The Hunger Games

Kinski · 22-03-2012 5:47pm

Lirange wrote: »

There will be 3 possibly 4 films. BR and HG are not as similar as some people seem intent on suggesting.

Whatever about Hunger Games, I wish people would stop going on about Battle Royale - it's a really bad movie, get over it.

johnny_ultimate · 22-03-2012 6:20pm

Kinski wrote: »

Whatever about Hunger Games, I wish people would stop going on about Battle Royale - it's a really bad movie, get over it.

Id argue that BR is actually a much smarter film than its ultraviolent rep suggests, but that's an unrelated tangent.

I am definitely willing to give this a shot - especially curious to see how Lawrence handles the role - but like Thirst and Let the Right One In should be welcome in conversations about Twilight, the films that explore similar territory are worth flagging here. By all accounts The hunger Games actually sounds like fairly solid material, though, which is one step up from Twilight.

Kinski · 22-03-2012 7:10pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Id argue that BR is actually a much smarter film than its ultraviolent rep suggests, but that's an unrelated tangent.

I am definitely willing to give this a shot - especially curious to see how Lawrence handles the role - but like Thirst and Let the Right One In should be welcome in conversations about Twilight, the films that explore similar territory are worth flagging here. By all accounts The hunger Games actually sounds like fairly solid material, though, which is one step up from Twilight.

Ah, I have no problem with the violence, just think it's a bad film. Critic and J-cinema obsessive Tony Rayns' review in Time Out did a better job of lancing that movie than I ever could, so I'd argue that he makes the case its fans have to answer.

And you're right, of course, that similar films should be up for discussion (though I think the similarities between "serious" vampire films like Thirst and LTROI and lightweight fare such as Twilight are probably largely superficial). But I feel about BR much the same way I do about Scarface - it's a bad film which managed to make waves because it depicts graphic violence, and somehow this has endowed it with cult classic status.

So BR is now being dredged up again, this time to claim that Hunger Games isn't original because it shares a similar premise, when - as I pointed out earlier in the thread - HG's premise is probably more like the film Running Man, which was itself based on a Stephen King novel. And now I'll get off the tangent, sorry!

jpm4 · 22-03-2012 7:13pm

Lirange wrote: »

BR and HG are not as similar as some people seem intent on suggesting.

This has been done to death but I disagree, I think there are several pointed similarities between BR and the first book:

Kids kill each other in a game. Set in a future controlled by a totalitarian government. Said games used to control/install fear into the population at large. Main focus on a male/female couple that protect and develop feelings for each other. As in BR the game ends with both couples surviving which is against the rules of the game by thwarting the system, leaving them to an uncertain future.

That's pretty similar for me, far beyond comparisons to say The Running Man - I consider details like the fact that BR is not televised and Hunger Games is to be insignificant.

But whatever - maybe it will be a good movie, the reviews seem decent anyways.

TheIrishGrover · 22-03-2012 7:33pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Id argue that BR is actually a much smarter film than its ultraviolent rep suggests, but that's an unrelated tangent.

.............. By all accounts The hunger Games actually sounds like fairly solid material, though, which is one step up from Twilight.

To be honest, the whole Twilight thing is really just a marketing ploy. While there is an element of a love triangle it's not as central as the Twilight films (I presume as, of course, I haven't either read the Twilight books or seen the films). Now, I'm sure they'll ramp it up to a degree but it's really just a push to get that audience. Don't let it put you off.

As for BR: Yeah, it's actually smarter than just a bunch of kids killing each other. Especially whenever Kitano's in it. The second film is a bit on the nose though). The Hunger Games books themselves are about a lot more than the games. The games themselves are only part of the picture -without giving anything away- especially in the other two books.

jpm4

This has been done to death but I disagree, I think there are several pointed similarities between BR and the first book:
Kids kill each other in a game. Set in a future controlled by a totalitarian government. Said games used to control/install fear into the population at large. Main focus on a male/female couple that protect and develop feelings for each other. As in BR the game ends with both couples surviving which is against the rules of the game by thwarting the system, leaving them to an uncertain future.

That's pretty similar for me, far beyond comparisons to say The Running Man - I consider details like the fact that BR is not televised and Hunger Games is to be insignificant.

I agree jpm. Especially

Compare Battle Royale 2 and Hunger Games book 3

VinLieger · 23-03-2012 1:31am

Okay so im a big fan of the books specifically the first which is by far the best of the three.
The movie was ok but it was never going to live up to my expectations unfortunately and thats mainly because its impossible to adapt books perfectly to screen as we had to learn 8 times with harry potter.

Going in my main concern was how they were going to convey Katniss's (main character) feelings and thoughts on the screen as throughout all the books there is a pretty constant inner monologue that is integral to understanding her character.
This was completely missing from the movie and they didnt really atempt to show the audience what was going on in her head. As a result any audience who hadnt read the book would come away thinking "oh shes a lovely girl who tried her best and fell in love etc" however from reading the book you realise at the end that she is a pretty selfish person who only deserves sympathy for the situation she is put in but not for the decisions she makes which are always based on what is she going to get out of it and never about the others involved.

The other problem i had was that someone somewhere decided that the best audience to market this at was the tweens. This meant all the violence, gore and blood from the books. which there is alot of, would have to be dramatically scaled back and in my opinion it was to the detriment of the film as the excitement and threat that is apparent in the book just wasnt there. Basically Kids were alive and then they were dead, there was no pain or suffering that was a constant part of the deaths in the books.

That being said they did manage to hit nearly all the major plotpoints that needed to be shown and also didnt make it all seem too rushed like previously mentioned adaptations (HP).
So yeah I dont know if id recommened people to go see it but if you do make sure to read the books, also if you dont go see it read the books.

As regards the thread I do find it funny all those complaining about it being a rip off of BR also admit to never having read the books, if you had you would realise all those "similarities" are only on the surface

Skinfull · 23-03-2012 1:41am

People keep saying Battle Royale but I keep thinking The Running Man but maybe I'm just showing my age

Reckon I'll see this on sat. A little "meh" and a little excited.

Galvasean · 23-03-2012 2:23am

Kinski wrote: »

But I feel about BR much the same way I do about Scarface - it's a bad film which managed to make waves because it depicts graphic violence, and somehow this has endowed it with cult classic status.

A here...

TheIrishGrover · 23-03-2012 3:19am

Skinfull wrote: »

People keep saying Battle Royale but I keep thinking The Running Man but maybe I'm just showing my age

Reckon I'll see this on sat. A little "meh" and a little excited.

No, don't worry, I'm old enough to remember seeing "The Running Man" in the cinema and the books are more in line with Battle Royale than The Running Man. The televised/Game Show (and social unrest) initial aspect of the advertising and trailers etc would lead you (if you are old enough) to think of The Running Man but the whole sacrificial nature through their youth and especially in the latter Hunger Games books and BR sequel would lead you to think that there was more than a coincidental connection between them.
I mean it's not that she ripped off BR totally. It's not like Battle Royale itself was a particularly original idea. These types of stories, in fantasy or science fiction or legend/fables, have being floating around in some form since year dot. But I do think that the similarities between BR and The Hunger Games are a bit too close to be coincidence.

Otacon · 23-03-2012 12:14pm

I went to this last night. I read the books about a year ago now and enjoyed them, more so the first one.

I was pleasantly surprised by this TBH. They were as faithful to the books as I thought they could get. The few things they left out were not very important but some things did seem odd to me. SPOILERS FROM BOOK 3

With the importance of District 13 later on, I wonder why they didn't really mention it. In fact, I think Snow's speech is the only time they mention 13.

.

I think what impressed me most was Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutchinson. They were very good, especially Lawrence. While we didn't get her inner monologue, she got most of the important stuff across. I do agree with the earlier poster that

her cosying up to Peeta seemed too much like genuine love, rather than playing the crowd.

. Other than that though, she nailed it.

The camera work at the start was very good and gave the impression it was a documentary. However the action scenes were a shaky mess. I understand they wanted to keep the 12A cert but it did take away from the impact the violence should have had. Later,

Cato snaps the neck of a fellow tribute and due to it not needing to be hidden, it gets the right reaction from the audience

.

Seeing as Ross is signed on for the next one, I'm looking forward to it, but its just unfortunate that the audience dictates what the film can show.

OldeCinemaSoz · 24-03-2012 1:33am

The Gorey Cinema.

Tomorrow.

Afternoon show.

WE hope to see you there!

:cool:

CaliforniaDream · 24-03-2012 2:45am

VinLieger wrote: »

Okay so im a big fan of the books specifically the first which is by far the best of the three.
The movie was ok but it was never going to live up to my expectations unfortunately and thats mainly because its impossible to adapt books perfectly to screen as we had to learn 8 times with harry potter.

Going in my main concern was how they were going to convey Katniss's (main character) feelings and thoughts on the screen as throughout all the books there is a pretty constant inner monologue that is integral to understanding her character.
This was completely missing from the movie and they didnt really atempt to show the audience what was going on in her head. As a result any audience who hadnt read the book would come away thinking "oh shes a lovely girl who tried her best and fell in love etc" however from reading the book you realise at the end that she is a pretty selfish person who only deserves sympathy for the situation she is put in but not for the decisions she makes which are always based on what is she going to get out of it and never about the others involved.

The other problem i had was that someone somewhere decided that the best audience to market this at was the tweens. This meant all the violence, gore and blood from the books. which there is alot of, would have to be dramatically scaled back and in my opinion it was to the detriment of the film as the excitement and threat that is apparent in the book just wasnt there. Basically Kids were alive and then they were dead, there was no pain or suffering that was a constant part of the deaths in the books.

That being said they did manage to hit nearly all the major plotpoints that needed to be shown and also didnt make it all seem too rushed like previously mentioned adaptations (HP).
So yeah I dont know if id recommened people to go see it but if you do make sure to read the books, also if you dont go see it read the books.

As regards the thread I do find it funny all those complaining about it being a rip off of BR also admit to never having read the books, if you had you would realise all those "similarities" are only on the surface

I agree with a lot of this. I knew the movie wouldn't be as good as the book but I found it far inferior.
The inner dialogue is a major part in understanding Katniss and a lot about the Districts which weren't conveyed at all.
Gales character seemed out of place in the movie. He was just a guy who was shown every now and then.
If I hadn't read the book I would have been happy for him to be cut from the movie.

Lastly, I hated Peeta. I liked him in the books and got a full character. In the movie he was unlikeable (a major point in the books), weak and a bit nerdy or something.
I wouldn't have cast Josh in this role and feel he did a bad job.

tommyboy2222 · 24-03-2012 2:48am

Wow, didn't realise there was this many 12 year old girls on boards !

CaliforniaDream · 24-03-2012 4:25am

tommyboy2222 wrote: »

Wow, didn't realise there was this many 12 year old girls on boards !

Why wouldn't there be?

Tar.Aldarion · 24-03-2012 12:17pm

Well it was just like a worse hollywood version of battle royale to me, although it had different themes yadayada, just on the surface.Holy **** your telling me arena based combat is not an original idea?!
(lol at saying battle royale is popular because of the violence, actually a complex film, and relevant to Japanese culture at the time).

Some very silly things in it. Still, it was an entertaining watch, didn't drag. Good film to eat popcorn with but has no replay value.

24-03-2012 4:17pm

It's pretty much a bigger budget version of last years direct to DVD cheesefest The Arena.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDyOXzDnww

VinLieger · 24-03-2012 4:52pm

Deleted User wrote: »

It's pretty much a bigger budget version of last years direct to DVD cheesefest The Arena.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFDyOXzDnww

Except its not at all. Seriously can people get over their need to say its exactly the same as "other arena combat movie" and maybe read the books and see why its not?

Tar.Aldarion · 24-03-2012 5:17pm

How about you read the play of it and see why it is? oh no that makes no sense, we are watching a film

24-03-2012 7:43pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Except its not at all. Seriously can people get over their need to say its exactly the same as "other arena combat movie" and maybe read the books and see why its not?

There are numerous similarities between the Arena and Hunger Games. Having read the first novel in the series the similarities between the HG, Battle Royale and the Arena are many. I'm not saying that it's a rip off or anything but there are numerous ways in which all three resemble one another.

don ramo · 24-03-2012 11:06pm

just seen it, great show, must say it was well paced parts i thought theyd drag out werent really dragged out,

katnis getting poisoned and healing peetas leg

, they just got on with the show,

i thought the love story would be hyped up to max and gotta say thanks to ross for not going there:D,

brilliant book translated to film, still the book is that bit better, as it is in 98% of cases:D

highly recomend seeing it

looking forward to the sequel, hopefully late next year:),

Mr E · 25-03-2012 12:19am

I read the 3 books back to back a few months ago, so I was really looking forward to seeing how this turned out. I wasn't disappointed at all. I loved it and thought it was a great adaptation. When I read the book originally, I thought a lot of the build up (before the games) was actually pretty dull, but they seriously brought it to life on screen - fantastic costumes, makeup and spectacle.

The games themselves were a bit watered down (violence wise), but it was always easy to follow what was going on (with the small exception of the final fight), and they stuck to the book pretty rigidly. I really thought they did a great job with Rue too.

With regards to the complaints about Katniss' lack of inner dialogue, I've read that in a few reviews. It would have been hard to add that in without weighing the movie down unnecessarily. I thought Jennifer Lawrence did a good job conveying how she felt though her acting. She really has a bright future ahead of her.

Snake Plisken · 25-03-2012 1:17am

My 11 year old daughter and her best friend wanted to go so I said I'd bring them, thinking it was going to be like watching the twilight crap I wasn't looking forward to it, but have to say was plesantly surprised that I actually enjoyed it! Jennifer Lawrence was excellent, as was supporting cast especially liked Woody & Lennie , great direction from Gary Ross, he didn't play up to the twilight type love story that he could have! Kind of looking forward to the next installment.

Kinski · 25-03-2012 1:53pm

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

(lol at saying battle royale is popular because of the violence, actually a complex film, and relevant to Japanese culture at the time).

I didn't say it was "popular because of the violence." I was saying that it gained notoriety thanks to its violent content and subject-matter (there were even questions asked about it in the Japanese parliament), and this helped it develop a cultish reputation. And the funny thing about cult followings is that they're often blind to the flaws of the object they cluster round...

But I saw HG yesterday, and it was even more boring than that BR. That's what I get for going to a YA movie!

johnny_ultimate · 25-03-2012 2:13pm

Kinski wrote: »

I didn't say it was "popular because of the violence." I was saying that it gained notoriety thanks to its violent content and subject-matter (there were even questions asked about it in the Japanese parliament), and this helped it develop a cultish reputation. And the funny thing about cult followings is that they're often blind to the flaws of the object they cluster round...

Well first time I watched Battle Royale (first film, not the misguided sequel or awful manga) I was actually surprised at how overhyped the violence was, and was genuinely shocked to discover a quite intelligent, well written film underneath. Subtle it most certainly isn't, but the characters interact interestingly throughout and the 'breakdown of order' sequences are handled very well while also dismantling many aspects of Japanese social interaction (the lighthouse scene, most notably). You don't like it? More than acceptable. However, it's a film I admire on far more than a blind devotional level. But hey, let us discuss this in another thread sometime, yeah?

Have barely any time at the moment, but will hopefully get around to THG in the next few weeks. Actually feels strange going to see a film that's going to be in the cinema for more than a week or two :pac:

Drumpot · 25-03-2012 2:37pm

Havent read the books and knew little about the movie before going in so had a low enough expectation.

I was very dissapointed. Thought it was very slow, boring in many places, didnt really have any characters I cared about, didnt have much humour, much action and didnt offer anything new I hadnt already seen. When you are going to see a movie, you usually want to see at least one of these things. I have gone in frequently to movies expecting little and enjoying a movie for the average run of the mill popcorn flick that offered nothing special but this really let me down even in that department. When I saw the trailor I wasnt too inte rested in going to see it (so if anything I had lower expectations then normal) and a friend asked if I would go with him.

Some people will love or like it which is fine as I have my own favourate guilty pleasure movies that others rightly despise (and I hate myself for enjoying!). I just cannot understand the hype . .

Kinski · 25-03-2012 2:44pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Well first time I watched Battle Royale I was actually surprised at how overhyped the violence was, and was genuinely shocked to discover a quite intelligent, well written film underneath. Subtle it most certainly isn't, but the characters interact interestingly throughout and the 'breakdown of order' sequences are handled very well while also dismantling many aspects of Japanese social interaction (the lighthouse scene, most notably). You don't like it? More than acceptable. However, it's a film I admire on far more than a blind devotional level. But hey, let us discuss this in another thread sometime, yeah?

Of course, I didn't mean to go on and on about it, but when another poster effectively goes "lol, what a stupid opinion!" I think it's understandable that I feel compelled to respond.

And I wouldn't recommend anyone go out of their way to see HG. As the above poster notes, it's dull and slow-moving. Woody Harrelson's performance was the only redeeming thing, but after a promising introduction, they didn't take his character in any interesting directions.

Phony Scott · 25-03-2012 5:05pm

I watched the film, I couldn't shake the feeling I was watching a nightmare Baden Powell recuitment film. The highly suspect salute the girl gives to the TV audience clinched it. Join the scouts, see the world, make a few friends, dyb dyb dyb at killing the rest...

Burgo · 25-03-2012 6:30pm

OldeCinemaSoz · 25-03-2012 10:40pm

There's no way I'm gonna rip this flick.

Kids will adore it.

I liked the nod to Pasolini's 120 DAYS OF SODOM though.

VinLieger · 25-03-2012 11:31pm

Phony Scott wrote: »

I watched the film, I couldn't shake the feeling I was watching a nightmare Baden Powell recuitment film. The highly suspect salute the girl gives to the TV audience clinched it.

Yeah they didnt really explain that part properly, in the books they explain its a very old traditional greeting from district 12 you give to loved ones etc and not a salute

Bullseye1 · 26-03-2012 12:49am

Solid enough movie but it did remind me of Battle Royal.

Kinski · 26-03-2012 7:43am

There's actually one incredibly stupid aspect of this film which renders much of the plot pretty much illogical:

The only reason we are ever given for why attracting sponsorship is so important is because they can send aid packages to participants in the games. That's the sole reason the protagonist tries to court popularity. In the film, she gets packages three times IIRC. Twice it's some kind of healing balm. But how do these packages arrive? By ****ing parachute, which would totally give your position away. So you could be hiding up in a tree, seriously injured, and some helpful folk send you some balm, which alerts all your competitors - who are trying to kill you - to the fact that you're (a) probably injured, and (b) OVER HERE. And once it was just SOUP, which is pretty much the opposite of helping you. Unless those packages contained loaded guns, it's safe to say that, on balance, you'd be better off not getting them.

VinLieger · 26-03-2012 11:44am

Kinski wrote: »

There's actually one incredibly stupid aspect of this film which renders much of the plot pretty much illogical:
The only reason we are ever given for why attracting sponsorship is so important is because they can send aid packages to participants in the games. That's the sole reason the protagonist tries to court popularity. In the film, she gets packages three times IIRC. Twice it's some kind of healing balm. But how do these packages arrive? By ****ing parachute, which would totally give your position away. So you could be hiding up in a tree, seriously injured, and some helpful folk send you some balm, which alerts all your competitors - who are trying to kill you - to the fact that you're (a) probably injured, and (b) OVER HERE. And once it was just SOUP, which is pretty much the opposite of helping you. Unless those packages contained loaded guns, it's safe to say that, on balance, you'd be better off not getting them.

Again its all explained in the books, how and why the packages happen. Basically there is huge gambling going on so the sponsors send packages to give their bet a better chance.

Notice for the first package Haymitch sent it while all the competitors were asleep. This is because the mentors are able to watch the show and know when it is or isnt safe to send the packages

Book spoiler below

There is a point in the book where katniss is dying from dehydration so she looks into the sky at the audience and asks for water but none comes, she takes this too mean from haymitch that shes very close to a source of water.

Skinfull · 26-03-2012 12:10pm

I only read the first book and I never finished it. (was on holidays, didn't bother continuing it) But when I saw the movie I couldn't help but feel like it was the second movie of a trilogy. I think it catered to the reader more than the viewer and some stuff just wasn't explained at all. Possibly this will become clear as the movies progress but I think it could have been handled better.

It was terribly paced and the camera work was all over the place, especially if there was anything interesting going on, on screen though I'm guessing this was so that the focus on the fighting was blurred and they could get the 12A rating.

Lirange · 26-03-2012 4:10pm

Kinski wrote: »

There's actually one incredibly stupid aspect of this film which renders much of the plot pretty much illogical:
The only reason we are ever given for why attracting sponsorship is so important is because they can send aid packages to participants in the games. That's the sole reason the protagonist tries to court popularity. In the film, she gets packages three times IIRC. Twice it's some kind of healing balm. But how do these packages arrive? By ****ing parachute, which would totally give your position away. So you could be hiding up in a tree, seriously injured, and some helpful folk send you some balm, which alerts all your competitors - who are trying to kill you - to the fact that you're (a) probably injured, and (b) OVER HERE. And once it was just SOUP, which is pretty much the opposite of helping you. Unless those packages contained loaded guns, it's safe to say that, on balance, you'd be better off not getting them.

That is not "the sole reason the protagonist tries to court popularity." It's more than just attracting valuable sponsorship gifts. It's being likable enough to the audience that the Gamesmakers themselves are more apt to manipulate the game in a more favourable way for you rather than against you. They want compelling contestants/storylines. It's the difference between life and death.

Kinski · 26-03-2012 4:26pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Again its all explained in the books, how and why the packages happen. Basically there is huge gambling going on so the sponsors send packages to give their bet a better chance.
Notice for the first package Haymitch sent it while all the competitors were asleep. This is because the mentors are able to watch the show and know when it is or isnt safe to send the packages

Lirange wrote: »

That is not "the sole reason the protagonist tries to court popularity." It's more than just attracting valuable sponsorship gifts. It's being likable enough to the audience that the Gamesmakers themselves are more apt to manipulate the game in a more favourable way for you rather than against you. They want compelling contestants/storylines. It's the difference between life and death.

None of this was clear to me from the film (unless I'm forgetting something, which is always possible.)

VinLieger · 26-03-2012 5:55pm

Kinski wrote: »

None of this was clear to me from the film (unless I'm forgetting something, which is always possible.)

Nope you didnt miss anything, it was just another thing that was explained through the inner monologue in the books that they didnt bother with for the movie

cynder · 26-03-2012 6:08pm

Didn't enjoy the film.

if another one comes out I will watch it in hope that it is better.

VinLieger · 26-03-2012 7:05pm

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

Mr E · 26-03-2012 7:11pm

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

That's just frightening. Mind boggling, in fact.

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.

The Hunger Games

Comments