Escape to the Movies: The Hunger Games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

I laughed every time he made a name pun, hehe "Catpiss Jellybean"

watched it today with my wife and it was a solid movie. had some good scenes in it. but some a better explanation about the arena would have been nice though.
i havent read the book but i was curious about the movie anyway. so i think it was a alright movie. have seen far more worse. but i do agree, some more violence would have suited the movie more to make it more shocking/dramatic. running men for sure did a good job with that.

The Human Torch:

Chunko:

canadamus_prime:
Oh boy, it's going to be Eragorn all over again.

*Eragon. Sadly it looks like your right though.

*you're

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Captcha: make a bee-line.
Damn straight captcha, damn straight.

I'm not a grammar Nazi, I just pointed it out because I'm a fan of the books.

Tut, tut bro. Someone who's a big enough fan of FLCL to tag themselves as Raharu, should not have this much trouble grasping relatively simple concepts (half of these aren't even holes, just "I woulda done..." arguments. I'll go through these one more time, then I'm done with this. You desire further detail, read the book, that's what its there for. *points to former comments*

Raharu Haruha:
Lolness.
Yeah, I kinda guessed that... but then I wonder why someone would send in soup. If I'm supporting them, I'd send in the meds quickly. It made me think the soup was... not sent by a sponsor or something.

When a person's suffering from a sever fever brought on by an ill treated laceration (blood poisoning/ septicemia) it's incredibly difficult for them to retain solid foods, yet its vital that they remain hydrated and continue to take in nourishment (this is why mothers treat ailments with gatorade and chicken noodle soup). It goes, food < medicine < weapons, in terms of cost. By this stage in the game, sending anything other than food would've damn near bankrupted not one, but several individuals. Even mild medicine is expensive, much less magic medi-gel that instantly heals wounds.

Raharu Haruha:

Risky? It makes it bad TV. It's the equivalent of someone getting knocked out of survivor for misspelling a word or something. It's anticlimactic and dumb. If I was watching TV to see children kill each other, I'd feel cheated if all the contestants died from berries.

But-but if today's variant of lucky fool on Deal or No Deal chooses the wrong briefcase, he'll go home penniless and that'll be anticlimactic.

But if today's contestant on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire gets the first question wrong because he a dumbass, he'll go home and that'll be anticlimactic.

But if the first challenge on Survivor involves a modicum of physical effort, some people might fail and then they wont get immunity, but I liked them! But they got sent home, how anticlimactic!

All reality game shows involve an element of risk. Why? Because they're are 23 other contestants, and if you're dumbass wasn't clever enough to check and see if anything else was eating this stuff before stuffing it down your gob, too bad.

Raharu Haruha:

Wha... no. No. No. No. No. No. No. ...No. What? No. First off, we know she can hunt. Second off, you just made a comparison between contemporary America and this alternate fictional universe. Finally, my beard is cake. So your statement is invalid.

She can hunt. One person, one girl, out of 24 competitors. An arena is not based around one person. If she can take advantage of it, good for her. But everyone else? When do they learn to hunt, when to they have the opportunity or the resources? The majority of them are from vassal states with different terrains and environments, and even the Careers focus on straight up killing over hunting/gathering, because a forest this time, may be ruins next year, may be a desert the next, might have no animal life the next, etc.

Raharu Haruha:

This is only kind of a good point. We saw them shooting targets from seventy feet away and hitting their mark exactly... We saw the knife girl hit her in the face. We saw a little girl climb a really big tree... and we saw her do it while she had an injured leg, yet no of the lethal assassins could figure out how to climb the tree or shoot her? That's just dumb.

1. The only person capable of hitting a target with an arrow at seventy yards is currently in the tree. The knives have a shorter effective range (when handled by little Caucasian girls and not Apaches), and a javelin is unwieldy at best at that given angle. You know what's fascinating about trees? Often times the higher you go, the less weight the tree branches will support. All of a sudden being the skinny, hungry chick from future West Virginia has an immense advantage for Mr. well fed, 200 pounds of muscle. Sure you could send the little knife happy one up after her, but that's hardly strategically sound. Attacking a defensible position from a lower level? There are easier ways to commit suicide. How many armed forces need charge dramatically up a hill only to be shredded to pieces before this simple stratagem becomes easily recognizable. Personally, I'd have set the tree on fire and waited, but considering the fact the 'wait her out' option was proposed by the one person who didn't want to see her die... one should expect the plan to be fundamentally flawed.

Raharu Haruha:

I get that Rue was the humanist, but I'd probably have killed all of them in that situation. If not I, then I think someone else might have. It's kinda... strange. And also, if they got stung twice as many times... so six? Then I would expect them to (if they are not instantly killed by the poison) die from dehydration, but that doesn't happen. Instead, they go about, as if they weren't stabbed at all, and they gather all of the supplies into one spot AND they boobie trap it... with a lethal dose of poison in their systems.

All supply gathering and booby trapping occurs before the Career pack were stung, that's how they could afford to go howling into the woods after prey. Add to this the fact that how long each of them were down is an unknown. We don't know their metabolic rates or inherent physiological resistances or deficiencies. In short, poison effects people differently. What brings one down, may only make the other sluggish. What puts one into a coma, may only case the other to hallucinate wildly for six hours. Personally, I'll not take a chance messing with a trained killer tripping balls.

Raharu Haruha:

I wasn't saying that I expect him to be evil, I'm just saying that his personality was never explained. Wouldn't it have been cool to find out that he once had a brother who died in the hunger games? Or something like that? The affection that they had him display was misplaced. Also, what is this, D&D?

Mercy does not need an immediate rationale, that's what I'm saying. Some people will actually realize that instead of this 'fun entertaining spectacle', this young girl is about to be subjected to a possibly horrific death, maybe she could use a hug. Compare Cinna with Effie and you have two contrasting views of the Capitol population. Sure most of them are high on their own supply and more then happy to indulge the spectacle, but a few did have the sheer nerve to perhaps fill a touch of, oh, I don't know, guilt or remorse.

Raharu Haruha:

Okay, but I'd think that if his life was on the line, he might listen more closely. The pressures he felt weren't well explained. Was there some other force pushing him to make it more entertaining... aside from a drunk? Seems like a stupid reason to risk your life.

Would I have loved even a brief cutaway to establish those pressures? Yes. But it's really not that hard to construe. His judgments felt sound to him, even he panicked in the end. It's easy to sit back and call the decision stupid, but that's a luxury. When/If you have an actual job, you will at times make poor decisions, even if the answers seem clear in hindsight. Everything is clearer in hindsight. A pity those mistakes will still have consequences. Some of those consequences might be fatal.

Raharu Haruha:

It was a specific scene... not the one where they were rolling on the ground. The one where katniss is hit in the head by a knife, and the knife chick is running full speed. It just seems kinda stupid for a knife chick to not have a knife when she is a knife chick.

Apparently we're not watching the same scene. By my count, knife chick (Clove) had three knives at the least.

Knife throw -> head wound
Arrow shot -> dodged
Second knife throw -> dodged
Tackle
Grapple
Body lock
Third knife to throat.

Heheh.. Nice, funny review Bob!

Oh and I liked your saying "the big draw" while she's drawing the bow.

I wasn't planning on seeing it anyway. The trailer completely underwhelmed me. I normally like trainers themselves as a mini-art-form, so when one leaves me so completely cold; I avoid the film its trailing.

Raharu Haruha:
snip

For one talking about Bob getting a thicker skin, you sure don't take your advice. Great googley moogley

There are people on this thread critiquing this like the film is valid social commentary or the books somehow count as literary. Brilliant - now that's satire.

"Aimed at young teenage girls."
Hold up, what? I was not aware that a book series involving the forceful slaughter of youth, a dark as hell setting, with extremely gruesome deaths was aimed at young teenage girls.
Even the love story is dark, with Katniss having to play along as to not get herself killed.
Just because a certain group likes it does not mean it is marketed toward them.
As for the movie, I liked it. After hearing the review I kind of got the feeling Bob was judging it harshly because of the supposed main fanbase. Sure, it wasn't the best thing ever, but it was better than a lot of movies I have seen recently.

Bob has been calling for an 80's films comeback ever since he started making these videos. Spoiler: you are not gonna get one. Which is why I have been taking his opinions with a grain of salt for some time now.

Battle Royale was Battle Royale. Even if I had seen it, I wouldn't check any trailers for THG. So I would still be surprised. I would still be intrigued by the title and the flaming bird emblem.

I didn't know anything about the concept, I didn't even know the Mystique girl was in it until I saw a poster with her face. I went, saw the movie and I really really liked it.

For the ones saying that he has a problem with the fanbase, he doesn't cause the same people that like this and Twilight, there is a pretty good chance that they have also red Harry Potter.

This a young adult novel. Ergo, 10-20 years old. Your moral compass is being developped during this time so I think it is a pretty dark setting for these ages to experience. Besides, one of the districts trains their would be participants since they were kids. You know who else did that ? Spartans.

Just to take a stab in the opposition however:
No, having red the book in order to get a movie isn't an excuse for the movie to suck. Remember the fuck-ton of locations in the Lord Of The Rings ? When you saw the 1st one, did you know whose giant statues they were near the end of the film ? No.
If it happened in the book as well, the end of the movie with the muttations is a cop-out. Sad about Cato though.
The concept of a rebellion should be explored more. It is a trilogy, yeah but I don't see how the next 2 films can be as good as the 1st.
MB was right about one last thing: the franchise is gonna snowball like Twilight. Too big to handle correctly.

It all depends on when you first saw the movies and settings this film expands upon. It also depends what you were expecting to see. I didn't go for the action scenes (and let's be frank, Batman Begins' action scenes suck the hardest). I really don't think people would see this for the action as much as for the message it tries to send.

I can't tell yet if it succeded but I was under a great deal of pressure during the majority of the film, which pretty much means it won me over.

animehermit:

BehattedWanderer:

Good to know. I haven't been told by many people that I should read them, so I've kept out of them. Out of curiosity, would you recommend them on their value as a literary series alone?

There are much better fantasy series out there, with much better authors who write them. Paolini is extremely derivative and his writing doesn't make up for it. None of the characters are developed at all, including main characters. So, no, don't read the books.

Paolini? I wasn't asking about Eragon, I was asking about The Hunger Games. Unless by some freak coincidence the two authors share a name.

EnigmaticSevens:
Tut, tut bro. Someone who's a big enough fan of FLCL to tag themselves as Raharu, should not have this much trouble grasping relatively simple concepts (half of these aren't even holes, just "I woulda done..." arguments. I'll go through these one more time, then I'm done with this. You desire further detail, read the book, that's what its there for. *points to former comments*

Raharu Haruha:
Lolness.
Yeah, I kinda guessed that... but then I wonder why someone would send in soup. If I'm supporting them, I'd send in the meds quickly. It made me think the soup was... not sent by a sponsor or something.

When a person's suffering from a sever fever brought on by an ill treated laceration (blood poisoning/ septicemia) it's incredibly difficult for them to retain solid foods, yet its vital that they remain hydrated and continue to take in nourishment (this is why mothers treat ailments with gatorade and chicken noodle soup). It goes, food < medicine < weapons, in terms of cost. By this stage in the game, sending anything other than food would've damn near bankrupted not one, but several individuals. Even mild medicine is expensive, much less magic medi-gel that instantly heals wounds.

Raharu Haruha:

Risky? It makes it bad TV. It's the equivalent of someone getting knocked out of survivor for misspelling a word or something. It's anticlimactic and dumb. If I was watching TV to see children kill each other, I'd feel cheated if all the contestants died from berries.

But-but if today's variant of lucky fool on Deal or No Deal chooses the wrong briefcase, he'll go home penniless and that'll be anticlimactic.

But if today's contestant on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire gets the first question wrong because he a dumbass, he'll go home and that'll be anticlimactic.

But if the first challenge on Survivor involves a modicum of physical effort, some people might fail and then they wont get immunity, but I liked them! But they got sent home, how anticlimactic!

All reality game shows involve an element of risk. Why? Because they're are 23 other contestants, and if you're dumbass wasn't clever enough to check and see if anything else was eating this stuff before stuffing it down your gob, too bad.

Raharu Haruha:

Wha... no. No. No. No. No. No. No. ...No. What? No. First off, we know she can hunt. Second off, you just made a comparison between contemporary America and this alternate fictional universe. Finally, my beard is cake. So your statement is invalid.

She can hunt. One person, one girl, out of 24 competitors. An arena is not based around one person. If she can take advantage of it, good for her. But everyone else? When do they learn to hunt, when to they have the opportunity or the resources? The majority of them are from vassal states with different terrains and environments, and even the Careers focus on straight up killing over hunting/gathering, because a forest this time, may be ruins next year, may be a desert the next, might have no animal life the next, etc.

Raharu Haruha:

This is only kind of a good point. We saw them shooting targets from seventy feet away and hitting their mark exactly... We saw the knife girl hit her in the face. We saw a little girl climb a really big tree... and we saw her do it while she had an injured leg, yet no of the lethal assassins could figure out how to climb the tree or shoot her? That's just dumb.

1. The only person capable of hitting a target with an arrow at seventy yards is currently in the tree. The knives have a shorter effective range (when handled by little Caucasian girls and not Apaches), and a javelin is unwieldy at best at that given angle. You know what's fascinating about trees? Often times the higher you go, the less weight the tree branches will support. All of a sudden being the skinny, hungry chick from future West Virginia has an immense advantage for Mr. well fed, 200 pounds of muscle. Sure you could send the little knife happy one up after her, but that's hardly strategically sound. Attacking a defensible position from a lower level? There are easier ways to commit suicide. How many armed forces need charge dramatically up a hill only to be shredded to pieces before this simple stratagem becomes easily recognizable. Personally, I'd have set the tree on fire and waited, but considering the fact the 'wait her out' option was proposed by the one person who didn't want to see her die... one should expect the plan to be fundamentally flawed.

Raharu Haruha:

I get that Rue was the humanist, but I'd probably have killed all of them in that situation. If not I, then I think someone else might have. It's kinda... strange. And also, if they got stung twice as many times... so six? Then I would expect them to (if they are not instantly killed by the poison) die from dehydration, but that doesn't happen. Instead, they go about, as if they weren't stabbed at all, and they gather all of the supplies into one spot AND they boobie trap it... with a lethal dose of poison in their systems.

All supply gathering and booby trapping occurs before the Career pack were stung, that's how they could afford to go howling into the woods after prey. Add to this the fact that how long each of them were down is an unknown. We don't know their metabolic rates or inherent physiological resistances or deficiencies. In short, poison effects people differently. What brings one down, may only make the other sluggish. What puts one into a coma, may only case the other to hallucinate wildly for six hours. Personally, I'll not take a chance messing with a trained killer tripping balls.

Raharu Haruha:

I wasn't saying that I expect him to be evil, I'm just saying that his personality was never explained. Wouldn't it have been cool to find out that he once had a brother who died in the hunger games? Or something like that? The affection that they had him display was misplaced. Also, what is this, D&D?

Mercy does not need an immediate rationale, that's what I'm saying. Some people will actually realize that instead of this 'fun entertaining spectacle', this young girl is about to be subjected to a possibly horrific death, maybe she could use a hug. Compare Cinna with Effie and you have two contrasting views of the Capitol population. Sure most of them are high on their own supply and more then happy to indulge the spectacle, but a few did have the sheer nerve to perhaps fill a touch of, oh, I don't know, guilt or remorse.

Raharu Haruha:

Okay, but I'd think that if his life was on the line, he might listen more closely. The pressures he felt weren't well explained. Was there some other force pushing him to make it more entertaining... aside from a drunk? Seems like a stupid reason to risk your life.

Would I have loved even a brief cutaway to establish those pressures? Yes. But it's really not that hard to construe. His judgments felt sound to him, even he panicked in the end. It's easy to sit back and call the decision stupid, but that's a luxury. When/If you have an actual job, you will at times make poor decisions, even if the answers seem clear in hindsight. Everything is clearer in hindsight. A pity those mistakes will still have consequences. Some of those consequences might be fatal.

Raharu Haruha:

It was a specific scene... not the one where they were rolling on the ground. The one where katniss is hit in the head by a knife, and the knife chick is running full speed. It just seems kinda stupid for a knife chick to not have a knife when she is a knife chick.

Apparently we're not watching the same scene. By my count, knife chick (Clove) had three knives at the least.

Knife throw -> head wound
Arrow shot -> dodged
Second knife throw -> dodged
Tackle
Grapple
Body lock
Third knife to throat.

Oh... were we arguing? I'm sorry.

Aiddon:

For one talking about Bob getting a thicker skin, you sure don't take your advice. Great googley moogley

Wah?

At least it was on a higher level then Eragon and The Last Airbender which are pretty much the lowest adaptions can get.

Went and saw it last night with my girlfriend, who's a big fan of the series, and we both hated it. She really disliked it because it cuts out vital parts of the book and changes things too much. I personally thought it was a confusing mess in the first half and incredibly dull/paint-by-numbers in the second half. The fight scenes are terrible, and the editing and camera work are truly amateurish. I also wasn't a fan of the constant Nazi and Holocaust iconography in the earlier parts of the movie because I view that as one of the more lazy ways to convey a totalitarian state (one of the earliest scenes is basically in a train yard with everyone lined up, dressed like it's 1943 and there's a giant eagle that is clearly based on the German eagle that holds the swastika).

Good things: I liked the Roman design of the Capital, and Woody Harrelson has a lot of fun with his role. Other then that, if you haven't read the books don't go and see it, they basically explain nothing and just expect you to know it.

-|-:
There are people on this thread critiquing this like the film is valid social commentary or the books somehow count as literary. Brilliant - now that's satire.

But...but there's scenes where people say terrible things about violence and then other people reply with laughs or happy comments! That's totally social commentary! And random Nazi iconography is totally deep! And comparing modern reality tv based on social conflict to violent gladiatorial battles with children is totally logical! It's not like there's another movie like this, but instead it's about the Japanese school system and does it subtly...

Oh wait.

I do not, nor will I ever, use my hard earned money to condone a movie that utilises a shakey camera in part or in full.

jFr[e]ak93:
Rotten Tomatoes couldn't disagree more!

But, I can't say that I'm too surprised by this. Things were going to much toward the Twilight way of doing things.
Huge hype, books everywhere, sell outs.
Mocking Jay is already booked. That's before the film came out!

I think Bob set out to dislike the movie. I also don't believe Bob read the source material. Almost everything he complained about are things expressly put forth by Suzanne Collins' vision. I still need to see the movie (waiting for a 4 dollar showing sometime this week) however I can say without hesitation that I pity people that are looking for oh so much in a film, instead of simply enjoying what they are given.

FYI Bob just like in today's naming culture as in this quasi-future culture, everyone picks poor name choices for their children sometimes. It's just unfortunate that the example you chose to hate on, actually had a story to it, instead of just being "a name we give people because omg it's the future..."

Normally I'm all for people having their own opinions, but I do find it annoying when someones opinion wreaks of an opinion chosen specifically to be counter to the majority opinion. That's just my opinion.

misterprickly:
I was wondering what made it different from all the other movies of it's kind that came before it... The answer was, very little.

Remind me again how the filthy rich (of the future) get to treat the rest of humanity like a human chess set?

Is it supposed to be a commentary on the way today's governments say "Go forth and fight" and the people say "OK then"?

No in the future after whatever catastrophe destroyed North America, Panem rises and is fortified in a mountain. The 13 districts rose up against them and the rebellion was crushed. However, instead of enslaving or simply obliterating the rebels, they allowed them to live in abject poverty, use the games as a form of control, and in return the capitol gets the different districts to produce the goods that the capitol needs in order for them to live in the manner to which they have become accustomed. Either that or die.

Hell look at how it happened in Germany. Normally tyranny creeps up slow, and before you know it, you have a choice, either die fighting an un-winnable war, or live in a manner that is only slightly better than death.

The whole them is hunger, as played out in the games, but also in daily life. The people of the different districts are helpless, they are kept to weak to fight because there isn't enough to eat.

Read the books man, they are good enough stories.

Whoopi, now I don't have to watch the movie! Thanks for saving me two and a half hours of my life plus a ten dollar movie ticket. Seriously, I had a thought of watching it, just to see what the hoopla was all about but after watching this I don't see any reason. It looks shitty.

So again, thanks for the insightful review.

i thought the movie was amazing! yeah i've read the books and loved them, but i thought the movie surpassed the book because the movie had a clearer narrative while the book had to have a flashback every half a page. I thought the acting was great (especially Jennifer Lawrence). I realized that the special effects were not the best, but i didn't think they were horrible. I kinda knew Movie Bob wasn't going to like it, but I also think that more people are going to like it than people hate it. I didn't think the action scenes were great, but i found them watchable (and what do you expect from the director of Seabiscut?). My favorite scene was definitely when the games began and it was silent! So suspenseful and epic! I also thought the ending was more conclusive than the book. I loved the movie and would recommend it to anyone!

BehattedWanderer:

animehermit:

BehattedWanderer:

Good to know. I haven't been told by many people that I should read them, so I've kept out of them. Out of curiosity, would you recommend them on their value as a literary series alone?

There are much better fantasy series out there, with much better authors who write them. Paolini is extremely derivative and his writing doesn't make up for it. None of the characters are developed at all, including main characters. So, no, don't read the books.

Paolini? I wasn't asking about Eragon, I was asking about The Hunger Games. Unless by some freak coincidence the two authors share a name.

My mistake then, I thought you were referring to Eragon. I haven't read the Hunger Games books, as I don't read Teen Fiction.

Speaking as someone who hasn't read the books (other than the brief sample available for free on Android market, and that three days prior) and saw the movie tonight, I have to say that A) Moviebob's criticisms are all relatively accurate, yet B) he's still missing the point.

Or rather, Moviebob was more bothered by some things than I was, and I think he was excessively willing to be bothered by some things and allow them to diminish other positive points that most viewers would be more willing to let pass in favor of those same positive areas.

la, "Waaah, the X-Men movie is making fun of their not wearing lurid yellow jumpsuits."

That the basic premise of lethal human vs. human bloodsport has been handled elsewhere before should come as a surprise to no one; it goes back at least as far as "The Most Dangerous Game", and yes, I've seen The Running Man and Rollerball as well as slightly more obscure entires like Series 7: The Contenders and Battle Royale. And none of those movies, to my recollection, handled the contestants own awareness of the necessity of playing to the public for their own survival as interestingly as The Hunger Games. That alone ought to warrant not being sneered at as nothing but a copycat.

The central performances are all also top-notch, and it pulls the fairly unusual trick, especially for arguably teen-targeted fare, of letting subtle details convey information and audience inference to fill in the blanks, rather than having every significant look and gesture be highlighted with a musical sting and a close-up.

It's not a perfect movie, I'll grant, but it's a hell of a lot better than this review makes it out to be. Some thought went into it, the characters aren't all cardboard cut-outs designed to sell dorm room posters, and the emotions don't feel cheap, manipulative, and easily bought.

Go see it.

DeaDRabbiT:

I think Bob set out to dislike the movie. I also don't believe Bob read the source material. Almost everything he complained about are things expressly put forth by Suzanne Collins' vision.

If he has to read the book to understand the movie then what's the point of seeing the movie exactly?

DeaDRabbiT:

Normally I'm all for people having their own opinions, but I do find it annoying when someones opinion wreaks of an opinion chosen specifically to be counter to the majority opinion. That's just my opinion.

Or he just disagrees with the majority opinion that is possible right?

EnigmaticSevens:

As far as the responsibility of a critic is concerned, I stand by what I've said. You 'review' one movie a week. If one intends to call the end product a 'review' by a 'critic,' instead of "man voicing opinions with pictures in the background",it implies a measure of research. Should he necessarily read the book, no (though it's a possibility, I chewed through all three of the bastards in three days).

No it isn't a possibility. I have never read a book in one day, let alone 3 in 3 days. (assuming the average length of a book being 300 pages) It would take about half of my free time to read one book in one week.
I get through about 100 pages in one day assuming I spend all of my free time that day...
If bob was expected to read the book the movie is based on, it would leave only half is time to get the review written/summarised to be within the clips short time frame & get clip edited with all his good takes ect

EnigmaticSevens:
I'll agree that the handheld cam was annoying at times, but at least I can see the director's attempt at a sense of immediacy.

It was annoying to put it simply. No the director does not get points for attempting urgency, a person gets 'points' for attempting innovation... anything else you only get points for when you SUCCEED, not attempt... but win, accomplish, do well.

But even so, I agree mostly with what you said.. except the last part of your post where you try and explain away the movies failure to explain many stupid things.

EnigmaticSevens:
As far as the film is concerned, it set out to create an entertaining visual companion to the novels, and it succeeded. Based upon its own merits, it's relatively meh but with a few good bits. I'm not sold on the idea that it need be anything else.

I think your statement here is essentially an insult to every movie maker, or movie aficionado. A movie isn't here to be a complementary snack to a book, a movie is supposed to be able to stand on its own to 2 feet. Able to create a coherent and original piece of work (in the medium its in, eg sci-fi movie) that can be judged on its own merits.
This movie does not. Its 2 and half hours long and its still not accessible to the "haven't read hunger games" crowd, in other words the general population.

EnigmaticSevens:
That's how it plays out, that's how it makes a metric ass load of money. Would it make more if was more accessible, sure.

Should they be congratulated for that? a pat on the back? No.
Thats why people are speaking out, and being critical.

EnigmaticSevens:
Is Lionsgate hurting for the viewer ship of non-book fans? Nah. The plain fact is that books by and large do not work as films(to a completely satisfactory degree), books work as television shows. Make a goddamn show. For a book to film translation to succeed on its own merits, it need only retain the general thrust of the novel, eschewing all else, becoming something fundamentally brilliant, but fundamentally different. Unfortunately, that shit is risky, and Lionsgate is not financing risky, it's financing something that will placate fans who ate up 29 million copies of the first book in the series alone, and keep them coming back for more. It really doesn't need to do anything else, and that's a pity, but that's the truth.

Exactly, here's a radical thought... why not make a original screen play! or only borrow some elements from book its based on. Hence take on the "inspired by so-and-so book or series" with honour and create something that doesn't require everyone to read the book in order to understand its plot or message.

But see they are getting a fair bit of the non-book readers (or atleast the ones that haven't read this particular book) to see the movie. Theres the uninformed who go with their friends to see it, theres the casual movie goer who sees it out of curiosity.
Then theres those who go by the reviews and the audience scores of Rotten Tomatoes (which have apparently given a highly positive praise, which is only now starting to decline)... they deserve their moneys worth. Lions Gate isn't going to get respect for playing it safe.

theSteamSupported:
I thought your review was funnier than usual, very ZP-ish. Do this more often.

As for the movie itself, I've read books, thought they were pretty good and I'm seeing it with my sister tomorrow. I hope I'll disagree with you, Bob. Fingers crossed.

Okay, saw the movie last Saturday. None of the disappointment I was expecting to receive showed up, really. To me it was a really thrilling ride, I have to say. I could feel my heart beating very fast when I left the theatre.

However, I'm seriously doubting I can recommend it to anyone who hasn't read the book. More than half of the book was about Katniss introspectively reflecting upon the situation seh ahs found herself in. That is where the book really shines, but it's downright impossible to implement those thoughts on the silver screen. Also, there's a lot of details in the novel, explaining how and why people behaved like they did, that didn't make it to the adaptation.

In contrast to Bob's opinion's, I actually thought the movie was at times too fast. Not enough time is given to the development of the essential, supporting characters. The only reason I could understand what the devil was going on, was that I with the novel fill in all the plot holes.

In conclusion, read the book before you go see the movie.

Last night me and my friends were deciding what to watch. The Hunger Games, or the Raid? We chose the Raid... and we chose well!

What a terrific movie, did not expect such quality! Glad I avoided a movie that seems to be targeted to a niche audience of teenage girl readers.

Just saw the movie last night. Have to say, I would have been way happier with the movie if it wasn't for it's fairly shoddy camera work. I remember the complaints about Cloverfield's shaky-cam give a bunch of people motion sickness, and I didn't have a problem; on the other hand, the first 10 to 20 minutes of this movie made me feel like I was going to puke. Also, the camera got way too unnecessarily close during close up shots.

Besides that, I didn't think it was all too bad. I do think that all of the stuff that was caused by the organizers of the game (Fireballs? Really?) detracted from the potential survival-horror Battle Royale potential, but that's my only other big complaint about the movie. Overall, I think the Japanese were able to pull it off better.

theSteamSupported:
However, I'm seriously doubting I can recommend it to anyone who hasn't read the book. More than half of the book was about Katniss introspectively reflecting upon the situation seh ahs found herself in. That is where the book really shines, but it's downright impossible to implement those thoughts on the silver screen. Also, there's a lot of details in the novel, explaining how and why people behaved like they did, that didn't make it to the adaptation.

In contrast to Bob's opinion's, I actually thought the movie was at times too fast. Not enough time is given to the development of the essential, supporting characters. The only reason I could understand what the devil was going on, was that I with the novel fill in all the plot holes.

In conclusion, read the book before you go see the movie.

This is the problem ALL novel to movie adaptations though, and why some really great novels make fairly mediocre movies. You're trying to force a full novel's depth and information into only 2-1/2 hours, so a lot of non-essential development and explanatory material is going to be cut in order to get everything in.

verylost:

DeaDRabbiT:

I think Bob set out to dislike the movie. I also don't believe Bob read the source material. Almost everything he complained about are things expressly put forth by Suzanne Collins' vision.

If he has to read the book to understand the movie then what's the point of seeing the movie exactly?

DeaDRabbiT:

Normally I'm all for people having their own opinions, but I do find it annoying when someones opinion wreaks of an opinion chosen specifically to be counter to the majority opinion. That's just my opinion.

Or he just disagrees with the majority opinion that is possible right?

As far as your first query, is that a serious one? I mean If he had read the book, he would have known that there was a deeper meaning to Katniss being named Katniss (other than it just being future shtick) and if he had read the books, he might have a better understanding of why it's not inconceivable that the Capitol government would not be concerned that some of the youngest citizens of the 12 districts are being trained to be savage warriors IE: They aren't supposed to be training to be savage warriors, they are supposed to be starving, and only privy to training the week before the games.

In regard to your second comment, like I said, when it's someones prerogative to have a counter opinion just for the sake of having a counter opinion. That is a situation in which I find that person annoying. And in the case of "The Hunger Games" it's very tempting to shit on something, just because everyone else seems to love it. Hence the 85% on RT, and Bob's smug ass being all "I don't see what all the majority hub bub is about, this movie is shit."

I usually agree with Bob, but in the end I think he is just trying to be difficult about this film. I think if everyone shit on this movie, he would probably be giving a glowing review. That's just what I took away from this review.

I think that if you read and enjoyed the book, you'll enjoy the movie a great deal, though you'll be mentally filling in a lot of backstory and detail. If you haven't read the book, you might still enjoy the movie, but it will seem thin and even nonsensical in places. Sme things don't get explained very well, like the fact that the hunting Katniss and Gale do is illegal, which is why it's a rare skill. The question of whether Peeta really feels something for Katniss or is just playing to the crowd isn't a question at all in the movie, so you lose a lot of what makes that part of the plot interesting.

I personally really enjoyed the movie, but I don't think it was really made with the wider audience in mind.

DVS BSTrD:
I'm gunna go out on a limb and say he hasn't actually read the books.
Still it looks like the Hunger Games are a little...

*puts on sunglasses*

Starved for Substance

I would say he didn't read the book based on the complaints he had. Some of the things he mentioned would make a lot more sense if he read the first book. However, he would have a whole list of other complaints if he did. Some of the details included were cool, some completely unnecessary (like backpack contents), and some were just pulled out of thin air.

However, looking at it from the position he had, I would probably make a lot of the same points without knowledge of the book myself.

I'm usually a big fan of Movie Bob's reviews because he brings a lot of knowledge to the table, but today I'm in the uncomfortable position of feeling distinctly like he didn't do his homework on this one. Yes, movies should stand on their own, but Bob also rightly teaches us that we ought to know source material. This isn't like getting to know War and Peace, which in addition to daunting length requires history and cultural footnotes. The Hunger Games, if you're over 14, is practically a pamphlet and all the references are distinctly contemporary.

Movie Bob's technical criticisms of the movie (shakeycam, slow pacing, etc) were as always, totally on. But taking potshots at the names is an uncommonly cheap tactic for him to have used and I'm surprised that so many people in the forums are letting it slide and even encouraging him. This is, as has been noted, already Yahtzee's schtick.

It's not that the movie was a great adaptation of the books, but the source material is considerably more nuanced than I think Bob knows. Take the inevitable Battle Royale comparisons - I have also made them, they are fair game. But the devil is in the details and they are worth noting. Battle Royale is aimed at an adult audience and is an allegory about what it means to be young and survive in a dog-eat-dog world, making it really easy to toss off a teensploitation flick. The Hunger Games, by comparison, is aimed at a much younger audience* but deals with the more complex issue of the loss of humanity that comes with forced exposure to war and violence**. That the book pulls this off is a-fucking-mazing; that the movie does not absolutely should be cited as one of its chief failings, yes, but with the acknowledgement that this is a hard goal to reach. In fairness to it's intended audience, the movie needed to hit its goal within a PG-13 rating. I would've thought Bob would find this to have been a particularly intriguing challenge, given his knowledge of how ratings work.

Goddammit Bob, why'd you have to be so shallow with your points on this one? You had a steak dinner in front of you and you sipped a glass of water. This was an average movie when it could have been so much more, but the ways in which it fails elevate it and are really telling about what we expect of movies. I know I'm posting late in the reponse cycle but I really hope someone reads this and takes it into consideration when making their own decision.

See the movie. Read the books. They are absolutely worth your time.

* for me this nullifies a lot of the 'borrowed from other sources' arguments. It's all new to the intended audience, as adults we are the guests here.

** one of the movie's big failings is not setting up the book's central conceit that Capitol = U.S.A., District 11 = Afganistan / Iraq. I kinda figured they weren't going to go there, but the effete and weirdly dressed citizens? Yeah, that's _us_. The starving heroine with the distinctly American ideals? _Not us_. The book pulls it off incredibly well.

I'd never heard of the books before my g/f told me that she had read them, but I enjoyed this movie when we saw it. Perhaps it's because I hadn't read the books prior to my viewing, but I thought it was fairly interesting and that Jennifer Lawrence completely carried the flick.

After further description of what the movie didn't cover, my gf convinced me to read the first novel (and Amazon's $% Kindle sale for it didn't hurt).

Having not seen (nor read) Twilight, this HAS to be better than the preview of the next Twilight movie, at least.
I very nearly peed myself with laughter when I saw the Twilight trailer and heard the line "we're the same temperature now...". My god, that was PAINFULLY hysterical.

Finally saw it yesterday. I agree with Bob about the shaky-cam. It was egregious and excessive to the point of nausea, especially during scenes that weren't even action.

That's about the only thing Bob and I agreed about this movie. Sorry, this is going to be one of those rare times I think you're out to lunch, Bob.

Callate:
That the basic premise of lethal human vs. human bloodsport has been handled elsewhere before should come as a surprise to no one; it goes back at least as far as "The Most Dangerous Game", and yes, I've seen The Running Man and Rollerball as well as slightly more obscure entires like Series 7: The Contenders and Battle Royale. And none of those movies, to my recollection, handled the contestants own awareness of the necessity of playing to the public for their own survival as interestingly as The Hunger Games. That alone ought to warrant not being sneered at as nothing but a copycat.

This, this, a thousand times this. This is what I've been saying to people. If anything, I was surprised how much the film downplayed this aspect from the book.

I actually find the sequels to be better than the first book. Most stories in this genre are a comparatively simplistic, "if you win the arena, you overthrow the government" story. Catching Fire and Mockingjay go into the complexities of organizing a popular uprising based around a populist figure and how Katniss playing to the crowd is even more vital in that context. I'm very glad the sequel is all but guaranteed to be greenlighted.

TheUnbeholden:

No it isn't a possibility. I have never read a book in one day, let alone 3 in 3 days. (assuming the average length of a book being 300 pages) It would take about half of my free time to read one book in one week.

I get through about 100 pages in one day assuming I spend all of my free time that day...
If bob was expected to read the book the movie is based on, it would leave only half is time to get the review written/summarised to be within the clips short time frame & get clip edited with all his good takes ect

Yes, it is a possibility, all things are possible, though not all things are probable. How probable a solution this is for Bob is an unknown, I don't know how fast he reads, what other projects he has going simultaneously, if he's holding down a 9 to 5 in addition to this rather cush set up, etc. But is it possible? Hell yes. Folks are assigned 300+ page novels to read over a weekend. And if he's in that much a crunch for time, spark notes that shit. It's better than nothing, and what we have here is nothing. If you want to beat your breast and champion the cause of the movie maker and the movie aficionado, shouldn't you demand a higher level of criticism? What you've got, is a stream of verbiage and the pretense of witticism coupled with a slide show. This may not be without merit or worth in and of itself, but is this a review I'd expect most thinking souls to take halfway seriously? Hell no.

TheUnbeholden:

I think your statement here is essentially an insult to every movie maker, or movie aficionado. A movie isn't here to be a complementary snack to a book, a movie is supposed to be able to stand on its own to 2 feet. Able to create a coherent and original piece of work (in the medium its in, eg sci-fi movie) that can be judged on its own merits.
This movie does not. Its 2 and half hours long and its still not accessible to the "haven't read hunger games" crowd, in other words the general population.

My friend, pause a moment, and realize the swaths of butthurt in the above series of statements. A movie doesn't have to me anything more than a series of moving pictures with or without accompanying sounds. If a film doesn't take the risks inherent in an adaptation rather than a translation (which by all means, I typically prefer), because it's meant to cater primarily to those hungering for a translation, it has the right to do so, and should be judged from both perspectives (that of outsider and intimate.) Don't talk to me about insult, not when we're calling this a successful review. The art, lit., and music majors don't give movies quite as much flak as video games, but the community as a whole hardly seems to consider them equal to their preferred cultural mediums. I'm not saying this is good or fair, it's merely true. You've got high enough standards for your films, but appalling standards for your critics.

Lionsgate isn't hurting for your respect, they'd prefer your coin. Go into the film expecting an adequate translation of the novels into celluloid, and more often than not, you'll walk away generally pleased. Walk into the theater expecting a half way decent film, and lo and behold, this is what you'll receive (dependent of course upon how you define a half-way decent film).

I'm not here to champion the film, never had been, never will be (I'll champion the Fountain, I'll champion that shit till kingdom come), you may like it, you might not, definitely get more out of it if you read the book, etc. etc. I'm generally more concerned with a man who tends (on occasion) to show a high level of critical insight and knowledge, half-assing it. (though this is rather indicative of the state of criticism for the medium).

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here