The Peanuts Movie

I finally got to see one of my most anticipated movies that I wanted to check out in theaters this year, “The Peanuts Movie,” which came out at the beginning of this month. So I will let all of you know what I thought about it in today's review.

Jesse Hassenger started his review out by saying, “The Peanuts Movie opens with a scene not dissimilar from the beginning of A Boy Named Charlie Brown, the feature that first brought Charles Schulz’s Peanuts comic strip to the big screen back in 1969. In both movies, Charlie Brown sets out to fly a kite and fails; the chief difference is that in The Peanuts Movie, perhaps trying to mimic the appeal of the beloved Charlie Brown Christmas special, he’s flying his kite during the winter months. That’s the Peanuts adaptation challenge in a nutshell: There is both a wealth of material to pull from (baseball, football, camp, the Great Pumpkin, uncomfortable crushes, Snoopy’s fantasies), and the difficulty of picking and choosing which bits of lore to assemble into a larger narrative—especially considering how much has already been strip-mined by movies, specials, a stage musical, and the endlessly cycled strips themselves.” Every new adaptation is the softest of reboots.

This is true to “The Peanuts Movie” as well, even though this is upgraded in animation. Blue Sky, the company that has not came out with a single good animated movie (including the “Ice Ages” and “Rios”), creates a script that is co-written by Charles Schultz’s son and grandson in the brightest shades of modern computer animation, with the weakest additions of 3D touches. Hassenger mentions, “The kids’ faces do look more spherical, but not distractingly so, and the animators take care to render their facial expressions in Schulz-style lines rather than uncanny detail.” Even though it’s precisely more of a detailed cure than the characters have ever been given, it’s also kinder and more satisfying to look at than any of Blue Sky’s other features. It’s also a nice addition of Schultz’s style – despite, decided, no one needs to see Pig-Pen’s (AJ Teece) permanent cloud of dust delivered more brilliantly.

The higher production look pays off during an ongoing series of fantasy moments when Snoopy thinks of himself fighting the Red Baron, as he is supposed to do. Even though his imagination runs into enemy planes and an imaginary love interest dog named Fifi, voiced by singer Kristin Chenoweth, with archival stuff from the late Bill Melendez as both Snoopy and Woodstock, the World War I Flying Ace’s own plane stays, as it always has been, his red doghouse. Hassenger said, “The play-pretend combat, cleverly yoked to another familiar Snoopy routine from the comics, finally lives up to the dog’s dreams while drawing slapstick curlicues around the film’s margins. It’s the best aerial dogfight involving actual dogs since Up.” I would agree with him about that.

The big Snoopy scenes aren’t especially critical to the movie’s titular plot, which, just like the classic “Peanuts” movies, is not exactly strongly hurt. However, “The Peanuts Movie” does a better job joining together its episodes than many of the older films, forming itself around a series of simple school events: a standardized test, a talent show, a dance contest, and a book report. They’re all moments for Charlie Brown to try and prove himself to the new girl in class, the unnamed Little Red-Haired Girl, voiced by Francesca Angelucci Capaldi, who also voiced Frieda the “natural curly hair” girl. Hassenger described Charlie Brown in this movie as this, “This version of Charlie Brown is a touch generic—a bumbling, good-hearted dreamer without the richer, more philosophical veins of melancholy that run through some of Schulz’s best work.”

Hassenger goes on to say, “That simplification is reflected in the new movie’s attempt to honor the tradition of casting actual children as the characters’ voices. (This sounds obvious enough, but stars ranging from Rihanna to Taylor Swift have masqueraded as tweens in recent animation.)” Past “Peanuts” specials and movies used children that didn’t sound like they had studied or acted, and even though this is true in some of “The Peanuts Movie” casting – Linus (Alexander Garfin) and Lucy (Hadley Belle Miller) are for the most part spot-on – young Noah Schnapp (Tom Hanks’ son) gives Charlie Brown a more polished voice. Hassenger mentioned, “He speaks more clearly, but with a somewhat reduced vocabulary. Still, the movie does provide him with some hilariously Schulz-ish worries: When partnered with a girl for a school assignment, he frets about whether he’s ready for a relationship that might turn into a house, a mortgage, and escrow.”

Even without dialogue giving at the high difficulty points, this heart-warming movie mostly gets the tone of Schultz’s work and the voices of his characters. Lucy throws insults that sound like she is giving psychiatric help, Linus gives sensible advice, and when Charlie Brown gains local dishonor, his little sister Sally, voiced by Mariel Sheets, gives tours of their home and sells mementos, inaccurately kidding the strip’s history as a merchandising prize. Hassenger said, “Most of its flinches at Schulz’s bleakness are minor—little moments where the movie wants to assure its young audience that the kids onscreen aren’t that sad or upset. That includes the sweet but not especially Schulz-like ending; the filmmakers can’t find a way out of their story that doesn’t, to some degree, give in to narrative demands for validation. (In their defense, the more bittersweet ending of A Boy Named Charlie Brown, probably the best possible balance of big defeats and little victories, is already taken).” Without a doubt some huge Peanuts fans will shake. Hassenger is right when he says, “But this movie hasn’t been made exclusively for adult nostalgists, and is something of a gift for its newest, youngest potential fans.” A larger-budget “Peanuts” is still far more particular than almost anything they’ll see at a movie theater this year.

I’m not going to lie, after I saw this movie, I can’t stop feeling a sort of way I don’t think I have ever felt after seeing a movie. I never felt this way after watching any movie that is based on something I grew up with until I saw this and I can’t explain why. Maybe it’s because this movie leaves that good feeling that you feel when you watch one of their adaptations. It’s very funny and has some sad moments where you want our protagonists to be alright, but everything is fine in the end. If you haven’t seen this, go and see it if it’s still playing in a theater near you.

Thank you for joining in on my review today, stay tuned until December to see what we have in store to finish the year out.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2

Eleven days ago, “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2” was released. I saw the movie on Monday, so now I will let you know my thoughts.

It looks fitting that this young adult film finishes this teen-oriented franchise – taking a very hard, straightforward look at war, the meaning of democracy, the consequences of a government change, and the understated task of nation-building.

Shalini Langer mentioned in her review, “There are other narratives here, as President Snow (Sutherland) whips up fears about “those who don’t know our ways”, in order to guard his Capitol against “outsiders”.” Walls are built, children separated from mothers as war arrives.

Langer said in her review, “Writer Suzanne Collins features in the credits again for helping adapt her books to the screen, and director Lawrence faithfully follows her vision in placing the tortured and torn Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) as the moral centre of this dystopia. Other women too play a crucial role in each of the turns the film takes, whether as Katniss’s friends, family, rivals or enemy.”

Langer goes on to say, “While Part 2 of what ended exactly a year ago also begins with its take on modern warfare being about who grabs the most eyeballs, it thankfully moves on confidently into real battle this time.” The dome – again a parallel drawn between life outside the hunger games and within – is the bombed Capitol itself. The film shows it well, both the bombed overground and the miserable underworld.

Katniss decides she has reached her limit of being told what to do by Coin, who sees herself as the leader of the rebels, and decides that the only way out, is to take down Snow. Langer said, "So disregarding direct orders, she secretes out to join Gale (Hemsworth) and the others on a mission into Capitol." Peeta, who was tormented and brainwashed by the Capitol in the previous film to a point where he can’t tell the truth from reality anymore, soon joins them. We think Coin believes it makes a better story for a movie if the two former lovers are kept together, even as possible opponents now.

The film follows Katniss’s company of seven or so as they steadily make their way to Snow’s castle, criss-crossing through the unknown bomb traps he has set for them. Snow sees this as just another part of the hunger games, with the demonstration even bigger as he takes out the rebels on camera in the real world.

Langer mentioned, “Mockingjay – Part 2 works again because Lawrence, who has grown as much as Katniss through the course of this series, brings forth the right mix of vulnerability and steel required of her. It’s a rare achievement on screen for a heroine to be so consistently a person than a woman, making no concessions to her so-called feminine self.”

It’s also rare for a film to reject itself the excitement of a success after this hard-fought, four-part, big-franchise fight. However, Francis Lawrence also resists.

However, I will admit the same thing that everyone else has said when they were watching these movies: this should not have been split up into two movies. If they had cut out parts that felt like it was just filler and combined both of the parts together, the film could have been stronger and better compared to what it is. Now, this part is better than the first part, but the first two are still better. They should have known that it wouldn’t have been great when they decided to split Mockingjay up into two parts. Anyway, I will say that you can go to the theater and watch this movie because you will like it, I promise.

Alright, that ends “Hunger Games Month.” I know I am posting this late, but I was out for a good part of the day, and no, not for Black Friday shopping. We only were doing that for a little bit, I’m not crazy about Black Friday at all. Stay tuned next month for another exciting conclusion series of reviews for this year.

Planes, Trains & Automobiles

Seeing how this is the third year I’m doing a Thanksgiving-themed movie review, I will review a classic John Hughes movie that is right to see around this time of the year. Ah, John Hughes. He was definitely innovative of his time to release a handful of movies that have been loved or hated by people, but then again, who hasn’t? Well enough of that, let’s get to today’s review.

The tortuous journey that is got on in John Hughes’s 1987 classic, “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” is supposed to go from New York to Chicago, but its final destination is surprising. The two traveling friends, Neal Page (Steve Martin) and Del Griffith (the late John Candy), do actually make it to the Windy City, but they also arrive at the place where confidences are made, insecurities are expressed and friendships are created.

You don’t have to be a fan of Hughes’s teen leaning films to know that these are not normally the worries of middle-aged traveling businessmen. Janet Maslin mentioned in her review, “However, Mr. Hughes conceives of this film's adult characters as lost adolescents, and seems to regard their mature status as a terrible burden that they will, with luck, be able to shed. So Mr. Martin, in the film's earlier sections, is the epitome of corporate stiffness, doing most of his acting with his cheek muscles and bristling murderously when someone steals a taxi from him at rush hour.” The film is not in anyway comfortable with this exaggerated version of grown-up store than it is with the misplaced, confessional goodness that forms its conclusion.

The real trouble with “Planes, Trains and Automobiles,” is simpler: there wasn’t much of an idea here to begin with, and when Hughes works with non-teenage characters he has smaller stores of spoken humor upon which to make. It’s harder to have one man complain that traveling with the other is “like going on a date with a Chatty Cathy doll” than it would be to have a teenager say that line. None of Hughes’ earlier films have focused around anything more complicated than prom dates and parent troubles and becoming friends with classmates, but they had a surface and accuracy that “Planes, Trains and Automobiles” lacks.

Martin and Candy are an easy duo to watch even with small material, though, and the film is never worse than slow. Actually, it’s even promising at first, with the bound-for-trouble promise of a quick trip home for Neal Page, who phones his wife, played by Laila Robins, to tell her he’ll be there by 10. Maslin mentioned, “As a blow-by-blow anatomy of a horrid traveling experience, replete with flight cancellations, snowstorms and unscheduled detours, ''Planes, Trains and Automobiles'' has great potential, but it begins to meander once Neal and Del become a reluctant duo. Neal detests the loud, tirelessly jolly Del on sight.” However, fate makes them share a plane ride, a frustrating taxi trip and even a bed.

Maslin said, “The great, embarrassed flurry of man-talk with which these two leap out of bed the next morning is indeed funny, and the film does have its scattered moments.” However, too often, the audience has as every reason as Del and Neal do to question where, if anywhere, they are going.

I saw this movie for the first time yesterday and I fell in love with this movie after I had finished watching it. This movie easily makes one of my favorite comedies that I will watch whenever I get the chance, even if it is or isn’t around the Thanksgiving time. Now, if you haven’t seen this movie, you have to, especially if you are a fan of John Hughes, Steven Martin, or even the late John Candy. Maybe you might be a fan of one, two, or maybe even all three of them. Whatever the case might be, you have got to see this movie because you will be laughing a lot and really feeling happy and sad when those parts come up.

Happy Thanksgiving online readers! I hope everyone has a good Thanksgiving dinner and will be watching some good Thanksgiving-themed movies along with it. Stay tuned tomorrow for the finale of “Hunger Games Month.”

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1

Jennifer Lawrence’s personality and her clever excellence of her supporting cast kept “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1,” released in 2014, climbing upwards. The third installment in the “Hunger Games” franchise (well, I should say chapter three, part one) is a depressing, sometimes terrible experience, and not only because it’s the darkest installment ever in an already dark series, capturing dystopian rebels in a poverty-struck and discouraged state. As written by regular series writers Peter Craig and Danny Strong, and as directed by Frances Lawrence (who also was on the second film in the franchise, “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire”), it also feels a bit stretched out, not to give the actors room to breathe and stretch the film’s narrative borders to give better attention with detail, but because that’s how Hollywood increasingly does big budget franchises now: breaking one book into two or three, like with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or The Hobbit, to make the intense bookworms happy by dramatizing as many scenes as possible, and to make money on tickets.

Matt Zoller Seitz mentioned that, “When the story begins, our heroes have literally been driven underground. Hunger Games champion Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) survived multiple iterations of the books' nationally televised, gladiator-styled, bread-and-circuses reality show, then was cynically positioned by the evil President Snow (Donald Sutherland) as a false figure of inspiration.” She became a symbol of hope thanks to her determined spirit, plus intelligent planning by rebel fighters and image manipulators, including Katniss’s once-drunk and now sober mentor, Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), Seitz describes, “the propagandist and image consultant Plutarch” (dedicated to the memory of Philip Seymour Hoffman), the tech genius Betee (Jeffrey Wright), and the image consultant (and the comic relief) Effie Trinket.

“Mockingjay, Part 1” starts exactly where “Catching Fire” left off, with Katniss, rescued from Quarter Quell, living in a composite underground of District 13 with her fellow revolutionists. Led by their courageous district president Coin, played by Julianne Moore, with a frosted wig and a strict appearance, our heroes tolerate attacks by Snow’s planes and soldiers while planning their next righteous move. Obviously, Katniss is also aided and looked-after by her loyal right-hand, Gale Hawthorne, played by Liam Hemsworth, even as she fears over the fate of her boyfriend, who Seitz describes as “the still-milquetoast Peeta,” who’s being held hostage by Snow’s army and turned into an anti-Katniss half truth tool, disapproving Katniss on national TV in order to legitimize his mind controllers.

Seitz made a nice comparison when he said, “If "The Hunger Games" films were to be compared structurally to "Star Wars"—still the commercial Holy Grail of film franchises—you might say that this one is the first half of "The Empire Strikes Back," with emphasis on the visually and drastically oppressive Hoth sequences.” The story takes us from setback to setback to setback until we feel congested (on purpose). Snow has the overpowering military advantage, and in a couple of successful action scene, we get the feeling of just how long the rebels’ odds of victory are. The best of these portrays an airborne attack that’s filmed mostly from ground level, visualizing Snow’s warplanes as thick shapes that can corner in midair, like gulls.

There’s also a mild damage of media criticism and satire, though this time out it’s less focused on the immature distractions of televised chaos and more interested in the construction of political images. Like the other films in the franchise, this sequel of The Hunger Games is good at reminding present-day, real-world occurrences while modestly refusing to commit to any specific metaphor. Seitz reminds his readers, “A full-on, deliberately suicidal assault on a heavily armed government target faintly echoes images of nonviolent resistance from the Indian uprising against the British and the American Civil Rights movement, up to the point when the advancing rebels quit absorbing punishment and start dishing it out. Katniss is sold to the like-minded as a Che Guevara or young Fidel Castro (or perhaps a video-taunting Al Qaeda or ISIS-type, though of course Western audiences would rather not consider things from that angle). A good portion of the film's first half is about Katniss being shaped and sold and even packaged by Coin and her allies as a sort of pre-fabricated deliverer, the Mickey Mouse or Mr. Clean of the revolution, then rebelling against this tendency and figuring out (with help from Plutarch) that in revolution, as in advertising, authenticity sells better than slickness.”

The problem is, for all its surface intelligence, “Mockingjay, Part 1” has little depth, and that sometimes makes it much more frustrating than a more on purpose small-minded and silly movie might have been. One sometimes gets the sense that the moviemakers want credit for more political courageous (in a mainstream blockbuster) than they’re actually willing to earn. Seitz mentions, “There are many tantalizing and even powerful allusions, such as Katniss addressing her public while standing in a cityscape bombarded by Snow's forces, a scene that evokes pro-Palestinian camera crews showcasing collateral damage from Israeli airstrikes; but these are never developed beyond the barest wisp of a notion, and they sit quite awkwardly next to all the film's narrative clichés and emotional shortcuts: the scene where the excessively "packaged" icon throws away the script and speaks from the heart; the scene where the powerful old bad guy is being shaved with a straight razor and gets nicked and treats the wound as a metaphor; etc.”

Katniss’s participation in an innocent and (apparently intentionally) bland love triangle with two young men of unimportant personality seems intended to build her up and ensure that no one can steal the main character’s spotlight. Seitz brings up, “there's a "turnabout is fair play" aspect to this, and at times it plays like the long delayed answer to those '70s films driven by super-capable male characters, often played by Paul Newman or Robert Redford or Al Pacino, whose love interests were simpering bores. Katniss is such a powerful character, so strong and simple, that she wouldn't be diminished by playing opposite more interesting romantic leads. As is, she's like Scarlett O'Hara opposite two Ashley Wilkeses.” The weakness of the film’s romantic energy might not seem so obvious if this particular installment didn’t find Katniss in a state of weakness, recovering from physical and emotional damage. She’s much more reactive here than in previous installments (Seitz mentions, “which is true to the novel, I'm told”), but it’s still frustrating to see her shrunk to an eyewitness during the film’s action climax, watching heroic guys doing heroic things on TV monitors.

To be completely honest, even though this is a good movie, this is not as good as the previous two movies. The reason why is that they showed the only action sequence in the trailers, and it definitely makes it feel like this is half of a movie. How “Part 2” will be, I cannot say because I have yet to see that movie, especially since it was released today. I just got to find a day to watch it in the theaters when I get the chance before next Friday. However, I will still say you can check this movie out, but you won’t like it as much as the other two, I can tell you that.

Check in next Friday for the conclusion of “The Hunger Games Month.” Now I have to see when I can go to the theaters to see the last movie because I have been hearing it’s better than the first part, but I have to see it for myself to know.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

For the remainder of the month, it will be incredibly difficult to review the rest of the “Hunger Games movies,” since the late Philip Seymour Hoffman is in the rest. I just have to pull myself together so that I can get through this month. Now we have come to “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire,” released in 2013.

Susan Wloszczyna started her review out by saying, “When a movie like "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" comes along, it makes my inner feminist-leaning 13-year-old stand up and cheer. Of course, the mere existence of a successful girl-powered franchise that does not revolve around potential suitors with supernatural powers is enough to keep her smiling.”

Wloszczyna went on to say, “The scene in "Catching Fire" that especially fired up my lingering adolescent alter-ego? When Jennifer Lawrence—essential as warrior heroine Katniss Everdeen in Round 2 of this young-adult lit-based enterprise, much in the same way that Vivien Leigh was indispensable in "Gone With the Wind"—suddenly twirls about in her would-be wedding dress during a TV interview meant to distract the downtrodden populace of Panem. What initially looks like a multi-tiered, white-frosted cage is engulfed in flames and transforms into a supple midnight-bluish winged symbol of subversion that emulates the Mockingjay, the mascot of a growing rebellion in the land. One gown represents female entrapment and expectations, the other human freedom and opportunity. Call it a Barbie-meets-Joan of Arc moment. And not every man can rock a lavender ponytail and a pompadour at the same time, but darn if Stanley Tucci’s fawning oil-slick of a TV host Caesar Flickerman—part Ryan Seacrest, part Siegfried and Roy—manages to pull it off. "Girl on Fire is so cheeky," he declares of Katniss with a half-smile, half-sneer when she performs her dress trick.”

Yes, fashion can be something used for good and a medium for revolution – at least in this dystopia, with its Fascist government led by the peacefully dangerous President Snow. Wloszczyna mentioned, “Here, gawd-awful gaudy too often passes for style. We are talking about you, Elizabeth Banks, in the guise of giddy government-instated cheerleader Effie Trinket, with bedazzled Oompa Loompa wigs and eyelashes that appear to be leaden lace cookies. (At least she is allowed to be a warmer presence this time around.)”

Katniss’s quick-change show is almost trumped by the look of Lawrence going completely Liv Taylor in “Cleopatra” with Roman-circus hair and makeup, riding in a chariot before a thunderous mob and later wearing another stunning bird-inspired wardrobe to a pre-Hunger Games gathering. Good thing that the hard-eyed Oscar winner is as skillful at silently suggesting the haunted mind of her ace archer as she is at showcasing these fantasy frocks. Otherwise, it would be even more obvious that – just like any other second entry in an ongoing franchise – “Catching Fire” is simply a placeholder. Also, it is particularly harsh experience given Katniss’s post-traumatic state of mind, as the plot simply picks up where the first movie left off and closes nowhere near to a satisfying climax.

The 2½-hour running time is split in two: First, we learn that Kitniss’s trick last time to overturn the rules of the games so that she and fake boyfriend Peeta Mellark would both survive as co-champions has made Penam’s less fortunate think they, too, can rise against their overlords. As the imaginary engaged couple go on tour to greet their fans, it becomes clear they see Katniss as an inspirational leader, a role she bit-by-bit grows to accept.

With an assist from the late Philip Seymour Hoffman as the too-smooth-to-be-true new gamesmaker Plutarch Heavensbee, Snow announces a special all-star edition of the 75^th-anniversary Hunger Games Quarter Quell. Former winners of previous games recruited from Panem’s 12 districts will be uneven against one another, and Katniss and Peeta must put their lives on the line again.

The last hour is dedicated to an Olympian death match in a mock tropical jungle. The fun, if there is any, begins with such visually interesting challenges as toxic mist, rabid baboons and a downpour of blood. Several welcome new battle participants come aboard. Just like Hoffman, such amazing talents as Jeffrey Wright, Amanda Plummer and Jena Malone are overqualified for their parts, but each delivers a clearly definite character that lightens the proceedings considerably. At least Malone as the super-cool Johanna gives Lawrence with a strong thwart to play against. The biggest and maybe only true laugh comes when Johanna takes her clothes off in an elevator to the appreciation of Peeta and the disregard of Katniss.

Director Francis Lawrence is confident enough to not go too heavy on the much-scorned hand-held camerawork used by his predecessor, Gary Ross. With a script by two Oscar-winning writers, Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt (credited as Michael deBruyn), the action and even the speeches move along quickly enough.

However, “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” suffers from the same “something old, something borrowed” cliché that is the enemy of originality in too many Hollywood efforts recently. Wloszczyna noted, “It is difficult to enjoy a film when you are checking off all the sources it references—"Lost" and "Survivor" from television, Star Wars (what is with the Stormtrooper ripoffs?) and "The Running Man" from movies, and Roman and Greek myths.”

What makes the books and the films forceful is the way they define worries and pop-culture obsessions in our everyday lives: anger over politicians, fascination with celebrities, a growing displeased underclass, addiction to reality shows and video games, the reliability of important violent acts that control TV coverage, and hateful occurrences of bullying.

Of course, the one truly new invention – and the one that matters most – is Katniss herself. With every on-screen part, the poor girl from District 12 continues to complete her destiny as an inspiration and a rebel fighter. She is but one female, but she’s the perfect cure to the excess of male superheroes we have.

Also, talk about a making rebellion: this is the rare action blockbuster that dares to be made without 3D. Those who already need to wear glasses would rather spend the ticket quality on popcorn are happy for you, Katniss and crew.

I will say that this movie was better than the first one. If you liked the first movie, then you will definitely like this one better. Since this is the next book, it tells it very nicely, but once again, I can’t say how closely it follows the book, since I never read this series. I never heard of the “Hunger Games” series until my friend called saying, “Happy Hunger Games.” When I asked him what he was talking about, he mentioned about the books and said the movie was out. Then I saw the first movie in theaters, and I liked it. I never got to see this movie in theaters, but I saw it when it was released on DVD, and I liked it. It looked like a movie that I should have seen in theaters, but I missed that chance. However, I was happy when I saw the sequel once I got it as a rental from the library.

Just to let you know, exactly like how they did with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, they split the last book, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, into two parts. Stay tuned next week to find out how “Mockingjay Part 1” was.

The Hunger Games

Now we have come to a very exciting month because this will be one dedicated to a novel adaptation that I have never read before. I know, shocking, isn’t it? Sit back and strap in because we are going to celebrate “Hunger Games Month.” Just in time too, since the last one will be released later this month.

Like many science-fiction stories, “The Hunger Games,” released in 2012, shows a future that we’re allowed to read as a story for the present. After the existing nations of North America are ruined by tragedy, a civilization named Panem climbs from the ruins. It’s ruled by a huge, wealthy Capitol inspired by the faces of countless sci-fi magazines and surrounded by 12 “districts” that are helpless satellites.

As the story starts, the annual ceremony of the Hunger Games is starting. Each district must give a “tribute” of a young woman and man, and these 24 finalists must fight to the death in a forested “arena” where hidden cameras display every move.

This outcome in a television production that actually holds the nation fascinated and keeps the citizens pleased. Roger Ebert recalled, “Mrs. Link, my high school Latin teacher, will be proud that I recall one of her daily phrases, “panem et circenses,” which summarized the Roman formula for creating a docile population: Give them bread and circuses. A vision of present-day America is summoned up, its citizenry glutted with fast food and distracted by reality TV.” How is the population expected to accept the violent sacrifice of 24 young lives a year? How many have died in our recent battles?

The story focuses on the two tributes from the impoverished District 12: Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson). The 16-year-old girl hunts deer with her bow and arrow to feed her family. He may be more muscular but doesn’t look like he matches in survival skills. They’re both sharp, All-Panem types, and although one or both are eventually needed to be dead, romance is a possibility.

Opposed with these healthy young people, the ruling class in the Capitol are affected degenerates. Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks) who Ebert described as, “bedecked in gaudy costumery and laden with garish cosmetics,” emcees the annual drawing for tributes, and the nation gets to know the finalists on a talk show hosted by Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci), who guesses what Donald Trump might do with his hair if he had enough of it.

The executive in charge is the gamemaker, Seneca, played by Wes Bentley, who has a beard so unusually designed that Satan would be green with envy. At the top of the society is the president, played by Donald Sutherland, a knowledgeable graybeard who docks deep thoughts. Ebert mentioned, “In interviews, Sutherland has equated the younger generation with leftists and Occupiers. The old folks in the Capitol are no doubt a right-wing oligarchy. My conservative friends, however, equate the young with the Tea Party and the old with decadent Elitists.” “The Hunger Games,” like many stories, will show you exactly what you look in it.

The scenes set in the Capitol and dealing with its strange characters have a completely different tone than the scenes of fight in the Arena. The ruling class is painted in large send-up and bright colors. Katniss and the other tributes are seen in earth-toned realism. This character could be another demonstration, indeed, of Jennifer Lawrence’s Oscar-nominated character Ree in “Winter’s Bone.” The plot even explains why she’s skillful at the bow and arrow.

Ebert mentioned, “One thing I missed, however, was more self-awareness on the part of the tributes. As their names are being drawn from a fish bowl (!) at the Reaping, the reactions of the chosen seem rather subdued, considering the odds are 23-to-1 that they'll end up dead.” Katniss volunteers to take the place of her 12-year-old younger sister, Prim, played by Willow Shields, but no one clearly discusses the fairness of deadly combat between girl children and 18-year-old men. Apparently the bored TV audiences of Panem have developed a desire for savagery. Nor do Katness and Peeta reveal much thoughtfulness about their own strange position.

“The Hunger Games” is a successful entertainment, and Jennifer Lawrence is strong and convincing in the main role. However, the film jumps over obvious questions in its path, and avoids the opportunities sci-fi gives for social criticism. Ebert noted, “Compare its world with the dystopias in “Gattaca” or “The Truman Show.”” Director Gary Ross and his writers (including the series’ author, Suzanne Collins) obviously think their audience wants to see so much of hunting-and-survival scenes, and has no interest in people talking about how cruel class system is using them. Well, maybe they’re right. Ebert ended his review by saying, “But I found the movie too long and deliberate as it negotiated the outskirts of its moral issues.”

When I saw this in the theaters, I walked out thinking, “Talk about a movie that will get your adrenaline rushing, your blood pumping, have you sit at the edge of your seat wanting to know what will happen next.” This really had my nerves shot, especially with the up close, shaky camera moments. Even though I never read the book, I can’t say how this is compared to the book, but I think the book is better, but I will say that you should definitely check this film out, it’s really exciting.

Now check in next week when we look at the first sequel in the series for “Hunger Games Month.”