Wednesday, March 28, 2012 Leave a comment
I’m not really sure what started Suzanne Collin’s “The Hunger Games” growing association with the “Twilight” flicks or when exactly having a female protagonist meant that a movie was a chick-flick. Besides the horrendous merchandising decisions (as evident on T-shirts sold across web stores nationwide), the two hit-books-to-hit-film adaptations don’t have all that much in common. Sure, they both star a brunette female protagonist. I guess there are two male characters that can be perceived as love interests — though they’re not, really (at least, not at first) — but that’s where the similarities end. Granted, I don’t know two shits about “Twilight,” though that’s mainly because I have no interest in them whatsoever. But let me set the record straight: “The Hunger Games” is not a a cheesy chick flick with glitter and men that make up for their lack of being able to keep on their shirts with having excessive pecs. Though Gary Ross’s screenplay falls short in a few minor areas compared to the book it’s based on, this is an incredibly well-made and true to its roots flick that you have to check out.