If you’re gonna knock Jennifer Lawrence and “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1” from the top of the box office perch, you’ve gotta bring more than cuddly penguins and guys bent on revenge.
“Mockingjay Part 1” blew past new releases “Penguins of Madagascar” and “Horrible Bosses 2” to rule the box office for the second weekend in a row, according to numbers released by Rentrack, the company that collects and analyses box office data. “Mockingjay” brought in $56.8 million over the weekend and $83 million during the five-day Thanksgiving holiday. That brings its overall domestic total to $225 million in two weeks and $480 million internationally. It’s the third-highest five-day Thanksgiving weekend total ever, according to USA Today.
“Penguins” came in second with a respectable $25.8 million over the weekend, $36 million over the holiday. The movie was a hit with kids and almost everyone else who saw it, getting 72 percent on RottenTomatoes.com. Critics gave it a 69 percent positive rating.
What wasn’t positive was the numbers for “Horrible Bosses 2.” It made $22.7 million over the five-day holiday, $15.7 million over the weekend. The original film, which opened in July 2011, made $28 million in a weekend.
“Big Hero 6” continued its strong run, finishing second overall, ahead again of “Interstellar,” which was third. Powerhouse film “Gone Girl” remained in the top 10 while “Birdman” and “St. Vincent” rounded out the top 10.
The next set of reviews we’ll be publishing are some of the ones Roger Thomas has done exclusively for The Stanly News & Press. Roger has written movie reviews for The Stanly News & Press and other outlets for years, long before starting this blog. So we decided it would be good to give readers a sample of his previous work, in addition to posts of reviews of current films. Other reviews will run daily.
I read “The Hunger Games” novel at the encouragement of a friend and her daughter who both loved the book.
I had purchased the book over a year before and it sat on my shelf because other reading and many tasks came first. Over lunch one day I was challenged to take it down and enter the world of Katniss Everdeen. A challenge I embraced, and am glad of it.
By this point most already know that “Hunger Games” is a story of a future world where teenagers are forced by the government to participate in a match to the death. And as interesting as the game actually is, author Suzanne Collins also creates a captivating world where the elite live in the Capital and find great amusement in the game and the rest are forced to be suppliers of the Capital’s needs and the producers of the game’s participants.Put another way, the “have nots” give up their most precious commodity so the “haves” can have their sport.
This past weekend the film version of “The Hunger Games” premiered to almost record box office success. It had the third largest opening weekend in history (behind “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” and “The Dark Knight.”) Of course, success at the box office does not always mean a successful adaptation or a well-made film.
In this case “Games” is both a successful adaptation and a well-made film. In the former category the film succeeds in telling the novel’s story faithfully and emotionally. As is almost always the case, certain elements of the story are eliminated and others are enhanced, but for the most part, good choices were made by the screenwriters (a list which includes author Collins and director Gary Ross).
I would also applaud the screenplay for adding something not in the novel. The story in the book is all told in first person from the perspective of Katniss. The reader learns what she is thinking and feeling; there is never a question about her motivation and choices.
However, readers do not get a glimpse of what is happening elsewhere in the story. One of the strengths of the film is the several scenes where Katniss is not present. These aid the viewer in understanding exactly how and why the Hunger Games happen. As much as I enjoyed the book, these additions are one way the film outshines the text.
In the latter category of the film being well-made, there are many strengths. Gary Ross has only directed three films in his career and he has given the world two great films in the last fifteen years: “Pleasantville” and “Seabiscuit.” I am not ready to place “The Hunger Games” in the league as these two efforts, but it is certainly good enough to make one wish Ross would direct at least one film a year instead of three since 1998.
Other strengths of the film include beautiful cinematography (filmed in North Carolina), a engaging musical score by James Newton Howard (who may pick up his ninth Oscar nomination and perhaps his first win ever for his contribution in Games), and a large and engaging cast.Not every actor in the film shines equally, and certainly none shine as bright as Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, but there are a lot of juicy supporting roles with gifted actors giving their best.
One minor criticism is the use of handheld camera’s for several of the action sequences. This is a fad that has lasted too long. Shots with shaky cameras are a distraction not an enhancement to scene and often create confusion about what is actually transpiring on the screen. This is true not just of “Hunger Games,” but of many films of the last several years.
Finally, there are already articles stating “The Hunger Games” has religious meanings or political subtexts. Is it conservative or liberal symbolism? That is in the eye of the beholder.
But without a doubt, it is a well-made adaption of a very engaging book. And now it is time for me to follow the advice of my friend and her daughter and start reading the second novel, “Catching Fire.”
Cinema Corner 