i saw the hunger games on sunday it was awesome so what other people think did you cry at all i did
so what did guys think of the hunger games

Out of 10 I give it a 5 and a half.
It was alright, but I didn't find it noteworthy. I also couldn't figure out if the ending was simply inconclusive or one of those 'implying sequel' endings - which I fackin hate.

bahumat42:
alright film
terribly shot though, the action scenes were some of the worst id ever seen thanks to shakey cam bs.

I can't help but feel that was supposed to be intentional though. After all the book and movie were not about the celebration of violence but rather the horrifying implications of what these young people have to go through in service to a society that celebrates violence.

After all these are children being forced to kill one another in brutal ways for the sake of an audience watching. For that reason I think it's good that they use shaky camera footage, and don't stylize anything and spend more time emphasizing characters reactions to the implied violence rather than violence itself. The camera is hectic and panicky because it fits with the tone of the film and I think that, again, given the entire theme is essentially 'violence is bad and there is something wrong with a society that would glorify it', don't you think it'd be a bit off message to make it into an all uber stylized action film?

TheBobmus:

Lonely Packager:
I also couldn't figure out if the ending was simply inconclusive or one of those 'implying sequel' endings - which I fackin hate.

Uh, there's a sequel - there's three books. How do people not know these things?

I thought there was just the one book. Not that I've read it either - I only heard of this books existence after the movie was released.

I quite liked the movie. I wouldn't call it perfect by any means, and some of the edits they made from the books had me scratching my head, but I think it was definitely a success as a film. I can't say exactly how it would play for those who hadn't read the books beforehand but as someone who did read the books I liked it enough to want to see it again in theatre at some point.

Vrex360:

bahumat42:
alright film
terribly shot though, the action scenes were some of the worst id ever seen thanks to shakey cam bs.

I can't help but feel that was supposed to be intentional though. After all the book and movie were not about the celebration of violence but rather the horrifying implications of what these young people have to go through in service to a society that celebrates violence.

After all these are children being forced to kill one another in brutal ways for the sake of an audience watching. For that reason I think it's good that they use shaky camera footage, and don't stylize anything and spend more time emphasizing characters reactions to the implied violence rather than violence itself. The camera is hectic and panicky because it fits with the tone of the film and I think that, again, given the entire theme is essentially 'violence is bad and there is something wrong with a society that would glorify it', don't you think it'd be a bit off message to make it into an all uber stylized action film?

Yep, this be the truth. I know some people don't like the style, but it was deliberately chosen to mirror the mindset of the storyline. They could have made a big budget blockbuster version of the books with super slick action scenes, but that would have essentially been creating the sort of spectable that the books very clearly take issue with.

It's a horrible knock off of an actually good book movie, Battle Royal. Watch Movie Bob's review for my full opinion.

I liked it. I was the one who was commenting on Moviebob's review saying it was pretty good as I really didn't like how so many people were acting so damn smug about predicting it to be bad. I also needed something to do as I hadn't and couldn't sleep.

TheBobmus:

Lonely Packager:

TheBobmus:

Uh, there's a sequel - there's three books. How do people not know these things?

I thought there was just the one book. Not that I've read it either - I only heard of this books existence after the movie was released.

Fair enough. Anyway, it's a trilogy, and the general rule is that the book is always better - so read the books!
Disclaimer: I didn't like Book 3

Seems not much of anybody likes book 3. I personally thought it was fine, though mostly because I appreciated the very end of it all. The majority of the third act however...

Vrex360:

bahumat42:
alright film
terribly shot though, the action scenes were some of the worst id ever seen thanks to shakey cam bs.

I can't help but feel that was supposed to be intentional though. After all the book and movie were not about the celebration of violence but rather the horrifying implications of what these young people have to go through in service to a society that celebrates violence.

After all these are children being forced to kill one another in brutal ways for the sake of an audience watching. For that reason I think it's good that they use shaky camera footage, and don't stylize anything and spend more time emphasizing characters reactions to the implied violence rather than violence itself. The camera is hectic and panicky because it fits with the tone of the film and I think that, again, given the entire theme is essentially 'violence is bad and there is something wrong with a society that would glorify it', don't you think it'd be a bit off message to make it into an all uber stylized action film?

Yeah, but that doesn't explain the excessive use of shakey cam at the very beginning of the movie. Here is someone walking down a corridor. SHAAAAAKKKKKEEEEEE EEEARRRTTHTHHQQUAAKKKEEEE AAARRRGGGHHHH. Which I personally found quite distracting.

Other than that I thought it was a really good movie (haven't read the books). I liked the way they drew you in to the idea of being trapped into having to do the games, and go along with the whole horrible affair, so at first you were against the whole spectacle of it and wanted nothing more than to see her going postal on everyone. (Go on! Punch smiling pink lady in the face, kick president Birdseye in the gonads!) Until you realised that the only way to win was to play the game; You had to act like it's a privelege, and win the crowds over, because you were actually powerless to change the system so all you could do was survive it.

I watched it, and thought it was decent enough. Not an amazing film, but very decent.

TheBobmus:

Revnak:
Seems not much of anybody likes book 3. I personally thought it was fine, though mostly because I appreciated the very end of it all. The majority of the third act however...

The third act killed it for me. I agree that the conclusion was very good, and plot-wise stayed strong, but the pacing of the third act was just appalling. Characters were lost so fast it was difficult to keep track, just as new ones had been introduced. To me it felt like she wanted to write four books, or at least a longer third act, but had been edited down to a shorter book.

I'd agree with that. The third act could have easily been a book all its own, or at least half of one. Either the book should have been longer or there should have been four books.

Honestly, they should've just split it in to two films. Sure, the first one would've been boring as all fuck. But the second one would've actually been fucking awesome. Deaths would've actually meant something.

Me and my mate were just cracking jokes the entire time. Shit movie really.

Warning: Spoilers be a-coming!

The cinematography was an embarrassment and there were too many glaringly obvious oversights for me to enjoy it. Not the least of which was giving Gale, the quintessential rebel and anti-consumerist spirit of the story not only the douchiest entrance possible, but also hair gell!?! And who the fuck decided seeing a drunk Woody Harrilson fall of the stage at the reaping wouldn't be worth the price of admission? And they COMPLETELY missed the point of the muts, and butchered the lullaby that should have been one of the most touching parts of the film (would it have been so hard to find an actress who could actually sing worth a damn?)

Decent... the bad guys seem just boring and simplistic, like a bunch of school bullies with weapons. Also, the action scenes are the worst I've seen since Batman Begins.

Westaway:
It's a horrible knock off of an actually good book movie, Battle Royal. Watch Movie Bob's review for my full opinion.

Ah, the obligatory "it's a rip off of battle royal" that the "cool crowd" must put on anything mentioning Hunger Games. How does it knock off battle royal? The only similarity is that it is a battle to the death between children.

Mydogisblue:
ya i saw it 3 times it was p good i cried very tiem

i liked ur post cuz i cri evrytime da ending is so sad i lik ttaly crid cuz it rminds me of my boyfrind

No, seriously.

The hunger games... They turned out to be hunger games alright. As in, it did not satisfy my hunger for a good movie. Another one of those shallow movies for the masses that try to shove morals and sadness down your throat while assuming you cant form a coherent thought yourself. And since the movie was apparently made for people who have not evolved past the level of a chimp, the director thought the action scenes were to much for his audience, so he opted to make the camera shake around like crazy. Next time they should just cut out the middle man and hire Micheal J Foxx as the camera man.

And yes, I mean to sound this elitist. No, I am not getting off my high horse any time soon. I belong here.

I absolutely loved it, but then again, I read and liked the book(s) too. So excited to see Catching Fire now too! There are a few things I didn't like in the movie (mainly how much they left out about the "wolf" Mutts), but otherwise, I thought it was great.

I already saw the movie a long time ago, when it was called Battle Royale.
_{God, I am so witty and awesome.}

Wasn't as good as the book, as expected, but I still enjoyed it. Shaking cam was really annoying though.

Lonely Packager:
Out of 10 I give it a 5 and a half.
It was alright, but I didn't find it noteworthy. I also couldn't figure out if the ending was simply inconclusive or one of those 'implying sequel' endings - which I fackin hate.

It's supposed to be inconclusive, kind of leaving off on an odd, depressing note. That was how the book was, but yeah, there are sequels, hopefully the cinematography will be better.

OT: I thought the Hunger games was pretty good, followed the book pretty well, felt a little rushed, but overall it was cool. I almost cried at a couple parts, but that's cause I've read the books.

If the cinematography/editing weren't so average, I would give it a higher score, but I'd say it's a 6, maybe a 7.

I really hope the next two are better.

Vrex360:

I can't help but feel that was supposed to be intentional though.

Intended shittiness is still shittiness.

To be fair, I found the book ok at best, and the fact that movie was a 12 meant they had to compensate for some things with shaky-cam.

On another note, it was through Hunger Games I found Battle Royale, which is actually quite a fun read :D

Gotta love anything where people are killed with weaponized BEEEEEES!
Hollywood needs more bees.

I actually got a chance to write up a review of the film for my school newspaper, so I'll just give the short version.

Your ability to enjoy the movie depends largely on your ability to accept the central premise. If the notion of an evil central authority demands that the cities under their rule annually submit children to fight each other to the death seems ridiculous, then you'll probably not enjoy the rest of the movie. The film keeps piling sillier and sillier notions on top of that idea without trying to sell it to you on an intellectual level.
That said, if you CAN accept it, especially on an emotional level, then you'll really enjoy the movie.