- 74,740
- 24,136
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
Blood Type coming through as always
Oh I'm sorry, Did I Break Your Conversation........Well Allow Me A Movie Thread by S&T
darthska
Staff member
- 46,107
- 30,307
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
I'll respond as soon as I read all that, too.
Expect a response by Thanksgiving; Christmas at the latest.
Expect a response by Thanksgiving; Christmas at the latest.
big j 33
Supporter
- 35,914
- 16,635
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
Not a well done film but you gave it a 7/10?
I don't think you give the audience enough credit, MrO. I picked up on a lot of the things you thought they didn't flesh out enough. Could I have understood the flashbacks better if I read the book? Yeah, absolutely. But I knew exactly what they were trying to show, with her dad, the relationship with Peeta, how it affected the mom, etc. If you read the books, you'll be coming from a very different place.. certain parts of your thesis I agree with on a technical level, but other areas the movie did a good enough job. Hopefully the next one will have a much bigger budget.
I don't even know what JA is complaining about (as usual), you have to just accept certain things about the movie. The setting, the costumes? Just accept it. Saying Harrelson and Kravitz were throwaway characters? How so? They had their purpose in the movie and story.When you start nitpicking the most basic elements of the story that shouldbe just accepted or understood, I can't imagine you'll like the movie. Same with what I said for MrO, I picked up on a lot of the basics of the world and story from the first few minutes.. I didn't need them to spoon feed it to me. I understand if you're comparing it to Battle Royale and you hoped Hunger Games would have done X, Y, Z, differently, but just because they didn't.. doesn't automatically make it the wrong choice. You and Mr O are right in some aspects, and I said the same thing.. they could have done a few things differently or better and it would make a big difference in the overall quality, but they didn't.
It's the same when CP was annoyed that the Sopranos didn't give him a epic and bloody final showdown, or that this didn't happen or that didn't happen. I completely understand if we as fans or consumers wanted something different than the movie/tv show gave us, but I'm not one to make that big of a stink over it. It seems really easy to dislike any movie/show if they didn't do EVERYTHING we wanted or expected. I could go through my top 10 movies or shows and think of ways to improve it if we got a few extra jokes, some more action, a little more backstory, etc., but that seems a bit unnecessary and excessive.
Kudos on the write-ups. Could have shortened it a bit, though
I don't think you give the audience enough credit, MrO. I picked up on a lot of the things you thought they didn't flesh out enough. Could I have understood the flashbacks better if I read the book? Yeah, absolutely. But I knew exactly what they were trying to show, with her dad, the relationship with Peeta, how it affected the mom, etc. If you read the books, you'll be coming from a very different place.. certain parts of your thesis I agree with on a technical level, but other areas the movie did a good enough job. Hopefully the next one will have a much bigger budget.
I don't even know what JA is complaining about (as usual), you have to just accept certain things about the movie. The setting, the costumes? Just accept it. Saying Harrelson and Kravitz were throwaway characters? How so? They had their purpose in the movie and story.When you start nitpicking the most basic elements of the story that shouldbe just accepted or understood, I can't imagine you'll like the movie. Same with what I said for MrO, I picked up on a lot of the basics of the world and story from the first few minutes.. I didn't need them to spoon feed it to me. I understand if you're comparing it to Battle Royale and you hoped Hunger Games would have done X, Y, Z, differently, but just because they didn't.. doesn't automatically make it the wrong choice. You and Mr O are right in some aspects, and I said the same thing.. they could have done a few things differently or better and it would make a big difference in the overall quality, but they didn't.
It's the same when CP was annoyed that the Sopranos didn't give him a epic and bloody final showdown, or that this didn't happen or that didn't happen. I completely understand if we as fans or consumers wanted something different than the movie/tv show gave us, but I'm not one to make that big of a stink over it. It seems really easy to dislike any movie/show if they didn't do EVERYTHING we wanted or expected. I could go through my top 10 movies or shows and think of ways to improve it if we got a few extra jokes, some more action, a little more backstory, etc., but that seems a bit unnecessary and excessive.
Kudos on the write-ups. Could have shortened it a bit, though
darthska
Staff member
- 46,107
- 30,307
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
Big J 33:
Not a well done film but you gave it a 7/10?
I'm saying.Big J 33:
Kudos on the write-ups. Could have shortened it a bit, though
The sun is kind of warm.
- 10,371
- 653
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
I was afraid to respond to JA about Battle Royale because I expected to get caught up in a wall of text, but that? I'm glad I haven't actually seen The Hunger Games movie yet, in case I might want to reply.
Big J just hit what I was coming in to respond with. These books and now movies were not made for us. They don't give a #!%! what WE think, they were intended for kids basically. Same as Twilight, same as Harry Potter. I remember being pissed off that I had to sit thru 8 freaking movies for Harry and big nose to get it on. I knew it was coming, we all knew it was coming, why didn't they simply get me there quicker? Wasn't made for me.
I would LOVE to see a truer version of Vampire/Warewolf worlds without the pale white chick and the emo diamond boy, and I'd def love to see the wolf keep his !**#++!*****% shirt on for back to back scenes, don't matter, wasn't for me.
You want a movie that throws 24 people in a forrest and gets brutal? Cool, maybe someday we'll all make one, but that ain't this one. It's for kids. You guys are asking why aren't these KIDS aren't brutal murderers? A week before some of them were playin with dolls, that's why. They are forced into these games, District 1 and 2 kids maybe want to participate, but the rest are chosen out of a damn hat, can't just hit that light switch that says auto killer now.
JA, you missed many many things. The short film they show shows that the world as we know today effectively ended like 75 years ago during some big war. Now everything is separated into districts. And like anywhere else, poor districts that work hard, rich districts that do nothing. You have to pick up on that.
Many layers were left undone I am sure. But they have to be. This isn't Game of Thrones or Walking Dead where you have 12 HOURS of material you can use and get to. They got 2, and an extra 20 minutes. Stuff gets skipped. I got the scene with the bread, but had no way of knowing as MrO says that she was ready to die. How could they show that to me, without her giving the voice over "I was ready to die at that moment......." Or holding a gun to her temple? I just thought she was cold and lazy in the rain. So what COULD he have done to properly show me what the book says and not take up 10 more minutes? He gave me enough to see something is to this moment, something matters here, now see how it plays out.
Sutherland. He OBVIOUSLY has something big coming in the next movie(s). There's going to be a problem, and I suspect that is how Katniss gets so big. She ain't big from this movie (book) something more to her is coming. Just have to use your head to see that. District 11 went wild after Rue died, and Katniss honored her properly. They rioted like hell. Katniss must have some sort of power over the people and something more will come, you didn't pick up on that JA? Same as her boy back home, we're going to see yet another damn teenage love triangle, but that's what these books are meant for.
If any of you want to watch a ruthless game, look up the movie Gymkata.
I will be supremely impressed with anybody that has seen that movie. But that was 1980's lookin into how something like this movie could look. But this one, is for kids. Gymkata is one of the coolest ideas I can remember from way back when. Used to be on cable a long time ago, in fact I need to go IMDB that #++%# and refresh my memory of it. Never even seen a copy before. Don't even know anyone else that ever seen it.
There could have been more. Absolutely. But they had to capture the non book club, get their attention, and carry them thru to the next movies. I was sitting there after 2 hours, wondering, are they gonna end this before the games are finished? How can their be a second book, or a third, and be about Katniss?
Made no sense. Then I saw Sutherland at the end, and I suspect Kat may not be done with her bow and arrows just yet. So I think he did what he could with his 2 hours + an extra 20 minutes, but the story will truly start to unfold once the next movie comes out and he can explore more in depth what his opening salvo was intended for.
MrO read the book. JA compares this to Battle Royale, Big J and I haven't read a word and came in fresh minded. All 4 have diff views of what could, and should have happened. But this is only the beginning, not the resolution. If this was Walking Dead they could spend 5 episodes doing nothing but getting to know characters before getting to the meat and potatoes, can't do that in one 2 hour film. Not to the degree that you expect. They certainly rushed a bit showing you the world, and getting right to the drawing of the names. Had too. Waste time there, shorten the games, or cut the movie in the middle and make the games finish in the next one, which would have been stupid. Extend the training, shorten the games. Extend the games, extend the movie to 3 hours. There is a constraint there that you have to understand, and maybe the next movie starts to blow the doors open in terms of who you want to know more about and why. I'm sure the book is better, you hear more and see more what they went thru, how they felt, etc etc. Can't have that kind of detail in a movie. You are probably dead on in the way it was filmed and the pace and the nuance MrO, I do not doubt that you are, but his pace may pick up the more freedom he gains as the story unfolds.
I would LOVE to see a truer version of Vampire/Warewolf worlds without the pale white chick and the emo diamond boy, and I'd def love to see the wolf keep his !**#++!*****% shirt on for back to back scenes, don't matter, wasn't for me.
You want a movie that throws 24 people in a forrest and gets brutal? Cool, maybe someday we'll all make one, but that ain't this one. It's for kids. You guys are asking why aren't these KIDS aren't brutal murderers? A week before some of them were playin with dolls, that's why. They are forced into these games, District 1 and 2 kids maybe want to participate, but the rest are chosen out of a damn hat, can't just hit that light switch that says auto killer now.
JA, you missed many many things. The short film they show shows that the world as we know today effectively ended like 75 years ago during some big war. Now everything is separated into districts. And like anywhere else, poor districts that work hard, rich districts that do nothing. You have to pick up on that.
Many layers were left undone I am sure. But they have to be. This isn't Game of Thrones or Walking Dead where you have 12 HOURS of material you can use and get to. They got 2, and an extra 20 minutes. Stuff gets skipped. I got the scene with the bread, but had no way of knowing as MrO says that she was ready to die. How could they show that to me, without her giving the voice over "I was ready to die at that moment......." Or holding a gun to her temple? I just thought she was cold and lazy in the rain. So what COULD he have done to properly show me what the book says and not take up 10 more minutes? He gave me enough to see something is to this moment, something matters here, now see how it plays out.
Sutherland. He OBVIOUSLY has something big coming in the next movie(s). There's going to be a problem, and I suspect that is how Katniss gets so big. She ain't big from this movie (book) something more to her is coming. Just have to use your head to see that. District 11 went wild after Rue died, and Katniss honored her properly. They rioted like hell. Katniss must have some sort of power over the people and something more will come, you didn't pick up on that JA? Same as her boy back home, we're going to see yet another damn teenage love triangle, but that's what these books are meant for.
If any of you want to watch a ruthless game, look up the movie Gymkata.
There could have been more. Absolutely. But they had to capture the non book club, get their attention, and carry them thru to the next movies. I was sitting there after 2 hours, wondering, are they gonna end this before the games are finished? How can their be a second book, or a third, and be about Katniss?
MrO read the book. JA compares this to Battle Royale, Big J and I haven't read a word and came in fresh minded. All 4 have diff views of what could, and should have happened. But this is only the beginning, not the resolution. If this was Walking Dead they could spend 5 episodes doing nothing but getting to know characters before getting to the meat and potatoes, can't do that in one 2 hour film. Not to the degree that you expect. They certainly rushed a bit showing you the world, and getting right to the drawing of the names. Had too. Waste time there, shorten the games, or cut the movie in the middle and make the games finish in the next one, which would have been stupid. Extend the training, shorten the games. Extend the games, extend the movie to 3 hours. There is a constraint there that you have to understand, and maybe the next movie starts to blow the doors open in terms of who you want to know more about and why. I'm sure the book is better, you hear more and see more what they went thru, how they felt, etc etc. Can't have that kind of detail in a movie. You are probably dead on in the way it was filmed and the pace and the nuance MrO, I do not doubt that you are, but his pace may pick up the more freedom he gains as the story unfolds.
- 29,630
- 1,862
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
Damn a bad movie gets a 7?
That means I still gotta see it
That means I still gotta see it
darthska
Staff member
- 46,107
- 30,307
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
Busy right now, but there are MANY sociological constructs about Hunger that haven't been touched on. And just skimming through your dissertation, JA, you definitely missed all of what I saw.
Heirarchies, being entertained by the ruthlessness of adolescent competitions/pageants, dehumanization of competitors in all these reality competitions... so much.
Heirarchies, being entertained by the ruthlessness of adolescent competitions/pageants, dehumanization of competitors in all these reality competitions... so much.
- 338
- 10
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2011
Happy Gilmore takes it for me
- 953
- 56
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
Now you got me FEENING to see Hunger Games
Have you looked up Luther out fo BBC... Short TV show but it's just
Have you looked up Luther out fo BBC... Short TV show but it's just
- 21,800
- 3,553
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
Haha...that 7...I understand that I'm nitpicking over semantics and that at a really basic level, this is still a good enough story with some really nice moments.
I've seen all the Harry Potters, haven't read any of the books and I'm so incredibly disappointed in how low the bar was set for getting this story together. But even underneath that and my countless examples, I still accept that the idea and allegory underneath it all is still a good one. And enough of these actors do really well or good enough. And the story is still paced really well even if point after point isn't that well done, but that first 15 minutes...then Effie and Haymitch...then Caesar, the apple, the first battle, Cato, Rue, the girl with knives, Foxface, that 2nd twist with the berries and the point about faking it...the idea of this decadent society, oppressed outer Districts (the dichotomy of these 2 worlds and what more's asked of those outside the Capitol) the reality TV nature of the games (and that spark of uprising), the cruelty of the responsibility of these kids (they're the real parents of this society)...
I know that if I can separate my thoughts about the movie compared to the book, those were all good enough for a 7/10. The movie still aims for and accomplishes more than a really bad movie does. It's just what it doesn't do that gets on my nerves. It's so unambitious.
I get your feeling towards the film and what it's audience is. That's how I felt after reading the first book, until I realized by the end of the 3rd book...no...they never bother to get deeper into it, later, no matter how much free time they have. The same guy is coming back to direct the 2nd movie and that expected disappointment...damn.
and uh....Luther is the goods. Idris Elba rips apart every damn scene he's in.
It turned out so much heavier and ruthless than I ever thought the show could be.
but
I've seen all the Harry Potters, haven't read any of the books and I'm so incredibly disappointed in how low the bar was set for getting this story together. But even underneath that and my countless examples, I still accept that the idea and allegory underneath it all is still a good one. And enough of these actors do really well or good enough. And the story is still paced really well even if point after point isn't that well done, but that first 15 minutes...then Effie and Haymitch...then Caesar, the apple, the first battle, Cato, Rue, the girl with knives, Foxface, that 2nd twist with the berries and the point about faking it...the idea of this decadent society, oppressed outer Districts (the dichotomy of these 2 worlds and what more's asked of those outside the Capitol) the reality TV nature of the games (and that spark of uprising), the cruelty of the responsibility of these kids (they're the real parents of this society)...
I know that if I can separate my thoughts about the movie compared to the book, those were all good enough for a 7/10. The movie still aims for and accomplishes more than a really bad movie does. It's just what it doesn't do that gets on my nerves. It's so unambitious.
I get your feeling towards the film and what it's audience is. That's how I felt after reading the first book, until I realized by the end of the 3rd book...no...they never bother to get deeper into it, later, no matter how much free time they have. The same guy is coming back to direct the 2nd movie and that expected disappointment...damn.
and uh....Luther is the goods. Idris Elba rips apart every damn scene he's in.
It turned out so much heavier and ruthless than I ever thought the show could be.
I alluded to it earlier, but to me this is the Sutherland part of it all. You can just tell he leads to trouble later. This is about the rich keeping the masses down (broken down)
They act as Royalty looking down on these people, sending children in to kill themselves, FOR FOOD.
JA, Katniss isn't a pretty girl in a flaming dress, she is (I'm going to assume) the girl that is going to "Gladiate" the poor to rise up aginst the rich people in Alice and Wonderland clothes. I haven't read the books, yet I picked up these themes/elements that something more was coming, this is not just about a girl with a bow and arrow in the woods last kid standing, something else is in play. You saw in District 11, you saw it when weird beard and Sutherland were talking, you saw Sutherlands face at the end after she had won, that's not a happy dictator.
You typed a 3,000 word essay, and didn't touch on any of that.
Now, MrO is saying we may not get to that depth, and that does suck, we'll see where it all does end up, and if I am reading my tea leaves right, Caesar, Cato, I think there's on another name of that ilk, isn't there a "Rome" theme woven in here somehow? Rome fell, yes?
- 21,800
- 3,553
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
So yeah...more like a 4,000 word essay that got abandoned at 3,000. Unless you're talking to JA.
And yeah...the Roman theme is really pushed on hard...but more than that there's this constant theme of hunger and the basic source of life that bread is. That's why so much is named after bread and herbs. I mean the country is called Panem (bread in Latin).
The science fiction part is really ignored too. If you're expecting any type of explanation on the technology, the date, even the history, the machinations of any of the advanced things people can do in the Capitol...i got some waterfront in Iowa to sell you.
Yours was in the 10K range or so I'd say.
So Rome, uprising, bread (!!) and we have a theme for 2. Bread, that's craziness.
I'm sort of conflicted on reading all of the books, or just sitting back and waiting for all the movies to come out.
And by the way, while we're here, if this is what it's going to be like for Hunger Games, I can not +*+%*%! wait for the Avengers reviews, and The Dark Knight Rises reviews. My God that's going to be fun.
- 21,800
- 3,553
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
Sounds like you're in a happy place with the story...so don't read the books.
And...am I the only one who's not excited for Avengers?
I'll see it, yea, but I've only really liked 1 of the 5 movies they made. And kinda hated 2 of them.
...even with my dude Joss Whedon on the job...
Dark Knight Rises though.
And...am I the only one who's not excited for Avengers?
I'll see it, yea, but I've only really liked 1 of the 5 movies they made. And kinda hated 2 of them.
...even with my dude Joss Whedon on the job...
Dark Knight Rises though.
Bruh...
How can you.....I mean....this is.....
Those other movies put together mean nothing for this one movie. Those other movies were like preseason games man, and this is going to be the Finals. And honestly, you bein hard on them.
Iron Man was dope
Captain was eh, better than I expected
Thor was solid
Hulk with Norton was solid, but they struggle with the cgi Hulk stuff.
IM 2 got sold out, not the fault of the director or RDJ, it got sold out by the production company tryin to get paid. And even still, it gave us several solid performances. Rourke, the dude from Moon was awesome, ScarJo.
IM 3 is going to make up for 2, you'll see.
But Avengers, man that +%!% going to be crisp. You'll see.
big j 33
Supporter
- 35,914
- 16,635
- Joined
- May 31, 2006
For the longest time I thought it would be awful. Sell a lot opening weekend, but just be too thrown together. But I've come around and I'm expecting great things. Maybe the trailers did their jobs and convinced me, but I think I was just trying to temper my expectations so I wouldn't be disappointed. I loved Iron Man, liked Captain America, wouldn't rewatch Thor multiple times, and The Incredible Hulk was fine but I'm disappointed Norton won't be involved. But I really liked the whole Avengers storyline and bringing multiple characters together.Originally Posted by MrONegative
And...am I the only one who's not excited for Avengers?
I'll see it, yea, but I've only really liked 1 of the 5 movies they made. And kinda hated 2 of them.
...even with my dude Joss Whedon on the job...
Dark Knight Rises though.
Hopefully this is the summer for superhero movies. Dark Knight Rises, Avengers, and the new Spiderman (same as Avengers for me, thought it would suck, slowly changing my mind).
- 29,630
- 1,862
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2003
the avengers are going to be "meh"Originally Posted by MrONegative
Sounds like you're in a happy place with the story...so don't read the books.
And...am I the only one who's not excited for Avengers?
I'll see it, yea, but I've only really liked 1 of the 5 movies they made. And kinda hated 2 of them.
...even with my dude Joss Whedon on the job...
Dark Knight Rises though.
i can see you guys mad about it already. i go into those types of movies with the lowest possible expectations. that way im happy enough usually
New American Pie movie... Yay or nay?
- 21,800
- 3,553
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
I wrote in that Avengers thread
-I don't care about Iron Man anymore, because of how awful Iron Man 2 was. People act like the movie doesn't exist like Indiana Jones IV, but it does, admit it. And then the studio screwing it and Jon Favreau over...
-Hulk after they recast him again.......no stability, I can't see him meaning much to me with a 3rd film actor playing him in 9 years.
-I hated the Captain America movie. Really like the character but that movie has no soul or life to it. Good beginning, good ending, but it's dry and generic as hell. Red Skull and most of the action scenes just sorta happened. If you brought comic book/childhood baggage that made it amazing to you, good for you, but I didn't.
Thor I liked. I'm not in a hurry to ever watch it again and the Earth scenes (especially Portman and Dennings) annoyed the crap outta me, but it amazed me how perfect Thor and Loki were. And Idris my dude.
I've warmed up past, probably gonna wait a week or 2 to see it, to might as well check it out first weekend...that's probably my limit.
But one movie I'm really looking forward to...Cabin In The Woods.
I've been hyped for it since Joss started hyping it up like 5 years ago. *fingers crossed*
- 24,717
- 436
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2006
I'll admit when I first wrote up my first response, I was nitpicking at a lot of things. The costumes, setting and whatnot is forgiveable, and I actually did enjoy the first half of the film because it was fairly original. CP mentioned there being a short film that fills the viewer in on what lead up to The Hunger Games. How the hell is a normal moviegoer supposed to know to watch any of that? That's the responsibility of the filmmakers, and I never even heard of it until he mentioned it. Is that my fault? I'd think no, I'd think it's critical to the story, if it would have taken 10 more minutes at the beginning I wouldn't have minded, but no, we're left in the middle of a predicament with no explanation. It helps when you realize what kind of world you are in, like they show in Watchmen. +%!*%!*! I have to pick up on that. As a moviegoer I'm supposed to go out and watch a short movie so I can get the full details of what's going on? That's horse****. It's evident that the poor work harder and the rich just live as they will, but that whole short movie thing shouldn't be my fault for not seeing it.
I'll admit also that Woody and Lenny weren't necessarily throw-away characters, but to me they both felt a bit forced. I'm sure they had to do with the continuity of the books, and maybe they have more importance, but I wanted to see more. Flesh things out a little more. Same with Elizabeth Banks, she represented Katniss' district, can we at least flesh one of those characters out? Maybe Donald Sutherland's character? Maybe they would give us that in the future, but I'm not too intrigued to go see another one like this.
What ska was getting it, I understood most of it. I understood that the elite was basically a satirical look at reality television. Yeah the district kids were dehumanized, but so is the audience too even moreso, their sense of reality is skewed, but they are so flamboyant and naive to the rest of the world it makes me not care about them at all. I got that there were heirarchies, but why were they there? Politics? Economics? Tyrannicism? Species difference? Race difference? I have no idea, because the film doesn't care to explain that. That's a huge part of what I have issues with. In an action film, I don't want to be left in the dark. If it's a thriller or a suspense film I can deal with it, but these are questions that I'd like to have answered and not just be subjected to "accept it," just because this movie is directly catering to teenagers and fans of the book series. For some films it's acceptable because there aren't such deep under-lying issues like the separation of class for the entertainment of the elites. If I'm just supposed to sit back and have fun, that's fine, but if you want to have an intellectual tone on the film, they needed to do a better job on building the infrastructure of the backbone of society, which they didn't. They showed there were slums, and they showed there were garish, gaudy elite that live in excess. No explanation why.
I completely understand that the people of the slums are getting used for the entertainment of the elites, but when I can't tell the difference between the two other than where they live, it makes it hard to accept. People in the slums of Venezuela have had very few opportunities to get out of it because the re-distribution of wealth is so poor, and if you don't live in Caracas, have political or economic power, you can't move up. The gap in lifestyle is HUGE in The Hunger Games, and for some reason they pick the different districts to get their pigs to slaughter, and not randomly chosen elites. That's cool and all, but why? You're given the what, where, and who, but not really any why or when. Like I said earlier, who am I to guess when this takes place? George Lucas told us up front, it was in a different galaxy, in a different time. Even in a naive space movie, there was a struggle against the empire. The context is there, it isn't here. It's brutality for brutality's sake for the entertainment of others, but we never even really get the brutality either!
Everything I just wrote up? You can chalk it up to nitpicking and not having enough time to flesh everything out in one film. Fine. But that's on the director. Like I said, the context? The story itself? I can dig that, but what is presented in front of me? I can't dig that beyond saying it's an average film. It's no 80% on RT.
.
But what I had issue with was the editing and the second half of the film, mostly. The stuff with Primrose and Katniss? Fine with me. Jennifer Lawrence was great there, didn't mind that a bit. Stanley Tucci with hair? Awesome, enjoyed that too. But the meat of the film, the actual Hunger Games, that's where it lost me.
I'll admit also that Woody and Lenny weren't necessarily throw-away characters, but to me they both felt a bit forced. I'm sure they had to do with the continuity of the books, and maybe they have more importance, but I wanted to see more. Flesh things out a little more. Same with Elizabeth Banks, she represented Katniss' district, can we at least flesh one of those characters out? Maybe Donald Sutherland's character? Maybe they would give us that in the future, but I'm not too intrigued to go see another one like this.
What ska was getting it, I understood most of it. I understood that the elite was basically a satirical look at reality television. Yeah the district kids were dehumanized, but so is the audience too even moreso, their sense of reality is skewed, but they are so flamboyant and naive to the rest of the world it makes me not care about them at all. I got that there were heirarchies, but why were they there? Politics? Economics? Tyrannicism? Species difference? Race difference? I have no idea, because the film doesn't care to explain that. That's a huge part of what I have issues with. In an action film, I don't want to be left in the dark. If it's a thriller or a suspense film I can deal with it, but these are questions that I'd like to have answered and not just be subjected to "accept it," just because this movie is directly catering to teenagers and fans of the book series. For some films it's acceptable because there aren't such deep under-lying issues like the separation of class for the entertainment of the elites. If I'm just supposed to sit back and have fun, that's fine, but if you want to have an intellectual tone on the film, they needed to do a better job on building the infrastructure of the backbone of society, which they didn't. They showed there were slums, and they showed there were garish, gaudy elite that live in excess. No explanation why.
I completely understand that the people of the slums are getting used for the entertainment of the elites, but when I can't tell the difference between the two other than where they live, it makes it hard to accept. People in the slums of Venezuela have had very few opportunities to get out of it because the re-distribution of wealth is so poor, and if you don't live in Caracas, have political or economic power, you can't move up. The gap in lifestyle is HUGE in The Hunger Games, and for some reason they pick the different districts to get their pigs to slaughter, and not randomly chosen elites. That's cool and all, but why? You're given the what, where, and who, but not really any why or when. Like I said earlier, who am I to guess when this takes place? George Lucas told us up front, it was in a different galaxy, in a different time. Even in a naive space movie, there was a struggle against the empire. The context is there, it isn't here. It's brutality for brutality's sake for the entertainment of others, but we never even really get the brutality either!
Everything I just wrote up? You can chalk it up to nitpicking and not having enough time to flesh everything out in one film. Fine. But that's on the director. Like I said, the context? The story itself? I can dig that, but what is presented in front of me? I can't dig that beyond saying it's an average film. It's no 80% on RT.
But what I had issue with was the editing and the second half of the film, mostly. The stuff with Primrose and Katniss? Fine with me. Jennifer Lawrence was great there, didn't mind that a bit. Stanley Tucci with hair? Awesome, enjoyed that too. But the meat of the film, the actual Hunger Games, that's where it lost me.
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.
See, not reading the books, those seem like they could be touching moments. The coal mine scene was very sloppily done. I felt like it lasted five seconds, with no emotional baggage. Burning the bread on purpose so that Katniss could feed her family? Completely went over my head. As MrO said, it's like Katinss was just creeping on Peeta, and he threw her some bread. That's all I got from that. The flashbacks SEEM important in the books, but not knowing this going in, it's just throwaway scenes. Another throwaway aspect to the film is the sponsorship. They spend a good quarter of the film trying to portray these slum-kids in a different light so they could get sponsorships. How often does that actually help anyone? Once. Once. Half of the film for an element they used once. They could have showed other survivors trying so stay alive, have them get a sponsorship, but no, we just get a cannon boom whenever someone dies. I understand wanting to focus on Katniss, but it builds absolutely zero suspense during the film. If Katniss ain't on-screen, no one else is on-screen either. If you're going to make a film about survival in The Hunger Games, can we at least flesh out a couple of the other characters please? One or two? Nope, we're stuck with the teenage love-story between Peeta and Katinss. We also get Rue too, which was done great, but it makes it seem like it's a film about those three surviving, not twenty-four poor kids trying to survive. I'm sure the boy from District 7 had a real interesting story, but we don't get to hear it, because we're too busy worrying if Katinss will cuddle with and kiss Peeta.
The actual violence itself is terrible. I feel like I'm watching a pisspoor horror movie where the camera is left on a bungee cord and there's no real direction, it's just very nauseating to see. We see like half the field killed off in the first minute, as they explained it would, but all we see is shots of someone drawing back a sword, but we don't see the face of the guy drawing it back, we just see a close-up of the knife. We see a shrieking face of whoever is about to get killed. ALL of that? Poorly edited. Hated it. It could have been done so much better, but we didn't get that. You didn't have to show violence, but you could have shown something. Pull the camera back about 30 feet and show some of the action. The director might have been covering up the fact that he couldn't choreograph an action scene for *@*+. All the action is terrible because it's all so close to showing the characters faces that we can't even really see what exactly is going on. I hated it. That's a filmmaking choice, that has nothing to do with the story, it's on the director, it sucked. MrO said there was supposed to be a big fight between the two guys who seemed like they were the favorites, the black dude, and the white dude who survives at the end. We don't even see them tussle? Man, screw that. I know it's Katniss-centric, but dude come on, give us a little bit of suspense.
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.
See I didn't get that at all. I understood we were supposed to feel that. Food was scarce, things were supposed to be hell on earth, but the way it was portrayed, we didn't get that.
Big J just hit what I was coming in to respond with. These books and now movies were not made for us. They don't give a #!%! what WE think, they were intended for kids basically. Same as Twilight, same as Harry Potter. I remember being pissed off that I had to sit thru 8 freaking movies for Harry and big nose to get it on. I knew it was coming, we all knew it was coming, why didn't they simply get me there quicker? Wasn't made for me.
That's where I take issue with. Maybe I didn't get the memo that this wasn't for everyone, but films like Hugo and Up at least can appeal for adults. It's a slap in the face if you only cater to one audience. That's exactly what the hell Twilight does. That's all this is after seeing this first film for me. It was marketed as the next Twilight, and it caters only to one audience like Twilight does. Is it as horrible and terrible as Twilight? No, but it's not catering to a general audience in my eyes. Very niche audience, but because it's popular right now, people are eating it up. Sorry, I'm not. Poorly directed, poorly edited in the second half ruined the first half for me.
You want a movie that throws 24 people in a forrest and gets brutal? Cool, maybe someday we'll all make one, but that ain't this one. It's for kids. You guys are asking why aren't these KIDS aren't brutal murderers? A week before some of them were playin with dolls, that's why. They are forced into these games, District 1 and 2 kids maybe want to participate, but the rest are chosen out of a damn hat, can't just hit that light switch that says auto killer now.
I would be able to accept that more if this were the first Hunger Games, but it's a tradition. And knowing for a fact that some of the kills were much more brutal in the book, makes me angry too. The Rue killing is much more graphic, and so is the one with the dudes face smashed into a wall. But they are incredibly dumbed down for the audience they are catering to again, making it PG13 so all the kids can go see it.... Like they don't get into Rated R movies anyways..
Before anyone goes ahead and nitpicks me explaining the first half of the movie, don't.. My gripes are with the second half, I just felt like it was all very rushed, and very poorly directed and edited. That's what made me disappointed. I enjoyed the story, just wish it were fleshed out more. But the actual Hunger Games was where the film lost me.
jpzx
Supporter
- 57,437
- 27,198
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
And then Stanley Tucci...perfect.
I thought so too, he played the role of the media mogul PERFECTLY. The way he talked to the kids during their interviews, his laugh, his interactions with the crowd... all of it was outstanding.
And I also thought Woody Harrelson was tremendous as well, but I'm seeing some people criticizing him. The only thing I wasn't a fan of was that in our initial brush with him we were made to think he was a washed-up drunk that wasn't going to assist the kids in much of anything, but then all of a sudden he was compassionate and forthright an hour later? Thought that was weird, but it still didn't take away from the actual casting and his acting, which I thought was top notch.
that blonde chick who got stung made me hate her in short time, the chick with knives...all did good enough.
I feel like I hated her more because her dialogue was corny than anything else.
That Mike D'antoni school of direction. It's so disappointing.
CP I never understand why you call Voldemort "big nose"... he has no nose.
Mr O.... I feel like the Avengers should be WAY bigger than it is right now. What I mean by that is this movie is $%%@#*+ 4-5 years in the making from when the first Iron Man movie came out, then the Incredible Hulk, then Iron Man 2, then Thor, Captain America, and FINALLY now the Avengers movie. How is this not $%%@#*+ bigger? Answer: Because they did a poor job building anticipation. Iron Man 2 sucked, Captain America was boring, and Edward Norton not being in it is a buzzkill. If ALL the other movies had done well instead of just a few of them, THIS would be the movie of the summer.
Instead, it's sort of a climax to all the stories that's almost nearing funny because of how big it's supposed to be when it really isn't.
JA, the short film is IN the movie dude.
The hell were you doing, sleeping? E Banks introduces it in the first five minutes, that's what I'm talkin about man. The history is right there, it's even Sutherland's voice.
I dunno, looks like a big nose to me man. No nose, big nose, who gives a %$##?
Dub, def yes on American Pie. Has to be better than Wedding, has to be. Nostalgia watch for sure, 1-2 were pure gold.
I dunno, looks like a big nose to me man. No nose, big nose, who gives a %$##?
Dub, def yes on American Pie. Has to be better than Wedding, has to be. Nostalgia watch for sure, 1-2 were pure gold.
- 21,800
- 3,553
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
JapanAir21 wrote:
You want a movie that throws 24 people in a forrest and gets brutal? Cool, maybe someday we'll all make one, but that ain't this one. It's for kids. You guys are asking why aren't these KIDS aren't brutal murderers? A week before some of them were playin with dolls, that's why. They are forced into these games, District 1 and 2 kids maybe want to participate, but the rest are chosen out of a damn hat, can't just hit that light switch that says auto killer now.
I would be able to accept that more if this were the first Hunger Games, but it's a tradition. And knowing for a fact that some of the kills were much more brutal in the book, makes me angry too. The Rue killing is much more graphic, and so is the one with the dudes face smashed into a wall. But they are incredibly dumbed down for the audience they are catering to again, making it PG13 so all the kids can go see it.... Like they don't get into Rated R movies anyways..
See that's kinda the funny thing...the violence. I accepted that the movie was PG-13 right when the games started, and to be honest, that level of violence in the first scene was good enough for me. You just got that feeling...seeing how many kids showed up to watch the movie, that you get it and you really don't want Hobo With A Shotgun to happen right now. You can't be mad that a PG-13 made for kids movie is PG-13. Not with that much violence.
And to be honest, they only needed to nail one death (by spear) and for me, they did. But it's inexcusable to have a movie about kids killing each other and not be able to build tension. You never feel like the bad guys are around the corner after that first scene. You never feel like they're dangerous when they only spend a couple minutes trying to climb the tree or throw something at Katniss, then just go to sleep. You never feel like Peeta was against her, or like there were more than 6 or 7 kids in the movie.
That's all on the director and even Narnia (rated PG) could build tension and real fear of death.
This film made me appreciate the Harry Potter films a lot more, because this is basically Harry Potter (4) and the Goblet of Fire mixed with Harry Potter and Deathly Hallow Part I. But Hallows 1 with the fear and paranoia and loneliness of the wilderness they have to hide in is brilliant compared to Hunger Games. And Goblet, even though I don't especially like it, gets this deadly competition between kids across so much better.
- 21,800
- 3,553
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2010
CP I never understand why you call Voldemort "big nose"... he has no nose.
and you gettin on JA cuz he forgot they showed that history of the Hunger Games propaganda before the reaping.
