|
On March 27 2012 12:50 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 12:46 Orcasgt24 wrote:
I just got back from watching this movie in IMAX. Absolutly worth the 20 bucks I paid. Had to resist buying tickets for the next show.
This is easily the best movie I have seen in a few years. Its not that hard of a feat to accomplish with the crap being churned out by hollywood these last few years but this was a excellent movie IMO.
Im gonna have to read the books now.  No offense, but howwwwwww? Do you only watch crap like Harry Potter or something?
I watched the Potter flicks because I had seen the first few already and kinda felt compelled to. They were tollerable.
The rest of the movies I watch are mostly comedies and action movies. You gotta admit that those have tended to suck.
One thing I find funny is people in this thread are ALOT more intrested in finding fault with movies then they are in finding what movies did right. Obviously every movie is gonna suck if all your looking for is what they did wrong. I tend to look for what was good, for example, Jennifer Lawrence was excellent.
|
everyone is talking about this movie atm. seems decent, il go watch it sometime.
|
All I'm saying is this movie better not let me down when i go see it
|
I believe this is a solid representation of the book, some readers will critisize no matter what. It is extremely difficult to cover all the important parts of a book in a movie's time frame (~150 minutes). In my opinion, Gary Ross did a fantastic job at replicating the emotions I imagined from the book onto a screen. Very well chosen actors/actresses also, apart from Gale (Liam Hensworth is far too friendly looking and seemed all too cheerful). It's consensus that Jennifer Lawrence played a nearly flawless Katniss and Josh Hutcherson a brilliant Peeta. Also, I do not understand the problem with Rue and Thresh being black. It clearly states they have "dark skin" in the book, if you are offended by them being black then you have bigger problems. I also think Lenny Kravitz deserves a lot of credit, he portrayed Cinna's simple kindness wonderfully through keeping his voice low and controlled. Overall a well-made movie that is every bit as worthy as its book predecessor.
gl hf TL~
|
On March 27 2012 13:23 ZisforZerg wrote:
Also, I do not understand the problem with Rue and Thresh being black
Agreed. I don't understand why people whine when it is exactly what it says in the book! Same with Cinna. I'm kinda surprised that no one made a bigger deal about the entirety of the black population coming from the farming community. Not that I'm offended, but I was sure that would be a bigger issue than three characters in the book described as having "Dark skin" being black -_-
|
On March 27 2012 13:05 Eliwood21 wrote:
All I'm saying is this movie better not let me down when i go see it
You'll enjoy it. I saw it on premier night for free at 3:10 AM in an empty theater.
Oh the perks of slaving for a movie theater in college.
|
I always imagined rue as being indian, but, it seemed like the person they chose fit the description pretty well. She looked like an innocent.
|
From someone who went into it thinking it would be another Twilight, it's a very well done movie that is based on a very interesting story setting. My gf read the books and says it follows the story very well, while there are big sections that are cut out. It's a good movie deserving of it's success, happy when the best selling movies are actually made with quality.
|
As a fan of the books, I was very happy with the movie. In fact, if they used the full-gore shots they took instead of the PG ones + shaky cam, it would have been as perfect as a hunger games movie could get.
It helps that the screenplay was cowritten by Collins herself. At one point she stated that she actively prevented the producers from focusing excessively on the love triangle. They wanted to make it more like Twilight. There was also marketing planned to create Peeta-camp and Gale-camp discussions just like Twilights.
|
On March 27 2012 11:48 Vindicare605 wrote:http://wonderwall.msn.com/movies/hunger-games-cast-subjected-to-racist-attacks-in-shocking-tweets-1673504.storyShow nested quote + USMagazine, Monday, March 26, 2012, 3:24pm (PDT)
Actors Amandla Stenberg and Dayo Okeniyi definitely hit it big when they landed the roles of Rue and Thresh, respectively, in "The Hunger Games."
But the relative unknowns playing tributes from District 11 in the dystopian saga (which scored a historic $155 million its opening weekend and rave reviews) are the subject of an offensive debate among a few, totally clueless fans of Suzanne Collins' blockbuster young adult novel, as pointed out at Jezebel.
Why? Although both Rue and Thresh are described as having "dark brown skin" in the book, some bigoted fans, oddly enough, object that both Stenberg and Okeniyi are black.
Complained one fan on Twitter: "Why does rue have to be black not gonna lie kinda ruined the movie."
Added another ignorant fan: "Why did the producer make all the good characters black?"
"Why is Rue a little black girl? Stick to the book, dude," said another.
In something of a spoiler tweet, another fan admitted he was "racist" when he learned of tragic Rue's racial identity.
Another tweeter even uttered the "N" word in decrying adorable African-American actress Amandla Stenberg's race.
"I'm still pissed that Rue is black," wrote another.
"Ewwww rue is black?? I'm not watching," another person wrote.
The Tumblr blog "Hunger Games" Tweets was first to decry the shocking, offensive trend. "The reactions are all based on feelings of disgust," the blogger wrote. "These people are MAD that the girl that they cried over while reading the book was 'some black girl' all along. So now they're angry. Wasted tears, wasted emotions. ... This is a BIG problem."
Sigh and this is happening right around the time as the Trayvon Martin tragedy, this is starting to get real depressing. In other news, contrary to my previously held beliefs, this proves that ignorant racists are actually capable of reading albeit simple teenage literature.
Wait, the district devoted to harvesting crops ends up getting 2 dark brown/black people selected? I must've completely skipped that notion while reading the book. I'm not sure if the author meant it as racism or if I'm just looking way too far into it.
|
Watched it now. Was quite good for wasting spare time.
|
Disappointing. Its an interesting premise, but all of the promising ideas that were put forward at the start were thrown out in favour of cheap and nasty sentimentality. Also, the characters were exceptionally flat, a problem in a film that is 2 hours 20 minutes long and has long sections of characters alone in the wilderness. This problematic characterization is compounded by the fact that the "choices" of the characters are not internalized and agonized over but are rendered moot by deus ex machina solutions to their woes. Furthermore, the characters have few discernible motivations for their actions, which means that the character relations that break up the wandering in the wilderness are completely inexplicable - and thus, when these relationships are supposed to have an emotional resonance, I felt mostly bored.
The post a few up that mentioned the shaky cam was dead on. I mean, I know why they did it - to keep the rating low and to give the film a documentary feel - but it was truly obnoxious. It was so bad in places that I actually felt nauseous, which isn't conducive to me enjoying the film.
Note: I haven't read the books, thus my observations are entirely based on the film.
|
On March 27 2012 19:37 azarat wrote:
Disappointing. Its an interesting premise, but all of the promising ideas that were put forward at the start were thrown out in favour of cheap and nasty sentimentality. Also, the characters were exceptionally flat, a problem in a film that is 2 hours 20 minutes long and has long sections of characters alone in the wilderness. This problematic characterization is compounded by the fact that the "choices" of the characters are not internalized and agonized over but are rendered moot by deus ex machina solutions to their woes. Furthermore, the characters have few discernible motivations for their actions, which means that the character relations that break up the wandering in the wilderness are completely inexplicable - and thus, when these relationships are supposed to have an emotional resonance, I felt mostly bored.
The post a few up that mentioned the shaky cam was dead on. I mean, I know why they did it - to keep the rating low and to give the film a documentary feel - but it was truly obnoxious. It was so bad in places that I actually felt nauseous, which isn't conducive to me enjoying the film.
Note: I haven't read the books, thus my observations are entirely based on the film.
+ Show Spoiler +
While watching the movie you put too much emphasis on the Hunger Games themselves rather then there build-up. The dues-ex machina solutions you spoke of were what the mentor guy (forget name) was talking about when he said you'd need sponsors to have a chance. Everything leading up to the games was to make Katness appealing to the people so she could get sponsors. The games themselves were completly foreshadowed by training and explaining done beforehand. So much so that they probably coulda made the games scenes shorter(glad they didn't).
The love story thing needed to have one less participant. The guy back in the distric probably shoulda been cut but whatever.
Agree with the shaky camera though I understand why they did it. The books were targeted at teens/young adults and gorey children slaughter is not gonna net you a rating friendly to that age group. Also didn't find it nausiating =/
|
On March 27 2012 12:53 obesechicken13 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 12:09 Praetorial wrote:On March 27 2012 12:06 obesechicken13 wrote:On March 27 2012 12:04 System42 wrote:
But now here is the real Question are they going to make another movie? they left it off looking like there might be and there are 2 more books so Someone said in this thread that they would make another movie. Yeah, I bet the producers are on TL. Also explosive longbow arrows. Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 12:50 1Eris1 wrote:On March 27 2012 12:46 Orcasgt24 wrote:
I just got back from watching this movie in IMAX. Absolutly worth the 20 bucks I paid. Had to resist buying tickets for the next show.
This is easily the best movie I have seen in a few years. Its not that hard of a feat to accomplish with the crap being churned out by hollywood these last few years but this was a excellent movie IMO.
Im gonna have to read the books now. No offense, but howwwwwww? Do you only watch crap like Harry Potter or something? Maybe League of legends is affecting me but nowadays, all I see on TL are assholes. It's been long confirmed that Hunger games would be a quadrology. Since the first movie made profit, there's no reason to not at least make a second.
All I was saying is that although someone on TL said there would be another movie, I'm somewhat skeptical of that unless they are the producers.
I was also expressing my enthusiasm for Katniss's mechanized longbow that fires explosive arrows that she uses to down a plane in the third book. Best part of the series.
|
On March 27 2012 19:37 azarat wrote:
Disappointing. Its an interesting premise, but all of the promising ideas that were put forward at the start were thrown out in favour of cheap and nasty sentimentality. Also, the characters were exceptionally flat, a problem in a film that is 2 hours 20 minutes long and has long sections of characters alone in the wilderness. This problematic characterization is compounded by the fact that the "choices" of the characters are not internalized and agonized over but are rendered moot by deus ex machina solutions to their woes. Furthermore, the characters have few discernible motivations for their actions, which means that the character relations that break up the wandering in the wilderness are completely inexplicable - and thus, when these relationships are supposed to have an emotional resonance, I felt mostly bored.
The post a few up that mentioned the shaky cam was dead on. I mean, I know why they did it - to keep the rating low and to give the film a documentary feel - but it was truly obnoxious. It was so bad in places that I actually felt nauseous, which isn't conducive to me enjoying the film.
Note: I haven't read the books, thus my observations are entirely based on the film.
The author is a genius for explaining the mini deus ex machinas. It gives her a perfect explanation for putting the characters in certain peril that would normally kill them in a survival game, then save their ass. It's so genius I can't even fault her for it lol.
|
On March 27 2012 19:59 Praetorial wrote:
All I was saying is that although someone on TL said there would be another movie, I'm somewhat skeptical of that unless they are the producers.
Lionsgate Entertainment announced Monday morning that it was indeed dating "Catching Fire," the movie based on Suzanne Collins' second book about heroine Katniss Everdeen. But that date isn't anytime soon -- the second film in the post-apocalyptic series won't come out until Nov. 22, 2013, about 20 months after the first movie hits theaters on March 23, 2012.
This is from August 2011, they were planning to make at least two almost from the beginning.
|
is awesome32277 Posts
On March 27 2012 19:37 azarat wrote:
Disappointing. Its an interesting premise, but all of the promising ideas that were put forward at the start were thrown out in favour of cheap and nasty sentimentality. Also, the characters were exceptionally flat, a problem in a film that is 2 hours 20 minutes long and has long sections of characters alone in the wilderness. This problematic characterization is compounded by the fact that the "choices" of the characters are not internalized and agonized over but are rendered moot by deus ex machina solutions to their woes. Furthermore, the characters have few discernible motivations for their actions, which means that the character relations that break up the wandering in the wilderness are completely inexplicable - and thus, when these relationships are supposed to have an emotional resonance, I felt mostly bored.
The post a few up that mentioned the shaky cam was dead on. I mean, I know why they did it - to keep the rating low and to give the film a documentary feel - but it was truly obnoxious. It was so bad in places that I actually felt nauseous, which isn't conducive to me enjoying the film.
Note: I haven't read the books, thus my observations are entirely based on the film.
Awesome post, I agree completely.
I didn't read the books (not interested), but did go to see the film and I was expecting more.
I don't know if in the books they explain more about the hunger games and the whole political system a lot more, but for me the beggining of the film felt like "blah blah, now let's see some action". I would have been more interested in getting to know what got them to that point that seeing the hunger games themselves.
The ending does give me some hope the second movie will be a lot more interesting (since it seems to be going the way of what I would like to see).
|
On March 27 2012 19:54 Orcasgt24 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 19:37 azarat wrote:
Disappointing. Its an interesting premise, but all of the promising ideas that were put forward at the start were thrown out in favour of cheap and nasty sentimentality. Also, the characters were exceptionally flat, a problem in a film that is 2 hours 20 minutes long and has long sections of characters alone in the wilderness. This problematic characterization is compounded by the fact that the "choices" of the characters are not internalized and agonized over but are rendered moot by deus ex machina solutions to their woes. Furthermore, the characters have few discernible motivations for their actions, which means that the character relations that break up the wandering in the wilderness are completely inexplicable - and thus, when these relationships are supposed to have an emotional resonance, I felt mostly bored.
The post a few up that mentioned the shaky cam was dead on. I mean, I know why they did it - to keep the rating low and to give the film a documentary feel - but it was truly obnoxious. It was so bad in places that I actually felt nauseous, which isn't conducive to me enjoying the film.
Note: I haven't read the books, thus my observations are entirely based on the film. + Show Spoiler +
While watching the movie you put too much emphasis on the Hunger Games themselves rather then there build-up. The dues-ex machina solutions you spoke of were what the mentor guy (forget name) was talking about when he said you'd need sponsors to have a chance. Everything leading up to the games was to make Katness appealing to the people so she could get sponsors. The games themselves were completly foreshadowed by training and explaining done beforehand. So much so that they probably coulda made the games scenes shorter(glad they didn't).
The love story thing needed to have one less participant. The guy back in the distric probably shoulda been cut but whatever.
Agree with the shaky camera though I understand why they did it. The books were targeted at teens/young adults and gorey children slaughter is not gonna net you a rating friendly to that age group. Also didn't find it nausiating =/
+ Show Spoiler +
Oh, I know what they were, but the ideas behind them are entirely unexplored. The whole "sponsors" thing is never really explained - what are their motivations, what are the rules for sponsorship, how does it affect the running of the game? - and is just kinda thrown in there to disguise the fact that instead of characters solving their own problems, they rely on drops from the sky to help them out.
Maybe its explained better in the books, but I shouldn't have to read them for the story to make sense. As I said, there's plenty of good and interesting ideas that are introduced in the film, themes that could have been developed, but the film forgoes explaining and exploring these ideas in favour of ham-fisted attempts at "emotion". To give one example, Rue is really poorly characterized - why does she follow Katniss in the first place? What motivation does she have for helping save her not once, but twice? What makes her so different from the other participants that she doesn't simply let Katniss die in the tree? I was watching pretty closely, and the only introduction the character was given was her randomly taking one of the boys' knives and her spying on Katniss during training. Which makes Katniss being saved by the boy of Rue's district near the end a deus-ex machina - if we're supposed to be believe that Rue was so special that she would help Katniss instead of killing and evoked such loyalty in her district, why are we never shown this?
Another example is when the rule is changed to allow for two winners from the same district. The first thing Katniss does is go chasing after Peeta, but wait... didn't Peeta betray Katniss in the first place? Why would she go running back to Peeta even though he betrayed her and with only the slightest indications that he wasn't a complete asshole? And, if Peeta loves Katniss so much, why does he do that in the first place? I mean, you can argue that he's just trying to survive, but wouldn't Peeta sacrificing himself for Katniss be a much better way of demonstrating the central theme of the film - the fakery and underlying brutality of the Capitol contrasted against the organic, natural, and more real districts - than the inexplicable and barely explored Rue?
Those are just two examples, but after examining the characters closely, they all appear to have very little in the way of motivations outside of the crudest archetypal character traits.
|
I enjoyed it somewhat, though it felt really rushed and parts were exaggerated as hell:
Survival Aspect - They said many people would die from dehydration and other things related to that. One person died from something other than being killed, the girl who ate those berries. Survival played such a small part compared to how important it was made seem.
Sponsors - Spent like a quarter of the movie saying how important sponsors are, yet they did practically nothing. They helped Katniss like once, and only because that other guy got close to their aristocrats. We have no reason to believe they actually helped anyone else at all.
Couple other things I found annoying:
- Massive amounts of supplies given
- That damn shaky camera
- People dying really easily (guy shot by an arrow in the gut dies instantly)
- People trusting others really easily given the situation
I don't see why people were complaining about not getting that katniss and that other guy's relationship wasn't real. It was really clear, since they flat out say it in the beginning, and almost every other time it seems almost forced by her. Only thing that felt real was that she wanted him to be alive.
|
Just saw this movie, it was alright in my book. Id give it a strong 7 out of 10.
The first half was well done imo, I love the contrast between the districts and the actual cities themselves. Really nice how they captured both worlds that way.
Second half I was expecting epic fights and a battle royale... Lets just say, I was left a little dissapointed.
Acting was alright, and they were able to capture their emotions to a okay standard.
I wouldnt say it wasnt worth 10 bucks, but I wouldnt recommend it either.
Edit: I have not read the book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
