It's not that the book is in first person that's frustrating - it's that it's in first person present (unless I'm mistaken? I leafed through it in a bookstore once).

For those who are wondering, I saw the movie yesterday and enjoyed it a fair bit. I'm a 24 year old guy, also, just to clarify. And the comparisons to Twilight are not fair - not in the least bit. There's quite a bit of buildup in the beginning (the Games themselves don't actually start until halfway through the movie) but I didn't really mind that; kinda liked it actually as the characters are well portrayed and likeable. As far as the camera shaking? Didn't notice it except for a few scenes, and I thought they were awesome (e.g. hallucinations/explosions). For those raging about camera stuff - It is NOTHING like Cloverfield. Not even close.

TL;DR/Bottom line: People who are looking for an hour and a half of straight, hardcore killing are likely to be disappointed. Those who are interested in a character driven plot with a decent chunk of action interspersed with bursts or character development may actually be surprised by how much they enjoy it.

In the end, not the best movie in the world, but I'm happy I saw it.

 

Since I don't have a movie blog yet, I'll just drop my review in here. Fair warning, I haven't read the books and I do a considerable bit of bitching about what I'm told are issues that are resolved in later books, but I think my points still stand.

So yeah, tl,dr. ahead:

Short version: it's a poorly-made, unoriginal waste of a movie that's not worth your time at all. Skip it.

Long version (and there will be some spoilers, so just warning you)...

I'm not a fan of William Golding's Lord of the Flies.

Seriously, I hate that book. It's sloppy, the characters are broad caricatures, and the overall message is insulting to human intelligence. Now, I won't say that The Hunger Games is nearly as bad as that, but let me tell you this: by the end of the film, I felt that the best way to salvage anything would be for the main two characters to die. And (spoilers) that didn't happen.

So with that in mind, let's talk about the exploitation genre.

I've mentioned before, namely in my Sucker Punch review (which, by the way, is a much better movie than this), that exploitation films by nature have a certain flavour about them. The characters might not be as well-sketched out because they're going to be 'exploited' in some way, shape, or form as a part of the film's plot or to send a certain message. Now, there are filmmakers and writers who can elevate the exploitation genre by having compelling characters, or utilizing excellent filmmaking to draw emphasis and meaning through scene construction, or through a well-written and meaningful script with a compelling story, or (and this is most common in the best exploitation films) through a powerful and potent message that can resonate with people.

And make no mistake, as much as The Hunger Games wants to be a strong, dignified, franchise-building film, it can be classified as exploitation by premise and plot alone - namely that it is inherently shocking for kids to kill other kids in a survivalist fight to the death. That's exploitation in that it's deliberately designed to appeal to certain emotions and human instincts, and in this case of this film, is funneled through the recognizable framework of desensitizing reality television. As an exploitation premise, it makes a pretty strident case (although not as good as other films have done, but I'll get to that).

However, The Hunger Games fails catastrophically in execution in pretty much every way, which completely leeches any enjoyment I might garner from the film and replaces it with irritation. Granted, I didn't go into this film with any sort of expectations, but I was hoping (in the spot of my heart that isn't cynical and callous) that it might deliver something.

So let's start with the acting, because it is where I can give a solitary compliment to this film: Woody Harrelson is enjoyable to watch on screen, and he's clearly enjoying himself to some degree. That made some of the film at least watchable. However the rest of the characters aren't nearly as good, and the main problem starts with the lead. Jennifer Lawrence puts enough emotion into her scenes to elevate herself above Bella Swan, but not by much. It's clear she's the character the female audience members are meant to project onto, and throughout every romantic scene in this movie, you can actively feel the film trying to become Twilight (particularly with the dual male 'love interests', neither of whom are compelling whatsoever). Lawrence's character isn't as hateable at Bella Swan, but she's just as boring and completely uninteresting - and yeah, I get her 'stoicism' might be part of the point her character is designed to make, but I'm sorry, she doesn't make for a compelling hero in the slightest. If you compare her to Frodo Baggins, a character just as over his head as she is, she lacks the necessary vulnerability and human emotion that can allow someone to really connect with her.

And the problems don't end there. The movie villains are stock dystopian tropes that hardly matter, and even the few sympathetic characters aren't given much to do beyond give Lawrence's character support or motivation - in other words, they're just plot devices. Worse still are the other contestants in the Games - and here's where I'm going to compare this film to a much better one in the same vein, Battle Royale. Now, I'm not the biggest fan of that flick either, not by a longshot, but at least the filmmakers there realized that if they wanted the shock and horror of kids killing kids to resonate on a level with the audience, they needed to characterize more than the few solitary protagonists (oh, and nice subtle touches of racism with the only two 'ethnic' kids being the team from District 11, by the way). The most you get out of this is a few moments between Lawrence and the few others she chooses to ally with, but these characters quickly fall by the wayside to leave behind stock, one-dimensional villains who are either cartoonishly evil or quote lines about death that wouldn't be found in a bad Final Fantasy game.

And speaking of bad video games, let's talk about the special effects - namely because I think many of them were imported from video games. Most of this movie looks astoundingly flat and cheap, even in the areas that suggest opulence - and that's not even getting into the special effects, which were both unconvincing and sloppy. Of course, the audience wasn't supposed to notice it behind the ubiquitous shaky-cam, but it's noticeable - and that's truly a testament to how fucking awful the cinematography is.

Look, I'm not a fan of shaky-cam or any of that garbage. I detest movies that feel that making the cameras bounce around is a way to heighten the action, when in reality it tends to be used to cover up cheap effects and make the fight scenes seem a lot more interesting than they are. But even in the slower scenes, the camera still bounces around way too much, and it doesn't settle on any scenes to allow us to establish connections to the environment and build atmosphere. It makes a riot scene that I expected was supposed to be a lot more poignant come across as damn near unwatchable, because I couldn't figure out what the hell was going on!

And while we're on the subject of technical design, The Hunger Games really strikes me as an unoriginal film. Besides cribbing plot wholesale from Battle Royale and Running Man, we're dealing with villain set design stolen from V For Vendetta and The Truman Show, and costuming that would have seemed impressive or original if I hadn't seen The Fifth Element. This film feels like a hodgepodge of cliches, and none of them are that compelling to stand out on their own, or at least make much of an impression on me.

But all of this circles back to the final message of this film, which seems to making a broad case about desensitization of people towards violence in television, and also a scathing rebuke against reality television in particular. And look, I have absolutely no problems with people taking aim at reality television - I despise reality television, which is at best tepid and at worst utterly insulting to intelligence and human dignity.

But here's the problem: The Hunger Games has no idea what kind of statement that it wants to make on this sort of material. I mean, the principle behind this film is that the masses are held spellbound by these games (the 'bread and circuses' thing that the Romans had, it's kind of clever if you squint at it). So when the main character begins to subvert the expectations of her controllers and use the games as a method to incite revolution, I actually thought it was a little interesting...

And then the game controllers change the rules in order to quell the masses and manipulate Katniss' potential feelings for her male counterpart to steer things back on track - and despite all of her ideas, she complies with it. And if she was complying with it just so she could win and escape, I'd buy it, but instead there's 'legitimate' feelings there - in other words, she's the one getting manipulated again. She continues to play the game, and while it seems that she and her partner might find a way out at the end when the rules are changed again, a last minute change of the rules (again) allows her to 'win' - but in reality, her victory and her lack of a definitive stance afterwards condemning the unjust and horrible system around her only proves that the system has still won! Worse still, instead of doing something interesting to subvert the system of 'sponsorship' and audience catering, she instead comes to rely on it, and even seems to fall prey right to the marketing techniques she wants to condemn. And the ending's the worst of all, because even though she and her partner won by attempting to exploit (and then being exploited by) the system, any rebellious spirit she might have falls apart as she returns to a cheering crowd in her own district, instead of the open rebellion she could have inspired! If anything, the Games still served their purpose, and in allowing her to win, they turned her into an icon of the oppressive organization, enough to lull the mob into complacency.

Yeah, does that sound like the message you want to hear? That you're all sheep locked in a bloody competition, that no matter if you win, you still somehow have lost your message, and if you lose, you're dead? Doesn't that sound an awful like the message of savagery seen in Lord of the Flies?

So, to sum this up, The Hunger Games doesn't just fail because it puts forward an appalling message (and fails at world-building as well - tell me this, if people are supposed to be betting on these games, then how the bloody hell does introducing random bad CGI or natural disasters to create a 'finale vibe' make any sort of betting worthwhile?). No, this movie fails because it puts forward a bad message and is sloppy as hell in its delivery. It really is a movie that caters to the people who don't think, and who will be taken in by the painfully generic romance and the 'oh-so-shocking' violence (violence fatally handicapped by a PG-13 rating, on that note). In reality, it's not nearly as shocking as it wants to be.

And it's funny, because a character early on says that 'the Games would lose all their power if people just didn't watch them'. And you know what? That throwaway character was absolutely right. If people didn't watch reality TV - or bad movies like this - they wouldn't have any power whatsoever.

So I suggest you all take that advice.

 

Like Scree I also enjoyed the movie. It is not nearly as bad as Silens makes it out to be. The acting and effects were ok and the film followed the books closely enough.

 

A lot of my friends, which aren't sixteen year old girls by the way, have been raving about this for a while. So far I've read the first book and I really enjoyed it, it's not a masterpiece by any means, but it's a good read. A lot of the problems that Silens had with the film definitely aren't noticeable in the book, particularly with regards to the characters. She was actually one of the better protagonist that I've seen.

I haven't had a chance to go and see it yet but I'm looking forward to it.

 

I really liked it. Not a masterpiece or anything but a rather entertaining movie. Shaky cam only disturbed me in the last fight scene but other than that, didn't really notice it.

Since age and gender seems to be important here, as a 24 year old male, I really liked the books too. Again, not the best things I have ever read but really interesting and fast reads. Agree that this love triangle thing is forced and that on a technical level the writing isn't stellar but other than that, yeah, solid reads.

The whole "Battle Royal for the Twilight audience" thing that people love to throw around is completely unfounded. Not at all a mash-up or a rip-off of those things. Personally speaking, found it better than both of those. (Saw the movie and read the manga of Battle Royal)

@Silens: Don't know what you are talking about when you say that Jennifer Lawrence was bad. I thought she was the best actor in the movie and did an great job. Neither did I think the CGI was terrible.

 

I generally tend to agree with Silens' TL;DR movie reviews, but I didn't this time. I more or less agree with Sree on this.

 

I feel like everything Silens said was off.

I didn't notice any camera shaking at all. The special effects were fine. The hero isn't really that over her head in the first book. She is competing in a contest to the death, but when she gets in the arena and sees that it is mostly wilderness, she is more at home than any of the other competitors and more or less planned on winning it by attrition.

The acting in the movie was fine, and the emotional scenes far outstrip Twilight in every way and most of Radcliffe's scenes in the HP series. I know my girlfriend was crying at the part where Rue died.

And no, Katniss doesn't feel any actual feelings towards Peeta. Haymitch and Peeta make a plan to get her out because Peeta genuinely likes/loves her, and Katniss and Haymitch use the audience's fickleness to their advantage by giving them a romance they haven't seen before in the games to get sponsorship money for parachutes. Katniss uses Peeta and the only genuine emotions she feels towards Peeta are of guilt for using him. Later in the series he becomes a source of comfort for dealing with the horrors that came from competing in the games, but

Spoiler

they don't develop a real romance until the end of the final book.

The first book ends with Peeta learning that all the romance was fake and being heartbroken. I thought that the movie was a little vague on that point but it was still clear enough that she didn't return Peeta's feelings.

And her actions in the games do set the stage for open rebellion. District 11 was revolting when they saw her decorating Rue's body and singing to her while she died. By pulling the Romeo&Juliet trick with the berries, she showed the Capitol could be beaten. She beat the system which was pretty clear by the "they have to have their victor" "no they don't" lines.

I think the biggest problem with your review is that you are treating it as a stand alone movie when it is a part of a trilogy. Some trilogies like Matrix and Pirates have their first movies stand alone with the others sort-of tying in together. This is only one part to the series and there is so much more to come.

Spoiler

The romance is actually developed and is in no way painfully generic (if you could see what happens to Peeta/Katniss/Gale...), the rebellion does happen and katniss is central to it, the villain(s) gain more depth, and the violence becomes so much worse in how much katniss loses for the gain of the many.

 

Okay, ignoring Sree's 'argument'...

From somebody who has seen enough films to recognize good cinematography, this movie was a fucking disaster. The shot composition was awful, the action scenes were horribly photographed, and even in scenes where panoramic shots would lend the scenes so much more gravitas, the camera just wouldn't fucking sit still. If I can't tell what the hell is going on in the District 11 riot scene because it was edited way too fast and way too shaky, then the film has failed.

And for the record, I haven't seen action shot this badly since the last Transformers movie - and on that note, I don't know why the filmmakers thought aesthetically it would be a good idea to film scenes like this. I understand wanting to emphasize Katniss' paranoia in scenes with the shaky cam bullshit, but if they really wanted this film to have more gravitas and impact, the shots should stay on the violence and death in order to evoke more of a reaction. This is basic action/exploitation filmmaking.

Well, that's sure as hell not the way it was conveyed in the film, that's for damn sure. I get the basic principle behind what you're saying, and it might have been what they were going for, but you can tell by the 'relationship' scenes that the direction was really trying to sell legitimate romantic chemistry between Katniss and Peeta. Part of this problem comes down, in a way, to marketing, I'll admit - the film is being sold as a cross between Battle Royale and Twilight, mostly to its detriment - but it doesn't help the matters that between the flashbacks and the godawful romantic dialogue (yeah, because watching her come home from school every day for an undetermined length of time isn't stalkerish one bit), you can tell the romantic connection between Katniss and Peeta is supposed to be legitimate in the eyes of the filmmakers, and thus to the audience.

Uh, that's not a fucking excuse. Just because the film is part of a trilogy doesn't mean it should have the excuse of 'well, you need everything else for context' or 'it's part of a series' nonsense. Lord of the Rings never needed that excuse. The original Star Wars series didn't need that excuse. Hell, I'd even argue that most of the Harry Potter movies didn't need that excuse either. I'm approaching this movie as somebody who has never read the books or knew pretty much anything about the setting and environment, so there's absolutely no problem with me reviewing this film based upon its own merits - and in that case, it fails.

And sure, everything might make more sense in the book - I get that, and you know what, in future films, the backstory might make a bit more sense - but once again, I shouldn't have to have read the books to understand the movie or little pieces of plot development that go along outside of the books. In fact, from what my girlfriend told me (she liked it more than I did, but she was disappointed with it), the books do cover some of the elements I complained about in the review in better detail.

And you know what? Fine. But that doesn't change the fact that all those things that mattered in the books weren't conveyed well in the movie, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with me reviewing the movie as a standalone entity, because there's no guarantee it'll get sequels (well, given the gross, it probably will, but doesn't anyone else remember The Golden Compass, which had the same problem?). I shouldn't need to read the books to get the proper message or plot of the film if the film works - in fact, by taciturnly using the argument 'Well, it'll make sense in the trilogy', you have acknowledged the fact that the movie doesn't work on its own!

And you know what? Even outside of all of those criticisms, it still is cliched as all hell in production, set, costume, and plot design, it still has an incoherent message as it is (I know that the book is more coherent, but once again, I shouldn't need to read the book to understand the movie), and it's still not engaging, even as a 'shut-off-your-brain' action movie. When you can see the action (which isn't often), the fight choreography is bland at best, there are no creative kills, you can tell that the movie is kicking and screaming for an R-rating, and while Jennifer Lawrence is a very good actress (I remember X-Men First Class, I know she's better than this), I really couldn't get invested all that much in her character. Her absolute best moment of the film was the apple scene in the training chamber in front of the sponsors - I'll admit that scene was awesome, but that was partially because a dozen other films have used analogous scenes to it in the past.

I'm sorry, guys - even though I went into this film with no expectations, considering all the hype this movie should be a lot better than it is. It's not original, it's not well-made or well-shot, it's not even a great action film. Even the Harry Potter movies I don't like (Goblet of Fire and Half-Blood Prince) I liked more than this film. Just my opinion and all, but sorry.

 

What a nice way to suggest that the other guy doesn't know what his talking about. We know Silens that your knowledge about films is vast and deep like ocean, but maybe you should get off your high horse while discussing them with mere mortals.

That said, I think you should start a movie blog. Your reviews are always quite enjoyable to read, even if I don't agree with them from time to time.

 

Well I am pretty sure that I watched enough movies to recognize a good one and I had no problem with this one.
If you had problems with it fine.. but that doesn´t mean that the rest of us are idiots who don´t know what is good or bad.
And in my opinion you don´t need to show more violence to evoke a better reaction in the audience.. this is no horror or pure action movie. And the target audience are young adults so too much violence and the film gets rated to high.. at least here in Europe/Germany.

I also have a different opinion about the plot, logic, and the relationship but I read the books so it is possible that that influenced me.

In the end I must say that I liked this movie and while it is not great it is much better than what else I saw in the last few weeks.
(Contraband, the Grey, John Carter, The Lady in Black)

 

I'd know it's her opinion, and nothing else - granted, I'd take said review with a grain of salt, but I'd eventually wait until I saw the movie to formulate my own opinion based upon my own thoughts. Would I consider her 'unqualified' to review the film, with the material she's written? Not at all. In this case, I'm reminded of the analogous case of Frank Miller and his comics. As a comic book writer, something seriously fucked with his head to the point where certain comics of his are damn near unreadable, but as someone who has been in the industry a while, he has surprisingly perceptive commentary about the industry on occasion. Could Stephanie Meyer produce something similar? Hell, I dunno.

So, tracing back to this little incident (which I'm half-convinced is trolling, but whatever, I'm an easy enough target and I can take the abuse), you attempt to dismiss my criticism of the film by saying 'Well, when I read the opening chapter of RC, it sucked, so your criticism is completely invalid and you should shut the fuck up!' So let's assume you're completely right and the opening chapter - or hell, even the entire story - sucks - it still doesn't disqualify me from passing judgement on the movie from my experience. You don't have to be a good writer to recognize good or bad writing - hell, you don't have to be a writer at all. There's an entire industry of critics who have built careers off of criticising work based upon what they've seen, analysed, and studied - and there's nothing wrong with that.

I actually got the same comment from two different people outside of the Internet when discussing this film, so, yeah, that's valid. I'll concede that ego plays a part in the presentation - although granted, it does provide a rich frame of reference when you have seen a lot of movies. But eh, once again, it's my opinion. And I didn't insult anyone who disagreed with me, and I didn't even paint them as idiots. Hell, from what I've heard about the book's intent, maybe I didn't 'get it' the way I'm supposed to. But then again, that's the great thing about movie interpretation: it's subjective.

 

Y'all be bitching about a movie based on a book that you haven't read, or apparently plan to. I read the books (currently working on the third one, but I play far too much League and ORC to get much progress on it in a day) and I enjoyed the movie. Also, some reviewer guy in my local newspaper mentioned the economics and all that of Panem and how the movie could've explored that.

IT'S OBVIOUS, IF YOU AREN'T FUCKING RETARDED. The Capitol of Panem is the biggest city in the country, with each district getting smaller as you expand out. Each district is responsible for a specific aspect of Panem's economy/industry/food, with 12 being responsible for coal and 4 for fish, and so on. The Capitol takes a large amount of what each district produces each month. This is how Panem works.

Onto the 'betting' as Silens mentioned. This is a society in which bloodsports are considered entertainment, much like Ancient Rome. The Hunger Games are a massive PR stunt done by the government of Panem, basically to make them look better by saying that they'll reward the winner.

This is the 74th annual Hunger Games, bro, unless you missed that. That means that this has been going on for quite a bit of time, which means that they probably have their shit together as far as the games go, and they've got the betting down to a science.

Betting is not like picking a horse at the race track. When you bet on someone, you effectively throw a sum of money behind them which their mentor and other sponsors (i.e. you) then decide what to do with that money, which is then sent to the tribute via parachutes that use the tracker in their arm to find them.

Also, Silens, what part of the plot did you not understand? Did you fall asleep during the early parts of the movie? This is how Panem keeps the districts from revolting again. Each year, one male and one female are taken from each district to compete in the games. Still with me? They then fight to the death, and the winner is given enough money (and a house) so that they can live a life of luxury for the rest of their lives. Furthermore, for the rest of that year, their district will receive monthly allowances of food and such from the capitol. It gives them hope that their tributes might win, but it also shows them the iron-fist of the Capitol when their tributes die.

EDIT:

I won't pretend that I've seen the other three, but what exactly was your issue with The Grey? I thought it was excellent, even if that might destroy any credibility I might have had in this thread.

 

I'd throw in something about The Grey but it would boil down to "because...Liam Neeson"

 

Well that's not only a ridiculous argument, but it's rude and hypocritical. All your writing is not only worse than Silen's - it's downright bad but you have the gall to spew that shit because of some misplaced "internet tough guy" mentality.

And for the record, I enjoyed this movie as well as the book. It's a very simple story but I think both the movie and the book capture the hopelessness of the situation and of the environment in which they live. I did notice the camerawork but I liked it because I think it added to the mood of the movie.

They didn't show how Katniss didn't really love Peetah in the movie, which kind of bothered me a bit, but I assume they'll address it in the next movie when their relationship is a bit more important.

 

Okay, this got a little heated, but let me try to explain this from my POV as someone watching the film.

The economics... eh, they don't bother me all that much, to be honest. The society's got an Ancient Roman thing going, so I guess I can understand it well enough.

Okay sure, they've been doing this for a long time and presumably have all these kinks worked out (yeah, okay, let's just assume that), but let's raise a number of questions that are fairly reasonable. For starters, the constant 'rule changing' that allow pairs from the same teams to win, and then not win, and then win again. As somebody who is placing money on this game, I would want to know the odds - but the second the rules change, the odds shift dramatically, and that basically means the betting becomes pointless, because there's no way of tracking how the rules will change and how the odds will shift.

And let me raise a few more questions: for instance, if there is so much money riding on these Games, and I can raise the reasonable guess that only wealthy gamblers in Panem are dropping serious capital here, why the hell aren't the gamblers worried about their prospects, and aren't showering their chosen with equipment drops? Is there a buy-in charge of some sort? And furthermore, when Katniss is faced with the team-up of other players, why aren't more people showering her with gear? Sure, she might have gotten the 11 points early on, which might discourage early betters looking for longer odds, but the second she stopped becoming a safe bet, why wasn't she getting more material from those who bought in for her so they could insure a win? I find it very hard to believe true high rollers wouldn't drop serious capital so she could get extra equipment, food, or medicine.

And now the finale... Jesus, I don't even know where to start. So let's say I'm a gambler and I know about the boundary conditions that prevent candidates from fleeing, and maybe even about the final generation of bad CGI during the finale, why the hell would I place any money on any candidate? The odds now deviate wildly from what was originally projected, and they can change at any second at the whims of the controllers - in other words, it is not worth my gambling money to drop anything on this game - and yet, it's supposed to be a big past-time of this culture?

I get the premise of the movie, I do, but betting on these games is a lot different than betting at the track. At the track, you get one set of odds per race - with the Hunger Games, you get one initial set of odds and then you're up to the whims of the system, which seems so easily loaded and rigged, and with the constant rule changes on top of that, how the fuck does one place a bet here?

And you know, just because an arbitrary number of the '74th' Hunger Games comes up doesn't mean I can buy the setup of something so ubiquitous and widespread in the culture if it doesn't make sense. If there's no logic or sense beyond this incredibly crude manner of controlling the masses, then I'm not going to buy it. If I can think of all of these problems when sitting in the movie theater, there's a problem with the film maintaining verisimilitude in the film - I'm not going to turn off my brain just because I'm watching a movie! The best sci-fi/futuristic movies engage the intellect, and while this movie tries, it fails in execution.

And that's really the problem here: there are some interesting ideas in The Hunger Games, but ultimately it doesn't work for me.

 

I saw it over the weekend and my immediate thought was that this film was made for the fans. The film follows the plot of the books as closely as any film adaption can really hope to and as such is what's in the books put onto screen. Simple as. That being said it works as a stand alone film for those who haven't read the series based off the premise which, while done before hasn't been done recently.

I liked the books and even I noticed parts that while I enjoyed cause of how true to the book they were, non-fans might get a bit restless at. IMO the build-up to the actual games were the best bits and after the tracker-jacker scene it started to slow and lose momentum at times.

If you're a fan of the books you will get much more out of this film (derp). If not then you're likely to think it's alright but nothing particularly special. Even if this had been created as a movie first with no books ever released it probably would have achieved moderate success as it is by no means bad.

With regards to shaky-cam, there wasn't all that much. I think they even addressed this as an attempt at compensating for a reduction in visual gore scenes due to a need to keep the rating down.

These points were mostly addressed in the book. The secondary purpose of the games is to entertain the citizens of the capitol in a bid to keep them happy with the status quo. This was the first Hunger Games that included a 'couple' and the rule-change is to drum up increased excitement in the games. The primary purpose is to continuously display that the power of the capitol government (President Snow) is absolute, hence the change back. Anti-government sentiment, even from capital citizens is punishable by death. It also mentioned in the books that this was the first and therefore unprecedented rule-change in the history of the games.

With regards to sponsors. They aren't in control of what to send and this was less evident in the film than book. Sponsor gifts are only sent at the discretion of the tribute's adviser. Haymitch uses these gifts to communicate with Katniss such as withholding water even when she was dying of dehydration because he knew she was so close to a water source. Sending food when she finally showed affection for Peeta in a nod that she should continue in that vein to garner increased public support.

It also stated in the books that gifts get more expensive the longer the games continue. So what buys a feast and arsenal of weapons on day one buys half a bottle of water on day three. So when food and the knock out drug (wasn't in film) arrive in the later days of the games, that would have cost an extortionate amount of money from a collective of sponsors to finance.

 

Going to watch it tomorrow if I can. I'll withhold judgement till then.

As for Silens: Your review was fine with me at first, you lost me when you claimed that the message of the film was cynical and that that should be held against it. I honestly don't see the justification for this, sometimes movies have shitty endings, people don't always win. IDK who this makes it a bad movie. Perhaps unsatisfying to you personally, but not bad from an objective level.