- 29,630
- 1,862
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
uh oh. If we all like bob's burgers, it's going to get cancelled quickly
oh and they made a book?
oh and they made a book?
Oh I'm sorry, Did I Break Your Conversation........Well Allow Me A Movie Thread by S&T
- 29,630
- 1,862
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
[h1]"Omar Little" to Play Ol' Dirty Bastard in Dirty White Boy[/h1]
Biographical films of rappers run the gamut from being borderline-spectacular (Get Rich or Die Tryin') to disappointing (Notorious). But a film about the Wu Tang Clan's Ol' Dirty Bastard is thus far moving in a positive - and surreal - direction.
Entertainment Weekly reported last week that casting began on a film focusing on Ol' Dirty Bastard's unlikely partnership with a 22-year-old production assistant. O.D.B. - whose real name was Russell Jones - died of a drug overdose in 2004.
And the article goes onto say that Michael K. Williams - who rocketed to fame playing Omar Little on the seminal Showtime series The Wire - was tabbed to play O.D.B. in the film.
http://
Williams' portrayal of Omar Little - a stick-up man with a peculiar moral compass - was one of the primary reasons for The Wire's success during the 2000s. Omar even won the endorsement from Barack Obama, who called Omar his favorite character on the show.
Williams has won acclaim more recently for his role on Boardwalk Empire, a Showtime series that the documents the rollicking normalcy of the Prohibition era.
While there are living and deceased rappers who could be suitable subjects for a film, it's without dispute that O.D.B.'s life was twisted enough for the big screen treatment. Although he wasn't as technically sound as other members of the Staten Island rap cooperative, O.D.B.'s erratic and fantastical rhymes, zany antics and troubled personal life captivated the popular music world throughout the 1990s and 2000s.
As if Williams' casting wasn't enough to get stoked about the film, EW reported that the movie's plot is a departure from a typical life-and-times look at a musician:
So needless to say, there's plenty to be excited about with Dirty White Boy. Even though the film takes place in the 2000s, moviegoers can only hope that there's a recreation of when O.D.B. interrupted Shawn Colvin during the 1998 Grammy Awards:
Biographical films of rappers run the gamut from being borderline-spectacular (Get Rich or Die Tryin') to disappointing (Notorious). But a film about the Wu Tang Clan's Ol' Dirty Bastard is thus far moving in a positive - and surreal - direction.
Entertainment Weekly reported last week that casting began on a film focusing on Ol' Dirty Bastard's unlikely partnership with a 22-year-old production assistant. O.D.B. - whose real name was Russell Jones - died of a drug overdose in 2004.
And the article goes onto say that Michael K. Williams - who rocketed to fame playing Omar Little on the seminal Showtime series The Wire - was tabbed to play O.D.B. in the film.
http://
Williams' portrayal of Omar Little - a stick-up man with a peculiar moral compass - was one of the primary reasons for The Wire's success during the 2000s. Omar even won the endorsement from Barack Obama, who called Omar his favorite character on the show.
Williams has won acclaim more recently for his role on Boardwalk Empire, a Showtime series that the documents the rollicking normalcy of the Prohibition era.
While there are living and deceased rappers who could be suitable subjects for a film, it's without dispute that O.D.B.'s life was twisted enough for the big screen treatment. Although he wasn't as technically sound as other members of the Staten Island rap cooperative, O.D.B.'s erratic and fantastical rhymes, zany antics and troubled personal life captivated the popular music world throughout the 1990s and 2000s.
As if Williams' casting wasn't enough to get stoked about the film, EW reported that the movie's plot is a departure from a typical life-and-times look at a musician:
So needless to say, there's plenty to be excited about with Dirty White Boy. Even though the film takes place in the 2000s, moviegoers can only hope that there's a recreation of when O.D.B. interrupted Shawn Colvin during the 1998 Grammy Awards:
- 29,630
- 1,862
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
After several weeks of the MPAA essentially sitting on Bully, slapping the documentary with its own hands, and saying, “Stop censoring yourself, stop censoring yourself,
- 24,717
- 436
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2006
Hunger Games....
I'll type more on it later, but I was hugely disappointed.
I'll type more on it later, but I was hugely disappointed.
- 21,800
- 3,553
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
- 29,630
- 1,862
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
this thread is literally the only place i see bashing the hunger games
big j 33
Supporter
- 35,916
- 16,636
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
I liked it. Never read the books so as a stand alone film.. it was good. Could it have been more violent? Yeah. Could we have gotten more character development? Yeah. Did any of that make a big difference? Ehh, not really. It was still entertaining, well acted, tension, action (considering it was PG-13), and an enjoyable movie. It could have been better or done more... but that didn't make it bad.
8.0 on IMDB, 85% on Rotten Tomatoes, 67/100 on Metacritic. Plus 150 million opening weekend? Not bad..
8.0 on IMDB, 85% on Rotten Tomatoes, 67/100 on Metacritic. Plus 150 million opening weekend? Not bad..
- 8,332
- 216
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2011
Fun fact: Jack Valenti, longtime head of the MPAA and the devil incarnate to many cinephiles, was on board Air Force One when LBJ was sworn in as President.
Spoiler [+]
- 21,800
- 3,553
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
I finally started A Game of Thrones ... wow.
I don't understand how a person wrote this.
The guy is willfully throwing away great dialogue like he thinks he'll never run out. And his descriptions...the prose, that ability to paint such a vivid picture. It's ridiculous. I don't understand how a person wrote this or how I just never heard of this before the show. I probably did and brushed it off as random fantasy book #27, but it doesn't read like fantasy...not really. Amazingly serious.
If you told me this was written and translated from a 1000 year old epic poem, I'd believe you. It's so straightforward and vivid. And it doesn't feel pretentious. It doesn't feel like a modern man trying to ape an old style, like Taylor Kitsch as a civil war soldier. And it's so careful of it's characters. How do you put this much thought into everyone? Characters who are ready to die in the scene they're introduced in feel so full.
Maybe I'm just gassing this OD, because the last thing I read was the Hunger Games trilogy.
Speaking of remind me to go in on that movie then if so many people have been high off of it.
I don't understand how a person wrote this.
The guy is willfully throwing away great dialogue like he thinks he'll never run out. And his descriptions...the prose, that ability to paint such a vivid picture. It's ridiculous. I don't understand how a person wrote this or how I just never heard of this before the show. I probably did and brushed it off as random fantasy book #27, but it doesn't read like fantasy...not really. Amazingly serious.
If you told me this was written and translated from a 1000 year old epic poem, I'd believe you. It's so straightforward and vivid. And it doesn't feel pretentious. It doesn't feel like a modern man trying to ape an old style, like Taylor Kitsch as a civil war soldier. And it's so careful of it's characters. How do you put this much thought into everyone? Characters who are ready to die in the scene they're introduced in feel so full.
Maybe I'm just gassing this OD, because the last thing I read was the Hunger Games trilogy.
Speaking of remind me to go in on that movie then if so many people have been high off of it.
jpzx
Supporter
- 57,439
- 27,199
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
Just got back from The Hunger Games. [SPOILERS]
Am I the only that thought Liam Hemsworth didn't fit? His character has to have some type of meaning throughout the rest of the trilogy. Too big of a name not to become a factor.
For some reason Jennifer Lawrence's character annoyed me, as did Josh Hutcherson's. Neither really were that likable, which is something I sort of need out of the main characters in a film. Thought the Frank Gore look-a-like dude could have used more screen time as well. They never really established why he had a relationship to Rue other than that he was from the same District as her. And the fact that he didn't kill Jennifer Lawrence after killing that brunette +*!$@?
Too PG-13.
I didn't really feel like they rushed it, thought the pace was good. Thought we could have seen a bit more of them training for The Hunger Games, but that's pretty minor. The acting was a little sketchy at spots, but most of the time it was believable.
Rue dying reminded me of Dobby dying
Overall it was a good flick, not sure if I'll buy it or give it another look, but worth the price of admission.
I'm seeing 21 Jumpstreet tomorrow
Am I the only that thought Liam Hemsworth didn't fit? His character has to have some type of meaning throughout the rest of the trilogy. Too big of a name not to become a factor.
For some reason Jennifer Lawrence's character annoyed me, as did Josh Hutcherson's. Neither really were that likable, which is something I sort of need out of the main characters in a film. Thought the Frank Gore look-a-like dude could have used more screen time as well. They never really established why he had a relationship to Rue other than that he was from the same District as her. And the fact that he didn't kill Jennifer Lawrence after killing that brunette +*!$@?
I didn't really feel like they rushed it, thought the pace was good. Thought we could have seen a bit more of them training for The Hunger Games, but that's pretty minor. The acting was a little sketchy at spots, but most of the time it was believable.
Rue dying reminded me of Dobby dying
Overall it was a good flick, not sure if I'll buy it or give it another look, but worth the price of admission.
I'm seeing 21 Jumpstreet tomorrow
darthska
Staff member
- 46,110
- 30,308
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
JapanAir21:
Hunger Games....
I'll type more on it later, but I was hugely disappointed.
Ssooo... Hugo was fantastic, Hunger Games was a disappointment? G'on and tell me you hate bleu cheese and love ranch dressing so we can just declare outselves polar opposites.
- 10,371
- 653
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
Battle Royale was awesome, but the dialogue... I kept telling myself that the kids were 14, that they were in this unprecedented, sadistic situation, that the movie is 12 years old, but I still couldn't completely overlook it.
Sometimes it just felt like it was a spoof. Real quirky !+%*. Dude just strolling though the island with an umbrella, popping up after getting unloaded on just long enough to call his daughter one last time before dying... I mean, I understand the relationship between him and the girl, but it all could have been done so much better. Like, was it suppose to be comedic? It made me think of horror comedies like Attack the Block, but I've never seen it marketed with any kind of comedy label.
I really did enjoy it, though. Plenty to like. The premise is great, original. It was raw and more violent like The Hunger Games should have been. I had fun watching it unfold.
The sequel is pretty wack, huh? I want to see it, regardless, but that's disappointing.
LOL at Suzanne Collins saying she was completely unaware that it existed. I can appreciate that she turned it into something much different, but come on. She even took obscure elements, like announcing the deaths and having controlled, time-sensitive attacks (that we never actually see in Battle Royale for some reason?) within the game. There's just no way she wasn't some kind of familiar with it.
Sometimes it just felt like it was a spoof. Real quirky !+%*. Dude just strolling though the island with an umbrella, popping up after getting unloaded on just long enough to call his daughter one last time before dying... I mean, I understand the relationship between him and the girl, but it all could have been done so much better. Like, was it suppose to be comedic? It made me think of horror comedies like Attack the Block, but I've never seen it marketed with any kind of comedy label.
I really did enjoy it, though. Plenty to like. The premise is great, original. It was raw and more violent like The Hunger Games should have been. I had fun watching it unfold.
The sequel is pretty wack, huh? I want to see it, regardless, but that's disappointing.
LOL at Suzanne Collins saying she was completely unaware that it existed. I can appreciate that she turned it into something much different, but come on. She even took obscure elements, like announcing the deaths and having controlled, time-sensitive attacks (that we never actually see in Battle Royale for some reason?) within the game. There's just no way she wasn't some kind of familiar with it.
- 24,717
- 436
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2006
Hugo was one of the most beautifully-crafted films I've ever seen, a completely unique theatrical experience with an extremely solid script and great performances. The difference between this movie and The Hunger Games is that the latter conforms to the wants of a teenager, while the former is made for all audiences, each can appreciate it. Kids can appreciate the simple story, while there's still complexity behind the history of film preservation.
But I'm not going to sit here and compare The Hunger Games and Hugo. I'd much rather compare this to Battle Royale. If you've seen Battle Royale, I don't see how you can sit here and say this is anything above an average film. I went in blind, and as the credits rolled I felt like I had watched a slightly better version of Twilight.
I'm one that's always willing to completely suspend my disbelief entering a film. You want me to believe there's some dude in my nightmares who's trying to kill me, so I have to stay awake? Sure, fine. Want me to believe in a dad-daughter superhero combo? Cool, sounds fun.
The film starting out fine, during the whole selection process. I was cool with that. Chicks name is catnip? Odd, whatever.
I'm supposed to sit here and watch these clowns in garish outfits prance around like faeries, and believe that these people are the most powerful, wealthy in the entire world? Where exactly does this take place? Is this a foreign planet? They could have at least said what planet we were on, or if we were on Earth to explain where the hell we were. We instead are forced to believe that there are slums that look like third world Latin America or Africa, where the distribution of wealth is heavily in-favor of those who dress like clowns? Why? Okay, fine, it's a PG13 film.
They could have done some explaining about the different districts too. Are there any distinguishing factors? We focused on one, and that's the only one we see, District 12, but are we supposed to assume that all Districts are equal? Or are there certain advantages of living in different districts, because it seemed like they really favored that first district, but why? That's not important? They are the antagonists right?
The character development for the other 22 characters that are supposed to be killed off is so sparse that it left me not caring. There's no suspense. You know from the minute the games start that Catnip is going to survive. Then after about 30 seconds, half of the field of competitors is gone. I understand it's a PG-13 movie, but if you're going to have a film about teenagers killing each other off, make it a goddamn R. I don't want to see crappy quick-cuts of swinging blades. That's not brutal. That's not harsh. This movie raked in a ton at the box office because it appealed to little teenagers that think this is graphic, while I sat there yawning the entire movie. I'm sorry but a bunch of sloppily cut together action scenes with shaking cameras isn't good filmmaking to me.
The performances were nothing to write home about earlier. I thought the stuff with Catnip and her sister Pomegranate were very well done. That I can understand. Having compassion for your family, I understand. But you have to go to war for what we're supposed to believe is a 75-year old slaughter-house, and kill off everyone? For as ruthless as her, "11," made her, Catnip wasn't very brutal at all. She survived, sure, but she was far from the strongest, most cunning character. We see her befriend a little black girl? WHY? Why am I supposed to believe that Catnip goes and protects this little girl? What happens if she refuses to kill the little girl at the end? In a film like Battle Royale, we get answers like this. But no, we get disrespected as a movie-goer and we're just supposed to turn our brains off. If this were truly a brutal event, you'd slice that little black girls head off quicker than a new loaf of bread. And when she dies, she is more of an emotional wreck than she had been all film. Over a girl you'd been hanging around with for a few hours? When the entire purpose of this event is to kill each other off? Come on man, that's horse****. Rue was probably the most genuine character in the entire damn film, definitely. But you know what? This is supposed to be cut-throat, if I want to go see genuine I'll go watch a chick flick. Catnip and Peter's relationship was crap too. Peter was willing to very easily kill off Catnip if she would have ever gotten down from that tree, yet she goes and saves him and protects him too? Give me a break man... I thought Lawrence over-acted in X-Men, and I thought she overacted here too. The kid Peter was too much for me too. He was such a useless character. They should have thrown in the other guy from her district that she sees earlier in the film, at least he seemed like he could act better than Peewee Herman Peter.
I understand forming alliances to try and get rid of the main crop of your enemies, and that slowly disintegrated, but we never even got to see it. How many actual deaths do we see? We see a bunch of hack-and-slash at the beginning, we see Catnip kill a few folks, but seems like 80% of the kills, we don't even see. Rue, broken neck kid, the person that killed Rue, and the kid at the end who fights Peter/Catnip. I could be missing one or two, but still, I can show you dead bodies just lying there. Just have an off-screen yell then cut to a body lying on the ground. That will do.
And what the hell is up with Rue's partner from her district? This black dude comes in and saves Catnip's life, and just because Rue was pals with Catnip, he spares her life? You're going to have to kill her soon anyways you idiot, why not just get rid of her.... There's hardly anybody in this film that's ruthless. It's not like it's Battle Royale where these kids went to school together, they are for the most part completely random characters.
John Cena (Kravitz) and Sammich (Woody) just seemed like completely throw-away characters too. Cool, Woody is the old drunkard who's been there and done that, but how is he any different from the over-the-top clowns we get to watch all movie long. Kravitz at least tries to guide some of the characters, but it's moreso about appearance than anything. The whole sponsorship thing seemed way too overblown too. It came in handy once when Catnip got stuck in a tree and needed a firefighter to go and rescue her. Other than that? Getting your "Flame On?" Completely useless. Sure, it looked okay, but meh, have a purpose. Twirl around so the bottom of your dress is on fire just like the transformation in Black Swan, that's cool too, whatever...
They go ahead and change the rules of a 75-year old tradition more than Brett Favre decided to retire too man. Oh, now it will be okay if two people from the same district can stay alive, so Peter and Catnip can work together, how sweet... Oh wait no, now that there's just two of you, you can't, sorry. Romeo and Juliet route it is then. Wait wait wait, okay, you guys can live. I can't buy that crap man. PG13, PG, G, R, NC17, X, I don't care, I don't buy it. Whack. Lame. Boring. Hated that.
As I stated earlier, how many of the characters do we really get to know? Peter and Catnip, Rue, the main tough dude, and a black dude. That's 5 out of 24. In a two hour movie, we really couldn't develop ANY of the other characters? In Battle Royale of the 42 kids, we knew at least about 15-20 of them.
Maybe it's my own fault for hearing the comparisons of Battle Royale, and seeing it and cherishing it long before I ever saw or heard of this. No, I didn't read the book. And I quite frankly don't really care to. I don't know, but I sat there sighing most of the time at what was happening before me. I can't get over the fact that there's compassion for complete strangers when the only way to survive is to kill off everyone else. I can't get over the fact that they kept on changing the rules to adapt for a girl who was pretty damn stale for the most part.
I won't say it's a bad film, it's not. But it is what it is. It caters to teenagers, and if that's all it's going to cater to, I'm not going to say it's a good film, because purely from a film-making standpoint, it's not. And it's not just because it's a film for teenagers. I loved Up, Despicable Me, and Hugo. Target audience? Definitely not men in their mid-20s. But I appreciate that they made the film to cater not just to children. Mr. Popper's Penguins had a very small target audience. I'm sure kids 5-10 loved it, that doesn't make it a good film. I don't know how this film got such rave reviews. I was not all that impressed.
But I'm not going to sit here and compare The Hunger Games and Hugo. I'd much rather compare this to Battle Royale. If you've seen Battle Royale, I don't see how you can sit here and say this is anything above an average film. I went in blind, and as the credits rolled I felt like I had watched a slightly better version of Twilight.
I'm one that's always willing to completely suspend my disbelief entering a film. You want me to believe there's some dude in my nightmares who's trying to kill me, so I have to stay awake? Sure, fine. Want me to believe in a dad-daughter superhero combo? Cool, sounds fun.
The film starting out fine, during the whole selection process. I was cool with that. Chicks name is catnip? Odd, whatever.
I'm supposed to sit here and watch these clowns in garish outfits prance around like faeries, and believe that these people are the most powerful, wealthy in the entire world? Where exactly does this take place? Is this a foreign planet? They could have at least said what planet we were on, or if we were on Earth to explain where the hell we were. We instead are forced to believe that there are slums that look like third world Latin America or Africa, where the distribution of wealth is heavily in-favor of those who dress like clowns? Why? Okay, fine, it's a PG13 film.
They could have done some explaining about the different districts too. Are there any distinguishing factors? We focused on one, and that's the only one we see, District 12, but are we supposed to assume that all Districts are equal? Or are there certain advantages of living in different districts, because it seemed like they really favored that first district, but why? That's not important? They are the antagonists right?
The character development for the other 22 characters that are supposed to be killed off is so sparse that it left me not caring. There's no suspense. You know from the minute the games start that Catnip is going to survive. Then after about 30 seconds, half of the field of competitors is gone. I understand it's a PG-13 movie, but if you're going to have a film about teenagers killing each other off, make it a goddamn R. I don't want to see crappy quick-cuts of swinging blades. That's not brutal. That's not harsh. This movie raked in a ton at the box office because it appealed to little teenagers that think this is graphic, while I sat there yawning the entire movie. I'm sorry but a bunch of sloppily cut together action scenes with shaking cameras isn't good filmmaking to me.
The performances were nothing to write home about earlier. I thought the stuff with Catnip and her sister Pomegranate were very well done. That I can understand. Having compassion for your family, I understand. But you have to go to war for what we're supposed to believe is a 75-year old slaughter-house, and kill off everyone? For as ruthless as her, "11," made her, Catnip wasn't very brutal at all. She survived, sure, but she was far from the strongest, most cunning character. We see her befriend a little black girl? WHY? Why am I supposed to believe that Catnip goes and protects this little girl? What happens if she refuses to kill the little girl at the end? In a film like Battle Royale, we get answers like this. But no, we get disrespected as a movie-goer and we're just supposed to turn our brains off. If this were truly a brutal event, you'd slice that little black girls head off quicker than a new loaf of bread. And when she dies, she is more of an emotional wreck than she had been all film. Over a girl you'd been hanging around with for a few hours? When the entire purpose of this event is to kill each other off? Come on man, that's horse****. Rue was probably the most genuine character in the entire damn film, definitely. But you know what? This is supposed to be cut-throat, if I want to go see genuine I'll go watch a chick flick. Catnip and Peter's relationship was crap too. Peter was willing to very easily kill off Catnip if she would have ever gotten down from that tree, yet she goes and saves him and protects him too? Give me a break man... I thought Lawrence over-acted in X-Men, and I thought she overacted here too. The kid Peter was too much for me too. He was such a useless character. They should have thrown in the other guy from her district that she sees earlier in the film, at least he seemed like he could act better than Peewee Herman Peter.
I understand forming alliances to try and get rid of the main crop of your enemies, and that slowly disintegrated, but we never even got to see it. How many actual deaths do we see? We see a bunch of hack-and-slash at the beginning, we see Catnip kill a few folks, but seems like 80% of the kills, we don't even see. Rue, broken neck kid, the person that killed Rue, and the kid at the end who fights Peter/Catnip. I could be missing one or two, but still, I can show you dead bodies just lying there. Just have an off-screen yell then cut to a body lying on the ground. That will do.
And what the hell is up with Rue's partner from her district? This black dude comes in and saves Catnip's life, and just because Rue was pals with Catnip, he spares her life? You're going to have to kill her soon anyways you idiot, why not just get rid of her.... There's hardly anybody in this film that's ruthless. It's not like it's Battle Royale where these kids went to school together, they are for the most part completely random characters.
John Cena (Kravitz) and Sammich (Woody) just seemed like completely throw-away characters too. Cool, Woody is the old drunkard who's been there and done that, but how is he any different from the over-the-top clowns we get to watch all movie long. Kravitz at least tries to guide some of the characters, but it's moreso about appearance than anything. The whole sponsorship thing seemed way too overblown too. It came in handy once when Catnip got stuck in a tree and needed a firefighter to go and rescue her. Other than that? Getting your "Flame On?" Completely useless. Sure, it looked okay, but meh, have a purpose. Twirl around so the bottom of your dress is on fire just like the transformation in Black Swan, that's cool too, whatever...
They go ahead and change the rules of a 75-year old tradition more than Brett Favre decided to retire too man. Oh, now it will be okay if two people from the same district can stay alive, so Peter and Catnip can work together, how sweet... Oh wait no, now that there's just two of you, you can't, sorry. Romeo and Juliet route it is then. Wait wait wait, okay, you guys can live. I can't buy that crap man. PG13, PG, G, R, NC17, X, I don't care, I don't buy it. Whack. Lame. Boring. Hated that.
As I stated earlier, how many of the characters do we really get to know? Peter and Catnip, Rue, the main tough dude, and a black dude. That's 5 out of 24. In a two hour movie, we really couldn't develop ANY of the other characters? In Battle Royale of the 42 kids, we knew at least about 15-20 of them.
Maybe it's my own fault for hearing the comparisons of Battle Royale, and seeing it and cherishing it long before I ever saw or heard of this. No, I didn't read the book. And I quite frankly don't really care to. I don't know, but I sat there sighing most of the time at what was happening before me. I can't get over the fact that there's compassion for complete strangers when the only way to survive is to kill off everyone else. I can't get over the fact that they kept on changing the rules to adapt for a girl who was pretty damn stale for the most part.
I won't say it's a bad film, it's not. But it is what it is. It caters to teenagers, and if that's all it's going to cater to, I'm not going to say it's a good film, because purely from a film-making standpoint, it's not. And it's not just because it's a film for teenagers. I loved Up, Despicable Me, and Hugo. Target audience? Definitely not men in their mid-20s. But I appreciate that they made the film to cater not just to children. Mr. Popper's Penguins had a very small target audience. I'm sure kids 5-10 loved it, that doesn't make it a good film. I don't know how this film got such rave reviews. I was not all that impressed.
- 24,717
- 436
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2006
Battle Royale's tone is all over the place. There are definitely parts to it where it's supposed to be tragic, while other scenes are completely goofy. You got scenes like the kid walking in on his father after hanging himself, and you have scenes like the girl on the television explaining what Battle Royale is, and making references left-and-right to George A. Romero and Sam Raimi's The Evil Dead. That's just the way Japanese thrillers work. Most of them I have seen can be completely graphic and brutal, and at the end of the film during the credits, a pop-song that sounds like Spice Girls playing.
As for the relationship between the father/daughter, I haven't seen it in quite a while so I can't necessarily put my finger on what you found so funny, but it's definitely not in any aspect a comedy. A little satirical at times? Absolutely. But it's not ever supposed to be seen as a comedy. I was planning on re-watching it tonight just to get the taste of The Hunger Games out of my mouth, so I'll see if I can figure out what you're trying to get at. If I could compare it to anything, I would say something like Robocop. I know that may seem completely out of left field, but as far as tone goes, both films are satirical in lots of parts, but both are extremely brutal/graphic in their portrayal of the world.
I saw the sequel maybe twice, but it isn't nearly as impactful as the first film. If you want to see the same events unfold again? Sure, it's alright. But don't expect it to re-write the book. The script isn't as good, and the performances are on the weaker side.
Also, which cut of the film did you watch? It's not hugely important, but there's some differences, mostly presentation though.
jpzx
Supporter
- 57,439
- 27,199
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
Great breakdown
Almost EVERYTHING you said I observed in the film I noticed too but either forgot or didn't have the patience to write all of it.
The thing about the guy back home... He already signed on for 3 more films. So he obviously factors in big time later.
Almost EVERYTHING you said I observed in the film I noticed too but either forgot or didn't have the patience to write all of it.
The thing about the guy back home... He already signed on for 3 more films. So he obviously factors in big time later.
- 24,717
- 436
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2006
As I'm watching, I forgot to mention something. I don't know if you noticed, but there's someone from BR that's in Kill Bill Vol 1. Gogo Yubari? The chick with the ball-and-chain? She has a fairly prominent role in Battle Royale.
- 10,371
- 653
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
Edit: If you've never seen/read Battle Royale or The Hunger Games, you might not want to read some of this.
- 24,717
- 436
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2006
I was butchering the names on purpose,
. I just couldn't take napes like Katniss, Peeta, and Primrose seriously.
As for the history of it all, not really. The film opens with some context saying that there are The Hunger Games held every so often where people sacrifice their children at random. That's it. Just completely thrown into the middle of a story without any real background on what state the world is in. What distinguishes the poor and the wealthy? Movie never took the time to explain it. Kind of like in Sucker Punch to a degree. It is just me nitpicking, but there's just too much there for me to swallow in one sitting.
I was put off by it so much because it's thrown at you with no explanation. I had no idea if this was 200 years in the past, or 200 years in the future, or in the present. I could believe the slums enough, that looked like as I said, your typical Latin American slum. But then you have the garish, over-the-top technological world where everyone dresses in every color of the rainbow? I mean I guess if that's the fashion. It was like Tron and 2001 had a baby, but they took out all the acid-trips. The customs and costumes I can get over, but it was still sore on the eyes.
I just feel like I've seen it all before, watching The Hunger Games, and done better, catering to more of an audience that I enjoy. I feel like they catered too much to teenagers, and that's where I'm disengaged, because I just can't handle watching films like that. If I have some connection to it, reading the books, reading comics, or whatever, fine. I went into this dry, expecting something similar to Battle Royale. It's dumbed down, and that's my own fault for not knowing what I was to expect.
My biggest gripes are that these kids don't even know each other, yet they still have compassion for one another, and also that the rules pertaining to The Hunger Games are changed quite often, which is unsettling. I know it is all for entertainment, but the entire idea is survival of the fittest until there's only one.
You can absolutely nitpick the hell out of Battle Royale, and you should. It's not a flawless movie by any means. I'm biased in that I really enjoy it, but I know it is flawed. But, it's just I feel like I've seen it all before, and that's my gripe. I can get past a lot of the flaws of Battle Royale because they are kids that actually knew each other, and Battle Royale went to the point of being satirical at times, while The Hunger Games was straight most of the time. Maybe the book wasn't, but I felt the film was very straight-forward and stern.
In The Hunger Games, you get to know Katniss, Peeta, and Rue. I'm damn impressed if you know anyone else's name of the 24 if you went into this movie cold like I did. I understand not being able to detail every single character and flesh them out and give them a purpose, but it was just all so brief.
All that said, I don't think it's a bad film, not at all. It's catered to a specific audience, it has it's flaws, but it's not a terrible film. I was expecting a fresh catch, and I got taken to Red Lobster. It's no Long John Silvers, but it is also not Alaskan King Crab either.
I didn't mean for it to come off as thinking it was atrocious. I never meant for it to seem like that. I was just hugely disappointed. The Walking Dead can show a zombie getting his brains bashed in, I'd like to at least see a little violence out of this.
And I don't mean to take anything away from the book series at all. I'm sure it's much better presented and much more graphic than the film was, but that's all I'm working with here. Call me naive, but that's all I've got to bring to the table.
I will say that I love the shape of Toby Jones' head. That guy always looks ridiculous on screen.
As for the history of it all, not really. The film opens with some context saying that there are The Hunger Games held every so often where people sacrifice their children at random. That's it. Just completely thrown into the middle of a story without any real background on what state the world is in. What distinguishes the poor and the wealthy? Movie never took the time to explain it. Kind of like in Sucker Punch to a degree. It is just me nitpicking, but there's just too much there for me to swallow in one sitting.
I was put off by it so much because it's thrown at you with no explanation. I had no idea if this was 200 years in the past, or 200 years in the future, or in the present. I could believe the slums enough, that looked like as I said, your typical Latin American slum. But then you have the garish, over-the-top technological world where everyone dresses in every color of the rainbow? I mean I guess if that's the fashion. It was like Tron and 2001 had a baby, but they took out all the acid-trips. The customs and costumes I can get over, but it was still sore on the eyes.
I just feel like I've seen it all before, watching The Hunger Games, and done better, catering to more of an audience that I enjoy. I feel like they catered too much to teenagers, and that's where I'm disengaged, because I just can't handle watching films like that. If I have some connection to it, reading the books, reading comics, or whatever, fine. I went into this dry, expecting something similar to Battle Royale. It's dumbed down, and that's my own fault for not knowing what I was to expect.
My biggest gripes are that these kids don't even know each other, yet they still have compassion for one another, and also that the rules pertaining to The Hunger Games are changed quite often, which is unsettling. I know it is all for entertainment, but the entire idea is survival of the fittest until there's only one.
You can absolutely nitpick the hell out of Battle Royale, and you should. It's not a flawless movie by any means. I'm biased in that I really enjoy it, but I know it is flawed. But, it's just I feel like I've seen it all before, and that's my gripe. I can get past a lot of the flaws of Battle Royale because they are kids that actually knew each other, and Battle Royale went to the point of being satirical at times, while The Hunger Games was straight most of the time. Maybe the book wasn't, but I felt the film was very straight-forward and stern.
In The Hunger Games, you get to know Katniss, Peeta, and Rue. I'm damn impressed if you know anyone else's name of the 24 if you went into this movie cold like I did. I understand not being able to detail every single character and flesh them out and give them a purpose, but it was just all so brief.
All that said, I don't think it's a bad film, not at all. It's catered to a specific audience, it has it's flaws, but it's not a terrible film. I was expecting a fresh catch, and I got taken to Red Lobster. It's no Long John Silvers, but it is also not Alaskan King Crab either.
I didn't mean for it to come off as thinking it was atrocious. I never meant for it to seem like that. I was just hugely disappointed. The Walking Dead can show a zombie getting his brains bashed in, I'd like to at least see a little violence out of this.
And I don't mean to take anything away from the book series at all. I'm sure it's much better presented and much more graphic than the film was, but that's all I'm working with here. Call me naive, but that's all I've got to bring to the table.
I will say that I love the shape of Toby Jones' head. That guy always looks ridiculous on screen.
- 10,371
- 653
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
Fair enough. Have you read the Battle Royale book? Is it better that the movie like every other book that gets adapted?
- 24,717
- 436
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2006
I hardly ever read book adaptations. I can't even be bothered to read The Walking Dead comics,
- 21,800
- 3,553
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
Really JA?
My main reason for not getting into it, is that there's no concise argument against this movie in my head.
Just...detailed and detailed and blah blah blah...I'll just try and add onto what you wrote.
My main reason for not getting into it, is that there's no concise argument against this movie in my head.
Just...detailed and detailed and blah blah blah...I'll just try and add onto what you wrote.
- 21,800
- 3,553
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
Originally Posted by JapanAir21
I was butchering the names on purpose,. I just couldn't take napes like Katniss, Peeta, and Primrose seriously.
As for the history of it all, not really. The film opens with some context saying that there are The Hunger Games held every so often where people sacrifice their children at random. That's it. Just completely thrown into the middle of a story without any real background on what state the world is in. What distinguishes the poor and the wealthy? Movie never took the time to explain it. Kind of like in Sucker Punch to a degree. It is just me nitpicking, but there's just too much there for me to swallow in one sitting.
I was put off by it so much because it's thrown at you with no explanation. I had no idea if this was 200 years in the past, or 200 years in the future, or in the present. I could believe the slums enough, that looked like as I said, your typical Latin American slum. But then you have the garish, over-the-top technological world where everyone dresses in every color of the rainbow? I mean I guess if that's the fashion. It was like Tron and 2001 had a baby, but they took out all the acid-trips. The customs and costumes I can get over, but it was still sore on the eyes.
Yeah, blame the writer.
She didn't bother to get too deep into things she couldn't eat or wear and still thinks she didn't ripoff Battle Royale.
My biggest gripes are that these kids don't even know each other, yet they still have compassion for one another, and also that the rules pertaining to The Hunger Games are changed quite often, which is unsettling. I know it is all for entertainment, but the entire idea is survival of the fittest until there's only one.
Yea...no, not much at all in the books. There's supposed to be this intense paranoia throughout, where she just barely trusts Peeta and Rue, barely.
Things got lost in translation, because the director sucks.
In The Hunger Games, you get to know Katniss, Peeta, and Rue. I'm damn impressed if you know anyone else's name of the 24 if you went into this movie cold like I did. I understand not being able to detail every single character and flesh them out and give them a purpose, but it was just all so brief.
Yea, that's half the director, half the book's writer.
The director approached the movie so simply and just didn't use any kind of cinematic language to get info across. I mean look at how much information the Bourne series could get across in a hurry.
And like I said...if you can't eat it or wear it, it/he/she probably didn't get explained too well in the book.
I didn't mean for it to come off as thinking it was atrocious. I never meant for it to seem like that. I was just hugely disappointed. The Walking Dead can show a zombie getting his brains bashed in, I'd like to at least see a little violence out of this.
And I don't mean to take anything away from the book series at all. I'm sure it's much better presented and much more graphic than the film was, but that's all I'm working with here. Call me naive, but that's all I've got to bring to the table.
I can accept the level of violence they showed in the movie...I mean I get it. And look how little violence you actually saw with Rue, that still meant something. No the problem wasn't the violence, it was the terrible direction, editing and storytelling that made it a stack of random kids getting got in the beginning, then a couple cannons, the end.
Dude really had no clue how to direct this movie at all.
- 24,717
- 436
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2006
Kev, about those two scenes with Beat Takeshi. Completely unexplainable.
From watching some Japanese cinema, I've noticed that films get more convoluted towards the end and things that you don't expect to happen, kind of just do. Like dude getting filled with bullets and getting up to answer the phone.
From watching some Japanese cinema, I've noticed that films get more convoluted towards the end and things that you don't expect to happen, kind of just do. Like dude getting filled with bullets and getting up to answer the phone.
- 21,800
- 3,553
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
Now for me...the first 15 minutes of the Hunger Games were almost perfect. A part of it was me not realizing how hyped I was for the movie until it started and just sort of being amazed at this rural There Will Be Blood town being painted in front of me. Because mind you...Suzanne Collins, the writer, kinda sucks. Kinda didn't put too much thought into a lot of things and hid it by just not talking about them or brushing over the details or just having Katniss go to sleep, or eat a meal and obsess over every bite. But that's the book...lemme try and keep this on the movie.
And as I say that...in the book, Prim wasn't really a character. More like a symbolic motivation. A human Livestrong bracelet. But in the movie, they really made her flesh and blood. They got across so much about the way they live, through her. More than Jennifer Lawrence did.
And mind you, I really liked it when I heard she was casted, good for them, she can act. And then reading the books, I loved the idea of it, because I saw Winter's Bone and this is that same strong, well deserved Oscar nominated, character that she played, so there should be no worries. But seeing this movie...seeing District 12 actually rendered as a real place of hardship...and even seeing District 11, I get it...Jennifer Lawrence was the wrong person for this. And I hear that people are saying she's too fat to play the role. That's not fair, but I get that. And she's not fat, but for once they actually needed an emaciated actress for the role. Prim gets so much across about what it's like to live there in minutes, but Katniss...Katniss looks like she eats good and the fact that this film is allergic to any type of sensible flashback and can't bother to ever pick the right perspective in any moment, says she needed to look that way.
You have a big story to tell...tell it...or make it small and personal and only through her eyes...like the book...sure...but don't pick both. Hell, this movie picked neither. There's a lack of nuance in this film that's just blatant trolling, because the least bit of effort would've given it so much more depth or just clarity on what the hell you're trying to say. I'll explain that in a second.
Before all that, I can't express how well the 3 (kinda 4) real actors did in this movie. Woody Harrelson wasn't what I pictured in the book, but did a great job. I barely even recognized Elizabeth Banks but she killed every scene too. Effie was a pretty flat character in the book, but she breathed life into it. And then Stanley Tucci...perfect. Caesar's interesting in the book, even though Collins does that trick where she kinda sorta describes dialogue without writing it or being descriptive enough.
Those banners with his faces behind him, though.
They each brought something special to the role, better than they were written. And then Donald Sutherland was really good in a role that didn't really exist in the first book...and the little twist at the end was a nice touch. All of them worked.
Outside of them, that guy they got for Cato (big baddie) was well casted and I loved Prim, liked Rue, Foxface (the ginger), that blonde chick who got stung made me hate her in short time, the chick with knives...all did good enough. Gale and Peeta were OK and Jennifer Lawrence owned a couple scenes...and that fire was well done...gamemaker central too...
I think those are all the nice things I have left to say about the movie.
Now let's get into the budget, and by extension the studio. Budget shouldn't mean that much, because look at District 9 and even Chronicle (even though the cgi wasn't too great). But I accept that $80 million for a movie like this is about half what they should've spent. Why go there? All Lionsgate makes is crappy horror movies and just bad movies for people who like bad movies. How thirsty studios are to make books with big followings...whatever. Collins could probably care less where or for how much it was made, long as she gets paid. It is what it is...what if Chronicle had double the budget? That shouldn't affect the quality of the movie this much.
Why did they shoot it like The Bourne Supremacy? Not even...that movie had nuance. The DISTANCE of the camera...it feels like every shot is the same distance from the face...there's no nuance or rhythm to it, and that makes the movie feel small, makes the arena feel small, makes the games feel short, dulls all the emotions and acting and action. You shouldn't notice that. In the director's commentary of this movie called George Washington, the guy says you gotta pull tricks sometimes to tell your story...when you're working with non-actors, you give them less to say to hide that. Well when you've got a director who can't direct the movie he's been hired for, he shakes the camera around, sticks it way too close to everyone's face and just lets the actors freestyle it. There's no composition or mastershots that work anywhere. And then I find out the dude hasn't made a movie in a decade...
That explains why this movie, except for the cgi dogs, looks like it was made in 1998.
But besides how the movie was made technically...just the storytelling is bad. What matters is the flashbacks...two incredibly important ones...one of Katniss' dad blowing up in the coal mine and the other maybe a week after that of a an 11 year old Katniss starving, looking for food in the streets for her sister and mother, ready to die when Peeta throws her bread that he burnt on purpose so he could be allowed to 'throw it away.' These two moments are vital, they open the world up and the characters up in a way that nothing inside of the games could. They're both handled so terribly it's disgusting.
The coal mine...they decide not to show it like a flashback dream during one of the however many times she goes to sleep in the arena. No, they randomly show it while she's in a trackerjacker hallucination where I guarantee you anyone who didn't read the book just thought it was her going crazy or not that big a deal. I mean they just show him in an elevator, random explosion and now half their house gets blown up? What? It'd only cost a couple minutes and vision or some kind of real (modern) understanding of storytelling, to just try and make this a moment. Nope. But that was fine, that can be what it was, because as long as you stick the other one, you're fine...
How do you +%## that up? They only use two flashbacks in the book...it's not like Game of Thrones with a million callbacks or something. I almost laughed when I saw it. All they manage to show you is Jennifer Lawrence randomly laying down in the rain outside of Peeta's place like a creep..and it literally looks like it happened a week or 2 before the games, because they for damn sure look the same age as now (16) and not 11. Then Peeta comes out to feed the pigs and oh...there's another pig over there...lemme throw her some bread too. The end.
How do you +%## that up?
The story is that her dad dying was supposed to be a big deal. Somehow in vague (I don't like thinking things through--I can't write dialogue or talk in pictures--what do you mean I ripped off Battle Royale 'Suzanne Collins') wording Katniss watches her dad blow up in the coal mines and between that and what happens next, that's why she's the cold, kind of unlikeable person that she is. And when it happens her mom practically goes comatose. She's struck with grief and won't do anything...won't go to work, won't talk, won't move, won't take care of her two daughters, and really soon the food runs out and they're literally starving to death. Because in District 12, it's not even that uncommon...just something that happens. And there's no neighbors or friends to ask for handouts, because everyone is just barely surviving. (That's why Katniss, illegally, sneaks out of the electric fences the cop dudes in white forget to turn on and hunts to trade or feed her family...but at 16, now when she was 11) So they reach the point where if she doesn't find something quick, they're gonna find bodies in her home in a day or 2, so she goes out in the rain looking/begging everywhere, finally gives up and gives in to how weak she feels and lays there ready to die, when Peeta sees her...burns bread on purpose (because even the bakers don't have enough food in District 12 and have to live off whatever goes stale) and goes out and throws a burnt loaf to her. And that gave her hope and saved her and her sister's lives, but she never had the nerve to talk to him about it until now that they're in this situation. And suddenly there's this real, strong connection with this person who might be trying to kill her soon.
It would've taken a few short minutes to just try to get that across...but no.
Act like that isn't more important than most of the whatever they showed.
I mean the letdowns were early and often. Woody Harrellson and Elizabeth Banks owned every scene they were in, even though there wasn't enough of them and they completely left Woody in the sticks when it came to sponsors and parachutes. It was so simple to solve too, explain how inflated the price of sending anything into the arena is and that 'sponsors' meant as much as just getting the richer people in the Capitol to love your character on this Big Brother type show and basically vote to help you stay on the show. The book has something (only one thing) well thought out and meaningful to say about reality television and that need to control your persona to appeal to and manipulate the audience...none of that gets across...it literally just sounds like Haymitch passed around a collection plate and instantly got them whatever they needed.
And the parachutes, not at all what I imagined. What if I told you that every time a person dies in the arena, the cannon is supposed to go off instantly. And then a hovercraft (like the one from the beginning of the movie) is supposed to de-cloak or appear outta nowhere and grapple the body up. Even grapple a few times if the body is in pieces. Every time. Apparently that would've cost too much, so they just didn't do it. But even Doctor Who could fake that on a TV budget. That makes the reality of the situation so much more intense and serious and just cinematic. If you kill someone, people will have an idea where you are soon, so run. Instead the parachutes, for some reason have a chime that lets you and anyone in earshot know that it and you are there. Really? And the speed that the parachutes come to Katniss' aid undercuts the tension so badly.
The worst part about this movie is the fact that at no point whatsoever do you ever ever ever fear for Katniss' life. I get it that we know she's gonna make it, but nothing says she's gonna get out in one piece. And what about Peeta? What about all the kids who aren't the Careers. Maybe for the first few minutes you feel any kind of fear, but then what? It just feels like she's hiking around, having an OK time and climbing trees. Are we supposed to worry about her with the fire? Sure. But right after she runs into the Careers, climbs a tree and then say 'welp, let's just go to sleep right here.' Is the girl with the knives supposed to be scary? Cuz 2 seconds later Thresh guts her and says 'hey...I was watching everything that happened back home on my TV, so I'm all caught up...you can go Katniss.' Were the dogs who get made up outta nowhere and just send them to the roof supposed to be scary? Cato who looks half dead when they find him?
The Hunger Games are supposed to be this constant state of paranoia and thirst and loneliness and fear, but the director has no idea what nuance is at all. He just stuck them out there and said yea ok, just walk over there...look around...ok just sit in that tree real quick...ok run run, let's go. That Mike D'antoni school of direction. It's so disappointing.
I mean let's take the plan at the Cornucopia for instance. She joins up with Rue (...and who doesn't love Rue?) says hey let's trick them into going over there and mess with their stuff, cuz that sounds like a plan. But we're supposed to understand how ridiculously hungry and thirsty you can get in the arena by now. It's supposed to be ingrained in every scene that dying of thirst or starving is a reality, and the careers don't know how to hunt or find food, they've just been training on how to kill. We were supposed to know by now that the Cornucopia was stacked with food and that they've been eating good. So this masterplan is a big one...you get rid of the food and suddenly you don't need to be bigger or stronger or roll deep like them. You just need to hide and get food for yourself. That levels the playing field. But nope...none of that. And then, they don't even manage to make the place look like anything special at all. The Cornucopia sucks...that's it? That looks like a Raiders tailgate...How do you make an open field look so ugly and worthless? The Real World/Road Rules Challenge has better production value. Lost's forest>> And the landmines...it just looks like some stupid @*! gopher holes. And they don't bother to have a 60 second show-me that explains that the kid left guarding the food, was the one who moved the landmines and that's the only reason they kept him alive...because of that AMC budget we get no info, so who knows where the bombs even came from.
Then the apples dropping looks straight out of Walker, Texas Ranger.
And how shoddy the direction was, it looked to me like Katniss was plain as day standing right in front of the Careers and no one noticed her.
But I'll admit, they did really well with the Rue scene, but that scene writes, acts and directs itself.
I can't tell you how disappointed I was with Thresh though. The did dude so dirty. Just bad blocking, directing, editing, storytelling, everything. The way we saw it, the girl with knives attacks her, almost kills her, Thresh kills knives girl, then tells Katniss she can dip...in the book most of that's the same, except while he's got knives girl she's screaming for Cato, because we were supposed to understand that she and him are from the same District, so that whole 2 people can win thing, only applied to those two beasts and the District 12 kids. And Cato is screaming her name from the woods getting closer, and after Thresh kills her Katniss tells him what she did for Rue, all the while Cato is running towards them. Thresh says you get 1 pass and we're even half because he cared about Rue (everyone now would care more about the other person from their District since they could've both went home) and half because he knows Katniss is a small fish, the big game is coming. So in the background of her running is this Battle Royale of the 2 strongest guys in the game. That's why Cato looks half dead when they find him on the roof. But of course, the director %%+** that completely.
Just the Careers in general. they shortchanged the training so bad. and not even in length...they didn't much explain anyone. How do you shrink 22 people trying to kill you into, 1 guy, a couple **+$!$% and a bunch of redshirts? The Districts...at least make an effort to try and keep track of who's still alive...at least, no? couldn't change anything? we didn't bother introducing them so why bring it up now? cool cool cool ...The Training...
+%## outta here. You know when someone lets you mess with a piano or drums or w/e and you realize just how badly you're never gonna be worth anything at it. That's all the training montage was. Uncreative storytelling, simple scenes that only have one dumb thing to say. The cgi at the chariot scene
That's Spartacus first episode ever bad. The fire dresses were important because blah blah they didn't have time, whatever. I almost forgot the trackerjackers...whatever, I just looked at how much I typed...I don't even care anymore. They shoulda been bigger and had more of an effect? Sure, why not. And that girl who got killed by Katniss, the campfire girl...If i'm not mistaken, she was only half dead and Peeta went back and killed her...that would've at least gave you a shot at thinking OK, he's with them. But nope...then they change the perspective to basically have him wink at her like, hey it's cool. like cmon man...you're not even trying. [insert other random stuff I didn't enjoy]
Oh...ok yeah...Cinna. Lenny Kravitz. Lenny did fine, but that's not good enough. *puts on Hogwart's hat* In the book he's sooooo much better. Yeah, whatever...why did I get suckered into writing all this? But yeah, Cinna's on Haymitch's level in the book. These...surrogate fathers Katniss is collecting. He's supposed to be the window that bridges the Capitol people with the District people and explains their %$%+%+ up lifestyles, perspectives and priorities. He explains how such decadent, dignified people could enjoy something so ugly and terrible. I thought they were gonna do some really profound things with him in the next books, but nah, they don't do much...except for a really really strong scene in the next movie. Unless they mess that up too. Lenny was fine, but he didn't make that lasting impression he needed to. And wasn't given much of anything to say or do.
Like Gale...and Peeta. I laughed my @*! off when I saw him by the river...just as stupid looking as it read it in the book.
I'm done. I'm tired of typing...it's just not a well done film. There's no nuance and so many oppurtunities lost. The action isn't well directed, the tone isn't consistent, the writing isn't much good, the acting feels like the director didn't give them any real direction and just thought, let's get this over with, and the first 15 minutes promised a movie that never showed up.
7/10
And as I say that...in the book, Prim wasn't really a character. More like a symbolic motivation. A human Livestrong bracelet. But in the movie, they really made her flesh and blood. They got across so much about the way they live, through her. More than Jennifer Lawrence did.
And mind you, I really liked it when I heard she was casted, good for them, she can act. And then reading the books, I loved the idea of it, because I saw Winter's Bone and this is that same strong, well deserved Oscar nominated, character that she played, so there should be no worries. But seeing this movie...seeing District 12 actually rendered as a real place of hardship...and even seeing District 11, I get it...Jennifer Lawrence was the wrong person for this. And I hear that people are saying she's too fat to play the role. That's not fair, but I get that. And she's not fat, but for once they actually needed an emaciated actress for the role. Prim gets so much across about what it's like to live there in minutes, but Katniss...Katniss looks like she eats good and the fact that this film is allergic to any type of sensible flashback and can't bother to ever pick the right perspective in any moment, says she needed to look that way.
You have a big story to tell...tell it...or make it small and personal and only through her eyes...like the book...sure...but don't pick both. Hell, this movie picked neither. There's a lack of nuance in this film that's just blatant trolling, because the least bit of effort would've given it so much more depth or just clarity on what the hell you're trying to say. I'll explain that in a second.
Before all that, I can't express how well the 3 (kinda 4) real actors did in this movie. Woody Harrelson wasn't what I pictured in the book, but did a great job. I barely even recognized Elizabeth Banks but she killed every scene too. Effie was a pretty flat character in the book, but she breathed life into it. And then Stanley Tucci...perfect. Caesar's interesting in the book, even though Collins does that trick where she kinda sorta describes dialogue without writing it or being descriptive enough.
Outside of them, that guy they got for Cato (big baddie) was well casted and I loved Prim, liked Rue, Foxface (the ginger), that blonde chick who got stung made me hate her in short time, the chick with knives...all did good enough. Gale and Peeta were OK and Jennifer Lawrence owned a couple scenes...and that fire was well done...gamemaker central too...
I think those are all the nice things I have left to say about the movie.
Now let's get into the budget, and by extension the studio. Budget shouldn't mean that much, because look at District 9 and even Chronicle (even though the cgi wasn't too great). But I accept that $80 million for a movie like this is about half what they should've spent. Why go there? All Lionsgate makes is crappy horror movies and just bad movies for people who like bad movies. How thirsty studios are to make books with big followings...whatever. Collins could probably care less where or for how much it was made, long as she gets paid. It is what it is...what if Chronicle had double the budget? That shouldn't affect the quality of the movie this much.
Why did they shoot it like The Bourne Supremacy? Not even...that movie had nuance. The DISTANCE of the camera...it feels like every shot is the same distance from the face...there's no nuance or rhythm to it, and that makes the movie feel small, makes the arena feel small, makes the games feel short, dulls all the emotions and acting and action. You shouldn't notice that. In the director's commentary of this movie called George Washington, the guy says you gotta pull tricks sometimes to tell your story...when you're working with non-actors, you give them less to say to hide that. Well when you've got a director who can't direct the movie he's been hired for, he shakes the camera around, sticks it way too close to everyone's face and just lets the actors freestyle it. There's no composition or mastershots that work anywhere. And then I find out the dude hasn't made a movie in a decade...
That explains why this movie, except for the cgi dogs, looks like it was made in 1998.
But besides how the movie was made technically...just the storytelling is bad. What matters is the flashbacks...two incredibly important ones...one of Katniss' dad blowing up in the coal mine and the other maybe a week after that of a an 11 year old Katniss starving, looking for food in the streets for her sister and mother, ready to die when Peeta throws her bread that he burnt on purpose so he could be allowed to 'throw it away.' These two moments are vital, they open the world up and the characters up in a way that nothing inside of the games could. They're both handled so terribly it's disgusting.
The coal mine...they decide not to show it like a flashback dream during one of the however many times she goes to sleep in the arena. No, they randomly show it while she's in a trackerjacker hallucination where I guarantee you anyone who didn't read the book just thought it was her going crazy or not that big a deal. I mean they just show him in an elevator, random explosion and now half their house gets blown up? What? It'd only cost a couple minutes and vision or some kind of real (modern) understanding of storytelling, to just try and make this a moment. Nope. But that was fine, that can be what it was, because as long as you stick the other one, you're fine...
How do you +%## that up? They only use two flashbacks in the book...it's not like Game of Thrones with a million callbacks or something. I almost laughed when I saw it. All they manage to show you is Jennifer Lawrence randomly laying down in the rain outside of Peeta's place like a creep..and it literally looks like it happened a week or 2 before the games, because they for damn sure look the same age as now (16) and not 11. Then Peeta comes out to feed the pigs and oh...there's another pig over there...lemme throw her some bread too. The end.
The story is that her dad dying was supposed to be a big deal. Somehow in vague (I don't like thinking things through--I can't write dialogue or talk in pictures--what do you mean I ripped off Battle Royale 'Suzanne Collins') wording Katniss watches her dad blow up in the coal mines and between that and what happens next, that's why she's the cold, kind of unlikeable person that she is. And when it happens her mom practically goes comatose. She's struck with grief and won't do anything...won't go to work, won't talk, won't move, won't take care of her two daughters, and really soon the food runs out and they're literally starving to death. Because in District 12, it's not even that uncommon...just something that happens. And there's no neighbors or friends to ask for handouts, because everyone is just barely surviving. (That's why Katniss, illegally, sneaks out of the electric fences the cop dudes in white forget to turn on and hunts to trade or feed her family...but at 16, now when she was 11) So they reach the point where if she doesn't find something quick, they're gonna find bodies in her home in a day or 2, so she goes out in the rain looking/begging everywhere, finally gives up and gives in to how weak she feels and lays there ready to die, when Peeta sees her...burns bread on purpose (because even the bakers don't have enough food in District 12 and have to live off whatever goes stale) and goes out and throws a burnt loaf to her. And that gave her hope and saved her and her sister's lives, but she never had the nerve to talk to him about it until now that they're in this situation. And suddenly there's this real, strong connection with this person who might be trying to kill her soon.
It would've taken a few short minutes to just try to get that across...but no.
Act like that isn't more important than most of the whatever they showed.
I mean the letdowns were early and often. Woody Harrellson and Elizabeth Banks owned every scene they were in, even though there wasn't enough of them and they completely left Woody in the sticks when it came to sponsors and parachutes. It was so simple to solve too, explain how inflated the price of sending anything into the arena is and that 'sponsors' meant as much as just getting the richer people in the Capitol to love your character on this Big Brother type show and basically vote to help you stay on the show. The book has something (only one thing) well thought out and meaningful to say about reality television and that need to control your persona to appeal to and manipulate the audience...none of that gets across...it literally just sounds like Haymitch passed around a collection plate and instantly got them whatever they needed.
And the parachutes, not at all what I imagined. What if I told you that every time a person dies in the arena, the cannon is supposed to go off instantly. And then a hovercraft (like the one from the beginning of the movie) is supposed to de-cloak or appear outta nowhere and grapple the body up. Even grapple a few times if the body is in pieces. Every time. Apparently that would've cost too much, so they just didn't do it. But even Doctor Who could fake that on a TV budget. That makes the reality of the situation so much more intense and serious and just cinematic. If you kill someone, people will have an idea where you are soon, so run. Instead the parachutes, for some reason have a chime that lets you and anyone in earshot know that it and you are there. Really? And the speed that the parachutes come to Katniss' aid undercuts the tension so badly.
The worst part about this movie is the fact that at no point whatsoever do you ever ever ever fear for Katniss' life. I get it that we know she's gonna make it, but nothing says she's gonna get out in one piece. And what about Peeta? What about all the kids who aren't the Careers. Maybe for the first few minutes you feel any kind of fear, but then what? It just feels like she's hiking around, having an OK time and climbing trees. Are we supposed to worry about her with the fire? Sure. But right after she runs into the Careers, climbs a tree and then say 'welp, let's just go to sleep right here.' Is the girl with the knives supposed to be scary? Cuz 2 seconds later Thresh guts her and says 'hey...I was watching everything that happened back home on my TV, so I'm all caught up...you can go Katniss.' Were the dogs who get made up outta nowhere and just send them to the roof supposed to be scary? Cato who looks half dead when they find him?
The Hunger Games are supposed to be this constant state of paranoia and thirst and loneliness and fear, but the director has no idea what nuance is at all. He just stuck them out there and said yea ok, just walk over there...look around...ok just sit in that tree real quick...ok run run, let's go. That Mike D'antoni school of direction. It's so disappointing.
I mean let's take the plan at the Cornucopia for instance. She joins up with Rue (...and who doesn't love Rue?) says hey let's trick them into going over there and mess with their stuff, cuz that sounds like a plan. But we're supposed to understand how ridiculously hungry and thirsty you can get in the arena by now. It's supposed to be ingrained in every scene that dying of thirst or starving is a reality, and the careers don't know how to hunt or find food, they've just been training on how to kill. We were supposed to know by now that the Cornucopia was stacked with food and that they've been eating good. So this masterplan is a big one...you get rid of the food and suddenly you don't need to be bigger or stronger or roll deep like them. You just need to hide and get food for yourself. That levels the playing field. But nope...none of that. And then, they don't even manage to make the place look like anything special at all. The Cornucopia sucks...that's it? That looks like a Raiders tailgate...How do you make an open field look so ugly and worthless? The Real World/Road Rules Challenge has better production value. Lost's forest>> And the landmines...it just looks like some stupid @*! gopher holes. And they don't bother to have a 60 second show-me that explains that the kid left guarding the food, was the one who moved the landmines and that's the only reason they kept him alive...because of that AMC budget we get no info, so who knows where the bombs even came from.
Then the apples dropping looks straight out of Walker, Texas Ranger.
And how shoddy the direction was, it looked to me like Katniss was plain as day standing right in front of the Careers and no one noticed her.
But I'll admit, they did really well with the Rue scene, but that scene writes, acts and directs itself.
I can't tell you how disappointed I was with Thresh though. The did dude so dirty. Just bad blocking, directing, editing, storytelling, everything. The way we saw it, the girl with knives attacks her, almost kills her, Thresh kills knives girl, then tells Katniss she can dip...in the book most of that's the same, except while he's got knives girl she's screaming for Cato, because we were supposed to understand that she and him are from the same District, so that whole 2 people can win thing, only applied to those two beasts and the District 12 kids. And Cato is screaming her name from the woods getting closer, and after Thresh kills her Katniss tells him what she did for Rue, all the while Cato is running towards them. Thresh says you get 1 pass and we're even half because he cared about Rue (everyone now would care more about the other person from their District since they could've both went home) and half because he knows Katniss is a small fish, the big game is coming. So in the background of her running is this Battle Royale of the 2 strongest guys in the game. That's why Cato looks half dead when they find him on the roof. But of course, the director %%+** that completely.
Just the Careers in general. they shortchanged the training so bad. and not even in length...they didn't much explain anyone. How do you shrink 22 people trying to kill you into, 1 guy, a couple **+$!$% and a bunch of redshirts? The Districts...at least make an effort to try and keep track of who's still alive...at least, no? couldn't change anything? we didn't bother introducing them so why bring it up now? cool cool cool ...The Training...
Oh...ok yeah...Cinna. Lenny Kravitz. Lenny did fine, but that's not good enough. *puts on Hogwart's hat* In the book he's sooooo much better. Yeah, whatever...why did I get suckered into writing all this? But yeah, Cinna's on Haymitch's level in the book. These...surrogate fathers Katniss is collecting. He's supposed to be the window that bridges the Capitol people with the District people and explains their %$%+%+ up lifestyles, perspectives and priorities. He explains how such decadent, dignified people could enjoy something so ugly and terrible. I thought they were gonna do some really profound things with him in the next books, but nah, they don't do much...except for a really really strong scene in the next movie. Unless they mess that up too. Lenny was fine, but he didn't make that lasting impression he needed to. And wasn't given much of anything to say or do.
Like Gale...and Peeta. I laughed my @*! off when I saw him by the river...just as stupid looking as it read it in the book.
I'm done. I'm tired of typing...it's just not a well done film. There's no nuance and so many oppurtunities lost. The action isn't well directed, the tone isn't consistent, the writing isn't much good, the acting feels like the director didn't give them any real direction and just thought, let's get this over with, and the first 15 minutes promised a movie that never showed up.
7/10
