DVD Talk
The Hunger Games (Ross, 2012) — The Reviews Thread [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : The Hunger Games (Ross, 2012) — The Reviews Thread


OldBoy
03-18-12, 12:59 PM
I thought with the other being derailed a bit and reviews starting to come in, why not start the season off proper...

Please continue pre-release discussion here. (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/588647-hunger-games-2012-ross-lawrence-10.html)

Movie:
"The Hunger Games" (Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci, Woody Harrelson)

Release Date:
3/23/2012

Rating:
PG-13 (for intense violent thematic material and disturbing images - all involving teens, constantly picturing Jennifer Lawrence as ‘Mystique’, and unfair comparisons to ‘Battle Royale’ throughout)

Running Time:
142min. (2h. 22m.)

Budget:
$100 million (estimated)

IMDb Synopsis:
In a not-too-distant future, North America has collapsed, weakened by drought, fire, famine, and war to be replaced by Panem, a country divided into the Capitol and 12 districts. Each year two young representatives from each district are selected by lottery to participate in The Hunger Games. Part entertainment, part brutal intimidation of the subjugated districts, the televised games are broadcast throughout Panem. The 24 participants are forced to eliminate their competitors, literally, with all citizens required to watch. When 16-year-old Katniss' young sister, Prim, is selected as the mining district's female representative, Katniss volunteers to take her place. She and her male counterpart Peeta, will be pitted against bigger, stronger representatives who have trained for this their whole lives.
Written by Suzanne Collins

IMDb Info and Rating:
8.1 (13,331 votes as of 3/25/12) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/maindetails)

Rotten Tomatoes:
Fresh:183 Rotten:31 (86% as of 3/25/12) (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hunger_games/)

Metacritic:
68 metascore ('Generally favorable reviews' as of 3/25/12) (http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-hunger-games)

Trailer:
<object width="720" height="379"><param name="movie" value="http://www.traileraddict.com/emd/48922"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.traileraddict.com/emd/48922" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" width="720" height="379"></embed></object>

Poster Art:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v648/scott1598/HG.jpg

auto
03-18-12, 03:09 PM
Wow, reviews looking good so far. Have to admit I'm looking forward to this.

Dr. DVD
03-18-12, 03:51 PM
I was going to make a similar reviews thread, except I wanted to put a "I'll just stay home and look up steamy pictures of Jennifer Lawrence on internet."

PopcornTreeCt
03-18-12, 04:12 PM
Finally! A Reviews Thread for a good movie.

Dragon Tattoo
03-18-12, 04:17 PM
I'm glad this is getting good reviews. I'll probably wait for the Blu-Ray, though.

Dr. DVD
03-18-12, 04:58 PM
I think we will have to wait until at least Thursday to see if the good reviews stick. Only two major critics have signed off as liking it, and the rest have blurbs that make them seem like they're plants or desperate critics trying to get noticed, possibly both.

Dr. DVD
03-21-12, 05:47 PM
It's now down to 90%, but there's quite a few reviews in and several positive ones from major critics . Looks like it will end up "fresh" but with a lot of "three star" ratings saying its merely a solid movie. One consensus that is running is that Jennifer Lawrence deserves to be a star.

anomynous
03-21-12, 06:00 PM
She certainly does with dat body

auto
03-21-12, 09:22 PM
Hanging in there at 91%. Not bad.

Dr. DVD
03-21-12, 09:34 PM
She certainly does with dat body

This body?

http://www.celebful.com/photos/jennifer-lawrence/jennifer-lawrence-17458-medium.jpg

dsa_shea
03-21-12, 09:58 PM
I will likely see The Hunger Games but would love to see her in The Naked City.

Dr. DVD
03-21-12, 10:16 PM
She's got a firm behind too, hope this boyfriend taps it often. http://vpqv.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/20120202010045.jpg

Dragon Tattoo
03-21-12, 10:21 PM
I personally don't see what the obsession is. She's got a typical body for a white girl who isn't fat (Which I guess is an accomplishment in this day and age). Nothing really stands out, and I mean that both figuratively and literally.

Which is surprising...I recalled her being bustier in First Class.

Dr. DVD
03-21-12, 10:43 PM
I personally don't see what the obsession is. She's got a typical body for a white girl who isn't fat (Which I guess is an accomplishment in this day and age). Nothing really stands out, and I mean that both figuratively and literally.

Which is surprising...I recalled her being bustier in First Class.


Any way to make this guy vanish?

In terms of bust, ever heard of a wonder bra?

Dragon Tattoo
03-21-12, 11:05 PM
Any way to make this guy vanish?


Just press the ignore button and stop wasting your precious time replying to me then. You can go back to oogling average Hollywood actresses.

And, Wow no, Doctor of Digital Video Discs, I've never heard of a Wonder Bra. :lol:

Fucking ridiculous.

JumpCutz
03-22-12, 12:26 AM
:lol: I'm starting to like this guy.

Giantrobo
03-22-12, 01:37 AM
She's got a firm behind too, hope this boyfriend taps it often. http://vpqv.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/20120202010045.jpg


Is that the guy from "About a Boy"?

dino88
03-22-12, 04:01 AM
Roger Ebert gave it 3 out of 4 stars. Ebert's Review (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120320/REVIEWS/120319986)

Solid Snake
03-22-12, 10:08 AM
Is that the guy from "About a Boy"?

kind of looks different but he was Beast in First Class. And is in that new Singer film, Jack the Giant Killer.

Dr. DVD
03-23-12, 09:10 AM
Seems to be sitting steady at 87% . I guess also of note is that it's maintaining its fresh rating by having a lot of three out of four star reviews. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hunger_games/reviews/?type=top_critics

Going this afternoon, hope my audience isn't hyper.

Matthew Chmiel
03-23-12, 12:14 PM
I think the film started off great, however, once you get to the actual Hunger Games... well... the film nose dives instantaneously.

Pros:

The film has a great "retro" '70s science-fiction look to it a la films like Logan's Run, Westworld, etc.
Any scene with the adult actors (Woody Harrelson, Lenny Kravitz, Wes Bentley, Donald Sutherland, etc) come off as rock solid. The scenes showing the behind-the-scenes mechanics of the games are the best the film has to offer.


Cons:

The film is geared too much to those who have read the books. It plays more as a companion piece to the novel rather than a stand-alone film.
The film gives no emotional weight or face time to its characters that are not named Katniss and Peeta (and even they're not given much depth). I could've given two shits on who lived and died.


A great example of this would be the character of Rue. We see her on screen for less than five minutes before her eventual death. I know she's one of the youngest people in the game and likes to climb trees. How the fuck am I supposed to feel bad when someone chucks a spear through her stomach based off that knowledge? Gary Ross would like me to feel bad, but he doesn't know how to hit those right emotional points. My wife, who has read the books, said that could've been changed if Katniss would've told Rue how much she reminded her of her sister back home. Well, shit. You McFucked up there Gary Ross.


If any film needed an R-rating, this is it. A film about kids killing each other? SIGN ME UP. However, there's very little killing and most kills are off-screen other than a sweet neck breaking.
Most anti-climatic climax I've seen coming from a motion picture event in ages.
Worst IMAX DMR conversion I've ever seen. Wow. The amount of DNR applied to any scene involving CGI was frightening. Imagine the Predator Blu-ray blown up to be shown on a seven-story screen.


This is what I don't grasp. How can Kenji and Kenta Fukasaku take Battle Royale, a 700-page book with over 45 unique characters, and cram all of that information into a 114 minute film? A 114 minute film that's regarded as one of the best cinema has provided us within the past decade. Looking at Wikipedia, The Hunger Games is only 374 pages, with less than half of those unique characters, and fails at making a worthwhile 142 minute film?

Battle Royale hits on every single point it needs to as its firing on all cylinders. The Hunger Games becomes two films rolled into one. A great film with adults and the politics of the future alongside a shitty film with kids trying to kill each other and survive. For every inch of potential the film has, Ross manages to go two steps backwards with it.

TomOpus
03-23-12, 12:25 PM
Nice review, Matthew. I never read the books so now I'm wondering if I should bother, especially being a big fan of BR.

gp1086
03-23-12, 12:34 PM
Good review, Matthew.

The lack of Rue/Katniss build-up struck me as well. This was one of the strong points of the novel I wish they focused on a little more.

Ash Ketchum
03-23-12, 01:02 PM
Just for the record, Anne Thompson says the budget was $80 million:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/hunger-games-is-a-home-run-hit-how-the-filmmakers-did-it

Matthew Chmiel
03-23-12, 02:32 PM
Just for the record, Anne Thompson says the budget was $80 million:
http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/hunger-games-is-a-home-run-hit-how-the-filmmakers-did-it
... and I can see Lionsgate doubling that for Ross with the sequels.

Brooklyn
03-23-12, 04:08 PM
I think the film started off great, however, once you get to the actual Hunger Games... well... the film nose dives instantaneously.

Just got back from seeing it.

I agree with a lot of what you wrote, especially the film nose-diving as soon as the games began. What absolutely killed it for me were the number of wasted opportunities they had for taking each other out. It was as if they were on the stupidity level of the camp counselors from a Friday the 13th flick. I wonder, was the book written this sloppily?

Shannon Nutt
03-23-12, 04:09 PM
Haven't seen the movie yet, but there's so much internally going on with Katniss, that I'm not surprised the movie wasn't able to convey it...the only option would be through voice-over (telling us what she's thinking), and that would get pretty old pretty fast.

Most of the reviews seem pretty postive, and it's clear that reviewers who have read the books REALLY like the film, and Lionsgate has to be happy about that.

$19.7 million Thursday night - not a bad start.

Matthew Chmiel
03-23-12, 04:39 PM
Haven't seen the movie yet, but there's so much internally going on with Katniss, that I'm not surprised the movie wasn't able to convey it...the only option would be through voice-over (telling us what she's thinking), and that would get pretty old pretty fast.
Again, using Battle Royale as the comparison, there's way to shelve out emotional material without relying on cliched techniques.

Example:

<object width="480" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/buTapJpXtsU?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/buTapJpXtsU?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

That entire segment in the film (including the infamous lighthouse massacre) allows Nanahara (Battle Royale's main character for those unaware of it) to realize the senselessness and meaninglessness of the predicament they're in. No scene in The Hunger Games holds that emotional weight or gravitas. However, I don't think any studio picture in America would use such a ballsy technique to get information across nor would your average viewer "get it."

Another issue I had with the film is the game, or the story itself, has no real antagonist.

Yes, I know the President is the story's main antagonist. However, I only know that as my wife has spelled out all three novels for me already. Without knowing that, I don't think Ross and company did a great job on making the character a foil to the heroes.
Inside the actual games, the District 1 boy (and the core group that follows him) aren't even effective antagonist as they're given nothing to do. Again, using Battle Royale as the comparison, we have antagonists (Kiryama and Mitsuko) who are effective as we see the path of destruction they've created. We also get memorable moments when the characters meet their eventual demises especially as the film's in its climax because Battle Royale's main focus is on the characters rather than the game. You don't get that with The Hunger Games. We don't really get to know the other participants. The story tells us they're bad, but who really cares? Battle Royale shows the audience the characters' motives, The Hunger Games spells out the characters' motives. Or in this case, they're bad, so root against them.

When the climax happens, you could care less if the District 1 boy kills everyone or dies because he's not effective as the bad guy. Him and the other 21 participants that are not named Katniss and Peeta are cannon fodder. They exist for the sole purpose for the heroes to win. They provide no conflict. That alone ruins any emotional core the film has.

Obi-Wan Jabroni
03-23-12, 04:53 PM
^ So Hunger Games = Battle Royale with Cheese?

Cellar Door
03-23-12, 08:15 PM
:rimshot:

dsa_shea
03-23-12, 08:18 PM
We just got back from seeing this and I thought it was decent. I think they could have done a better job at fleshing out some of the other antagonists in the movie and given us more reason to cheer for or against them. I can overlook the cameras everywhere they go and the little parachute things but one thing that really bugged me was:

The stupid animals the lady just created out of her imagination and made come to life and inserted into the game. What a crock of shit and really took me out of the movie. At least everything up until that point was still grounded somewhat in reality. I don't know if that was in the book as I haven't read it but would be pissed after reading a story that could be real to then become pure science fiction.

Dr. DVD
03-23-12, 08:43 PM
Saw it. Liked it a lot, mostly due to the fact that I had read the book. I will admit that since this is more or less a truncated version, a lot of the emotional impact would be lost if I had not done so. I thought the first half of the movie was superb. I guess because of Ross' previous efforts, I had rather modest expectations about the look. However, he really seemed like he was channeling Ridley Scott and at times, Kubrick. The games half itself was much weaker, and if you hadn't read the books you had no reason to care about who lived or died. Too much shaky cam for my liking, wish the Bourne movies hadn't left this as a "how to" for shooting action scenes.
The acting was really good all around IMO, and I thought it told the story along with making social commentary rather well. Basically, what a good sci-fi movie should do.

I will say that it appears a lot of the gripes on here are from people who have not read the books. For them, I can only recommend that you give them a shot, then re-watch the movie. You will find it is not so anti-climactic and in fact, the last shot was kind of a wink to people who have read them.

Matthew Chmiel
03-23-12, 08:53 PM
I will say that it appears a lot of the gripes on here are from people who have not read the books. For them, I can only recommend that you give them a shot, then re-watch the movie. You will find it is not so anti-climactic and in fact, the last shot was kind of a wink to people who have read them.
An adaptation should stand on its own as the filmmakers' interpretation of the source material. It should not stand as a companion piece. Requiring past knowledge of the story let it be through a book, television show or video game alienates your audience. One's enjoyment should come from the one piece itself, not a plethora of pieces. I know a plethora of people that enjoy the Harry Potter films and have never opened one of the books up. I know a lot of people who loved The Dark Knight, but have never touched a Batman comic.

An answer like yours pretty much seals the fact I will never pick up the book. I don't believe I should have to read a book to enjoy the adaptation of it.

Dr. DVD
03-23-12, 09:17 PM
Did you read Watchmen? Because if you didn't I have a feeling you hated that movie, because that was about the most alienist adaptation I had ever seen. I had read it and liked it, but had I not, would have thought it dull and plodding.

I have a somewhat skewed bias when it comes to movies based on books. When I view them, I tend to judge them on how faithful they are and if they capture the spirit, and if it does, it is a well made movie in that regard. That accomplishment does not necessarily make it good, as it should at least try to stand on its own. However, I do believe more people should be reading for recreation, so I hope movies like this inspire people to pick up the books and try to get more out of the whole experience. I remember watching the David Lynch Dune and thinking it a mess, but it did get me interested in the book. I then read the book and thought the movie, well, still a mess, but one that was now comprehensible! ;)

TomOpus
03-23-12, 10:00 PM
I don't believe I should have to read a book to enjoy the adaptation of it.I agree. Two good friends saw it today and they both said you really need to read the book for background info.

DRG
03-23-12, 10:18 PM
I've read the book, but I can understand where those who hadn't would have problems with the Arena half of the film.

Cato worked better in the book because Katniss legitimately feared him and conveyed this throughout. Her worry over him is what builds him up as a menacing figure. In the film all we're left with are a few scenes with the guy, and he comes off as more of an "asshole who's going to get what's coming to him" character instead of the biggest threat to Katniss in there.

I also felt it was a huge distraction every time they cut away to the producers or something going on outside the arena. I understand that they needed to convey information internal to Katniss in the book, but it still felt jarring... especially since in the book we only see things through her eyes and that isolation is what made the Games compelling in the book (for me at least).

And related to that, if you're going to break from the book and show events that Katniss isn't privy to, why not use this to flesh out some of the other contestants? Why not cut away to Cato and his gang as they hunt down and ruthlessly slaughter some of the hapless victims that die 'offpage' in the book? Or cut away to Rue a few times being survival girl before her run-in with Katniss? Why not show some of the other survival strategies and how they contrast to what Katniss is doing?

Despite these complaints, I enjoyed the film. The tone and look of everything felt spot on and everyone was well cast. I know the film already runs long, but I think ten more minutes of the right footage to flesh this puppy out could've made this perfect instead of just good.

Michael Corvin
03-23-12, 10:40 PM
I think the film started off great, however, once you get to the actual Hunger Games... well... the film nose dives instantaneously.

That's interesting since the book is the exact opposite.

Spottedfeather
03-23-12, 11:19 PM
Did you read Watchmen? Because if you didn't I have a feeling you hated that movie, because that was about the most alienist adaptation I had ever seen. I had read it and liked it, but had I not, would have thought it dull and plodding.

I have a somewhat skewed bias when it comes to movies based on books. When I view them, I tend to judge them on how faithful they are and if they capture the spirit, and if it does, it is a well made movie in that regard. That accomplishment does not necessarily make it good, as it should at least try to stand on its own. However, I do believe more people should be reading for recreation, so I hope movies like this inspire people to pick up the books and try to get more out of the whole experience. I remember watching the David Lynch Dune and thinking it a mess, but it did get me interested in the book. I then read the book and thought the movie, well, still a mess, but one that was now comprehensible! ;)

I've read the watchmen comic as well as seen the movie (there's 2 hours I'll never get back) and hated them both. The story has one of the most idiotic endings that I have ever seen.

Draven
03-23-12, 11:47 PM
Saw it and enjoyed it thoroughly. I'm a fan of the books but it was a good adaptation. They had a lot to convert in a short amount of time and I thought they handled that well.

One thing that jumped out was they did a great job with a lot of silent moments. I thought they handled the violence well and the "shaky cam" was necessary to keep things less graphic. There was enough there to be effective but it conveyed the frantic motion and fear, especially the initial cornucopia scene.

All in all, I'm happy that it turned out as well as it did.

Dr. DVD
03-23-12, 11:58 PM
^ Well said. Once again, a correlation between someone who enjoyed it and also bothered to read the books.

TomOpus
03-24-12, 01:01 AM
I've read the watchmen comic as well as seen the movie (there's 2 hours I'll never get back) and hated them both. The story has one of the most idiotic endings that I have ever seen.If you hated one, why bother with the other?

nickdawgy
03-24-12, 07:53 AM
Everyone I talked about this loved it. They said it made them cry, it was excellent, phenomenal, etc.

Granted, they were all female. Perhaps that had something to do with it.

Draven
03-24-12, 08:44 AM
A great example of this would be the character of Rue. We see her on screen for less than five minutes before her eventual death. I know she's one of the youngest people in the game and likes to climb trees. How the fuck am I supposed to feel bad when someone chucks a spear through her stomach based off that knowledge? Gary Ross would like me to feel bad, but he doesn't know how to hit those right emotional points. My wife, who has read the books, said that could've been changed if Katniss would've told Rue how much she reminded her of her sister back home. Well, shit. You McFucked up there Gary Ross.

Even though I've read the books, I guess I don't feel that relationship was unclear at all. Katniss was shown to be protective of Prim several times in the movie, and Rue is obviously another little girl in need of help. And they showed Rue helping Katniss several times too, they showed them falling asleep in each other's arms and Katniss obviously felt responsible for her. Then Rue ends up dying in Katniss's arms. Do the dots really need to be connected that explicitly to make that relationship work? Just that fact that Rue is a little girl should be enough to connect her to Prim.

The Bus
03-24-12, 09:59 AM
Saw it and far surpassed my very low expectations. Woody Harrelson was a treat; I was not expecting him.

Any faults are the book's.

dsa_shea
03-24-12, 02:00 PM
Was there a plan to make another movie and will it be based on the second book?

dino88
03-24-12, 02:05 PM
Was there a plan to make another movie and will it be based on the second book?

They're going to adapt the trilogy and from what I heard the final book will be split into two films.

Matthew Chmiel
03-24-12, 02:28 PM
Did you read Watchmen? Because if you didn't I have a feeling you hated that movie, because that was about the most alienist adaptation I had ever seen. I had read it and liked it, but had I not, would have thought it dull and plodding.

I have a somewhat skewed bias when it comes to movies based on books. When I view them, I tend to judge them on how faithful they are and if they capture the spirit, and if it does, it is a well made movie in that regard. That accomplishment does not necessarily make it good, as it should at least try to stand on its own. However, I do believe more people should be reading for recreation, so I hope movies like this inspire people to pick up the books and try to get more out of the whole experience. I remember watching the David Lynch Dune and thinking it a mess, but it did get me interested in the book. I then read the book and thought the movie, well, still a mess, but one that was now comprehensible! ;)
I've actually read a lot of Alan Moore's works, but the only two film adaptations based on his material I like are: V For Vendetta and Watchmen. There's things I don't like about the film adaptations that I wish would've been carried over the book (like V being a dick and killing anyone and everyone who gets in his way), but I do feel that both stand alone as motion pictures and one doesn't need an in-depth knowledge of either comic to "get it."

I'm all for winks and nods to celebrate the original fan base, but to eliminate large chunks of characterization and than say, "Well you should've read the book first" is both a cop-out and a "fuck you" to any potential audience members you may or may not have.

If I was a filmmaker, my first goal in terms of doing an adaptation would be, "How do I make this better?" I get that a majority of the time the books will be better than the films (and I agree with that), but every now and then you get a film that blows its source material right out of the water.

However, not everything can be Fight Club. :shrug:

dsa_shea
03-24-12, 02:41 PM
They're going to adapt the trilogy and from what I heard the final book will be split into two films.

Is there enough material in the final book to fill two movies or is this a money hunt like the end of both Harry Potter and Twilight?

starman9000
03-24-12, 02:54 PM
Yeah there is plenty. One of the shortcomings of books 2 and 3 that you'll hear a lot is that they tried to cram way too much in. I'm hoping the movies will actually improve on them, especially book 3.

Solid Snake
03-24-12, 03:05 PM
However, not everything can be Fight Club. :shrug:

or The Godfather

onebyone
03-24-12, 03:12 PM
I haven't read the books (although I will now), but I really thought this was great. It's a long movie but it never dragged. Jennifer Lawrence was just fantastic as Katniss, I really loved that character. Bravo to Woody and Elizabeth Banks for bringing some disturbing dark comedy to the mix too. I had rolled my eyes when Lenny Kravitz was cast in the movie, but thought he was pretty good too.

I hope the rest are as good as this. I have been a bit lost without Harry Potter. Although there will never be a series quite like that one, I could really use a new book/movie series to throw myself into.

The teenagers in the theater I saw it with were all very well behaved, not at all the usual texting chatty crowd I was expecting. However, the family who brought along their very young very fussy baby, well... I wanted to volunteer the whole family for tribute. :mad2:

Matthew Chmiel
03-24-12, 03:18 PM
or The Godfather
Or Apocalypse Now.

What I'm trying to say is that maybe 1970s Francis Ford Coppola should've directed The Hunger Games.

dsa_shea
03-24-12, 04:40 PM
We did have one person in our theater that let their phone ring through its entirety without making an attempt to silence it. And it was loud as hell and an annoying ringtone to boot. They were a good 4-5 rows away from us and the theater was at capacity and not one person close to them told them a damn thing.

Dr. DVD
03-24-12, 06:32 PM
or The Godfather

Best example of a movie transcending the source material. The book was a good read, but quite sensationalistic compared to the movie. If the studio had their way, it would have been an all out gangster shoot-em-up with Ryan O'Neal as Michael and Ernest Borgnine as Don Vito.

EDIT: oh, and Jaws

Dr. DVD
03-24-12, 06:40 PM
Or Apocalypse Now.

What I'm trying to say is that maybe 1970s Francis Ford Coppola should've directed The Hunger Games.

Or late 60s/early 70s Sam Peckinpah? ;)


I'm not bashing you for not reading the books beforehand, but I just disagree with refusing to read them in order to perhaps better understand what you viewed. It seems kind of closed minded IMO, and FWIW, I have gotten into several book series because of the movies, such as the early Dune works, some early Tom Clancy, and the Game of Thrones series. I also refuse to watch Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy until after I have read the book because it is apparently very hard to get into otherwise, but I have heard it is a fabulous movie if you have the patience. I love movies, and do whatever it takes to enhance my enjoyment. If that means doing some homework, so be it.

Solid Snake
03-24-12, 07:03 PM
You should never need the book to understand the movie. It's not close minded. It's reality. What you get in the book...is irrelevant in terms of needing to understand what you just saw. If the film doesn't give it to you and you need to the book to make sense of it? The film failed in adapting the source's world/culture/whatever. I haven't seen teh film yet so I can't say anything about it's inability to handle whatever info it needs to but...you should never need to book to understand the movie. That's kind of like a cop out or cheating, i guess.

That's great that a movie gets into a book. That still happens to me. Thank you, TGWTDT (Swedish version). Also...TTSS wasn't hard for me to understand what was going on. It's just a lot of info coming at ya and you need to be on top of that shit at the most. Have never read the book, am thinking about reading about everything George Smiley has been involved in...so that's cool.

Dr. DVD
03-24-12, 07:32 PM
You should never need the book to understand the movie. It's not close minded. It's reality. What you get in the book...is irrelevant in terms of needing to understand what you just saw. If the film doesn't give it to you and you need to the book to make sense of it? The film failed in adapting the source's world/culture/whatever. I haven't seen teh film yet so I can't say anything about it's inability to handle whatever info it needs to but...you should never need to book to understand the movie. That's kind of like a cop out or cheating, i guess.

That's great that a movie gets into a book. That still happens to me. Thank you, TGWTDT (Swedish version). Also...TTSS wasn't hard for me to understand what was going on. It's just a lot of info coming at ya and you need to be on top of that shit at the most. Have never read the book, am thinking about reading about everything George Smiley has been involved in...so that's cool.


I'm not saying one should read the book to understand the movie, merely to enhance the enjoyment. Hunger Games doesn't need to be read to understand the movie, or enjoy it, it just makes the viewing experience more meaningful IMO.

Supermallet
03-24-12, 07:51 PM
Or Apocalypse Now.

Apocalypse Now is an amazing movie, but Heart of Darkness is an amazing book. I would not say that AP is drastically better than the source material.

Dr. DVD
03-24-12, 07:59 PM
Apocalypse Now is an amazing movie, but Heart of Darkness is an amazing book. I would not say that AP is drastically better than the source material.


It's actually very much like the book, the movie's events are just more spread out.

Shannon Nutt
03-24-12, 09:27 PM
You don't need to read the book to follow this film...reading the book will ENHANCE your viewing, however.

Having read the books and knowing the story, Gary Ross did an excellent job with this film. He didn't beat us over the head with the political/social issues, but he touched on them just enough to set up the two sequels that will follow. The cast was excellent. Not all the performances are "great", but there's nobody that does a bad job either. I have to say Jennifer Lawrence was a great choice...and I didn't think that when I heard about her casting. Woody Harrelson, though, is the best part of the movie. That's TWO great performances I've seen him give this month (the other being HBO's GAME CHANGE).

As for the user who posted about the dogs in the finale:

In the novel they're actually wolves (I'm assuming this got changed because of the TWILIGHT similarities) called "mutts" (or maybe the director read the book wrong!) that are genetic mutations (hence the name "mutts") created in part with the DNA of the dead tributes...so each "mutt" was actually a wolf-version of one of the tributes who had been killed. So much more interesting and scary in the novel than in the movie

Dr. DVD
03-24-12, 09:35 PM
You don't need to read the book to follow this film...reading the book will ENHANCE your viewing, however.

Having read the books and knowing the story, Gary Ross did an excellent job with this film. He didn't beat us over the head with the political/social issues, but he touched on them just enough to set up the two sequels that will follow. The cast was excellent. Not all the performances are "great", but there's nobody that does a bad job either. I have to say Jennifer Lawrence was a great choice...and I didn't think that when I heard about her casting. Woody Harrelson, though, is the best part of the movie. That's TWO great performances I've seen him give this month (the other being HBO's GAME CHANGE).

As for the user who posted about the dogs in the finale:

In the novel they're actually wolves (I'm assuming this got changed because of the TWILIGHT similarities) called "mutts" (or maybe the director read the book wrong!) that are genetic mutations (hence the name "mutts") created in part with the DNA of the dead tributes...so each "mutt" was actually a wolf-version of one of the tributes who had been killed. So much more interesting and scary in the novel than in the movie


I rest my case. ;)

Agree about the finale. The muttations were much more horrific in the book, given what was revealed about their origins.

FantasticVSDoom
03-24-12, 10:17 PM
You don't need to read the book to follow this film...reading the book will ENHANCE your viewing, however.

Having read the books and knowing the story, Gary Ross did an excellent job with this film. He didn't beat us over the head with the political/social issues, but he touched on them just enough to set up the two sequels that will follow. The cast was excellent. Not all the performances are "great", but there's nobody that does a bad job either. I have to say Jennifer Lawrence was a great choice...and I didn't think that when I heard about her casting. Woody Harrelson, though, is the best part of the movie. That's TWO great performances I've seen him give this month (the other being HBO's GAME CHANGE).

As for the user who posted about the dogs in the finale:

In the novel they're actually wolves (I'm assuming this got changed because of the TWILIGHT similarities) called "mutts" (or maybe the director read the book wrong!) that are genetic mutations (hence the name "mutts") created in part with the DNA of the dead tributes...so each "mutt" was actually a wolf-version of one of the tributes who had been killed. So much more interesting and scary in the novel than in the movie

Agree 100% with pretty much all of this.... Only thing I would add is I think the thing I can say was a surprise is that its a 2+ hour movie and never feels like it. For me anyways

Goldberg74
03-24-12, 10:19 PM
After seeing the Hunger Games movie... I wanna read the book again. It's not that I didn't like the movie (I'd give it a solid B), they just didn't go deep enough into some parts. I do recommend the movie as a good adaptation, but I pictured a very different world.

There was one simple thing that I believe that Gary Ross should have kept in the film...

... the ships that would come and retrieve the bodies of the fallen tributes. They wouldn't need to show all of them being retrieved, but it would have added to the scene of Rue's "departure" and the ring of flowers could have been a better FU to the Capitol and a shout out to District 11.

I can't wait for the sequels.

Matthew Chmiel
03-24-12, 10:41 PM
Apocalypse Now is an amazing movie, but Heart of Darkness is an amazing book. I would not say that AP is drastically better than the source material.
It's been years since I've read Heart of Darkness as a high school senior, but I remember preferring Apocalypse Now more.

Now that I own the three-disc Blu-ray, maybe I'll give it a re-read before I pop that in one day.

Abob Teff
03-24-12, 10:45 PM
I find it interesting that most of the criticisms I've read of the movie were pretty similar to my reactions to the book. The other tributes were touched upon, but not really fleshed out; the mutts were horribly out-of-left-field in the book (I really felt they almost ruined it); and the story itself lacked any real antagonist beyond "the games" (this does change throughout the series as the direction becomes more focused and explains the antagonists).

All in all, it would not be very hard for the movies (this and future ones) to exceed the books. The books have great concepts behind them, but the execution falls short.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I can see how the hovercrafts could be taken out without too much impact on the story. If done properly, they could have added levity to the scene Goldberg mentions; more likely it would have come off as being silly though.

Supermallet
03-24-12, 10:46 PM
Heart of Darkness is incredibly dense, but also wonderfully rich. I'd wager most of it goes over the heads of high schoolers. Definitely give it another read.

DJariya
03-24-12, 11:20 PM
I saw it today and honestly I think I need to watch it again. I was so tired from working an early morning shift that I had trouble staying focused during the movie. I really only remember the last 30-45 minutes.

candyrocket786
03-24-12, 11:21 PM
This was (a very very tame) Battle Royale meets The Truman Show for me. Also the fight scenes, especially the start of the games were difficult to follow. It was like watching the bot fights from TF1 all over again


Finally, maybe i'm a heartless bastard but i felt absolutely nothing during Rue's death scene.

superdeluxe
03-25-12, 03:07 AM
Liked the movie, liked some of the background/political issues. Part running man part Truman show.

Kind of sucks for younger tributes, they don't really have a shot

shadowhawk2020
03-25-12, 08:18 AM
Liked the movie, liked some of the background/political issues. Part running man part Truman show.

Kind of sucks for younger tributes, they don't really have a shot

I haven't seen the movie yet, but plan to tonight. Prim would never have survived cornucopia, but at least in the book Rue was sneaky enough that she did pretty well.

xfilekr
03-25-12, 09:11 AM
Saw it last night (read the books) and thought it was pretty good and about as faithful as it could have been. I have to remind myself I'm far outside the target audience. My fiance spent the evening sick cause of shaky cam and had a decent amount of questions. Lawrence was great. Going to check out Battle Royale.

Pizza
03-25-12, 10:06 AM
I was bored with the movie. I felt the pacing was clumsy and many scenes went on too long while other parts of the story were poorly detailed. Rue, especially wasn't built up well enough as a character for me to care when she got speared. Certainly, I can see if you read the books (I didn't) that you would get more from the film as you have a core understanding and connection with the characters that the film failed to deliver for me. Also, the tone of the film felt Twilight-ish which didn't help me like it much.

edstein
03-25-12, 10:31 AM
I haven't seen this yet but were the audiences filled will teenage girls wetting themselves?

Dr. DVD
03-25-12, 10:38 AM
I haven't seen this yet but were the audiences filled will teenage girls wetting themselves?

Mine was full of teenage girls, but they weren't wetting themselves so to say. FWIW, this is more sci-fi with a love subplot as opposed to Twilight , which was a love story with lame attempts at horror subplots.

Nickee
03-25-12, 10:58 AM
I enjoyed it. Having read (and re-read the book prior to seeing the movie) it's hard for me to decide how it would be from the point of view of someone who hadn't read the book.

But one thing that stood out to me that as a something that I'm not sure people who didn't read the book would get were the flashbacks with Peeta and Katniss.

I don't think the filmed flashbacks really showed that Peeta saved Katniss' life (and her family's) by giving her the bread and how much of an effect it had on Katniss.

Osiris3657
03-25-12, 11:25 AM
I admittedly had little interest in seeing this based on the trailer, premise, and the comparison to "Twilight" in that the source material is for teens.
My friends pressured me into seeing it so I thought "what the hell" and wanted to see what all the hype was about.
I liked it until that kid revealed his crush on Katniss (apparently that's the spelling?). I knew it would be downhill from there.
That cave scene was utterly painful to watch and my worst fears came to fruition: it turned into a Twilight movie.
The whole "oh now there can be two winners" to serve the romance plot was just lame.

In conclusion, I was surprised that I was enjoying it halfway through and then it went downhill fast. I wouldn't see it again.

C-

superdeluxe
03-25-12, 11:39 AM
I haven't seen this yet but were the audiences filled will teenage girls wetting themselves?

No, it was a pretty spread out demo, families, grown men, teens. Honestly it was the most well behaved theater I have ever seen for a big blockbuster, even the chatter was kept to a minimum

superdeluxe
03-25-12, 11:45 AM
I admittedly had little interest in seeing this based on the trailer, premise, and the comparison to "Twilight" in that the source material is for teens.
My friends pressured me into seeing it so I thought "what the hell" and wanted to see what all the hype was about.
I liked it until that kid revealed his crush on Katniss (apparently that's the spelling?). I knew it would be downhill from there.
That cave scene was utterly painful to watch and my worst fears came to fruition: it turned into a Twilight movie.
The whole "oh now there can be two winners" to serve the romance plot was just lame.

In conclusion, I was surprised that I was enjoying it halfway through and then it went downhill fast. I wouldn't see it again.

C-

It was all about the ratings though, all the things kind of fit because of that (the peck on the cheek, then a better kiss, having two winners so the 'lovers' could be together, katniss playing the game well to get more sponsors' meanwhile the peeta kid think it was real

CharlieK
03-25-12, 12:02 PM
It was all about the ratings though, all the things kind of fit because of that (the peck on the cheek, then a better kiss, having two winners so the 'lovers' could be together, katniss playing the game well to get more sponsors' meanwhile the peeta kid think it was real

Yeah, I've seen a lot of comments busting on the 'romance' aspect, but not only was it was all one-sided from Peeta, but Katniss was reluctantly going along with it to help her appeal, get stuff from sponsors, and win. Even on the train ride home and their homecoming, it was painfully obvious she doesn't see Peeta in that way. Not sure where all these Twilight comparasins are coming from.

kstublen
03-25-12, 12:04 PM
I guess I'm in the minority, but I thought the movie was a pretty bad adaptation. I'd describe it as having been made by someone who had only read a cliff notes version of the book. A lot of the scenes from the book were there, but the point of those scenes was lost in translation. Not only that, but they left out scenes that I thought were of great importance in the book.

And I just didn't care about any of the characters. It wasn't like that for me when reading the book. There, I cared for Katniss; I feared Cato; and I was upset when Rue died. In the movie though, Katniss just ran around looking confused or annoyed for the whole movie; Cato was just an entitled rich kid; and Rue's death had little to no impact.

If Rue hadn't mentioned Katniss being out for several days, I'd have left the movie thinking this happened over the span of a few days, instead of weeks like in the book. I never felt like Katniss or anyone else was ever in any real danger in the movie. Yeah, people died, but it just didn't have the same impact. Katniss and Peeta were on the brink of death several times in the book, but i never seemed like they wouldn't live in the movie. Because of that I just didn't care what happened to them; I hadn't watched them struggle to survive, so why should I care what happens to them?

I'm surprised that people who read and enjoyed the book are saying the movie was a success. The group of people I went with had the opposite reaction. Those of us that had read the book were sorely disappointed, whereas those who hadn't enjoyed the movie.

I don't think I hyped it too much and I wasn't overly critical; I didn't expect, nor did I want, a literal adaptation. Plenty of movies change things when adapting books to the big screen, but they at least maintain the spirit of the book. I don't think The Hunger Games did that, and that's why I didn't enjoy the movie.

candyrocket786
03-25-12, 12:08 PM
I haven't seen this yet but were the audiences filled will teenage girls wetting themselves?

Most were crying during Rue's death at my 7pm screening.

superdeluxe
03-25-12, 12:18 PM
Not sure where all these Twilight comparasins are coming from.

I'm guessing people hear there is a romance subplOt in a young adult movie means it is twilight

Demos for the movie shows it is not necessarily a movie for tween girls.

60/40 female/male
55/45 over 25/under 25
And a cinescore of A

Means the movie appeals across all demos and great word of mouth. Box office champ for the year for a movie that is neither a holiday open or summer open

Osiris3657
03-25-12, 01:08 PM
It was all about the ratings though, all the things kind of fit because of that (the peck on the cheek, then a better kiss, having two winners so the 'lovers' could be together, katniss playing the game well to get more sponsors' meanwhile the peeta kid think it was real

I get that and I understood it, but it didn't appeal to me.

asianxcore
03-25-12, 02:18 PM
No, it was a pretty spread out demo, families, grown men, teens. Honestly it was the most well behaved theater I have ever seen for a big blockbuster, even the chatter was kept to a minimum

^
Same happened at the 5:20p/Saturday screening that I went to. The woman behind me kept kicking the back of my chair and talking, but that was it in the crowd.

I've only read the first book (which I enjoyed) but kept myself in the dark with the film, mostly because I didn't want my expectations too high/low, etc.

Liked:

-Stanley Tucci as Caesar. In one of the interviews I was laughing pretty hard at all the pictures of himself behind him.

-Jennifer Lawrence pretty much carried this film.

-Woody Harrelson was a treat. At first I wasn't buying his casting, (I imagined Haymitch as Mad Eye Moody) but I liked what he brought to the film.

-Elizabeth Banks was hilarious as Effie.

-They didn't mess up one of my favorite scenes in the book regarding the Tracker Jackers

Didn't Like

-The shaky cam. I do understand that much of it during the scenes of violence was to keep things less graphic, but there were times the camera would absolutely not sit still in non-kinetic shots. There were scenes where it was just Katniss and Peeta talking and the camera work looked like it was handled by a drunk person. For the love of god, frame a shot Gary Ross!

-One of the Thresh's scenes near the end of the book taken out. I know the rating could only let the film get away with so much, but I still had hopes to see it :)

-I thought the creatures created for the games were supposed to be Wolves or Wolf-Like, as well as being the deceased contestants. It's been a while since I read the first book, so maybe I'm wrong. They did look silly though.

-I didn't care about any of the other contestants, even the ones I did in the books.

Even with the gripes, it was fun/enjoyable and I'm glad I saw it.

Patman
03-25-12, 03:16 PM
I thought the film was okay, with the first 2/3 of the film more compelling than the actual "Hunger Games" in the final act of the film. I didn't think the film did a good job with characterizations, but like most of the Harry Potter films, it's a nice companion piece to the actual books. Having not read the book, I didn't have enough information to fill in the characterization holes that the book(s) obviously fill in. When the actual games commence, I found some plot developments to stretch credulity when it came to survival of certain characters, and why ruthless characters didn't take opportunities to be ruthless at certain moments when it was opportune to do so. It focused far too much on Katniss's predicament when other characters should have been fighting for their own survival amongst the rest of the tributes. It just seemed to be inattentive screenwriting where characters are plot devices and not characters with their own internal motivations. I dislike that sort of screenwriting in this sort of film where it should be every person for themselves, as there is only one victor in the annual Hunger Games. This is why the 3rd act just didn't do it for me, it was just too "meh" of a conclusion. Of course, it didn't help that I did have foreknowledge of 2 more books in the trilogy, so some of the dramatic tension wasn't all that high (doubt it was all that suspenseful for those who had read the book). I just wished it had a stronger 3rd act.

But even with my misgivings of the film's concluding act, the film's pacing was good for most of its running time, with solid casting, though I've been told Jennifer Lawrence was probably too old and well-fed to play the part of Katnisss, but sometimes you just have to put in someone with acting ability and push on with the movie-making.

I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-. I suspect those who read the books will grade it somewhat higher, which is perfectly fine.

Dr. DVD
03-25-12, 03:36 PM
Yeah, I've seen a lot of comments busting on the 'romance' aspect, but not only was it was all one-sided from Peeta, but Katniss was reluctantly going along with it to help her appeal, get stuff from sponsors, and win. Even on the train ride home and their homecoming, it was painfully obvious she doesn't see Peeta in that way. Not sure where all these Twilight comparasins are coming from.


I agree. It's very evident in the book and I thought in the movie as well that the romance was being done by Katniss to get herself "over" with the audience , to use the wrestling vernacular. That's why it shouldn't really be compared to Twilight, as the "love" between Katniss and Peeta truly is forced, and makes for an interesting development in the second book (which I am currently reading). I actually thought it was a good commentary on just how "real" reality TV is in most cases.

Shannon Nutt
03-25-12, 03:54 PM
I haven't seen this yet but were the audiences filled will teenage girls wetting themselves?

It's not that kind of story, and not that kind of movie. Actually there was a teaser for BREAKING DAWN PART 2 in our theater and the audience BOOED. Pretty good sign that HUNGER fans aren't (necessarily) TWILIGHT fans.

fumanstan
03-25-12, 04:59 PM
Caught it this morning in probably the most packed 10 AM show i've seen at the movies.

As a fan of the book series, I thought it was ok... not great, but just ok. I don't think the film did a good enough job showcasing some of the items that would make the stakes feel higher, particularly the world and the way the Districts are split up, and the interaction during the games it self that lead to everyone supporting Katniss. For instance, the District 11 riot seems to just happen and move on without any consequences. I think it would have carried a lot more weight if the movie had done so. So many things were just touched upon and not fleshed out, and in my opinion that includes the Peeta/Katniss relationship. The shaky cam also bothered me, but only at the very end. It just made that last fight a big giant mess. I had no problems with it during the initial Cornucopia scene because of the chaos, but at the end it was particularly bad.

Still, all the pieces were there to make the movie enjoyable. Jennifer Lawrence is nice to look at, and she did a great job as did all of the other actors. The fashion was portrayed perfectly and in entertaining fashion, and the violence was decent for a PG-13 film. I'm looking forward to the sequels.

Still, I disagree with the notion that people have to read the books to like or understand the movie. Given the reviews and response, I'd say people that feel that way are the minority.

Pizza
03-25-12, 05:38 PM
I enjoyed it. Having read (and re-read the book prior to seeing the movie) it's hard for me to decide how it would be from the point of view of someone who hadn't read the book.

But one thing that stood out to me that as a something that I'm not sure people who didn't read the book would get were the flashbacks with Peeta and Katniss.

I don't think the filmed flashbacks really showed that Peeta saved Katniss' life (and her family's) by giving her the bread and how much of an effect it had on Katniss.
I would say the flashbacks were a fail if that is the case. I didn't get the impression that he saved her life by giving her a small loaf of bread but rather that he gave someone down on their luck a bit of muddy food.

CKMorpheus
03-25-12, 06:35 PM
I would say the flashbacks were a fail if that is the case. I didn't get the impression that he saved her life by giving her a small loaf of bread but rather that he gave someone down on their luck a bit of muddy food.

Ditto. I have not read the books so that's how I viewed it.

Enjoyable enough movie. I was surprised the Games were concluded at the end of this movie. I was under the impression that they would be throughout all 3-4 movies. Unsure where they will take it from here.

dino88
03-25-12, 06:40 PM
Ditto. I have not read the books so that's how I viewed it.

Enjoyable enough movie. I was surprised the Games were concluded at the end of this movie. I was under the impression that they would be throughout all 3-4 movies. Unsure where they will take it from here.

The games happen every year.

mhg83
03-25-12, 07:06 PM
I liked the film a lot. It had been awhile since reading the book but it seemed like they changed the appearance of Katniss and others in that she was supposed to be malnourished. They seemed at a healthy weight when in reality they should be like skin and bones. That's what i remember from the book at least.

Shannon Nutt
03-25-12, 08:45 PM
I would say the flashbacks were a fail if that is the case. I didn't get the impression that he saved her life by giving her a small loaf of bread but rather that he gave someone down on their luck a bit of muddy food.

I may be mis-recalling the book, but I don't think in the novel that Peeta saves Katniss and her family by giving her the bread...he just helps a family out in some very dire times. Yes, food was hard to come by, but Collins didn't really give the impression that Katniss and her family were on the verge of dying if they didn't get a meal soon

shadowhawk2020
03-25-12, 10:12 PM
I may be mis-recalling the book, but I don't think in the novel that Peeta saves Katniss and her family by giving her the bread...he just helps a family out in some very dire times. Yes, food was hard to come by, but Collins didn't really give the impression that Katniss and her family were on the verge of dying if they didn't get a meal soon

You are mis-recalling

Iron_Giant
03-25-12, 11:22 PM
No, it was a pretty spread out demo, families, grown men, teens. Honestly it was the most well behaved theater I have ever seen for a big blockbuster, even the chatter was kept to a minimum

We had teens of coarse, but we also had moms, dads, grandmas, grandpas, singles, people on dates....my wife and I watched it without our kids.

If this holds up, this will be a true monster hit, top 5 domestic for sure.

Had a great time with the movie, Jennifer Lawrence is a great actress, nailed every scene. The ending was abrupt, they left you with 3 or 4 hanging plot lines.

I would give it an enjoyable 6.5 out of 10 (would have been higher, but the ending and how if you did not a few things in the book, then a few small parts of the movie did not make total sense.)

Abob Teff
03-26-12, 12:53 AM
Ditto. I have not read the books so that's how I viewed it.

Enjoyable enough movie. I was surprised the Games were concluded at the end of this movie. I was under the impression that they would be throughout all 3-4 movies. Unsure where they will take it from here.

Dragging that out across multiple films would be torture ...

I just finished reading the last book ... By the time you reach the end, the first novel/story almost feels out of place. The purpose of the first story is simply to set up the characters and the world they live in (and it sounds as if the movie may have failed to convey the first act in lieu of trying to tell the first story). It feels whole, but once you get the rest you will realize it isn't.

That said, viewing all three novels as one full story casts a new light on events. It also shows how poorly they are paced/fleshed out. I don't think I have ever liked any series so much and yet had so many general complaints about it ...

maxfisher
03-26-12, 06:23 AM
The wife and I caught this yesterday and both really enjoyed it. I've read the books and she hasn't. I'm surprised by a lot of the complaints here, as I felt like this was a rare instance of a film surpassing the source material. The books had a compelling plot and ok characters and that was about it. They weren't particularly well written and had considerably more melodrama than the movie. If the rest of the adaptations are done as well, I'll definitely end up preferring the films to the books.

Shannon Nutt
03-26-12, 07:49 AM
Dragging that out across multiple films would be torture ...


Yep, the second book is my LEAST favorite because, after an interesting opening, it just repeats the first book with another Hunger Games. I'm waiting to see if there's a negative reaction to the second movie (from nonreaders) about this...and if some will then expect the same for the third (and fourth - apparantly they're dividing up the last book) movie and then be letdown when there's no Games at all - even though the story is pretty good

Shilex
03-26-12, 11:06 AM
Ok, just saw the Hunger Games. Thought the movie was ok. Even though I hadn't read the books, you could really tell that there were some backstories and truncated scenes that could have really used more exposition. The movie kinda dragged out, and not that much really happened in the woods after the games started. If the action had been more compelling - I think my assessment of the movie would have been far more positive (Gary Ross is NOT an action director). I didn't really attach myself to many of the characters (maybe that happens in the second movie, since this is just introductory). I thought Rue was very compelling for the small amount of screen time she had. I could have really used some more backstory (Such as "Why weren't there ever riots before over the death of a player?" The games have been going on for 70+ years, and no one ever got emotionally attached to someone and then had them die? Odd. Also, I would've liked to know more of the reasoning behind the games. But these are just nitpicks). Overall, maybe the movie will grow on me after another viewing. Right now my thoughts are that it was a bit emotionless and stagnant, and I expected more. Not a bad movie, but I felt it had so much more possibilities.

As someone who's seen Battle Royale multiple times, I thought that movie better handled the emotion and fear of being hunted and the stakes at hand (granted, it would be a hard R rating in America as opposed to a PG-13). I'm thinking if I had never seen Battle Royale, I would probably have liked Hunger Games a bit more than I did.

starseed1981
03-26-12, 12:03 PM
I'm not ashamed to say that I loved it. I thought Jennifer Lawrence did an excellent job.

superdeluxe
03-26-12, 01:34 PM
A question for the book readers:

In the movie, it showed that Katniss was totally playing it up for the game, until there was a moment where peeta was applying the salve to Katniss head wound, it looked like they share a moment (Where maybe it just wasn't all fake/game). Is this also true in the books? Or in the books was Katniss just all about the game and didn't have a 'moment' with peeta?

Raul3
03-26-12, 02:51 PM
It was the same in the book. Almost.

bluetoast
03-26-12, 11:16 PM
I just got back from it, and I've read the books. I enjoyed it. While reading the book, I had imagined Haymitch looking like Hagrid, something like that, so I was surprised at Woody Harrelson as a choice, but I'm a big fan of his, and I was expecting him to be one of the better parts of the movie, which he was.

A bit disappointed that Gale's presence wasn't as prominent at the beginning, and that their hunting partnership was just glossed over.

I liked the colors, wacky styles and the atmosphere of District 1, that was well done.

Some of the relationships were, again, glossed over especially during the games. Like others said, despite being a long movie, it didn't feel that way, but by that same token, things also felt rushed.

While reading the first book, I was very interested in what Haymitch was doing in terms of making decisions. The book had more of a psychological aspect to sending the gifts. For example (minor spoiler),

Haymitch denied sending Katniss water, because he knew she was near it. Katniss was upset at the denial since she knew she had built up enough "good will" for a gift, but Haymitch didn't want to waste the gift on something she could locate if she just pressed on.

Second book spoiler: I would read a book about the games from his perspective, and actually I was expecting/hoping for the second book that Katniss would be forced to coach Peeta or someone else.

But that's another tangent!

Brooklyn
03-27-12, 12:45 AM
I would read a book about the games from his perspective, and actually I was expecting/hoping for the second book that Katniss would be forced to coach Peeta or someone else.

But that's another tangent!

That last bit should probably be in a spoiler tag, moreso than the minor one you included. as from it it now looks like I know who gets picked for the next games. :)

OldBoy
03-31-12, 12:06 PM
bump for anyone that sees it this weekend.

Dr. DVD
03-31-12, 06:03 PM
A question for the book readers:

In the movie, it showed that Katniss was totally playing it up for the game, until there was a moment where peeta was applying the salve to Katniss head wound, it looked like they share a moment (Where maybe it just wasn't all fake/game). Is this also true in the books? Or in the books was Katniss just all about the game and didn't have a 'moment' with peeta?


She's all about the games and the camera. The movie does try to make it look like they have a moment IMO.

Tarantino
04-01-12, 10:29 AM
I saw this last night and thought it was complete garbage. This movie should be shown in film school as an example of how not to make a movie. Terrible...TERRIBLE camera work. Yes, I know it's supposed to be 'frantic', but the camera work just looks amateur. The fight scenes were just awful and incomprehensible. Someone needs to take the money set aside to send M. Night back to film school and give it to Gary Ross.

Jennifer Lawrence did give a good performance as Katniss and Woody Harrelson was great. Those are the only redeeming qualities about this movie. The characters besides Katniss were not fleshed out at all, and I felt nothing when they were being killed off because of this and I thought the ending was ridiculous.

Maybe I hated it because I didn't read the books, but I love a lot of movie based on books that I've never read. This one just failed on every level.

davidh777
04-01-12, 12:19 PM
I loved it. I did read the book and therefore can't interpret how someone would experience it without having done so. But I thought it was quite faithful given the need to shorten, and didn't feel long despite its running time. The cast was great. Woody Harrelson didn't fit my vision of Haymitch and took me briefly out of the movie, but I really liked him in the role. Lawrence may have been a little well-fed, but her toughness and lack of classic beauty fit. I didn't like the shakycam, though I see the point as far as obscuring the violence. Given the demographic of the readership, an R rating never would have flown. It did have emotional impact for me, especially Katniss' relationship with the younger girls.

Solid Snake
04-01-12, 01:26 PM
Maybe I hated it because I didn't read the books, but I love a lot of movie based on books that I've never read. This one just failed on every level.

That should never factor in. If the movie rocks or sucks...it does so on it's own terms. Fuck the book in this case.

Tarantino
04-01-12, 02:51 PM
That's what I think as well, but I've been hearing that from a lot of people.

Solid Snake
04-01-12, 03:01 PM
Which is failure on the film in that case. I still need to see this. I guess I'll see this Thursday to understand all the big hooplah.

asianxcore
04-01-12, 03:39 PM
I didn't like the shakycam, though I see the point as far as obscuring the violence. Given the demographic of the readership, an R rating never would have flown.

I totally understand the shaky-cam for the violence. I can also understand it for a lot of the more kinetic shots/scenes.

I mentioned it previously, but my issue was the camera work was still the same way even when it was shot of two actors speaking. The scenes with Peta and Katniss in the woods speaking sometimes looked like a drunk person was behind the lens.

Tarantino
04-01-12, 04:57 PM
I totally understand the shaky-cam for the violence. I can also understand it for a lot of the more kinetic shots/scenes.

I mentioned it previously, but my issue was the camera work was still the same way even when it was shot of two actors speaking. The scenes with Peta and Katniss in the woods speaking sometimes looked like a drunk person was behind the lens.

You can make competent action scenes in PG-13 movies. I don't get the rationale that all DVDTalkers are suddenly accepting shitty camera work because of its rating. People would have shit bricks if The Dark Knight action was like this...and it was also PG-13.

Draven
04-01-12, 06:11 PM
You can make competent action scenes in PG-13 movies. I don't get the rationale that all DVDTalkers are suddenly accepting shitty camera work because of its rating. People would have shit bricks if The Dark Knight action was like this...and it was also PG-13.

The camera was swinging past images like an 18 year old slashing the throat of a 12 year old. If there is the equivalent of that shot in Dark Knight, I'd love to see it. I think a "frantic camera" was necessary to depict these kids killing each other and not get an R rating.

I never even noticed the "shaky cam" in this movie because whenever it happened, it fit the mood of the scene. And I shoot video for a living, so I do notice bad camera work. Didn't seem bad to me at all.

Solid Snake
04-01-12, 06:24 PM
I haven't seen it, but I will. Just cuz it's an interesting discussion on there from you guys. But...does it do that to make it more "viseral" or "gritty" or what?

dino88
04-01-12, 06:28 PM
I haven't seen it, but I will. Just cuz it's an interesting discussion on there from you guys. But...does it do that to make it more "viseral" or "gritty" or what?

Just go see the damn movie, Snake! You're going to know every scene of the movie before you see it if you keep reading this thread.

Solid Snake
04-01-12, 07:06 PM
Who cares? I'm not a bitch about spoilers. I can understand others' feelings about such things but they don't affect me. I can know everything but until i actually experience it. They're just things that I know about...but didn't experience it.

asianxcore
04-01-12, 07:21 PM
You can make competent action scenes in PG-13 movies. I don't get the rationale that all DVDTalkers are suddenly accepting shitty camera work because of its rating. People would have shit bricks if The Dark Knight action was like this...and it was also PG-13.

Batman Begins had tons of shaky-cam in it's action scenes and I think a lot of people here were annoyed by it.

Also the action in a film like Dark Knight and what was depicted in the first Hunger Games book are two different beasts in terms of rating.

You aren't going to see:

Throat slashing or a girl getting her skull caved-in by another tribute with a rock in Dark Knight

As I mentioned many times before in both Hunger Games threads, I understand the shaky camera work in terms of the violence depicted, but not in the scenes where there was just dialogue/non-kinetic scenes.

davidh777
04-01-12, 07:32 PM
You can make competent action scenes in PG-13 movies. I don't get the rationale that all DVDTalkers are suddenly accepting shitty camera work because of its rating. People would have shit bricks if The Dark Knight action was like this...and it was also PG-13.

To me, it's less about the rating than the target demographic of the original material :shrug: (and yes, Dark Knight was somewhat targeted to kids because they knew it would sell stuff)

I agree that a movie should be able to stand on its own. As I said, it's hard for me to judge how successfully it did that since I read the book.

PopcornTreeCt
04-01-12, 07:38 PM
I just got back from this and I really liked it. I think Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson really held it together but especially Lawrence. The scene where she's with Kravitz right before she's about to leave, you can see her visibly shaking. I thought that was pretty well done. She definitely elevated it.

The only problems I had with the movie were story related so I imagine that had to be on the author. I just didn't expect her to:

Try to sit it out and then even sleep off a couple days. I thought was kinda lame to make her a reactive character rather than a proactive one.

I'll also say, this and Battle Royale were very different. They definitely took very different approaches to the material and I was happy about that too.

:4star:

Tarantino
04-01-12, 08:00 PM
The camera was swinging past images like an 18 year old slashing the throat of a 12 year old. If there is the equivalent of that shot in Dark Knight, I'd love to see it. I think a "frantic camera" was necessary to depict these kids killing each other and not get an R rating.

A simple fight between Katniss and the girl wielding the throwing knives would not have earned this movie an R rating if we could have seen what the fuck was going on.

Yes, I understand that certain images needed to be seen certain ways by the audience, primarily at the beginning of the games in the clusterfuck equipment scramble. However, all of the other action in the movie, including the fight at the end, on top of the base camp was so cut/cut/cut/cut/cut and so horribly done that it was impossible to see what the fuck was going on. The action was downright awful. If these fight scenes (with their same outcomes) were done say, the style of Haywire's fight scenes, it would have been a million times better and would have still gotten a PG-13 rating.

The fact some of you are chewing this shit up amazes me and tells me that you must be absolute head over heels in love with the source material and you're ignoring the movie's insane flaws.

Another glaring problem with this movie is the fact that we're told that most people don't die from battle...they die of hunger and dehydration...really? Did we ever see anyone have to hunt for food? Was anyone ever not near water? Everyone died from battle, save one person that ate some poisonous berries.

There was never a sense of urgency to survive. It was more like everyone was just there for a walk in the park. Even the main antagonist, Kato (yes, I know the main antagonist, as people tell me, is the President, but I just didn't get that sense here) is completely wasted. At first, when she sees him after the parade, I got a sense of...ah, here's the guy that's going to be a real challenge. He's the badass. Then, in the games, he's more like the ringleader of a group of bullies straight out of an American Pie direct to DVD high school movie.

I get that a lot of you are in love with the books. So be it. They're probably great books. However, this movie was fucking terrible.

RichC2
04-01-12, 10:26 PM
I didn't think it was terrible as it wasn't a chore for me to get through by any stretch, and I liked some concepts (Advertisers for the reality aspect was a nice touch) but I also didn't think it was particularly great.

Felt like a nicer version of Battle Royale. The action scenes were very poorly done, and I usually can handle shaky cam without a problem (can't remember the last one that bugged me.)

SuckaMC
04-01-12, 10:57 PM
Saw it, liked it. I did read the books so I was constantly comparing. The point above about most dying from exposure, etc. was a bit of detail carried over from the book that applied there but not in the film. The book has Katniss wandering for a long time and almost dying of thirst. Time issues I guess.

The cornucopia scene was surprisingly brutal and I can see why it was shot the way it was. It allowed for a lot more blood.

The only thing I didn't like was that the flashbacks show them as the same age. In the book it was when they were children, before Katniss was a hunter. It made sense that she would be starving then.

davidh777
04-01-12, 11:36 PM
This is also the 74th Hunger Games so it's possible exposure could have played a bigger factor in previous years, and maybe this year's tributes are better at killing. :shrug: Yeah, that bit of dialogue could have been trimmed to be tidy, but it seems like kind of a minor point to get upset about. Everyone has an opinion but I feel like Tarantino is getting a little personal over the kind of shit I like.

Tarantino
04-02-12, 12:12 AM
Not personal. I just don't understand the "the flaws don't matter because it's PG-13" argument I'm hearing from DVDTalkers and critics alike.

Michael Corvin
04-02-12, 12:15 AM
The only problems I had with the movie were story related so I imagine that had to be on the author. I just didn't expect her to:

Try to sit it out and then even sleep off a couple days. I thought was kinda lame to make her a reactive character rather than a proactive one.


That's how it was in the book. Katniss was a very reactive character, not a proactive one.

SmackDaddy
04-02-12, 08:23 AM
Wife and I have read the books. She liked the movie more than I did, but I'm more picky than she is.

My issues were likely due to the fact that I did read the book. Too much time compression for me.

Some of my issues:

The compressed beginning robs you of a lot of character development.
They short changed the Katniss/Rue relationship, better in the book.
The ending was entirely different starting right before the "dog" encounter.
The "dogs", I can see how what happened in the book would be a tough sell, but it certainly gave the end a little more bite. Especially when Katniss figures out what they are.


I did enjoy it overall, but would have rather had a training montage and had the games take up more of the movie so they wouldn't have had to cut out so much.

superdeluxe
04-02-12, 11:28 AM
Wife and I have read the books. She liked the movie more than I did, but I'm more picky than she is.

My issues were likely due to the fact that I did read the book. Too much time compression for me.

Some of my issues:

The compressed beginning robs you of a lot of character development.
They short changed the Katniss/Rue relationship, better in the book.
The ending was entirely different starting right before the "dog" encounter.
The "dogs", I can see how what happened in the book would be a tough sell, but it certainly gave the end a little more bite. Especially when Katniss figures out what they are.


I did enjoy it overall, but would have rather had a training montage and had the games take up more of the movie so they wouldn't have had to cut out so much.

What should have been cut? It seems like the movie would have been over 3 hours if we kept more in..?

Shannon Nutt
04-02-12, 03:28 PM
Wow, I didn't think the opening was compressed at all...if anything, the Games were compressed. I'm surprised the director spent as long as he did on the "set up".

SmackDaddy
04-02-12, 04:44 PM
What should have been cut? It seems like the movie would have been over 3 hours if we kept more in..?


I think you misread what I said. I wanted MORE, not less (as far as the intro and the games).

Wow, I didn't think the opening was compressed at all...if anything, the Games were compressed. I'm surprised the director spent as long as he did on the "set up".

Maybe it was all the internal exposition that fleshed out the rebellion, the games and Katniss' relationships from the book that I felt was missing from the movie. I know they tried to cover it with some of the dialogue, but a lot of it felt glossed over.

I agree on the games, again, I wish they had spent more time on them so you felt like it took more than a couple of days.

Shannon Nutt
04-03-12, 04:28 PM
I think you misread what I said. I wanted MORE, not less (as far as the intro and the games).

Maybe it was all the internal exposition that fleshed out the rebellion, the games and Katniss' relationships from the book that I felt was missing from the movie. I know they tried to cover it with some of the dialogue, but a lot of it felt glossed over.

I agree on the games, again, I wish they had spent more time on them so you felt like it took more than a couple of days.

I suspect this was all intentional by Gary Ross...I mean you're introducing this world to a lot of new people...I'm guessing the future films will get both darker and more in-depth - much in the same way the Harry Potter films evolved over the years.

sharkstank
04-07-12, 08:10 PM
Glad I went back and read Matthew's review before posting, since I agree with everything he said. I saw it last night in a packed medium sized theater. I was fairly entertained, but everything felt so damn rushed. If I hadn't read the book, I feel like I would have liked the film less, and I still just thought it was ok.

**1/2 out of ****

Abob Teff
04-08-12, 12:38 AM
Yep, the second book is my LEAST favorite because, after an interesting opening, it just repeats the first book with another Hunger Games. I'm waiting to see if there's a negative reaction to the second movie (from nonreaders) about this...and if some will then expect the same for the third (and fourth - apparantly they're dividing up the last book) movie and then be letdown when there's no Games at all - even though the story is pretty good

The problem I pointed out is at its worst in the second book. In fact, the whole second book is a throwaway UNTIL you read the third book. The whole second story is nothing more than a con-job on Katniss, as both sides - the Capitol and the rebels - play her like a well-tuned fiddle. The second story does NOT stand well on its own, but it is necessary to the whole story arc. This is where the filmmakers will have a chance to go leaps and bounds beyond the source material. In all reality, the second movie will almost need to carry through and use the beginning of the third book to have any real payoff.

The books work being told exclusively from Katniss's perspective; however I think the movies will need to stray from just her POV to fully communicate the story.

Abob Teff
04-08-12, 12:42 AM
A question for the book readers:

In the movie, it showed that Katniss was totally playing it up for the game, until there was a moment where peeta was applying the salve to Katniss head wound, it looked like they share a moment (Where maybe it just wasn't all fake/game). Is this also true in the books? Or in the books was Katniss just all about the game and didn't have a 'moment' with peeta?

It was the same in the book. Almost.

I disagree ... this is a source of constant conflict for the character and possibly the major driving force in the story. Without it the entire story arc (all three books) does not exist. This falls back to my main criticism ... telling the story in each book detracts from telling the story as a whole.

Abob Teff
04-08-12, 12:53 AM
Yes, I understand that certain images needed to be seen certain ways by the audience, primarily at the beginning of the games in the clusterfuck equipment scramble. However, all of the other action in the movie, including the fight at the end, on top of the base camp was so cut/cut/cut/cut/cut and so horribly done that it was impossible to see what the fuck was going on. The action was downright awful. If these fight scenes (with their same outcomes) were done say, the style of Haywire's fight scenes, it would have been a million times better and would have still gotten a PG-13 rating.

The fact some of you are chewing this shit up amazes me and tells me that you must be absolute head over heels in love with the source material and you're ignoring the movie's insane flaws.

Another glaring problem with this movie is the fact that we're told that most people don't die from battle...they die of hunger and dehydration...really? Did we ever see anyone have to hunt for food? Was anyone ever not near water? Everyone died from battle, save one person that ate some poisonous berries.

There was never a sense of urgency to survive. It was more like everyone was just there for a walk in the park.

I have not seen the movie yet (will this week while out of town -- won't go to the theaters here if I can help it) ... however the talk about the camera-work and how certain scenes are shown keeps bringing a single thought to my mind ... "The Hunger Games" is a TV show. Shouldn't it look like one? I don't mean the whole movie, I mean the actual games are a broadcast event for the populace. Admittedly, I struggled with this in the book (where are the cameras?!) ...

As for the sense of urgency to survive the elements ... this is addressed in the books. It is mentioned that past Tributes have commonly starved and wasted away, but that doesn't make for compelling television. The Gamemakers generally rig the arena to prevent this from occurring. This does become a significant plot point in the second book.

dino88
04-08-12, 04:13 AM
I have not seen the movie yet (will this week while out of town -- won't go to the theaters here if I can help it) ... however the talk about the camera-work and how certain scenes are shown keeps bringing a single thought to my mind ... "The Hunger Games" is a TV show. Shouldn't it look like one? I don't mean the whole movie, I mean the actual games are a broadcast event for the populace. Admittedly, I struggled with this in the book (where are the cameras?!) ...

As for the sense of urgency to survive the elements ... this is addressed in the books. It is mentioned that past Tributes have commonly starved and wasted away, but that doesn't make for compelling television. The Gamemakers generally rig the arena to prevent this from occurring. This does become a significant plot point in the second book.

I'd recommend seeing the movie before commenting on this.

Abob Teff
04-09-12, 01:06 AM
I'd recommend seeing the movie before commenting on this.

That was my hope ... I just had not seen anybody comment on this.

OldBoy
04-10-12, 02:24 PM
i thought the performances were top notch, but didn't love this ultimately. something was just flat and very slow moving throughout. even the action scenes were shot terribly and more chaotic than a Bourne movie of which i enjoy, here not so much.

it was ok don't get me wrong, but i think fans of the books will find the most enjoyment of which i have not and don't intend to read.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/3.gif

Michael Corvin
04-10-12, 10:54 PM
Just got back. Packed house ($5 night). Really, really liked it, just shy of loving it. The first act was just plodding, but the book was as well. It's something I wish they had beefed up a bit, not a complaint per se, just an observation. As for translations go, it was damn near spot on. Acting was top notch.

Walking away I only really had two complaints. First, the arrow through the apple. Way too many pans over the pig foreshadowing the shot. In the book it was, "hey!" they aren't paying attention! Boom arrow through apple. Boom. Badass heroine born. The constant pans of the pig really took away from that impact.

Two, the other tributes. They didn't really have much characterization in the book, but the movie characters make the novel counterparts look like Shakespeare. They were just nameless corpses walking in the movie. Despite the little development in the novel, at least they had names and strong characteristics. Cato & Rue were the only two given anything to do, and even Rue seemed shortchanged.

I really loved the adult casting. Harrelson, Kravitz, Tucci and Banks were fantastic in their roles. Bentley and Sutherland were solid as well, but didn't have enough chemistry with the rest of the cast to make much of an impression. I think both their beards made more of an impression. :lol:

Dr. DVD
04-11-12, 09:05 PM
FYI: apparently Herbert Ross won't be back as the director for Catching Fire. While I like consistency with my movie series, I honestly think this might be for the best. I'm hoping they maybe get one with more experience in action, which is important. My pick would be Matthew Vaughn, as he can do solid action and has a working relationship with Lawrence.

mwbmis
04-11-12, 11:00 PM
FYI: apparently Herbert Ross won't be back as the director for Catching Fire. While I like consistency with my movie series, I honestly think this might be for the best. I'm hoping they maybe get one with more experience in action, which is important. My pick would be Matthew Vaughn, as he can do solid action and has a working relationship with Lawrence.

Matthew Vaughn starts work on the next X-Men movie at the beginning of next year. He wouldn't have the time or presumably the energy to do both. I assumed all along that Gary Ross would be out after the first movie. The guy has only directed 3 movies in 14 years. To film all of these back-to-back seemed unrealistic.

Dr. DVD
04-12-12, 11:30 AM
Names being thrown around are : Kathryn Bigelow , Duncan Jones ("Source Code"), Joe Wright ("Hanna"), even Michael Bay (No, please, not this guy) and Alfonso Cuaron(Children of Men) . Doubt it will be any of them, but you never know. I think the studio would wet itself if it were able to get Kathryn Bigelow so they could market a movie with a female hero directed by the only woman to ever win a directing Oscar.

EDIT: I think Jennifer Lawrence is due to start X-Men as well. Don't see how she will have the time, unless her part is cut back to being more or less a cameo, which is very doable given her character.

Michael Corvin
04-12-12, 11:34 AM
I'm not aboard the Michael Bay Hate Train(like most of his stuff, deserves all the hate for Transformers), but he is all kinds of wrong for this series.

RichC2
04-12-12, 11:35 AM
Of those, Bigelow and especially Cuaron would be ideal picks to keep the tone of the first movie, they both do gritty + suspense extremely well. Jones and Wright tend to be a bit more polished. Bay doesn't suit it at all.

Abob Teff
04-14-12, 12:25 AM
OK, finally saw it last night. Some random thoughts:

Mediocre effort ... I think its fatal flaw was trying to stay too true to the book. The book was oversimplified and the movie took that a step further and dumbed it down too much.

The shaky cam element was pointless, yet I blame Battlestar Galactica and The Office for making everybody think that "shaky = real." I can handle a degree of shakiness in action scenes, but it was completely unnecessary during the Reaping. Another overdone element was the "Saving Private Ryan" shell-shock (silence/whining/humming while character looks around confused).

I felt the Reaping was the emotional high point of the movie. This scene was well done and moved me more than any other in the film. It is too bad a fraction of that emotion could not have been maintained throughout.

The Reaping was far more engaging than the death of Rue (do I really need to keep using spoiler tags 5 pages in?) ... I didn't realize that "Rue" was short for Rudy Huxtable . The whole point of the Rue character was that she reminded Katniss of Prim ... OK, so she was the same age but they were nothing alike in the movie (physically or behaviors). The movie failed in making any emotional connection.

Speaking of Rue, I'm amazed nobody has complained about the blatant racism of the riot in District 11. (sarcasm intended, but I am really amazed)

Woody Harrelson was distracting, not good. Donald Sutherland was distracting, not good. Honestly, I thought most of the casting was off. Elizabeth Perkins and Lenny Kravitz were embodiments of the characters as I pictured them while reading the books.

I am afraid of the dystopian future ... not because the world will end, but because it will become populated by club kids and ruled by an evil Santa Claus. I thought the effort at portraying the citizens of the Capitol was a noble effort, but it was sadly nothing more than one would see at a LA nightclub. More creativity was needed.

Abob Teff
04-14-12, 12:27 AM
Of those, Bigelow and especially Cuaron would be ideal picks to keep the tone of the first movie, they both do gritty + suspense extremely well. Jones and Wright tend to be a bit more polished. Bay doesn't suit it at all.

Bigelow would be a very interesting (and welcome) choice. The second book will need a significant amount of work put into punching up the characters. I would be much more interested in seeing her bring the third book to life.

Michael Corvin
04-14-12, 05:09 PM
Speaking of Rue, I'm amazed nobody has complained about the blatant racism of the riot in District 11. (sarcasm intended, but I am really amazed)

I thought that was odd. Same goes for the fact that the only two black tributes came from the same district.

Also, I forgot about Rue resembling Prim in the book. They totally missed the point there. :lol:

Supermallet
04-14-12, 05:15 PM
This felt ho-hum to me. I enjoyed the books but this was missing something.

JohnnyMovie
04-14-12, 11:50 PM
just saw it today afternoon and I like it as well... and so I give it 4 stars.

Abob Teff
04-15-12, 12:05 AM
One more good/bad point ...

The muttations -- or "the dogs" in the movie ... what the hell was up with creating them out of thin air? Yes, the author pulled them out of her ass in the book, but she didn't make them a computer program with a physical embodiment. I am torn on the fact that the filmmakers opted NOT to throw in the possibility of the muttations being the dead Tributes ... in the book it felt horribly out of place (no explanation before or after; just pulled out of the ass, thrown in, and then quickly dismissed). However in the movie it probably could have worked (especially within the context of their creation). In fact, I really thought they were going that route as the first dog was reminiscent of the male tribute from District 11 (in its look and behavior).

Brooklyn
04-15-12, 12:18 AM
One more good/bad point ...

In fact, I really thought they were going that route as the first dog was reminiscent of the male tribute from District 11 (in its look and behavior).

But wasn't that character killed by the dogs? At least in the film I believe he was, and that would take that out of the equation. I haven't read the books and from that standpoint I wasn't able to deduce the genetic melding plot point from them at all (other than they looked slightly odd). Was anything shown on screen when they were calling them up that I may have missed?

JumpCutz
04-15-12, 12:32 AM
Definitely a middling affair. The direction was unimpressive. Entertaining enough, but entirely forgettable.

2.5/5

Abob Teff
04-15-12, 12:35 AM
But wasn't that character killed by the dogs? At least in the film I believe he was, and that would take that out of the equation. I haven't read the books and from that standpoint I wasn't able to deduce the genetic melding plot point from them at all (other than they looked slightly odd). Was anything shown on screen when they were calling them up that I may have missed?

His death was offscreen and I don't think the cause was revealed ... right afterwards they run into both the dogs and Cato ... could go either way.

Even if you read the books it was very poorly presented ...

As for the creation, yes it was shown ... one of the "studio techs" created one and they showed the 3-D rendering of it on her console; the Head Gamemaker complimented her on it before she put it in. While the first one was chasing Katniss and Peeta, two more simply popped up from the ground when the studio tech pushed a button (or something similar).

Brooklyn
04-15-12, 07:41 AM
Iirc, it was down to him, the main bad guy and Katriss and Peeta, with him dying right after they implement and release the dogs. I took that as the film's way of showing the dogs were worthy adversaries, as well as giving him an offscreen death since he had been 'nice' to Katriss (which was ridiculous as he would never have known Katriss had even encountered Rue at all). I saw that they were computer generated, what I meant was did the film highlight anything that would show the audience that they had been genetically altered? If so, I missed it completely.

Michael Corvin
04-15-12, 09:11 AM
(which was ridiculous as he would never have known Katriss had even encountered Rue at all).

Parachute drop with a note isn't out of the question.

Brooklyn
04-15-12, 09:31 AM
Parachute drop with a note isn't out of the question.

It is in the sense that the game is every contestant for themselves. Dropping that note only puts the recipient at risk (they hesitate/second guess when an opportunity arises). ...Though, to that end, the film was full of examples where that rule was broken, so what's one more :).

You've read the books, right? Was that explained there, or was that a movie only thing (his saving Katniss)? I also thought I'd read, maybe in this thread, that the notes were a 'snuck in by Haymitch only' type of thing, though not having read the books myself that could be wrong. To me the movie made it appear common knowledge, as if in that instance the screenplay had been written as if it had forgotten that the contestants were not watching it onscreen as everyone else on the planet was.

onebyone
04-15-12, 10:26 AM
In the book, pretty much the same thing happens. However, there is more verbiage between the three players so Thresh learns exactly what Katniss did.

I do think that he could've figured out the two were at least allies by overhearing the fight between Katniss and Clove in the movie though.

superdeluxe
04-15-12, 11:56 AM
EDIT: I think Jennifer Lawrence is due to start X-Men as well. Don't see how she will have the time, unless her part is cut back to being more or less a cameo, which is very doable given her character.

Hunger games film in fall, x-men filming in winter

mr_jbloggs
04-15-12, 02:24 PM
Saw the movie yesterday, and OMG what utter rubbish almost fell asleep for the first time ever in a theater. The story line has been done a million times.."put a bunch of people in an arena, kids in this case, and last one standing is the winner"...can it get more pathetic. Its a cross between "Lord of the Flies" and "Running Man". How are people so gulliable.

Strevlac
04-15-12, 02:52 PM
Photography, camerawork and editing give this one an automatic F. Nothing else matters when the basics of filmmaking competence are so thoroughly trashed. This is not cinema....the quality on display here isn't even good enough for a syndicated TV series. I can't believe so many people accept crap like this as sufficient for a theatrical movie ticket.

Abob Teff
04-16-12, 12:52 AM
Iirc, it was down to him, the main bad guy and Katriss and Peeta, with him dying right after they implement and release the dogs. I took that as the film's way of showing the dogs were worthy adversaries, as well as giving him an offscreen death since he had been 'nice' to Katriss (which was ridiculous as he would never have known Katriss had even encountered Rue at all). I saw that they were computer generated, what I meant was did the film highlight anything that would show the audience that they had been genetically altered? If so, I missed it completely.

Nothing in the film suggested the genetic angle ... they could have worked it in even though the dogs were "digitally created from scratch." When the Head Gamemaker was so delighted with the tech's creation, I expected him to say "But there is one little change ..." and then show the dead Tribute's pictures being overlayed onto the wireframe dog and melding into the hybrid. It serves no real purpose, but it actually would have made more sense than the book.

I thought he overheard the conversation when he saved Katniss ...

Abob Teff
04-16-12, 12:56 AM
Parachute drop with a note isn't out of the question.

Another small but significant element that was botched in the movie ... the movie made it seem like Katniss received the gifts when they were needed.

The book played more on Katniss's severe distrust of Haymitch ... there were many times when she needed something (and even asked for it) but did not receive it. Initially she thought it was Haymitch working against her; eventually she figured out that he was withholding favors to manipulate her (either to do certain things or because the need was not as bad as she believed).

Nickee
04-16-12, 03:35 PM
I thought that was odd. Same goes for the fact that the only two black tributes came from the same district.

Also, I forgot about Rue resembling Prim in the book. They totally missed the point there. :lol:

The book never says that Rue resembled Prim just that she reminded Katniss of Prim because they were the same size and had similar demeanor.

Here is the quote from the book, the first time Katniss sees Rue: "She has dark brown skin and eyes, but other than that, she's very like Prim in size and demeanor."

That's why I was confused when I read all those tweets about how surprising it was that Rue was black. I had always pictured her (and Thresh) as being black when I was reading the book.

Draven
04-17-12, 05:34 PM
The book never says that Rue resembled Prim just that she reminded Katniss of Prim because they were the same size and had similar demeanor.

Here is the quote from the book, the first time Katniss sees Rue: "She has dark brown skin and eyes, but other than that, she's very like Prim in size and demeanor."

That's why I was confused when I read all those tweets about how surprising it was that Rue was black. I had always pictured her (and Thresh) as being black when I was reading the book.

...as anyone with reading comprehension would do. I read a lot of those tweets. And considering how most of them "read," I'm not surprised they struggled with basic character descriptions.

DthRdrX
04-19-12, 12:15 AM
Why didn't they just burn the tree she was stuck in down?

mhg83
06-19-12, 11:04 PM
Dumb bimbo "reviewing" Hunger Games

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yvfSyai_0KY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Abob Teff
06-20-12, 01:12 AM
Dumb bimbo "reviewing" Hunger Games

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yvfSyai_0KY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Wow ... listened to it as far as "Hey everyone ..." Then I hit mute and watched for another 7 minutes. Now I need a shower.

Cellar Door
06-20-12, 02:30 AM
Dumb bimbo "reviewing" Hunger Games

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yvfSyai_0KY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:suicide:

dino88
06-20-12, 09:36 AM
I think that's the same girl that was on America's Got Talent this week.

Mabuse
09-05-12, 04:37 PM
I finnaly saw the movie. I read the first book about a year ago.

The film is very incompetently made. The filmmakers were lucky they had such a good (however cliched) story with enjoyable characters because otherwise it would be unwatchable. Too bad they didn't get a good director attached to this project.

LiquidSky
09-06-12, 07:44 PM
I finally watched via blu ray last weekend. I really like J. Lawrence (she was excellent in "Winters Bone"). I would give this film about a 2.5 out of 5 stars.

dex14
09-06-12, 07:51 PM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/hcXf90kB1cI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Why So Blu?
09-06-12, 09:56 PM
I finnaly saw the movie. I read the first book about a year ago.

The film is very incompetently made. The filmmakers were lucky they had such a good (however cliched) story with enjoyable characters because otherwise it would be unwatchable. Too bad they didn't get a good director attached to this project.

Ross is a good director, he just hasn't done any action flicks.

He directed Pleasantville and Seabiscuit, which are great. Hey, it was a tactical desicion. He co-wrote the script, co-produced, and directed the film and isn't coming back for the sequels. He got his money and now can concentrate on passion projects. Well played.

Mabuse
09-07-12, 01:00 PM
Yeah well played by him, but all we got was a crummy movie.

DJariya
09-07-12, 01:35 PM
I originally went to the theatre and saw this the weekend it opened, but I made the mistake of seeing it on only 4 hours of sleep and went to the theatre after a long 9 hour work shift. Well, I fell asleep 20 minutes in and woke up with only 30 minutes left and didn't understand the film at all. Basically wasted my $9.

Well, I rented the DVD from Red Box last week to give it another shot. This time around I was wide awake the whole 140+ minutes. I think I liked it for the most part. I think it was definitely comparible to an American version of Battle Royale, although more geared towards the teen/young adult audience. I enjoyed Jennifer Lawrence as Catniss alot, but what I thought was the weak point of the movie was the whole forced star crossed lovers angle with Peeta. I don't think it was really developed well enough for me to care about them as a couple.

Cellar Door
09-07-12, 07:21 PM
but what I thought was the weak point of the movie was the whole forced star crossed lovers angle with Peeta. I don't think it was really developed well enough for me to care about them as a couple.

I agree. That aspect is developed better in the book.

Michael Corvin
09-07-12, 08:36 PM
Sure it's done better in the book but in both cases the triangle was supposed to come across as forced.

DJLinus
09-09-12, 12:47 PM
I watched this last weekend and thought it was okay, a decent way to spend a couple of hours before college football started. The performances were great, but it did feel very condensed compared to the book, naturally.

I really wanted to see how they handled
the mutts, what with their resemblances to the fallen tributes and standing on their hind legs. Yeah, it could've ended up being silly-looking, but using regular dogs didn't really have much of an emotional impact on that last fight.

Reading the book was a much better experience, not just because the story was fully fleshed out, but because I didn't bob and weave my head around while doing so, making the pages unreadable. Really, the shaky cam was terrible in this movie. Action scenes? Yeah, I understand it a bit, but still hate it (sure, it may "tone down" the violence between young characters, but it also gives an "I don't know how shoot an action scene" vibe, IMO.) But during static, dialogue-driven scenes it's ridiculous and unnecessary.

I'm shedding no tears for the loss of the director. In fact, I'm pulling for a "reverse Bourne series", bringing in a director who owns a tripod and is able to show restraint during times when handheld cameras are used.

The shaky cam element was pointless, yet I blame Battlestar Galactica and The Office for making everybody think that "shaky = real."

Is it really bad on BSG? That show just came to Amazon Prime and I was thinking about giving it a go, given its rep. Honestly, I largely don't mind it much on The Office, but that may be because my love of the writing and performances eclipses any shaky cam nitpicks that I have. (This past dreadful season, notwithstanding.)

Thrush
10-12-12, 03:14 AM
Jennifer Lawrence was good, everything else was kinda meh. Every adult character was a caricature, I wasn't sure if this was intentional or not.

The "Romance" between Katniss and Peeta didn't work at all. Those two had zero chemistry. Katniss had more sexual tension with Cinna. At first I thought maybe they were faking the romance to get sympathy and aid from sponsors. Then they made that Romeo and Juliet pact at the end with the berries, which was completely ridiculous. Thats your solution?! Really?! Who's gonna look after your sister?

Mr. Salty
10-12-12, 03:59 AM
At first I thought maybe they were faking the romance to get sympathy and aid from sponsors.
They were. It was made pretty clear, along with the fact that Katniss is really in love with Gale and is worried how they're going to maintain the fake relationship now that they're back in District 12.

Then they made that Romeo and Juliet pact at the end with the berries, which was completely ridiculous. Thats your solution?! Really?! Who's gonna look after your sister?

I'm pretty sure Katniss did that knowing the officials would stop them to avoid a backlash from the audience.

wearetheborg
03-03-13, 02:39 AM
The movie was decent, but I'm quite surprised that it earned $700 million wordwide.

Decker
03-03-13, 10:42 PM
After Ice Age : Continental Drift earned $877M worldwide, no absurdly huge gross should surprise anyone any more.

wearetheborg
03-03-13, 11:37 PM
But that was a known francise, and kid friendly. This one was not.

hanshotfirst1138
03-03-13, 11:41 PM
Shaky cam was really, really, really, really irritating, but otherwise thoroughly enjoyed this. Loved the little bit they added at the end about what happened to Seneca. Nice touch with the berries.

Dragon Tattoo
03-03-13, 11:46 PM
But that was a known francise, and kid friendly. This one was not.

I'm not sure if you just don't talk to kids, or just haven't had contact with one in years, but The Hunger Games is a well-known franchise with YA readers.

wearetheborg
03-04-13, 12:05 AM
By kids I mean less than 10 year old. Is Hunger Games for that age group?

Dragon Tattoo
03-04-13, 01:00 AM
By kids I mean less than 10 year old. Is Hunger Games for that age group?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young-adult_fiction

superdeluxe
03-04-13, 01:35 PM
But that was a known francise, and kid friendly. This one was not.

This was a known franchise, Its books were very popular.

JumpCutz
03-04-13, 01:36 PM
wearethepwned. -wink-

superdeluxe
03-04-13, 01:36 PM
By kids I mean less than 10 year old. Is Hunger Games for that age group?

No, I would say 11-17 is the wheel house for Hunger Games. It was actually a movie where the guys didn't have to be completely dragged to like the Twilight series.

The two biggest trends right now for movies are comic books and Sci-fi/fantasy YA.