Simple fact.
So, with that in mind, I DID like the new "Hunger Games" movie.
I was a little discouraged when one reviewer in Friday's newspaper said that the movie wasn't great as a stand-alone original, but seemed more like a prequel of things to come. Well, obviously the movie was based on the first book in the Hunger Games series, so that's to be expected, BUT... the first book was the best in my opinion, so I was hoping the movie would do it justice.

Loved Katniss. I thought Jennifer Lawrence did a great job, and is a far superior actor (I hesitate to even mention the name, but so many comparisons are already being made) to Kristen Stewart as Bella in the "Twilight" movies.
The Hunger Games books definitely have the same sort of star-crossed love triangle that also exists in the Twilight books, but for some reason I was not as annoyed by it in Hunger Games. Probably because it was a little less dramatic and contrived. Yep. That's probably why.

In other words, Katniss's relationship with both Gale and Peeta seem grounded in believable events and experiences that they undergo. They're not just another angelic face that induces instant true love.
Ahem. That said, Liam Hemsworth playing Gale is a total hunk. I didn't even realize he is the brother of Chris Hemsworth ("Thor") until my husband saw the last name match! How did I miss that?
If you liked the book, then I am happy to say you will probably also like the movie.
"Hunger Games" seems to be making enough money that they will probably get to do their sequels, so we can finally replace the "Twilight" craze with something a little better! (Did they really need to split "Breaking Dawn" into 2 parts? No, thank you.)
If anyone would like more of a literary review of Hunger Games or if you want to nominate it for our monthly read, just let me know! I'm happy to re-read books, especially ones that read fast anyway. :)
No comments:
Post a Comment