hunger games

We finally went to see The Hunger Games!  I thought it was ok, but because I had read the book I was able to fill in a lot of things that were missing.  The family (who hadn’t read the book) mostly just thought it was too long.

Generally speaking, books are better than their movies… but this one takes the cake.  There was no explanation of what the different districts represent, how going into the forest to hunt was illegal, what that smarmy market was used for, the history of the mockingjay pin, who Hamitch even was and why a drunken Woody Harrelson was their mentor.  Nevermind the whole relationship of Gale and Katniss!

And sorry, but Josh Hutcherson looked nothing like the Peeta I imagined from the book.  It was just an odd adaptation all around.  I don’t think we’ll be in any hurry to see Catching Fire whenever it comes out.

Advertisements

One thought on “hunger games

  1. I agree that the books are always, always better than the movie. “Flowers In The Attic” is a perfect example in my opinion — the book was good, as was the whole series (can’t say much for the rest of VC Andrews stuff) but the movie left out so much it was just blah.

Comments are closed.