "Resident Evil: Retribution" debuted on the Web today, giving fans of Screen Gems' highly successful action horror franchise a first real look at the film's plot.

Screen Gems released a brief teaser in January that gave a peek at some of the movie's action, but did not give much in the way of story details. "Retribution" is the fifth installment in the saga of heroine Alice, played by Milla Jovovich, and her battle against the powerful and villainous Umbrella Corporation, which is responsible for decimating much of the world with its T-Virus.

Both the teaser and full trailer gave a glimpse at the return of Michelle Rodriguez, who appeared in the first "Resident Evil" film as Rain Ocampo, a member of an Umbrella Corporation special forces commando unit. The full trailer also includes scenes of Oded Fehr and Colin Salmon, two other stars from earlier in the series who are returning for the fifth installment. Fehr appeared in "Resident Evil: Apocalypse" and "Resident Evil: Extinction" (the second and third films) as Carlos Olivera, a character from the Capcom video game series the films are based on, while Salmon appeared in the first movie as James "One" Shade. Rain, Carlos and One were all killed off, but are somehow back for this new movie.

The trailer doesn't actually explain the return of these characters so I had to go to Wikipedia to learn that the actors are playing clones created by Umbrella. That's no surprise as there aren't many other ways to bring back characters who were shot in the head, diced up or blown up. Also, this is a sci-fi horror film I'm talking about. However, they are not just playing clones, they are actually playing two clones--one a "good" version and one a "bad" version. (Only in a "Resident Evil" movie!)

The trailer does explain that Umbrella captured Alice and placed her in a dream world where she and Carlos are living happily in the suburbs with a young daughter--that is, until she is given a rude awakening by a zombie attack. Also, Umbrella has grown larger than ever and appears to have achieved world domination. Alice has to once again go up against Albert Wesker, the sunglasses loving villain who was supposedly killed when his plane exploded in the previous film, "Resident Evil: Afterlife." (Wesker could actually be seen parachuting from the explosion if you look closely). Alice also has to face her old ally Jill Valentine, played by Sienna Guillory, who appeared in "Apocalypse." A scene during the credits of "Afterlife" showed that Valentine is under the control of Umbrella thanks to one of their mind control devices. Also glimpsed in the full trailer are Ada Wong and Leon Kennedy, two characters from the video games who are making their way onto the big screen.

Despite never having played through an entire "Resident Evil" game, I am a huge fan of the movies (as I mentioned in my post about my love for all things zombie). This latest film looks like it will not disappoint in giving us a good dose of shooting, ass kicking and Umbrella Corporation craziness. The previews for "Afterlife" showed Alice storming Umbrella's facility that resulted in a huge battle, but that part of the film ended up only taking up the first 10 or 15 minutes. I actually thought it was a really clever twist. The movie's actual plot turned out to be much narrower in focus than I originally expected, dealing more with Alice getting trapped in a prison with a group of survivors and not having her facing off against Umbrella again until the end. "Retribution" looks like it will be the global scale war that I was expecting in "Afterlife," which is necessary to keep the franchise fresh and draw it to an explosive close. I just wish Chris and Claire Redfield were included in this film, but unfortunately they seem to be missing since their appearance in "Afterlife." Hopefully they will be in the sixth, and reportedly final, film.

"Resident Evil: Retribution" will be released in theaters on September 14, 2012. Watch the trailer below:

 

Update: Screen Gem's released two additional international trailers that can be found on the Web site Bloody Disgusting.

"The Cabin in the Woods" is Worth the Trip

So I'm going to review another film that's been out for a while: Liongate’s "The Cabin in the Woods." But unlike the last movie I reviewed, "The Hunger Games" (also released by Lionsgate), the Joss Whedon produced horror film "Cabin in the Woods" hasn't shattered any sales records, which is unfortunate because it is just as amazing in its own way.

I had extremely high expectations for "The Cabin in the Woods" going in, mainly because I am a huge fan of Whedon’s past television shows, “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” “Angel,” and “Dollhouse.” Also, Whedon co-wrote “Cabin” with Drew Goddard, who wrote for “Buffy” and “Angel.” On top of that, I spent years anticipating the film’s release since first hearing about it in late 2009. (It was supposed to be released in February 2010, but was delayed because of financial problems at MGM, the film’s original distributor.) I can easily say “The Cabin in the Woods” surpassed my expectations and left me in complete awe. I’ll even go as far as calling it a must see movie for horror fans, especially those that appreciate what was done with the genre in the 80s and 90s. This includes cliché situations and stereotypical characters like the dumb blonde who often falls while running from the killer, the macho jock and the innocent, chaste “final girl” character who is usually the lone survivor. In true Whedon style, the film manages to both poke fun at and subvert these stereotypes at the same time.

It's probably best to go into the film with as little information about the premise as possible, other than that it's about five college kids who go for a weekend getaway to the secluded locale referenced in the title. That plot may sound reminiscent of slasher film classics, like the much beloved (at least by me) "Friday the 13th" series, in which a mindless killer picks off partying teens one by one. But there is much more to "The Cabin in the Woods." Unfortunately, incessant commercials spoiled the main aspect of the movie that sets it apart from those fondly remembered films from decades past. So I can at least talk about that much since I won't be spoiling anything that the television ads haven't already. However, if you want to go into this movie completely blind, you should probably stop reading here. So the five friends--Dana, Jules, Curt, Marty, and Holden--are being monitored by technicians from some apparent scientific corporation throughout their entire trip. Strategically placed surveillance cameras are in the cabin and covert military looking guys spy on them even before they leave for their ill-fated adventure. The fact that the college students are being watched and somewhat toyed with by the technicians is kind of similar to "The Hunger Games" and some of the ideas that movie brings up, except in "Cabin in the Woods" the kids don't know they're being watched.

The movie does have other surprises that aren't ruined by commercials, including why the corporation is performing their horror games. The movie hints at the corporation's endgame a few times earlier on and, while not completely original, it gives a very creative concept the both pokes fun at and explains certain horror film character stereotypes. "The Cabin in the Woods" also has a climactic scene that shouldn't be missed. At this point it's probably too late to catch the film in the theaters, but it should definitely be seen on DVD/Blu-ray. I can't speak for all horror fans but I think most would agree "The Cabin in the Woods" is one hell of a movie!

I Have More to Say About "The Hunger Games"

I tried to avoid giving away any major spoilers in my review of "The Hunger Games" just in case the one person who hasn't seen the film yet somehow stumbled upon it. But I have even more to say, so I'm doing a post for anyone who has seen the movie or just doesn't care about spoilers.

The first thing I want to discuss is the over the top scene I mentioned in my review. In the film, there is an added scene after Rue's death that shows a riot breaking out in District 11, Rue's home district. It starts out with a guy that I assume is Rue's father going into an angry fit. People around him start acting out as well and it escalates into a full scale revolt. Now don't get me wrong. I love Rue as much as the next “Hunger Games” fan, but I think a riot is a bit of an extreme reaction. Obviously Rue's family would be angry, and I would have been fine with the scene if it just showed her father getting upset. But I would think the other citizens in District 11, as well as those in every district, would be used to seeing a 12-year-old get killed in the Games considering this is the 74th competition. That should especially be true for the more poverty stricken districts, such as District 11, where the children are malnourished and most aren’t strong enough to compete against the well fed tributes from the richer districts. Also, the riot takes away from Katniss's experience, which is what this part of the story is really about. After Rue is killed, Katniss decorates her body with flowers as a way to both honor Rue and show the Capitol that she and Rue are more than pawns in their game. While this is shown in the film, the riot is so jarring that it kind of ruins the somber, emotional mood of Katniss mourning Rue’s death. I believe the filmmakers added the riot scene to foreshadow events in the sequel, “Catching Fire,” which is where we will learn more about what goes on in the districts as a result of the Games. The riot scene gives the idea that Rue’s death sparks a revolution in the districts. While Rue’s death was part of a chain of events, the dissension in the districts is supposed to be more a reaction to Katniss’s defiance of the Capitol.

One thing I found interesting about Rue’s death in general is that, as much as I would have liked for her to survive, her death is a necessary part of the story. It is a strong reminder to the audience that this is a world where very young children are sent not only to die, but in most cases to die brutally. Seeing 17-year-olds killing each other isn't as disturbing as seeing a 17-year-old killing a 12-year-old. In movies, older teenagers look and are oftentimes played by adults so the viewer doesn’t necessarily think of them as children. Plus, horror movies have been featuring teenagers getting murdered since at least the early 70s so viewers are used to seeing that. Other younger tributes were killed in the bloodbath at the start of the games but the film doesn’t focus much on them. But these deaths, as well as Rue’s, also serve as a reminder of just how sick and bloodthirsty the spectators are in the Capitol. The last thing I’ll say about Rue is that I would have liked to see a little more of her before she was killed. I thought the filmmakers could have added a conversation between Katniss and Rue about the conditions in District 11, how Rue had to work in the fields and how she loves music. Rue could have also mentioned how she used the four note song she and Katniss used as a signal during the Games back home in District 11 to signal the end of the work day. That could have showed Rue was known by a lot of people and could have explained the uproar that took place in District 11 after she died. 

I think some other important plot points from the novel could have easily been added to the film with just some slight changes to certain scenes or extra dialogue. For example, at one point later in the movie, Peeta refers to the red headed female tribute from District 5 as “Foxface,” but there is no explanation for this. In the book, Katniss comes up with the nickname because she doesn’t know the girl’s real name and probably because it sounds catchier to the reader than “the girl from District 5.” I know that isn't exactly a major detail, but it could be confusing to some. I think the filmmakers could have easily avoided that by having Katniss mention the girl to Peeta and say that she’s been thinking of the girl as Foxface or something like that. Earlier in the film, the video shown at the reaping mentions that Panem began with 13 districts but afterwards it is said Panem only has 12 districts with no explanation. I think it would have been easy to add another line in the video or a line of dialogue in another scene to clarify that District 13 was obliterated in the Dark Days—the war caused by the districts’ rebellion 75 years or so before the beginning of the story. In another scene early in movie, Katniss mentions that her sister’s name will only be in the bowl at the reaping once and it is mentioned in a following scene that Gale’s name will be added to the bowl numerous times with no explanation. In the novel, Katniss says that potential tributes can have their names added to the bowl extra times, thereby increasing their chances of being selected, in exchange for tokens, or tesserae, that are traded for a small amount of grain and oil. This would probably take more than a line of dialogue to explain but Katniss and Gale could have discussed it or an extra scene could have been added showing them signing up for tesserae.

One of the aspects of the novel that I really wish the film version had retained is how rough the conditions are for Katniss during the Games. In the film, once she escapes the bloodbath she gets set up in the woods and finds water and food pretty quickly. In the novel, however, it takes Katniss a couple days to find a source of water and, before she does, she nearly dies from dehydration. Also, both Katniss and Peeta suffer from near starvation as well when they are holed up together in the cave. Peeta also suffers from blood poisoning while they are hiding in the cave due to his leg wound and he nearly dies. Another aspect that I would have liked to see in the film is how Katniss figures a lot of things out for herself in the novel, such as what the gifts from Haymitch mean. In the novel, Haymitch wasn’t allowed to include notes in the gifts like he did in the film, so Katniss had to interpret why he sent her gifts at certain times and refrained from sending gifts at other times. For instance, before she first found water she wondered why Haymitch didn’t or wasn’t able to send any to her but she eventually realized that meant a water source was nearby. I understand that a lot of that stuff had to be cut for length but in my opinion removing these aspects definitely took some of the bite out of the story.

I could probably go on and on analyzing "The Hunger Games" but I need to stop somewhere. The last thing I’ll discuss is something else I think the film could have done without. In the movie, the Gamemakers seemed like they were trying to kill the tributes; particularly in the scene where they hurl large fireballs at Katniss. In the novel, they used tricks like the fireballs merely as a means to drive the tributes to the same location so they would be forced into confrontations. Manipulating the environment was meant to make sure the Games didn't get boring for the viewers in the Capitol. However, they were not supposed to kill tributes. That seems like it would be counter intuitive to the point of the Games, which is to have to tributes kill each other. I haven't finished reading the trilogy though so that could also be some form of foreshadowing for information that comes out later about how the Games are operated, but I like the idea that the Games at least has some level of fairness. Then again, the government officials in the Capitol are so cruel that I wouldn't put anything past them.

"The Hunger Games" Review

So I decided to write some movie reviews and I'm starting with a film everyone has seen already:  "The Hunger Games."

Before entering the theater to watch "The Hunger Games" this past Saturday, I promised myself I would not spend the entire time comparing it to the book, which I finished reading that morning. Unfortunately I failed miserably. With the book so fresh in my mind, I found it impossible not to think about how each scene in the film matched up with the corresponding scene in the book. I actually had the same problem when I first saw many of the Harry Potter movies, being a huge fan of the book series. I didn't have that problem with the last two Harry Potter films though. By then, it had been a few years since I read the books so I didn't have an exact memory of them. But, much like the Potter films, the movie version of "The Hunger Games" does not completely live up to the book. However, that does not stop it from being a great film.

Even though I was slightly disappointed that some events in the film do  not happen exactly as they do in the book, I kept reminding myself that all of the details in a novel couldn't be captured in a two-and-a-half-hour movie. The screenwriter (who I later found out is the book's author, Suzanne Collins) had to form a story for the film based out of all the information in the novel and could not fit in everything. (As a side note, that reminds me of the same writing process I used when I was a reporter at a community newspaper. I would gather a lot of information and only use what I needed to craft a story, rather than cramming in every bit.)

Set in Panem--a dystopian nation standing on the ruins of a post apocalyptic North America--the film follows the plot of the novel fairly closely. Panem consists of a wealthy city known as the Capitol and 12 poorer surrounding districts. To punish the districts for a past uprising against the Capitol, Panem's government imposed a yearly ritual called the Hunger Games, in which one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18 are randomly selected from each district to fight to the death in a televised competition. During the Games, the participants are placed in an outdoor arena where they must survive unknown conditions and hazards controlled by agents of the Capitol. The Games serve as a way for the Capitol to keep the districts in line by reminding them that they are always at its mercy. Katniss Everdeen, a 16-year-old girl from the twelfth and poorest district, volunteers to be a sacrifice, or "tribute," in the 74th Annual Hunger Games to take the place of her younger sister Primrose, whose name is originally selected. The film centers on Katnis, who must travel to the extravagant Capitol, along with fellow District 12 tribute Peeta Mellark, to train for and compete in the competition.

Reading the novel before seeing the film definitely biased my opinion of it, in both a good and a bad way. I already knew the full story so I wasn't confused by any missing background information. Plus, I was more forgiving than some because I loved the novel and wanted to love the film. However, I think the fact that the film glosses over or omits some of the novel's major plot points was possibly more noticeable to me than someone who hadn't read the book. For instance, the film mentions Panem began with thirteen districts but doesn't explain District 13 was destroyed in a catastrophic war caused by the rebellion. Also, a character says the victor of the Hunger Games is "bathed in riches" but the film doesn't explain what that includes. In the book, it is explained the victor receives money and a fancy house in their home district. The book also says that the Capitol provides extra food to the winner's home district for a year, which is why the competition is called the Hunger Games.

Additionally, some of the novel's brutality is lost in translation to the screen, however, not enough for the film to seem too toned down. A story about teenagers fighting to the death is obviously going to be violent and controversial but the film isn't nearly as brutal as the similarly themed Japanese film "Battle Royale," also based on a novel. Rather than focusing on the actual killing, "The Hunger Games" is more about Katniss's struggle for survival in the arena. Though the movie is not without deaths, it uses a shaky camera style that distracts from some of the violence and helps portray Katniss's frenzied experience. The most important aspect of the story that the film doesn't capture is Katniss's insight, given through first person narration in the novel. However, not having the limitations of first person narration allows the film to show scenes that take place with characters outside the arena while the games are taking place. Some of them are interesting additions but some detract a bit from what is really Katniss's story. One of the new scenes (that I won't give it away for that one person who hasn't seen the movie yet) is so unnecessary and over the top that I actually cringed a little.

The film features strong performances from some veteran actors including Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy, Katniss and Peeta's mentor and District 12's only living Hunger Games victor, and the marvelous Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickman, the Game's colorful host. But the movie really belonged to star Jennifer Lawrence, who played the role of Katniss to perfection. I can't think of another actress who could have done a better job capturing the character's charm, toughness and vulnerability. Lawrence played a similar role in the Academy Award nominated film "Winter's Bone," which could have been a "Hunger Games" prequel that tells the story of Katniss's ancestor, Ree Dolly. Like Katniss, Ree is a tough girl living in poverty who supports her younger siblings and nearly catatonic mother. Someone needs to cryogenically freeze Jennifer Lawrence so she can play Katniss again when "The Hunger Games" is remade in 10 or 15 years. I also loved young actress Amandla Stenberg as the character Rue, a 12-year-old chosen as the tribute from District 11. I just wish Rue had more screen time in the film.

Overall, I think "The Hunger Games" is a very compelling story with a lot of interesting themes, my favorites being the allusions to the popularity of reality television in today's culture and the gladiator combat that took place in the Roman Empire. I would recommend the movie to the person who hasn't seen it. I would also highly recommend the novel to anyone who enjoyed the movie because it gives much more depth to Panem and the characters.