The Hunger Games

Well that was disappointing - a contrived film about a contrived story - not read the book, but the film must do it disservice as otherwise Im tempted to get a napkin and start 'writing' (more like borrowing)...

The main actress was good but her characterisation was very muddled and never decided if she had a social concious beyond her family or just was shallow enough to play-act for Big Brother. The male lead was neither here or there and felt like the albatross of the film - did it need to have a Twilight(tm) love story?

The setting was well done, if not over the top (Im looking at you gay bohemian wardrobe people) but was completely broken when the token black guy said 'For Real'; my god are we meant to believe in this neo-futuristic society that gangsta-speak is alive and well in the farmlands? Dont even get me started with the shaky cam treatment ofo the first part of the film (before the games starts) to its Transformers/Bourne crescendo just after the games starts with non-explosive killing :rolleyes:

Anyway I wasnt impressed, either the film adaptation or the book is too poorly paced to make things believable; the characters so poorly thought out that you just dont feel any attachment to them; and the ending leaves you empty not even thinking that the events that transpired actually might change society nor that they even raised a blip on the social pulse...

I dont score films, but 21 Jump Street is better and that was partialy written by and stars Jonah Hill. For Real (sic). TBH Im nowhere near the target demographic of the film/book, but if thats what a good film is I worry about the stupidification of todays youth...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that the books are aimed for that age range AFAIK, so if the decision is made to keep it like that at least its a decision that has some logical reasoning (and financial ;)) - its not hard to accept that that was the authors original vision, but obviously the film would suffer because of it (though it does worry me that the author thought the topic at hand would be something that that age range would actually get at an emotional level). Im not asking for gratuitous violence, just adequate treatment of the acts that are being portrayed for mavity so the audience can understand what killing means to the character...

I forgot about the alliance - at one point I thought they were skipping so happy were they to pillage and murder. Amazing how that quickly formed with one of the characters in it considering the lead up to it (throwing a big metal ball must be what cool kids do I guess).

Totally agree the start of the film before the event and potentially the training (why oh why didnt they take a cliched leaf out of Rocky) were the best bits. The games themselves had no pacing, no feeling of timeline and therefore no real ability to understand what difficulties they were apparently going through; it was too hard to stretch to any empathy...

I dont mind bad films, nor really get wrapped up in hype, I just hate missed opportunities and theres plenty in this film, I just hope the books add that depth as I have to grasp onto the shread of hope that the source material had all this and thats why it was made into a film rather than the more likely dollar signs the film company saw post-Twilight. If I made this film I would have made it a 2 parter with the break just after the alliance forms at the start of the games - 2.5hrs was sufficient time to do better, the director and editior just made bad decisions...

Superficial is the best way to describe this movie

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Last edited:
I've just finished the book, it was ok, but it is quite contrived. The main character spends most of the time just hunting and hiding and suffering and getting things thrown at her.

Does the film feature weird monsters at the end?
 
Calabi said:
I've just finished the book, it was ok, but it is quite contrived. The main character spends most of the time just hunting and hiding and suffering and getting things thrown at her.

Does the film feature weird monsters at the end?
Click to expand...
By weird you mean stupid, then yes
ps3ud0 :cool:
 
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:
Hmmm went to see this last night with the missus and honestly, maybe its just me but i just didnt think that highly of the movie. I found it far too long, at one point i was wishing that it would just finish quickly. I just found the whole 'love' thing going on with the girl and the guy from the same district a bit too much for my liking. I suppose i went in thinking that it was going to be be more 'actiony' rather than it being like a love/action flick.

The missus thought it was pretty good but i think my problem was that i had a pretty long day yesterday ie was out at 10am in London then got home and went straight to dinner and from there went to the movie...so really no rest for me and perhaps thats why i didnt enjoy the movie as much as i would liked to. I mean theres got to be a reason why its so highly rated...guess ill just wait for it on BR and when its cheap then buy it and watch it again.

But all in all i would say its a pretty meh movie...7/10 for me.
 
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.
 
ps3ud0 said:
By weird you mean stupid, then yes
ps3ud0 :cool:
Click to expand...

Thats why I asked, I thought they would have deleted that, or tried something, more down to earth.

The book isnt very actiony(which is good for for a book but not so much a movie), sounds as if they translated it for the most part wholesale, which is somewhat disappointing.
 
I enjoyed it, went to see it last night. Think it's the first time that I haven't read a book and my other half has, he said the book was better but that it was fairly true to the book for the most part.

I'd give it an 8/10.

I overheard some girls coming out of the cinema saying something that made me smile, one of them said,

"If I know a film is coming out and it was made from a book, I never read the book first - all that does it make you hate the film and get angry at how much they missed out of the book. If you read the book afterwards, you never get mad about the extra bits."

So true!
 
It was okay.

Idea was fine, pacing was fine, acting was fine, execution was okay.

It could be a lot darker. For a movie about kids killing kids, the concept itself shouldn't be a 12 (or 13 in the US), being restricted to that feels like it has its hands tied behind its back in order to achieve that rating.

I also think the actual movie needed more processing, everything looks really clean, even in the poverty stricken sectors.
 
Gustov said:
.
Click to expand...

its a shame you have to attempt to belittle someone on spelling issues.... your worse then trolls. Your lack of intelligence may not realise that many people post here through phones or similar devices.

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 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 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 just a movie.
 
Last edited:
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:
Gustov said:
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.
Click to expand...

Didnt justify anything.

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