BOOK REVIEW: The Hunger Games Trilogy

The Hunger Games trilogy is the highest profile series of young-adult novels after J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series. I read the entire series (see my reviews of the last two books: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) and saw all the movies (see my reviews for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 and Part 2 and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix).

It's really not fair to compare the two series. For one thing, Harry Potter consists of seven books which are on average well over 500 pages each and take the main characters from a pre-teen innocence through teen-age angst and into full adulthood.

Here is how the author, Suzanne Collins, describes the Hunger Games:

Katniss is a 16-year-old girl living with her mother and younger sister in the poorest district of Panem, the remains of what used be the United States. Long ago the districts waged war on the Capitol and were defeated. As part of the surrender terms, each district agreed to send one boy and one girl to appear in an annual televised event called, “The Hunger Games.” The terrain, rules, and level of audience participation may change but one thing is constant: kill or be killed. When her sister is chosen by lottery, Katniss steps up to go in her place. 

By definition, The Hunger Games is a much more violent series of books than the Harry Potter books. There are deaths in both, but in The Hunger Games it becomes almost routine. Also, the fact that Katniss is 16 years old when the books begin makes the possibility of sex (or at the very least romance) a very real possibility.

The story revolves around the characters, starting with Katniss Everdeen and her little sister Primrose. Katniss has been feeding her family since her medicine woman mother was greatly affected by the death of her husband and Katniss' father. The relationships which animate the main plots in The Hunger Games is the (love?) triangle between Katniss and Peeta Mellark and Gale Hawthorne. Although love triangles have been done to death in all sorts of fiction, Collins comes up with some novel ways of handling the tension, especially since life and death situations become involved.

A Wikipedia article says that the themes of The Hunger Games are "government control, 'big brother,' and personal independence." I'm not sure that I would agree, I would say that a more precise description of  the main themes are "deception, independence and authoritarianism." Basically, authoritarianism includes both the "Big Brother" aspects of the Capitol and the governmental control that it encompasses throughout the 12 impoverished districts of Panem.

The plot of the first book is based around Katniss and Peeta's experience in the Hunger Games, where the rules are kill or be killed. Obviously, at least one of them survives because there are two more books. What happens is that the scope of the books expands, although they still center around the actions of Katniss, the true goal of Collins is to demonstrate not just the change to Katniss, but also to her hometown and her whole country.

Overall, all three books are well-written and Collins skillfully maintains suspense even while the reader is pretty sure any of the characters we care about will not be killed, the body count is high, and not everyone we care about survives to the end of the third book.

Title: The Hunger Games.
Author: Suzanne Collins.
Paperback: 384 pages.
Publisher: Scholastic Press.
Date: September 14, 2008.

OVERALL GRADE: A- (3.67/4.0).


PLOT: A.
IMAGERY: B+.
IMPACT: A-.
WRITING: A-.


Title: Catching Fire.
Author: Suzanne Collins.
Paperback: 391 pages.
Publisher: Scholastic Press.
Date: September 1, 2009.


OVERALL GRADE: A- (3.67/4.0).


PLOT: A-.
IMAGERY: A-.
IMPACT: B+.
WRITING: A.


Title: Mockingjay.
Author: Suzanne Collins.
Paperback: 400 pages.
Publisher: Scholastic Press.
Date: August 24, 2010.


OVERALL GRADE: A- (3.67/4.0).


PLOT: A-.
IMAGERY: B+.
IMPACT: A-.
WRITING: A.

MOVIE REVIEW: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2

The Other Half and I have seen all of the Harry Potter movies, and I have read all the books. The final installment in the movie franchise is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, which was also released in 3-D. I wasn't that enamored with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1 but since I had read the books I knew that more than 2/3rds of the action in the book was going to happen in Part 2. We decided to splurge for the 3-D since it was the last time we would be seeing a Harry Potter movie in the theaters plus it was garnering rave reviews from most critics (96% on Rottentomatoes.com). 

Surprisingly, the last movie in the Harry Potter series is also the shortest in the series, coming in at a zippy 130 minutes. Also, another surprise about this installment is that it is basically a war movie. There are two competing armies, a large one on behalf of the Death Eaters and Lord Voldemort and a small one on behalf of Harry Potter, the Boy Who Lived, called Dumbledore's Army. This movie is so different from the early Potter films which were filmed with the hijinks of school children and featured games of Quidditch.

For the last two movies we have been following the quest of Harry, Ron and Hermione as they chase down magical objects called Horcruxes, which contain the soul of Voldemort. If the horcruxes are destroyed, Voldemort will cease to exist. We think that there are six horcruxes, but one of my major quibbles with the the movie adaptation is that it doesn't really do a very good job of keeping the audience on track on how much progress is made on destroying all of the horcruxes.

Another aspect of the story is that when the audience discovers that Harry Potter must die (spoiler alert) we also see that he has the Resurrection Stone, but Harry drops the stone to the ground instead of carrying it with him to his death. It's unclear to the audience (or at least, me) why Harry couldn't just use the stone to die and then be resurrected and the movie doesn't do a good job of answering that question either.

There are several things that the film does do very well. I did think the 3-D effects were used sparingly but very effectively. Alan Rickman, as always, is excellent as Snape, although some have complained about the nature of his character's demise. My favorite character has always been Hermione, and Emma Watson plays her well. Daniel Radcliffe has most definitely grown into the leading role of Harry Potter. Rupert Grint has also grown, and is no longer cringe-worthy.

Overall, the final movie in the series works well as an action film and also has an excellent pay off for those of us who either read all the book or saw all the movies (or both). It is doubtful we will see a more successful adaptation of successful fantasy novels into successful fantasy films in my lifetime.

Title: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2.
Director: David Yates.
Running Time: 2 hours, 10 minutes.
MPAA Rating: R for language and some sexual content.
Release Date: July 15, 2011.
Viewing Date: July 17, 2011.

Plot: A.
Acting: A-.
Visuals: A.
Impact: A+.

Overall Grade: (4.0/4.0)

WATCH: Final Trailer for Final Harry Potter Movie!

The movie is released July 15, 2011, in 3D and 2D. It looks amazing (much better than Part 1, which was a bit disappointing), I may actually re-read the book before seeing the movie since it's been 4 years since the book came out.