|
My exceedingly high amount of disdain for The Hunger Games doesn't come from any kind of similarities to other arena battle films (like the popular choice, Battle Royale). There's honestly so much you can do to distinguish yourself when putting teenagers in an arena to fight to the death. I don't care about putting a love story in a brutal *cough* setting.. Or how the plot is predictable or cliché or whatever. I want to vent why I feel The Hunger Games simply failed as a movie. The biggest problems in its execution don't include acting or special effects.The movie failed in the most basic elements of cinema, specifically drawing the audience in. As a heads up I will occasionally refer to the book to show what they did as entirely stupid.
Problem 1: The Book![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ab/Hunger_games.jpg/200px-Hunger_games.jpg)
No not really the book. It's a very entertaining (and short) read because that's how it was designed to be. When I finished The Hunger Games about 2 weeks before seeing the movie, I thought "This book was so short that they won't have to leave anything out and the movie will be just as entertaining." Well I was right about one thing: they didn't leave (much) stuff out. But by staying so true to the novel the film forgot that, well, it's a film.
The book gets its tone because it's all told through Katniss's mind. All of her sadness, her anger and frustration with the government, and her motives get explained at the right time to let us know how she's thinking and why. The tone of the book is always clear. The only time the tone is clear is during the Reaping; we hate the games because it kills little kids. But in the Capitol we never see Katniss's frustration with the wealthy populous there. They're shown laughing at jokes that're meant to make movie goers laugh too. You can't hate someone in a film if they behave exactly like you do. During the movie some people (and I mean the same 3 guys in the entire screening) laughed at cheesy lines and characters put in there to lighten the mood and make the audience smile. But most of the audience sat there confused. Like during the tribute interviews. Are we supposed to laugh like the audience in the movie was laughing at the tributes jokes? Or are we supposed to remain like our civilized and actual selves, remembering that these people are laughing at kids about to slaughter each other?
If you don't have Katniss explaining her emotions, you need to use other methods to get the point across since you're not being original and copying the fucking book. The Capitol people already look like aliens, why aren't they displayed as pompous and arrogant so the audience really disconnects from them and hates them? Because they weren't pompous in the book, so obviously the movie isn't allowed to do it.This is the problem staying true to a book that is written from a first person POV.
From the beginning of the film we're supposed to be hating the Hunger Games because they tried to take Prim. Why are those light-banter lines in there in the first place? Because they decided to not improv a single fucking thing and stick purely to the book. In a book that has the point of view of 1 girl, you're limited by that restriction. In a movie you can - and need to - do whatever you want to get the point across. Want people to really understand the Panem universe? When the Cornucopia bloodbath went down, cut to scenes of crowds in the Capitol cheering or something. It's ok, you can do that in a movie. Use one of the most powerful and potentially memorable scenes to not just depict violence, but teach the audience something about the world or the characters. Instead we watch the most brutal and action packed moment in the movie and get absolutely nothing out of it. Oh, was it supposed to be horrific? Sorry I didn't even see anything.
Problem 2: Characters![[image loading]](http://images5.fanpop.com/image/photos/29400000/The-Careers-the-hunger-games-movie-29446835-669-470.jpg) Careers sound as dumb as the bad guys from Scream
It's a damn shame that the most skilled hunters aren't portrayed so much as arrogant as they are inept. They sound like immature campers about to get cut down in some horror movie while they're off merrily skipping through the forest trying to be hunters. These kids specifically study year after year of Hunger Games to make a career out of it and that's how they behave? Arrogant they were in the book, yes, but I shouldn't be able to use the word "gallivanting" in a review about teenage slaughter. Cato, the last guy to die, was supposed to be the toughest and most skilled fighter. We're constantly reminded about that in the novel. In the film we never learn about him. We just know he sucks at climbing a tree with a sword in his hand. If he completely outclassed other tributes at the Cornucopia bloodbath maybe I could've gotten that impression, but I was distracted by a certain shaky cameraman. Because of that the big bad end boss is portrayed as just another tribute that can't stand up to Katniss's Godlike archery skills.
One of the most glaring problems was Rue. She was supposed to be a clever and exceedingly resourceful little girl. So we get to see her point to a beehive and put some special leaves on Katniss. Alright, they somehow need to give screentime to everything in the fucking book so I guess that's a fair amount of stuff. But one thing they decided to not expand on is the growth of Rue and Katniss's relationship. We get maybe 2 minutes in order to sympathize with Rue and emotionally attach ourselves to her. Her death came when we honestly didn't know jack shit about her. And that was supposed to be the most emotional moment in the entire movie. It was emotional in the novel because of the time dedicated to the two girls learning about each other. For fucks sake, it's not that hard to really show them talking and learning stuff about each other. It would take a minute for Rue and Katniss to both describe their lives back in the districts. Connections on the screen make connections with the audience. You can't rely on a cute 12 year old and expect that to be enough for an audience. That's lazy and stupid moviemaking.
Problem 3: SURVIVAL Game![[image loading]](http://duckduckgrayduck.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/hunger-games.jpg) In that it's about you surviving the movie.
Going into the movie having read the book, in retrospect, feels like an unforeseeable mistake. Shit would've been far more exciting if I didn't know what was going to happen. But alas I did. And I sat there for over two hours waiting as everything got dragged out to oblivion. I wish I knew exactly how long it would take for the games to begin. I don't have a problem with background information, but you know you fucked up when you spend probably an hour on setting the stage and people who haven't read the book are still asking questions.
As for the game itself, HOLY WTF BANELINGS. How slow does everyone move in the world? My favorite example to use: Katniss is drifting away towards the edge of the map. The Gamemaker says something like "let's turn her around" or whatever the fuck. It takes at least a full minute before fireballs start flying. Why? Why was so much time wasted just watching her walk through the forest before the action comes? That one scenario sums up my entire perception of The Hunger Games film. The supposed brutal and intense game of teenagers killing each other has so much down time that you can't get sucked into the movie. You're sitting there very aware that there's a bunch of teenagers running around a forest killing each other in ways you don't really care about since you know you won't see it thanks to Mr. Shake E. Camera.
---
I thought The Hunger Games was absolute garbage and I can't fathom why it's gotten so much hype and notoriety online. I wasn't expecting a powerful criticism on oppression and I wasn't expecting any impressive battling due to the PG-13 rating. I only expected it to be entertaining. And it couldn't even do that for me. It was 1 of maybe 3 movies out of thousands that I wanted to stop watching because it didn't feel it was worth my time. It felt very half-assed. Many of my problems come from this half-assedness where the film tries to make us feel something, but then gives up half way and moves onto other stuff.
 
|
probably an age thing? I know the movie is targetted towards young teenagers and so some of my fds didn't like it as well
|
I felt like I got sucked in by the concept~ but what bothered me more about the movie was how much 'luck' plays a factor for her in every stage of the movie. It always seems to be her friends getting attacked first, etc.
|
I wonder why you felt it'd have been neccessary to show an excited crowd during the Cornucopia slaughterfest to "teach the viewer something about the world". There's this thing called empathy and unless you're in a theater filled with sociopaths, the majority should get the idea that there's something wrong with the world when, you know, children are butchering each other.
In fact, there were plenty of scenes doing just that, showing the distance the capitol residents had to the games, Effie being the most prominent example.
The supposed brutal and intense game of teenagers killing each other has so much down time that you can't get sucked into the movie. You're sitting there very aware that there's a bunch of teenagers running around a forest killing each other in ways you don't really care about since you know you won't see it thanks to Mr. Shake E. Camera.
A good movie will "suck you in" without forcing action scenes onto the viewer. You don't need stuff happening nonstop in order to captivate the audience. You don't need graphic, detailed displays of violence to make the viewers understand that it's about life and death.
Reading through the general Hunger Games discussion here on TL and your thread in particular, I find that most of the criticism boils down to two major points:
A) The movie doesn't tell me what to feel, and doesn't explain the world thoroughly enough
and
B) There's not enough violence and action to make the idea of the Games credible
Were I inclined towards gross exaggeration I'd say a lot of the critics must be (latent) sociopaths, because I felt that the movie did a good job at both. With a little empathy and fantasy on the viewer's part, both the characters and the world easily came alive. And even with shaky camera and little actual combat or gore, there's still people dieing, kids killing each other, and there's no reason to doubt the inhumanity of the Games.
The movie wasn't perfect, but it still was an excellent film - in my opinion. Too bad you didn't like it; I found it to be a great complement to the first book.
|
Actually, i thought the movie was good, but i agree with the not explaining anything about back story stuff you said since i have not read the book
But one thing i found hillarious, was that they made a HUGE point about how it's not the other people who will kill you, its the hunger, thirst and cold. And yet, the only person in the entire movie who didn't die from people where the girl who ate those berries.
I was expecting someone freezing to death while trying to make a fire or something :D
|
Is Hunger games something like the american battle royal?
Because that was my impression from commercials (didnt read or watch)
|
On April 11 2012 22:34 Heimatloser wrote:
Is Hunger games something like the american battle royal?
Because that was my impression from commercials (didnt read or watch)
It's a movie/book based on a similar concept, but developed independently from another. THG does a much better job at explaining its world and telling the characters' progression through the story, though (again, this is my opinion). Movies can't really be compared - Japan vs. Hollywood, 4mil budget vs. 78mil and so on - but THG film is a decent piece of scifi/drama whereas the BR movie is little more than a japanese gorefest with questionable acting and basically zero attention to world it's taking place in.
|
United States22154 Posts
On April 11 2012 22:34 Heimatloser wrote:
Is Hunger games something like the american battle royal?
Because that was my impression from commercials (didnt read or watch)
Yes, having read both, Battle Royal is much, much better (I'm talking about the novels exclusively here, and IMO obviously), the hunger games seemed to me to be aimed at a much younger audience than Battle Royal, and I found Battle Royal to have much more satisfying character growth as well as a better ending.
In respects to this review, I think its pretty spot on, the movie was pretty terrible, and I can't contest any of the points made here.
|
The simple truth is that people will just pounce on what is popular and succesfull.
The Hunger Games is doing great in audience numbers and it is doing great with critics (real critics that actually know what they are talking about).
You could suggest that we could have a more healthy discussion than simply stating that the other side is wrong because they are left out in the cold by anyone with any decent knowledge of movies, but when people can't tell the difference between Hunger Games and Battle Royale, you are dealing with a group of people that clearly aren't interested, or capeable, of a real discussion.
It would be like having a discussion with people that say Batman and Spiderman are the same. Sure, you could do it, but if someone lacks such a baseline understanding, why would you bother? Nothing productive can be born from that.
|
On April 11 2012 22:27 Shockk wrote:I wonder why you felt it'd have been neccessary to show an excited crowd during the Cornucopia slaughterfest to "teach the viewer something about the world". There's this thing called empathy and unless you're in a theater filled with sociopaths, the majority should get the idea that there's something wrong with the world when, you know, children are butchering each other. In fact, there were plenty of scenes doing just that, showing the distance the capitol residents had to the games, Effie being the most prominent example. Show nested quote +The supposed brutal and intense game of teenagers killing each other has so much down time that you can't get sucked into the movie. You're sitting there very aware that there's a bunch of teenagers running around a forest killing each other in ways you don't really care about since you know you won't see it thanks to Mr. Shake E. Camera. A good movie will "suck you in" without forcing action scenes onto the viewer. You don't need stuff happening nonstop in order to captivate the audience. You don't need graphic, detailed displays of violence to make the viewers understand that it's about life and death. Reading through the general Hunger Games discussion here on TL and your thread in particular, I find that most of the criticism boils down to two major points: A) The movie doesn't tell me what to feel, and doesn't explain the world thoroughly enough and B) There's not enough violence and action to make the idea of the Games credible Were I inclined towards gross exaggeration I'd say a lot of the critics must be (latent) sociopaths, because I felt that the movie did a good job at both. With a little empathy and fantasy on the viewer's part, both the characters and the world easily came alive. And even with shaky camera and little actual combat or gore, there's still people dieing, kids killing each other, and there's no reason to doubt the inhumanity of the Games. The movie wasn't perfect, but it still was an excellent film - in my opinion. Too bad you didn't like it; I found it to be a great complement to the first book.
I didn't like how they handle the Cornucopia and the killing in general because the killings are the easiest way to make the audience feel anything. When the career girl died to the bees and when Rue died to the spear they became very memorable moments because they showed people dying and people killing (in various tones). I don't think we need to see every single death, but if we watch the hunger games and don't see these teenagers actually ending each other, it's no different than watching dots or computers on a map. For the Cornucopia bloodbath they opted to go for some style where there's no sound and no (real) ability to see anything. Yeah we know what's happening, and in a great movie it WOULD be enough. In a movie that feels entirely dark and depressing that would be enough. But that's not how the stage is set, and so the impact is lost.
I don't care about a movie explicitly telling me how to feel or not. But at least set a stage where I can come to caring about characters on my own. Rue, my biggest problem, got no important screen time. Her death, the plan to burn the careers' supplies, none of that felt like it had any significance.
There's two levels of making an audience feel emotions. There's the obvious: Rue is a 12 year old girl, her death is sad. Then there's what I wanted, which is "This is a girl I admire for her personality, her importance, her death is a tragedy." And that never got developed at all.
On April 11 2012 22:52 zalz wrote:
You could suggest that we could have a more healthy discussion than simply stating that the other side is wrong because they are left out in the cold by anyone with any decent knowledge of movies, but when people can't tell the difference between Hunger Games and Battle Royale, you are dealing with a group of people that clearly aren't interested, or capeable, of a real discussion.
It would be like having a discussion with people that say Batman and Spiderman are the same. Sure, you could do it, but if someone lacks such a baseline understanding, why would you bother? Nothing productive can be born from that.
That's all the hunger games movie thread became, and I really wanted to avoid that by not bringing up parallels at all. That's why I focused on more important issues.
|
On April 11 2012 22:57 dudeman001 wrote:
I didn't like how they handle the Cornucopia and the killing in general because the killings are the easiest way to make the audience feel anything. When the career girl died to the bees and when Rue died to the spear they became very memorable moments because they showed people dying and people killing (in various tones). I don't think we need to see every single death, but if we watch the hunger games and don't see these teenagers actually ending each other, it's no different than watching dots or computers on a map. For the Cornucopia bloodbath they opted to go for some style where there's no sound and no (real) ability to see anything. Yeah we know what's happening, and in a great movie it WOULD be enough. In a movie that feels entirely dark and depressing that would be enough. But that's not how the stage is set, and so the impact is lost.
I don't care about a movie explicitly telling me how to feel or not. But at least set a stage where I can come to caring about characters on my own. Rue, my biggest problem, got no important screen time. Her death, the plan to burn the careers' supplies, none of that felt like it had any significance.
There's two levels of making an audience feel emotions. There's the obvious: Rue is a 12 year old girl, her death is sad. Then there's what I wanted, which is "This is a girl I admire for her personality, her importance, her death is a tragedy." And that never got developed at all.
I feel as though this quote from the movie thread says it best:
On April 04 2012 00:54 FreeZer wrote:
The following behaviour is pretty common if a character does something "stupid" or unexpected:
Saw the movie expecting a master piece (from reviews, imdb etc) -> Take a moment to wonder why the character might a have acted this way and finds easy explanation.
Saw the movie expecting or wanting to see crap -> "Omg such an idiotic movie with characters behaving like this"
I agree with some of your points. I expected a lot more bonding time with Rue, though what we saw on screen wasn't necessarily insufficient. My girlfriend saw the movie with me (I read the books and she didn't) and she got the gist of the relationship through the scant campfire scene and sleeping together in a tree. She cried during the death scene, so she was obviously able to make an emotional connection. I personally thought the book did it better, but one could say that about many of the scenes and many other movies adapted from books.
A few weeks ago a middle-aged woman was talking to me about the cornucopia scene and how she felt it was done it great taste. As I recall from the book, the scene wasn't really about setting the stage for capitol brutality, but answering the question: "Is Katniss going to run like she was told or fight for some weapons?". The book wasn't terribly graphic at this point (especially when compared to some of the death scenes from the third book) and keeping the deaths "tasteful" allows audience members with more delicate sensibilities to keep watching.
One aspect I actually really liked was how the movie filled in some of the blanks from the books. Since the story is first person you never actually know what's happening back in the capitol or District 12. There are hints through gifts and a lot of speculation on Katniss' part, but you never actually know what everyone else is thinking. I thought some of the third person changes were great! Haymitch manipulating Crane with the "love story" to change the rules, the uprising in District 11, and flashes back to District 12 set up the core conflicts seen in the second and third books. The narration from the game hosts, while absent in the books, was used to help explain elements cut out for the sake of movie time (like when the hosts explain tracker jackers).
Ramblings aside, I was entertained by the movie, but I didn't think it was as good as the book. Keep in mind that I didn't think the book was THAT great, either. The movie maintained my biggest beefs with the books: lack of backstory to the other tributes and feeling disconnected to the world of Panem. Millions of people have enjoyed the movie, so your complaints about empathy is more of a personal issue that can be debated as much as the enjoyment of everybody else.
|
I thought it sucked because I couldn't understand what was happening in any action scene. The camera is just jumping and wiggling all over the place, and most scenes are dark, so all I could see was a blur of dark colours. I guess they think shaky cameras make it realistic, like you're running and fighting with them, but who the hell wants that? I want to see what is happening in the movie.
|
On April 11 2012 22:57 dudeman001 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2012 22:27 Shockk wrote:I wonder why you felt it'd have been neccessary to show an excited crowd during the Cornucopia slaughterfest to "teach the viewer something about the world". There's this thing called empathy and unless you're in a theater filled with sociopaths, the majority should get the idea that there's something wrong with the world when, you know, children are butchering each other. In fact, there were plenty of scenes doing just that, showing the distance the capitol residents had to the games, Effie being the most prominent example. The supposed brutal and intense game of teenagers killing each other has so much down time that you can't get sucked into the movie. You're sitting there very aware that there's a bunch of teenagers running around a forest killing each other in ways you don't really care about since you know you won't see it thanks to Mr. Shake E. Camera. A good movie will "suck you in" without forcing action scenes onto the viewer. You don't need stuff happening nonstop in order to captivate the audience. You don't need graphic, detailed displays of violence to make the viewers understand that it's about life and death. Reading through the general Hunger Games discussion here on TL and your thread in particular, I find that most of the criticism boils down to two major points: A) The movie doesn't tell me what to feel, and doesn't explain the world thoroughly enough and B) There's not enough violence and action to make the idea of the Games credible Were I inclined towards gross exaggeration I'd say a lot of the critics must be (latent) sociopaths, because I felt that the movie did a good job at both. With a little empathy and fantasy on the viewer's part, both the characters and the world easily came alive. And even with shaky camera and little actual combat or gore, there's still people dieing, kids killing each other, and there's no reason to doubt the inhumanity of the Games. The movie wasn't perfect, but it still was an excellent film - in my opinion. Too bad you didn't like it; I found it to be a great complement to the first book. I didn't like how they handle the Cornucopia and the killing in general because the killings are the easiest way to make the audience feel anything. When the career girl died to the bees and when Rue died to the spear they became very memorable moments because they showed people dying and people killing (in various tones). I don't think we need to see every single death, but if we watch the hunger games and don't see these teenagers actually ending each other, it's no different than watching dots or computers on a map.
That's exactly my point: It's easy to convey emotions with violence or deaths. A director with no trust in his audience or a cheap movie in general will go that way. A good movie, however, will rely on the audience to follow certain leads, and to fill gaps themselves - with the aforementioned tools of empathy and fantasy.
The Hunger Games does just that. It expects the viewer to not only view along but also think along. To a certain degree only, certainly, but it's much more than just a simple action or coming-of-age flick which relieves the viewer of any kind of concious effort. On the other hand, everyone who sees the film expecting to be spoon-fed story, emotion and character progression will obviously leave disappointed.
On April 11 2012 23:58 Dexington wrote:
I guess they think shaky cameras make it realistic, like you're running and fighting with them, but who the hell wants that? I want to see what is happening in the movie.
Shaky cam was used to blur action scenes in order to achieve the PG13 rating, and also in order to follow the book's style - it's a book about violence, but not exactly a violent book.
|
well written, I agree thoroughly on both points. Ultimatly I think you hit the nail on the head when you say the movie doesnt really tell you how to feel. The book has so much internal dialogue to set the setting. Which isnt present in the movie.
Also, people keep talking about a strong female lead as a reason that its compelling (Minor spoiilers from the books).. From what Ive seen she isnt even close to "strong"
+ Show Spoiler +
Shes a girl who cant chose between guys, shes a completely selfish sourpuss of a character. Shes so dumb she doesnt figure out shes leading her own revolution, and when she finally DOES figure it out, they leaders of the revolution completely leave her out of everything because shes so grossly incompetant and fucks everything up
But, I thought all three books were very mediocre and the movie was downright awful. It was more morbid curiosity and sheer easiness of the read that kept me going. I literally read each book in about 5-6 hours. So I suppose i might be a little biased =P
|
51650 Posts
On April 11 2012 22:46 GMarshal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2012 22:34 Heimatloser wrote:
Is Hunger games something like the american battle royal?
Because that was my impression from commercials (didnt read or watch) Yes, having read both, Battle Royal is much, much better (I'm talking about the novels exclusively here, and IMO obviously), the hunger games seemed to me to be aimed at a much younger audience than Battle Royal, and I found Battle Royal to have much more satisfying character growth as well as a better ending. In respects to this review, I think its pretty spot on, the movie was pretty terrible, and I can't contest any of the points made here.
I'm not sure who said it, but they put Hunger Games in a nutshell. "American Battle Royale for a PG-13 audience."
|
Watching this movie felt just like reading someone who never ends their
For example, I had no clue what the amulet's purpose was (besides that it somehow brings 'luck.'). Moreover, the movie turned into shit the moment the 'tough guys' killed almost everyone within thirty seconds of starting the game. It became even worse when an alliance was formed.
I haven't read the books, and I'm sure that's exactly how the plot unfolds, but the author could have at least been a little more creative.
But that doesn't really matter since most of the people who read this are underage kids with little to no literary expectations.
|
On April 12 2012 00:59 Paintbrush wrote:
But that doesn't really matter since most of the people who read this are underage kids with little to no literary expectations.
And we've already reached the point of thinly veiled insults, didn't even take a full page, good job. And judging from the rest of the posts so far, this thread will, just like the other one, from now on consist of the fans and the critics of the movie/book talking at cross purposes.
It's apparently pointless to discuss this movie since a fair share of the critics seems to be intent on not liking the movie no matter what. I usually don't give a lot about what film critics have to say but when the majority of them praises a movie, that should at least give those of you a pause who say the film is bad moviemaking. Personal taste aside, obviously, perfectly fine if some of you simply didn't like it, but there's a highly disproportionate amount of people trashing the film.
|
The day it is considered "G" rating entertainment to see an 18 year old repeatedly brutally murder 12-14 year old kids... Humanity has truly lost it's mind... Anyone remember the opening arena scene? Oh yeah, 5-6 kids get killed with the only part of the footage not being shown is the actual contact of the blade to the child.
Let's be realistic here, "G" rating means you're comparing this movie to titles such as "The Lion King", "Mulan", "The Jungle Book"...
Would you show your 5-10 year old child a movie about other kids killing each other in such a manner?
The Hunger Games is a disgusting disgrace.
|
movie was epic until the "training " began.
the training was a waste of screen time, zero characterisation, and everything in the forest was abysmal. the verrry end, lsst 5 mins, was good again
the start gave me chills - showing the city ppl cheering for the children was so sick, and a great contrast to battle royale where everyone hated and was fearful of the games. shame about the forest. poor poor directing i thinks?
i thought itd be one the my fav ever movies, until training/forest started
|
On April 11 2012 22:46 GMarshal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2012 22:34 Heimatloser wrote:
Is Hunger games something like the american battle royal?
Because that was my impression from commercials (didnt read or watch) Yes, having read both, Battle Royal is much, much better (I'm talking about the novels exclusively here, and IMO obviously), the hunger games seemed to me to be aimed at a much younger audience than Battle Royal, and I found Battle Royal to have much more satisfying character growth as well as a better ending. In respects to this review, I think its pretty spot on, the movie was pretty terrible, and I can't contest any of the points made here.
I liked the movie over the book (Battle Royale). Just by a bit though. I thought the lighthouse scene had spot on direction and I liked the portrayal of the teacher better; he felt like a deeper character in the movie when compared to the book. I did like that almost all the characters had a more expanded backstory/role due to the fact that it was in book form.
BTW, it's not fair that your post count is so high now due to you being a banling =[
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
