The Hunger Games

cynder · 26-03-2012 7:24pm

VinLieger wrote: »

So even people who have read the books apparently havent actually "read" the books that or they are just disgustingly ignorant racists.
BTW im going with the second option

http://jezebel.com/5896408/racist-hunger-games-fans-dont-care-how-much-money-the-movie-made

:eek:

Thats shocking,

homerun_homer · 27-03-2012 12:39am

I thought it was a great adaptation of a decent tale. I missed some stuff being left out but felt it understandable on behalf of the filmakers who may only get this one film and not a trilogy. I can only presume the revelations from katniss to peeta at the end of book 1 will come to the forefront at the start of film 2 or they'll pander the dysfunction in a different way for filmsake.

Either way, based on this it will be a great trilogy if they are are as faithful.

yammycat · 27-03-2012 1:28am

The book was horrendous beyond belief, imagine a bad essay written by a slightly dim 8 year old, I think it was just a kid who wrote it though so no doubt they got some people who could actually write in to do the script

VinLieger · 27-03-2012 10:38am

yammycat wrote: »

The book was horrendous beyond belief, imagine a bad essay written by a slightly dim 8 year old, I think it was just a kid who wrote it though so no doubt they got some people who could actually write in to do the script

No Suzanne Collins wrote the screenplay herself

Warper · 27-03-2012 7:56pm

VinLieger wrote: »

So even people who have read the books apparently havent actually "read" the books that or they are just disgustingly ignorant racists.
BTW im going with the second option

http://jezebel.com/5896408/racist-hunger-games-fans-dont-care-how-much-money-the-movie-made

Absolute nonsense tbh.

Stereomaniac · 27-03-2012 8:22pm

Well, I think this is just an example of soft-racism that is present in most of the population.

Da Shins Kelly · 27-03-2012 10:12pm

I actually enjoyed it. Thought it was well-acted, and liked the pacing. I didn't entirely understand some of the relationships - I thought that

Lenny Kravitz was coming on to her for a while

(maybe that was just Kravitz bringing his own skeeziness to the role!

), I didn't think Woody Harrelson's character was very well developed either

(drunkard who seems to be cut up by his experience, to pushy mentor who really wants her to win)

and for the majority of the movie

I thought it was Peeta who was leading Katniss on, not the other way around. I thought it was all going to unravel and that it would be revealed that he f*cked her over and would kill her at the end or something.

Their relationship wasn't clear to me.

Also, why did everyone from the aristocracy or whatever look like they were going to The Mad Hatter's tea party?

I think most of my confusion stemmed from the fact that I haven't read the book. I suspect it's all a bit clearer in the book.

That_Guy · 28-03-2012 11:19am

I quite enjoyed the film. Haven't read any of the books and went in blind.

I thought the pacing was fine even though a few around me at the end complained that there wasn't enough time spent in the "game zone".

I didn't mind that. I liked getting to know the characters in and out of their "natural" environment.

I don't recall seeing Jennifer Lawrence in anything previous to this but she is a really superb actress. In the scene when

Ruu dies,

she says it all without needing to say anything. Didn't fully understand the

cub scout type salute though as she was walking away from the body. I assume it's a recognized symbol for something within the districts?

I liked the film and thought it was fine and would recommend it. It reminded me of Battle Royale with a bit more depth to it's central characters in a Big Brother world... if that makes sense.

krudler · 28-03-2012 11:56am

I liked it, I thought once it actually gets to the Hunger Games part it slowed down a tad where i expected to go up a notch, its all buildup then most of the combatants are either killed offscreen or you never even see how, which kinda defeats the purpose, I get its aimed at tweens so having 23 people butchered wasnt going to go down well with the ratings board but still, its Battle Royale lite. Stanley Tucci looked like he was having a fcuking ball in it.

homerun_homer · 28-03-2012 11:38pm

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I actually enjoyed it. Thought it was well-acted, and liked the pacing. I didn't entirely understand some of the relationships - I thought that
Lenny Kravitz was coming on to her for a while
(maybe that was just Kravitz bringing his own skeeziness to the role! ), I didn't think Woody Harrelson's character was very well developed either
(drunkard who seems to be cut up by his experience, to pushy mentor who really wants her to win)
and for the majority of the movie
I thought it was Peeta who was leading Katniss on, not the other way around. I thought it was all going to unravel and that it would be revealed that he f*cked her over and would kill her at the end or something.
Their relationship wasn't clear to me.

Also, why did everyone from the aristocracy or whatever look like they were going to The Mad Hatters Tea Party?

Haymitch is an alco because every year he has to tutor Tributes and watch them die. He is the only survivor in the Games from district 12. He wisens up when he realises Katniss is winning people over and has a talent with a bow.

The mad hatter style dress sense is because the Capitol citizens are spoiled and have it all and never have to ask for anything so everything it OTT for them when it comes to style.

That_Guy wrote: »

I don't recall seeing Jennifer Lawrence in anything previous to this but she is a really superb actress. In the scene when
Ruu dies,
she says it all without needing to say anything. Didn't fully understand the
cub scout type salute though as she was walking away from the body. I assume it's a recognized symbol for something within the districts?

You might have seen her as young Mystique in Xmen First Class.

She gives the salute from her District after decorating Rue which I presume that sort of behaviour has never been done before between tributes in a game and it had a big effect on the people watching from 11.

Cantona's Collars · 29-03-2012 10:07am

Never heard of the books,let alone read them so went into this completely blind with only a viewing of the trailer as my exposure to this.Enjoyed the movie as a portrait of the lives of haves & have nots and using the lives of the kids to give the populations of the districts a small bit of hope but not too much to cause rebellion (to paraphrase the president in the movie)
I'm intrigued enough now to go and read the books.

TommyKnocker · 29-03-2012 10:47am

If you enjoyed the film, then I reckon you will enjoy the books also. I found them really good and I am a middle aged guy, so well removed from the books targeted deographic of teens/young adults.

paulieeye · 29-03-2012 11:06am

Saw this last night. I havent read the books. I was fairly dissappointed with HG, I thought the characters were a bit weak and non-interesting. I couldnt give a toss at the end about katness or peeta.

I didnt believe the banding together..."Why dont we kill the district 12 kid?"..."Because he's the only one who can lead us to the girl!"...How exactly?? Plus when she's up the tree they should of killed peeta instead of letting him hang around

But minor plot points aside, I thought the whole movie was ok but very wishy washy, lacked bite and never really got going. Maybe cus of the 12 cert.

foodie66 · 29-03-2012 11:35am

Read the books and enjoyed them except for the 3rd -Mockingjay (what a heap of dung!!)

The film was ~meh for me. I really was trying to convince myself that i liked it more than i did when i came out of the cinema because i was so excited for it but on reflection it left me pretty hollow. I thought i would want to see it 2 or 3 times but i have no interest in seeing it again and i won't buy the dvd. I'll go to see Catching Fire but certainly not with much anticipation. (I know it's not a popular opinion but i watched the first Twilight film over and over) The review the film are getting are way OTT. I read somewhere that some outlets are going overboard with their praise because they want access and set visits to the sequels. Basically 'i'll scratch your back if you scratch ours'

I thought Lawrence did well and the supporting cast weren't bad. None of them looked hungry though..... Lawrence is a well built girl who could kick a lot of guy's ass - Katniss is supposed to be starving and scavenging for bits of bread being thrown to chickens!!! She also doesn't look anywhere near 16, she could have been Primrose's mother! So for me she was miscast.

The shaky camera was SO annoying! What were they thinking?

JJ · 29-03-2012 4:01pm

paulieeye wrote: »

I didnt believe the banding together..."Why dont we kill the district 12 kid?"..."Because he's the only one who can lead us to the girl!"...How exactly?? Plus when she's up the tree they should of killed peeta instead of letting him hang around

I haven't seen the movie but I have read the book...

Since Peeta is both well-spoken and charasmatic, he could've easily convinced the careers that he'd be able to help that track down Katniss. He's from the same district and would know her better than anyone else in the arena. Maybe they wanted to kill him when she was up the tree but he could've talked himself out of that too by saying he'd be able to get her down.

paulieeye · 30-03-2012 12:24am

Quality review here, massive spoilers:
http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2012/03/hunger-games-review-the-future-is-blurry

giddybootz · 30-03-2012 2:15pm

I found the film very 'meh'...loved the 1st 2 books. I thought they totally changed Haymitch's character for the film. He only appears to be drunk while travelling to the Games and you don't get the picture of him as a totally far gone (and sometimes disgusting) full-time drunk. Thought he came across very 2 dimensional in the film.

Thanks god the love story wasn't overdone but I don't know how obvious it would have been to people who didn't read the book that Katniss is playing Peeta & the audience and how much Haymitch was behind it.

I know I'll go see the next one but very much doubt I'll bother watching this for a second time even on dvd.

paulieeye · 30-03-2012 4:29pm

JJ wrote: »

I haven't seen the movie but I have read the book...
Since Peeta is both well-spoken and charasmatic, he could've easily convinced the careers that he'd be able to help that track down Katniss. He's from the same district and would know her better than anyone else in the arena. Maybe they wanted to kill him when she was up the tree but he could've talked himself out of that too by saying he'd be able to get her down.

In the movie peeta is anything but charasmatic..to quote the review I posted there:

HURRRRRR I WORK AT A BAKERY HURRR DURRR

OldeCinemaSoz · 31-03-2012 12:46am

SHE was no Rena Owen in WINTER'S BONE.

But at least SHE did EMOTE.

Unlike in THE HUNGER GAMES.

doctor evil · 31-03-2012 3:03am

More could have been done with it, I couldn't give a damn about the characters at the end. There were one or two good moments in it though. I prefer Battle Royale, while HG is similar it does not compare. It almost feels like HG stretched itself too much for one film, it missed a lot of panache and humour in scenes that you find in The Fifth Element and BR for example.

May get the trilogy from the library, is it worth reading?

don ramo · 31-03-2012 8:01pm

http://uk.eonline.com/redcarpet/2013/oscars/news/can-the-hunger-games-be-what-harry-potter-wasn-t-an-oscar-winner/305269

kinda ridiculus really, but said id post it here,

i liked the film and all that, but i honestly didnt see anything considered big awards friendly in the film, id say itll win hundreds of teen awards and all that, but by going on the schedual of films out this year i think the hunger games is gonna be massively overshadowed come awards season 2013

Jonny7 · 01-04-2012 10:18pm

good jesus.. ****ing awful film

teenagers might like it though, considering its basically just a highschool drama and popularity contest in a forest

JJ · 02-04-2012 10:32am

don ramo wrote: »

http://uk.eonline.com/redcarpet/2013/oscars/news/can-the-hunger-games-be-what-harry-potter-wasn-t-an-oscar-winner/305269

kinda ridiculus really, but said id post it here,

i liked the film and all that, but i honestly didnt see anything considered big awards friendly in the film, id say itll win hundreds of teen awards and all that, but by going on the schedual of films out this year i think the hunger games is gonna be massively overshadowed come awards season 2013

I get the impression it may get nominated and/or win awards for the costume and makeup categories. The article seems to make good arguments for and against Jennifer Lawrence getting a Best Actress nomination.

Memnoch · 02-04-2012 10:41am

Burgo wrote: »

This is exactly how I felt having come out of the cinema. It was a watered down disneyfied version of battle royale with extra cheese.

The 12A cert completely ruined any impact the movie could have had. But the masses have and will swallow it up.

+1 for abandoning originality.
+1 for twihard culture.

What a disappointment.

Fysh · 02-04-2012 12:44pm

Knowing on my way in that it was:
a) an adaptation of a Young-Adult novel and
b) rated 12A

I knew I wasn't going to get an American Battle Royale. Which is alright. The film does a fair amount with its rating, and I'm not the kind of gorehound who needs buckets of blood & guts to be happy with a film.

I did feel it was too long for the sequence of events depicted, but it was mostly pretty good. The visuals were nice, and I have to say that this is one of not many films where shakycam is used to good effect.

There's not a great deal of subtlety to the story, but I'm willing to bet that's true of the books as well. The visual contrast of the Poor But Good Peasants and the Corrupted And Decadent Socialites was interesting, though again feckin' US production values interfere and make sure that the peasants we see aren't too scruffy, underfed or malnourished. Seriously, both Peeta and Gale are seriously muscled, while on what's little more than a starvation diet? Yeah, whatever. Gale's introduction as a poacher addresses this a bit, but it's still a glaring issue IMO.

In terms of contrivances, Katniss' reluctance to kill for her own survival felt a bit forced, considering that she was well-depicted as an adept hunter. (Though it's curious that

dropping a SuperHornet nest onto sleeping enemies

wasn't that much of an ethical conundrum...)

Overall, it's grand as a Friday night popcorn film, but I can't help thinking it's a dumbed-down version of the likes of Brazil, 1984, or Battle Royale.

Lirange · 02-04-2012 7:49pm

Fysh wrote: »

There's not a great deal of subtlety to the story, but I'm willing to bet that's true of the books as well.

There is more depth to the story in the books.

Fysh wrote: »

In terms of contrivances, Katniss' reluctance to kill for her own survival felt a bit forced, considering that she was well-depicted as an adept hunter. (Though it's curious that
dropping a SuperHornet nest onto sleeping enemies
wasn't that much of an ethical conundrum...)

Her tactic was to survive not kill as many people as possible.

It made the most sense and was the stategem devised by her and Haymitch. One of the skills she developed as a hunter was stealth. Not only to avoid scaring off game but to elude patrols through the woods. Hunting was illegal and punishable by death. The peacekeepers turned a blind eye to it as long as she remained inconspicuous enough as they bought her game at The Hob (black market). She was ready to kill when the time came for it ... at least in her own mind. Even Peeta before the rule change. That's the advantage of knowing her thoughts from the inner monologue in the books. There was no reluctance to kill when her own safety demanded it. We saw that when she was treed. She could have easily killed Peeta then too when she dropped the nest on them. She thought his alliance with the careers was genuine

Fysh wrote: »

Seriously, both Peeta and Gale are seriously muscled

Peeta and Katniss grew up in different sections of District 12. She grew up in "The Seam" like most residents. Peeta grew up in the town among the small merchant class (his family ran the bakery) who lived in better conditions. They were not wealthy but weren't left wanting for general sustenance either unlike most in their district. There are divisions within the districts as well. This was explained in great detail in the book. It was left out of the film entirely.

Nervous Wreck · 03-04-2012 12:57am

Seriously, both Peeta and Gale are seriously muscled

Lirange wrote: »

Peeta grew up in the town among the small merchant class (his family ran the bakery) who lived in better conditions. They were not wealthy but weren't left wanting for general sustenance either unlike most in their district.

Fysh is right though. Not being left wanting is very different from having enough food to get that level of muscle. But that's hollywood....

Lirange · 03-04-2012 7:57pm

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

Fysh is right though. Not being left wanting is very different from having enough food to get that level of muscle. But that's hollywood....

He did have sufficient food to have the "level of muscle" that he had. The film is not deviating from the book at all in this respect. So nothing to do with Hollywood. From Chapter 3 of the book, "But this seems an odd strategy for Peeta Mellark because he's a baker's son. All those years of having enough to eat and hauling bread trays around have made him broad shouldered and strong." Moreover he was not that muscular. He wasn't ripped in the film. He could throw sacks of flour far enough to not be considered a weakling and easy pickings for the career tributes. That's about it. He did not have bulging biceps. The only issue was the film didn't explain the socio-economic divisions within the district like the book did. Many fans complained that Hutcherson was too diminutive for the role. Some real issues were the size of Lawrence's bust and her age. These were obvious inconsistencies that were oddly out of place. Katniss grew up in The Seam like most in District 12 unlike Peeta, a more fortunate merchant class resident. However, she was a still a solid casting choice despite these glaring incongruities.

Fysh · 03-04-2012 8:13pm

Lirange wrote: »

He did have sufficient food to have the "level of muscle" that he had. The film is not deviating from the book at all in this respect. So nothing to do with Hollywood. From Chapter 3 of the book, "But this seems an odd strategy for Peeta Mellark because he's a baker's son. All those years of having enough to eat and hauling bread trays around have made him broad shouldered and strong." Moreover he was not that muscular. He wasn't ripped in the film. He could throw sacks of flour far enough to not be considered a weakling and easy pickings for the career tributes. That's about it. He did not have bulging biceps. The problem was the film didn't explain it like the book did. Many fans complained that Hutcherson was too diminutive for the role. Some real issues were the size of Lawrence's bust and her age. These were obvious inconsistencies that were oddly out of place. Katniss grew up in The Seam like most in District 12 unlike Peeta, a more fortunate merchant class resident. However, she was a still a solid casting choice despite these glaring incongruities.

If you're quoting the book, and not the film, you're doing it wrong. I haven't read the books, so their quality or internal consistency or attention to detail is entirely irrelevant to the film.

The casting for the film was nicely done with better performances than are commonplace in this kind of film (particularly amongst the secondary characters), but as usual for an American production the poor, downtrodden, ill-fed amongst them looked decidedly healthier and cleaner than would be the case in eg a European production. In the same way that Katniss, she of the poor and starving family, has a fairly nice and decent-looking leather jacket and set of boots and looks very well-groomed (as do most of District 12, and in fact most of the people in the film regardless of background) considering that we're supposed to be talking about a dystopian future with oppressed masses.

Whether there's an explanation for these things in the book doesn't matter - if it's not in the film, that's a failure of the film.

johnny_ultimate · 11-04-2012 12:53am

Finally having a bit of free time, decided to give this a gander to numb the mind for a few hours. It certainly wasn't as bad as I expected, occasionally in fact rather good, but just let down by a little bits and pieces that bothered me throughout.

Mostly, I thought the sci-fi setting was OTT and easily the least compelling version of the story. Spending time in the Capitol was an absolute chore, especially with the iffy, distracting art design and even worse CGI (the chariot scene, for example, pulled me right out of the film: if you can't make something look good, then don't do it all). (Over?) an hour of a glorified training montage is a big ask, really, and it's rarely compelling enough to justify it.

When the games kick off, it gets much better. It's a lot of fun watching Katniss' actions, and there's some fun setpieces. There's a compelling 'survival' element to it, even if it was sometimes underexplored, and I'll be honest

it was harsher and more willing to kill off characters than I was ever willing to expect given the target audience

. Apart from the shaky camera action sequences (which was, IMO, an awkward compensation for a PG-13 rating), I enjoyed it.

But there were a load of silly contrivances that just bothered me as it progressed,

not least of which was the 'magical healing balm' which was just a leap of logic too far for me. The dog sequence was ludicrous, were they meant to be game master generated or what? After so much build up, the climax and 'epilogue' felt rushed and overly episodic. And then it dawned on me that a number of characters - Moss and Kravitz particularly - were almost entirely pointless additions. The romantic subplots were unconvincing at best, embarrassing at worst.

I still had fun, no denying that, but the futuristic dystopia of the Hunger Games was the biggest obstacle for me. Battle Royale - look, I avoided comparisons :pac: - was more engaging because it took place in a world extremely similar to our own. Hunger Games' universe felt like it existed merely to contrive various bits and pieces of the plot, and as a result it kept me removed at various vital junctures. Much of this was likely to work better on page - especially the horrid costumes and hairstyles - however, and there were, in fairness, some curious strands in there I'd like to know more about in later films or perhaps reading the books.

At the very least, Jennifer Lawerence was absolutely fantastic: a real heroic protagonist for a change, even if it was distracting spotting the various ways they avoided

having her kill people

! My only fear is this and X-Men are going to keep her out of smaller films where she might get a chance to really shine like in Winter's Bone. She's almost too good for the material!

The Hunger Games

Comments