The Hunger Games Trilogy

Finally finished the trilogy! (and by "finally", I'm referring to the amount of time it took me to buy them... it actually only took me about 7 hours to read all three... and I'm not a particularly fast reader.) While they are in the "young adult" category (which may or may not describe my demographic) and consequently kind of "easy" to read, I thought they were very [very] good. A few things that stood out:

Unless you've been living in a dark and lonely place the last few months (what with the growing popularity of these books and the hype over the release of the first movie coming up), you probably have at least an inkling of the general premise of the book. But for those cave dwellers who may not know, here's a brief and simple synopsis:
The Hunger Games trilogy is set in the future of North America-a place now called Panem. The dictatorship holds power over 12 districts, but at one time there were 13; the 13th rebelled, and it is believed to have been annihilated by the government. In an effort to prevent future rebellion, the government holds an annual Hunger Games competition in which each district provides one female and one male competitor. The Games are held in a man-made arena and are designed to challenge the survival skills of the competitors, whose main goal is to kill off their counterparts and be the sole survivor and therefore the victor.

My first reaction to the concept of this book was complete disgust. No one that I talked to explained that the DICTATORSHIP was trying to SCARE the districts into compliance. A couple of minor details that would have resulted in me reading them much sooner and without so much attitude going in (great job, my friendlies). At any rate, the books-while brutal and relatively violent, at times-are actually really good, and not as disturbing as I was led to believe.

A few things that I loved about this trilogy:

1) The books got progressively better. This is one series in which I actually enjoyed the third book more than the first two... and the first two captured my attention well enough to propel me to full force into the third. Character development was great, and the story really unfolded. At the end of the first book I couldn't imagine what could possibly happen in the next one, as the story seemed to be finished. Turns out that was only just the beginning!

2) The characters were pretty good. I wasn't actually a HUGE huge fan of the protagonist (Katniss Everdeen, who tells the story from the first-person perspective), because she was a little too emotionless and her overbearing sense of independence got kind of obnoxious at times. That being said, it all worked out really well in the end. The way her character developed (and this goes for all of the characters, actually), made sense of everything by the close of the series.

3) The love triangle was convincing. I honestly didn't know how that one was going to end. There was no clear choice between Katniss' two lovers, and the complexity of the issue made the story a lot more interesting.

Other than those things, I think that the book was a very eye opening look into what could happen to a country that falls apart due to issues of war and social unrest; an idea of what political strife and civil war can do. It showed the dirty side of a dictatorship, and any politics in general; how power can change an individual. It painted a picture of what it would be like to live in a world where defending your beliefs will cost you your life, and I hope that the "young adults" reading these books will take those ideas seriously... I hope that this story will help our younger generation realize and appreciate the rights that they have, and defend them as if they'd be lost otherwise.

(I'd add a portion about elements that didn't impress me, but there weren't any... none worth mentioning, anyway.)

So yes---I enjoyed these books and have and will continue to recommend them. Easy read, but a very good story. Looking forward to the movies, now, and desperately hoping that they can do the book justice.... we'll see!

Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, and The Hunger Games

Last film I watched in 2011 was Sherlock Holmes, first film of 2012 was Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. The fact that I a) watched the second one and b) paid to see it in theatres says quite a lot for the first film.

Honestly, I thought the first movie was fantastic. It wasn't at all true to the books (since when is Sherlock Holmes a eccentric kung fu master?!), but if you watch it as a movie and not an adaption from an incredible book, it's pretty great (I didn't think I'd like it after hearing it bore little if any resemblance to the book, but I was pleasantly surprised).

Things I didn't like:

-I loved the book(s), and this was not the book(s).
-Abuse of slow motion.... It was cool the first 10 times. After that it bored me...


Things I liked:

-I thought it was casted perfectly. The characters were very well played (even if they were completely original and nothing like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's...)
-The humor was actually really funny, in my opinion
-Watson was perfect, and his dog was hysterical
-The action sequences were epic
-The sets were impressive, as were the lighting and camera angles (London was perfectly depicted, I think)


Things I loved:

-Holmes. For a character who was nothing like the original, this one was definitely an acceptable replacement. I clearly loved the book(s) (who didn't?!), but this made the story a lot more fun and entertaining. Staying true to Doyle's work could have gotten boring, I'll admit. And for someone as incredibly intelligent and observant as Sherlock Holmes, crazed, anti-social and completely consumed by his work is exactly how I'd imagine him. Using those characteristics to create humor was a bit of a risk, in my opinion, but I do believe it was a success.
-The soundtrack. Sometimes less is more, and sometimes Hans Zimmer writes every soundtrack in every movie released. I thought this one was clever, especially in a couple of intense scenes (if I had written this or taken notes during my watch I'd be able to give an example... unfortunately I did not...).
-Screenplay-A+. Not sure it could have been better.




SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS:

Things I didn't like:

-Kind of got boring. Movie 1 was exciting and intriguing and kept my attention from start to finish. Movie 2 didn't capture my attention to begin with and seemed to abuse some of the better aspects from Movie 1 in an attempt to continue with some of the humor and ambience I so much appreciated this first time around... it worked in some places, but not so much in others.
-The story didn't really catch on and left me confused more often than not. I understood it by the end, but everything before was just a blur of random confusion, for me (although I often feel this way when viewing with friends, unfortunately). I would have appreciated a few more hints, even some misleading tips to keep me more involved in the mystery.
-More abuse of the slow motion. I mean really...

Things I liked:

-Basically the same things from Movie 1; characters, humor and action were all up to par, for the most part

Things I loved-

-Nothing in particular, really.



These reviews aren't really fair considering I'll admit to the fact that I wasn't completely engaged in either viewing, but overall I did enjoy the two films and have plans to own them and watch them a good few more times as I found them to be quality entertainment.




As far as books go, I've been reading The Hunger Games trilogy to prepare myself for the March (I think it was March...?) release of the first move. Once I finish the third book I'll do an actual review, but I will say that I am enjoying them and do plan on seeing the movie (the first preview just freaked me out... now I understand the story and it isn't quite as horrific of a concept... not QUITE, anyway). Simple reads, big thoughts.... more on that when I can!