The Hunger Games

Gustov

Gustov

Gustov

Soldato
Joined
30 May 2008
Posts
7,788

Out 23rd March!

Jennifer lawrence is HOT and the books its based on are AMAZING. If you haven't read them, do it!

Here's a review for those who want to read it. The Hunger Games is an essential science fiction film for our times; perhaps the essential science fiction film of our times. Whatever your age, it demands to be devoured.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmreviews/9146761/The-Hunger-Games-review.html

Set in a future where the Capitol selects a boy and girl from the twelve districts to fight to the death on live television, Katniss Everdeen volunteers to take her younger sister's place for the latest match.
 
Last edited:
 
Vonhelmet said:
I guess that's how the films are being marketed, at least...
Click to expand...

Not really, that's how some journalists are tagging it.

The online and offline campaign hasn't gone out of it's way to promote it self as a Twilight comparison.

The book attracts ages from 12-30 and I'd expect a lot of young adults to go watch The Hunger Games.

It's far more sophisticated than Twilight and deals with harrowing themes.
 
d
Pestilence said:
Lions Gate actually edited the film for the UK, digitally removing blood from weapons, and excising shots of wounds, so it wouldn't receive a 15 certificate.

Might give the books a read some time soon.
Click to expand...

Not really. Lionsgate removed 7 seconds of footage.


Aeleys said:
it's just a western battle Royale.

Still looks like it is worth a watch, but wont come close to the original.

and regardless of what anyone is going to say, it just the same film in a new wrapper.
Click to expand...

lol....this is the original you fool. :rolleyes: Google the word concept.
 
Last edited:
Aeleys said:
I'm the fool and you don't even know when the book was published? (as for your mistake, i was actually talking about BR, not THG) nor do you know the original book/movie that first did the "go and survive" crap....wow.
Click to expand...

What the flying **** are you talking about. Nobody is talking about the date the book was published. Lionsgate are a film distribution company not book publishers.

Concepts are taken and adapted in art every single day.

The lack of intellect of some people never fails to astound me.

Pestilence said:
Huh? "Not really"? Then you say they did indeed remove footage?

The UK theatrical cut is censored. That's a fact. Their own statement was that they insisted on completing the required cuts so that they could remain open to their intended audience.

It's not a criticism, just an observation.
Click to expand...

Yes...they removed footage but a whole 7 seconds is unlikely to be detrimental to the plot. It's very graphic for a 12 actually.

Like you say, Lionsgate were never going to release THG as a 15. Would be shooting themselves in the foot.

Another review just in . http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/122/1220408p1.html
 
Last edited:
iamtheoneneo said:
Disappointed aswell. Battle royale this is not, twilight 2.0 and your getting there.
The age rating ruined this movie imo, for a film based on an event where everyone is killing each other the shakey camera effect and "oh I punched you and now your dead" scenes is all you get and it certainly isn't enough.
How can you be emotionally invested in the situation when the actual act of killing is hidden at every opportunity so that they can slap a 12 on it and make some more cash. It's just all so blah blah blah. The movie should be doing it's best to show the audience that the killing is wrong and the emotional struggles that go with it for each character but we get none of that and actually the only emotion we do get thats linked to the battle is when the gang show up and there all happy as larry - WTF!!!
The best bits were the run up to the actual event, the rest I could happily never watch again.

Oh and the ending was crap.
Click to expand...

So you went in hoping for Battle Royale, you were inevitably going to be disappointed weren't you.

I couldn't disagree more with everything you said.

First of all you're mocking a film because of its certification but seem to have forgotten the difference between your and you're. Do you realise how much money Lionsgate would be losing out on if this was a 15?

Secondly, please elaborate on your Twilight comparison, this is in no way similar. The only similarity is that two guys fancy the lead female. Even with regards to that she doesn't care for a relationship and is just fighting for her life.

Thirdly, if you would have read the books you would understand that the ending sets it up for the 2nd film tilted Catching Fire...hell you shouldn't even have had to read the books to acknowledge this.

I'm not saying it's perfect, I think the book is vastly superior but I do think Gary Ross has done an excellent job with what he had to work with (cutting down a novel to 2 hours 20 mins)

FYI, it has already taken over $100m this weekend in the USA. Not going to tell y'all what it has taken here!

iamtheoneneo said:
gang show up and there all happy as larry - WTF!!!
Click to expand...

You also don't seem to know the difference between their, they're and there.

WTF INDEED.
 
Last edited:
Seriously? ^^ The love thing was such a miniscule thing in the film compared to the book.

The more poignant point to make is that the cinema has a new Ellen Ripley.
 
iamtheoneneo said:
its (IT'S) a shame you have to attempt to belittle someone on spelling issues.... your (YOU'RE) worse then (THAN) trolls. Your lack of intelligence may not realise that many people post here through phones or similar devices. (That's meant to be an excuse? By the way your wording in that paragraph is atrocious, is comprehend the word you were looking for?)

I didnt go in 'expecting' battle royale - I went in expecting a film that actually showed something other then two completely unlikable characters attempting some half assed effort of love. given whats happening in this movie the complete lack of any decent feelings or emotions is pretty jarring.

and (Good word to start a sentence with) Gustov if you bothered to read the other replies to this thread they all say the same thing - takings or no takings the movie is average at best and leaves a lot (A LOT) to be desired, it has no guts at all. Im sure the book is 100% better but after seeing this id have no desire at all to see/read twilight 2.0

you seem to be getting mightly defensive amount this movie - its (IT'S) just a movie.
Click to expand...

Enjoy your ban for calling me a ****. I did a lot more than criticise your spelling, I justified my opinion.

Maybe you should return to school with your time off.

Please fully star out all swearing in future.
 
Last edited:
iamtheoneneo said:
Didnt justify anything.
called you a ****

and you work in film, regardless of what you do I feel your overly defending this film.
Click to expand...

iamtheoneneo said:
..you just come across as a complete **** - and that word starts with a C by the way
Click to expand...

I wonder what other 4 letter word beginning with a C you were implying.

Unless you were calling me a crap?

I did a lot of justifying.

I couldn't disagree more with everything you said.

First of all you're mocking a film because of its certification but seem to have forgotten the difference between your and you're. Do you realise how much money Lionsgate would be losing out on if this was a 15?

Secondly, please elaborate on your Twilight comparison, this is in no way similar. The only similarity is that two guys fancy the lead female. Even with regards to that she doesn't care for a relationship and is just fighting for her life.

Thirdly, if you would have read the books you would understand that the ending sets it up for the 2nd film tilted Catching Fire...hell you shouldn't even have had to read the books to acknowledge this.

I'm not saying it's perfect, I think the book is vastly superior but I do think Gary Ross has done an excellent job with what he had to work with (cutting down a novel to 2 hours 20 mins)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom