- Sep 12, 2010
Well, as someone who saw it literally an hour ago I would suggest you go see it.Trucken said:I'm still on the fence about this one. I love the Battle Royale concept, but a bad movie is still a bad movie. Might watch it.
I agree with your complaints towards the review to a certain degree, and I feel like maybe Bob was really just trying to vent steam at the young adult genre after dealing with the atrocity that is the Twilight series, but I feel like some of your comparisons were a little too highbrow for, like I said, a film derived from a young adult novel. I personally feel like not even the novel invoked such an extensive repertoire of subtle nuances as listed in your post. And yes, the similarities to other works are severe enough to warrant a comparison. The shaky camera shots were awful, and some of them were clearly there to make up for everything else the correspondent action scene lacked. Many of Bob's criticisms were very accurate, and to denounce the entire review, and his credibility as a critic... Well, to be frank, you're overreacting. A lot.EnigmaticSevens said:*sigh* I have yet to see a valid reason for giving this film an R-rating that doesn't prove that the speaker has missed the Entire. Fucking. Point. This is not an action flick, the book is not centered around the action. Violence occurs, but violence cannot be made spectacle. The entire point of the series is distancing the collective psyche from the tendency towards schadenfreude obsessed, blood hungry, hedonism that we seem to adopt every time we find a sufficient way to feed ourselves with a minimal amount of manual labor. The violence within the book, was pointedly unsatisfying, sympathetic characters receive gruesome ends and antagonist die too quickly or in ways so brutal it throws their karmic scale into complete chaos.
In narrative, the violence is described in a clipped, almost surgical fashion, while the ramifications of said violence are given detail and depth. In the film, the action scenes are shaky, chaotic, and purposefully rushed. You do not need a steady shot, slow motion evisceration. You do not need a beautifully composed mauling. Do you know what does receive loving, cinematic focus. The bodies of dead children littering the ground. A blood covered psychopath realizing that his roll of happy Blood Knight might just not be what it's all cracked up to be, followed by a plummet into abject nihilism.
The entire point, of both the book and the film, boils down to questioning the relationship between violence and entertainment. Look, I'm no moral crusader. I've gunned down and slaughtered just as many Cerberus Operatives, sentient aliens, Wastelanders, Nords, and Imperials as the next guy. Hell, this is perhaps one of my favorite scenes in a film: http://youtu.be/prDCDmchtTg But does that nature of our deeply rooted, primal love and lust for carnage and violence, speak to our adolescence as a species? Yes. Does that relationship require constant study and consideration if we're to advance? Yes. Moving on.
Was the film any good? Sure, it was decent, more than decent really. The set design was appropriate and conveyed the correct tone (with District 12 looking even crappier than I'd imagined, then again, it's been some time since I last saw Deliverance....) The Capitol was garish and overblown enough to put the message of 'wayward decadence' across clearly enough to capture the attention of jaded mass audiences. It was Hunger Games Lite, to be sure, but it had more than enough information to interest even the totally unfamiliar viewer. Of course, if left one hungry for depth, the necessary recourse is clear, read the damn book. I might not learn Italian before I view a performance of Lucia di Lammermoor, but if I don't read the translation, I can still appreciate the beauty of the vocals, the colorful nature of the characters, and the palpable sense of emotion. If I want a deeper understanding of the nuances of the plot, I read the translation. If want to truly understand the subtext of the narrative, I consult a native speaker and explore the other works of Donizetti and compare them with other works of the same era, in the same location. Is it so unreasonable to think that perhaps, perhaps, the film is a scaled down version of the narrative at best, and to experience the true weight, one might actually have to... *le gasp* read? Madness, I know, but I read these queer stories of a time where art was consumed in context.
This review was rather... sad. In general I've come to expect a higher sort of standard from Bob, something that explores some amount of subtext. Instead you've given us a flood tide of adjectives with no real evidence to justify them and subjective opinion (which by all means you're entitled to) without logical rationale attached to it (which you're expected to provide if you care to call yourself a critic). When I desire snarky, biting satire, I watch Zero Punctuation (trust me, Yahtzee's better at it than you. I mean really, an entire review spent harping on a character name? Coupled with the balls to decry the film or picking at low hanging fruit? That's nearly tragic, and ill-suited metaphor if it was intended). Really, we're to take this as a fault from an admitted fanboy of a series with a protagonist named "Skywalker?" 1000 years from now "Bob Chipman" will seem a terrifically silly name. 1000 years in the past, "Bob Chipman" seemed a terrifically silly name. A hunter naming his daughters after local flora is hardly either groundbreaking or proper cause for criticism.
Making carte blanche comparisons to other films without any effort to exam the aspects that make them fundamentally different is poor criticism. The Hunger Games (both film and novel) are not repainted variants of Rollerball, the Running Man, or Battle Royale. Films of a similar genre, with markedly different themes, presentations, and messages. Subject nations forced to submit a portion of their populace to a bloody death for the entertainment of a decadent capitol. It's Rome, steeped in the Grecian legend of the Minotaur. Panem. Panem dammit. Panem et circenses, latin for Bread and Circuses. It's hardly a 'stupid' political strategy, it worked a long damn time, it works today.
Complaining about wonky clothes in a science fiction film is akin to complaining about ten gallon hats in a western, it's a staple, deal with it. If it's played with, laud it. If it remains formulaic, accept it as convention and move on.
Going into a film as the patent 'outsider' and then not being as entertained or as enthralled with the experience as the surging, well-informed masses around you, is an expected outcome. I'm quite sure the Christians in Rome were thrilled when Paul wrote them a letter. But for the rest of the Romans? Not a single fuck was given that day. Trying to critique something without also searching out information relevant to the piece is absurd. Pleas, spare me the "oh but the movie/book/comic/fancy bit of cave art should be an encapsulated experience" argument. Any academic mad enough to review any cultural product without a single salient reference, or without referring to the source material, would be flayed alive (or more likely, go unpublished). You may watch a film and make a humorous video mentioning why you liked/disliked it and whether or not you recommend it, but you may not call that video a review, and you may not call yourself a crtic.
The dogs were genetically engineered creatures that the Gamemakers created for the Games. The dogs were real. The Gamemakers have the ability to change various aspects of the Arena. However, there was a psychological component that was attached to the dogs that the movie didn't use. In the books, the dogs had the eyes of some of the fallen competitors, increasing Katniss' fear of the dogs.Coreless said:I do have the same issue with the shaky cam as bob did, I think it would have made the fight scenes way more enjoyable to actually get to see the fights with more clarity or at least make then a little more involving then just a 25 sec struggle and then its over. My only real complaint was when they released the dogs, it seemed like the dogs materialized out of line air or something...what was the deal with that? What were those dogs some kind of advanced attack holograms? Is the technology that the people in the capitol have really that developed?.
Well, that's the rub, isn't? In order to review a video game, you have to play it. In order to review a movie, you have to see. But should a reviewer be expected to thoroughly research the source material of the material they are about to review? Eh...in most cases, that's a bit too much.EnigmaticSevens said:Trying to critique something without also searching out information relevant to the piece is absurd. Pleas, spare me the "oh but the movie/book/comic/fancy bit of cave art should be an encapsulated experience" argument. Any academic mad enough to review any cultural product without a single salient reference, or without referring to the source material, would be flayed alive (or more likely, go unpublished).
Not to mention that the cut to her eye would have bleed directly into her eye, leaving her quite debilitated. Or that the bee things would have easily killed that whole group - considering that only 3 stings made her pass out for a few days. You'd expect them to be passed out... and probably dead (from the other tributes, if not from the bee stings themselves), but those types of things are often over looked to keep it interesting, I suppose.drkchmst said:Ya know Bob, sometimes when you say things suck I'll go see them and love them and vice versa...This one though I'm in 100% agreement. I think I only noticed a single shot that was done on a dolly. Plot wise...why has it took 74 years for this brilliant plan to quell the masses to go wrong? For once someone could take wounds more seriously. _______'s wound they showed didn't seem to be immediately fatal to me unless it happened to get her diaphragm and she suffocated...which she did a bad job suffocating then. I wish I could have these 2.5 hours back.
Alright, so answer me these:wolfgirl90 said:Since I've read the books, I know the answers to all of these questions, but there is no way for a non-fan to get the answers from the movie.
Alexander Bonney said:I agree with your complaints towards the review to a certain degree, and I feel like maybe Bob was really just trying to vent steam at the young adult genre after dealing with the atrocity that is the Twilight series, but I feel like some of your comparisons were a little too highbrow for, like I said, a film derived from a young adult novel. I personally feel like not even the novel invoked such an extensive repertoire of subtle nuances as listed in your post. And yes, the similarities to other works are severe enough to warrant a comparison. The shaky camera shots were awful, and some of them were clearly there to make up for everything else the correspondent action scene lacked. Many of Bob's criticisms were very accurate, and to denounce the entire review, and his credibility as a critic... Well, to be frank, you're overreacting. A lot.EnigmaticSevens said:*snip*
Hah! No my friend, this is a bit too highbrow: http://www.amazon.com/The-Hunger-Games-Philosophy-Blackwell/dp/1118065077/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332654978&sr=8-1 Yet even many of the points made in these litany of essays make good points. It'd be a fallacy to write off young adult literature as 'without subtext and subtlety.' Most are written by adults and adults are ingrained with the desire to preach to children, if if it's done unconsciously. All cultural products reveal aspects of a civilization's psyche, even children's shows (dear god, Gullah Gullah Island?) Hell, if we tried hard enough, we could probably find some deeply spiritual shit in Barney.wolfgirl90 said:Well, that's the rub, isn't? In order to review a video game, you have to play it. In order to review a movie, you have to see. But should a reviewer be expected to thoroughly research the source material of the material they are about to review? Eh...in most cases, that's a bit too much.
Now, I will say that I didn't really like Movie Bob's review, if only because his new found snarkiness is getting on my nerves (I don't know if it is a joke or not). Some of his complaints sounded as if he just making stuff up as he went along. And as a fan of the books, I could easily explain many of the so called plot holes (such as the issues with the Arena).
(1.) A definite slip, could've easily been explained with a TINY BIT OF DIALOGUE while Haymitch was chatting with the Sponsors. Air dropping items is ludicrously expensive, and becomes exponentially more expensive as the games wear on. It usually requires several obscenely rich sponsors pooling their resources to get most parachutes dropped.Raharu Haruha said:Alright, so answer me these:
If betting is allowed, why didn't we see WAY more care packages? Wouldn't sponsors be air mailing grenades in left and right?
If the point of the games is to entertain the upper class, then why put stupid things like poisonous berries in there? That's retarded.
Why were there things like squirrels and mocking jays? It seems like that would then give the contestants the ability to hunt for food and survive in the doom forever. It would be a more realistic game if all food needed to be fought for.
Why did they decide to wait for Katniss to come down from the tree? That seems retarded in a sort of evil super villain way. I think I would have kept firing arrows up there until I got her.
How did the boy... I forget... not get stung by bees?
What's the deal with the hair dresser? He seems more sympathetic to Katniss, but why?
Why didn't the dude with the funny beard listen to the dude with the white beard?
When crazy knife chick ran at Katniss, why didn't she stab her with one of her crazy knifes?