Too Doggy for My Liking or 'David Tries the Posh Seats'

No reader, get your mind out of the gutter, I did nothing of the sort. Naughty.

I of course am referring to my trip to Kingston Odeon yesterday to go to see The Hunger Games. And my highly amusing opening joke refers to my only complaint about it. But I'll come to that! (see, you'll keep reading now!)

Anyway, I feel obliged to say that this is your first and only spoiler warning. I find it strange that I have to give this warning. Since the film is an adaptation of a book which has been out for a number of years, I'm of the firm belief that the spoiler-line has been past. It's like someone saying 'oh you ruined the end of Harry Potter for me'. Although saying that, there are films of books like Clockwork Orange and Bladerunner that I haven't read or seen (though I intend to) and I'd be a bit miffed if someone told me how they ended. I was very annoyed for instance when I was reading Lord of the Rings and my brother gave away the ending to me! It took me weeks to get through them!

Anyway I digress, alright one more spoiler warning. There, that'll do.

I was a fan of all 3 books before there was even a sniff of a film adaptation on the wind, and when I first heard about a well dressed Hollywood type buying the rights to it I must say my heart sank. This was before a certain change of heart I've had recently about book to film adaptations. I used to think that any film adaptation of a book was the worst possible idea and that books were far and away better. I did a module on book to film adaptations last semester though and my mind was changed somewhat for a few reasons. One, that so many films I loved were adapted from books, and two, a film can be as deep and involving as a book can, only in different ways. Maybe it's harder to read into, because (obviously) you're not actually reading into it. While books aren't obvious things and there can be layers of subtext, a film can be pretty much all subtext, and a small image in the corner of the screen, or a flicker in the actor's eye is just an equivalent of an author writing this down for you.

I'm going off on one here, but I was thinking about this as I munched on my salty popcorn in the highly worth it Premier Seats thanks to my Odeon card. I know what you're thinking! Salty popcorn, you mentalist! But I'm weird like that. I'd also choose cake and sweets over chocolate. And my favourite Lord of the Rings character is Sam not any of the cool fighty characters.

All this reminds me of a post I saw on Tumblr about ebooks, in that someone was perfectly happy for their films and music to be digitalised, but their books had to stay on paper because books have a soul. I do agree, a book is a person putting their heart and soul onto bits of paper for the whole world (hopefully) to read. But I think that films and music have just as much soul, it's just communicated in different ways. And this is why I buy vinyl records, and if I had money I'd buy a projector that played proper film reels. But it's also why I own a Kindle, and and Ipod and an inordinate number of DVDs. I love the soul, but I also love stuff and gadgets. I don't think the soul of something can be lost by changing it.

This is why, when I say down in row H, seat 17 (following my ticket and being a good boy) and switched my phone off, I didn't sit there with the amount of fear I usually would have about to view one of my favourite books being put on the big screen. I'm not saying there aren't bad adaptations of books. Sometimes things are made for the wrong reasons, money for instance. This though was different. The Hunger Games was just about perfect.

The casting was excellent, the mood was incredible, the shaky camerawork fitted beautifully and I was gripped from start to finish. Jennifer Lawrence was an amazing Katniss, and Josh Hutcherson an equally amazing Peeta. And Liam Hemsworth was a great Gale, mainly because (as in the books) I didn't like him. I was team Peeta from the first time the competition between the two was put into question. I thought Lenny Kravitz and Donald Sutherland shone in their roles despite their limited screen time (as Cinna and President Snow) Sutherland portrayed President Snow with all the slimy, cold, ruthlessness I pictured him with. It was almost as though someone had looked into my imagination and produced the Hunger Games as I had seen them. Even Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) who I didn't picture like that at all fit in my head. And his speech to Katniss at the end when he tries to protect her from the wrath of the Capitol I thought was one of the best bits of acting in the film. And I didn't think I'd be saying that about old Woody when I read he'd been cast.

In short, I cried, I laughed and I jumped as the Muttations jumped out at Katniss and Peeta. These are the three criteria that I think make the perfect film. I cried when Rue died for instance, and I laughed when Effie said 'THAT IS MAHOGANY', and when Peeta and Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci) started sniffing each other.

In the Muttations I have my only complaint. As my title says, they were too doggy! The horrific thing about them in the books was that they actually had the eyes of the fallen tributes, so Katniss found herself looking into the eyes of a fierce, devilish monster with the eyes of Rue, the sweet little girl she covered in flowers. And maybe this was too horrible a thing to put in a 12A but I think kids can take a lot these days. It would have been tricky to do this I suppose, you don't really study the eyes of people to realise if a dog had them. Maybe I'm nitpicking, or maybe my astigmatism robbed me of this detail.

Apart from this I absolutely loved the film and cannot wait to see Catching Fire when it comes out.

And I would highly recommend Premier Seats, David 1, bum-numbing 0.