Escape to the Movies: The Hunger Games

Your once and future Fanboy

The Norwegian One
Feb 11, 2009
573
0
0
doggie015 said:
Are the words "Popcorn movie" ringing any bells....

...

Anyone?
It can't be considered a "popcorn-movie" when it's trying to force-feed a message.
You wouldn't call "The Passion", "A time to kill" or "12 angry men" popcorn-movies.
"Shoot 'em-up", "Heat", "Face-off"... those are mostly mindless entertainment without any bigger intension than keeping you occupied for 90 minuttes or more.
That's what we would call a popcorn-movie.
 

Extragorey

New member
Dec 24, 2010
566
0
0
MovieBob, claiming that elements of a movie are not quite as good as similar elements in movies made decades ago is not enough to justify saying a movie is unoriginal. Originality can be many things - not just the costuming or 'typecasted' evil guys, but also how the movie as a whole comes together and flows within its self-set constraints.
The Hunger Games combines many elements of previous films, perhaps, but it does it in a unique way that has every right to qualify as an original film. The dystopian future that serves as the setting may not be readily believable due to the flaws in the reasoning behind the show's popularity that you pointed out, but the setting certainly achieves the suspension of disbelief necessary in any great work of fiction.
The CGI of the 'evil death-hounds' could have been better, certainly, but their onscreen time is so brief it's hardly worth complaining about.

In short, every element of a film does not need to be entirely original if the resulting assemblage forms an original and compelling film in itself. We can play the 'blame game' until judgement day, but you'll never find a film which has not copied at least a fragment from another source.

The Hunger Games deserves its popularity.
 

Your once and future Fanboy

The Norwegian One
Feb 11, 2009
573
0
0
animehermit said:
Your once and future Fanboy said:
doggie015 said:
Are the words "Popcorn movie" ringing any bells....

...

Anyone?
It can't be considered a "popcorn-movie" when it's trying to force-feed a message.
You wouldn't call "The Passion", "A time to kill" or "12 angry men" popcorn-movies.
"Shoot 'em-up", "Heat", "Face-off"... those are mostly mindless entertainment without any bigger intension than keeping you occupied for 90 minuttes or more.
That's what we would call a popcorn-movie.
Not to defend this mediocre movie, but films can do both.

Terminator comes to mind, both of them in fact. Specifically 2 had a very poignant anti-violence/anti-war message. It works in terminator because the story is compelling and the characters are well-developed.
Ah..touche!
But I still (personally) consider T2 to be in the "turn-off your brain" issle (note, only on repeat viewing or if you are wery observant and critical to sci-fi).
My reasoning is that you have to turn off your brain after the first viewing, or you will be pissed off at the stupid time-travel plot-points in the movie.
Hell, the My little Pony: F.I.M season 2 episode where Twillight Sparkle travels back in time to warn her past-self is more accurate than the Terminator films.
 

lionday

New member
Jun 21, 2011
80
0
0
Yeah Hungergames is not the best teen book to be released in the past few years. Wanna know what tops it? http://www.rickyancey.com/monstrumologist/ The best way to describe it is Sherlock homes mixed with silent Hill (In the best possible way). In one chapter I seriously started to shiver (I was in a well lit kitchen reading it for the second time). The book is first person through the eyes of the Watson (A 13 year old orphan) who works for the Sherlock (A doctor who studies monsters). The book is bloody (Not nearly as blood as Hunger games but I'd say they draw out the blood drenching it in darkness). It also has a high body count. Yes this book is good and it has a sequel and another book in the works. I highly suggest it.
 

Jesus Phish

New member
Jan 28, 2010
751
0
0
I enjoyed the movie, I haven't read the book of it, my girlfriend did and she was happy enough the movie was truthful to the book.

Apart from the out of focus shots and blurriness of some of the camera work I thought it was a pretty decent movie. Some of it confused me, such as Bob said, is it VR, how do they magic these animals and such up, but I let it slid thinking it wouldn't have fit if they had a shift where it was all explained.
 

Primus1985

New member
Dec 24, 2009
300
0
0
Thank you for an honest opinion Bob. I hadnt heard of the books, and didnt know what al,l the fuss was about till I looked at the plot for it. Im glad Bob reconized the trope of "Evil-Government stages death battle for entertainment" and furthermore impressed he mentioned Battle-Royale. I instantly thought of Battle-Royale first because of the teens killing each other angle.

Did anyone else not noticed the story seemed to be lifted from many other better movies? Also, PG-13? Thats BS, if you dont go the full on bloody, messy, language filled route then you ruin the integrity of the whole story. Dont tell me cause the actors are young you cant do it. Watch Kick-Ass and see Hit-Girl stabbing and blowing peoples heads off and tell me that.

I think I'll just have a Post-Apoc/Near future movie night and remember the classics.
 

RTR

New member
Mar 22, 2008
1,351
0
0
Man, this movie has a great supporting cast. Shame about how the film itself turned out, though.
(By supporting cast, I mean of course the grownup actors).
 

RockyMotion

New member
Oct 28, 2010
33
0
0
I liked both the books and the movie. They're not bad. People who have read the book will enjoy it more though, as they're more familiar with how the THG universe works. Too bad about the shaky camera and average CGI.

Sure, they could have handled the theme a little better but come on... The stuff most teens have been reading in recent years is fucking Twilight. Sappy. cheesy, creepy bullshit with a dull flat story and a protagonist with no will or personality of her own. Compared to that, The Hunger Games is brilliant.
 

Coreless

New member
Aug 19, 2011
298
0
0
Decided to go and see it since there was nothing else playing that seemed worth checking out. Haven't read the books and really didn't know it even existed until the first trailers came out so thought I would give it a shot. After going in blind I have to say that it was actually pretty good, the lead actress did a pretty good job keeping me interested and it was overall pretty entertaining. Even with the film being about 2 hours and some change it didn't really seem to drag for me, I thought its pacing and the lead up to the ending were just about right.

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?

edit: I guess I shouldn't be surprised with the tech now that I think about it, since they did show some kind of digital flame thing throughout the movie.
 

maswell

New member
Aug 6, 2010
98
0
0
chaosyoshimage said:
Pretty much every other review I've seen for this has said it's amazing. Hopefully, I'll get to see it soon and can form my own opinion. Of course, I was pretty sure Bob wouldn't like this back before it came out. I'm sure Amazing Spider-Man will be the same way. I like critics I disagree with, but I hope everyone doesn't just blindly follow his opinion.

For a second take, I'd suggest HitFix or io9's review of the movie, don't just take Bob's word for it. I see that kind of thing way too much on his and Yahtzee's videos.
Do you have links for those reviews?
 

drkchmst

New member
Mar 28, 2010
218
0
0
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.
 

ShadowDude112

New member
Mar 9, 2009
425
0
0
I enjoyed this movie. It was a really good comedy and I was laughing at everything that was meant to be funny. Oh wait, it wasn't a comedy? All the parts I was laughing at were just parts that were laughably bad? Yeah, I read the book in my literature class at school. Went to see the movie and it was a piece of shit just like the books. My favorite part of the movie was the trailer for "The Amazing Spider-Man". A movie I actually want to see and one I have high hopes for because of how close to the source material it's trying to be. I.E. Mechanical web shooters and Spider-Man quipping his enemies. So, nice job, Suzanne Collins, you have successfully made me right in knowing you movie was a piece of shit and I would have much rather gone to see "Jeff, Who Lives at Home", a movie I actually want to see. So yeah, this movie was really bad, don't waste your money.
 

JMeganSnow

New member
Aug 27, 2008
1,591
0
0
Atticus89 said:
JMeganSnow said:
Wow, looks like the film really is a faithful adaptation of the book. I read it yesterday and, geez, if you're going to invent (or steal) a dystopian future, why on earth would you then write a book that focuses primarily on:

1. Describing every meal the protagonist eats, in detail
2. Hair, clothes, fashion, body waxing
3. The protagonist's daddy/abandonment issues
4. Whether or not the protagonist REALLY has feeeelings for the hawt guys in her life.
5. Just general agonizing

Tiresome.
It's satirizing reality TV. Think Jersey Shore or Survivor but with death.
Hunger Games is not satire--or if it is, it's incompetent satire. It does not undercut or mock the themes it presents, it takes them seriously as actual problems.
 

JohnTomorrow

Green Thumbed Gamer
Jan 11, 2010
316
0
0
I felt your review was a overly harsh. I think you got too hung up on the fact that they are basing ANOTHER movies series on ANOTHER book series aimed at young adults (specifically teenaged women? I'd've thought a lot of boys would want to read about kids their own ages fighting to the death....)

Having watched it last night having never even known anything about the back story except that it comes from a book, I have to say I was quite impressed. Yes, the costumes were campy and the city sets were naff, but as soon as they hit the forest the movie came alive for me. If they'd spent more time inflating their characters and focusing on the their struggles, i think it would've made a much more poignant movie. Plus they were hamstrung by the rating....if this thing had an MA15+ sticker on it there could've been some opportunities for some very dark moments...

The characters were very human and were well acted. If I had to critique the whole experience, I'd have to say that the shaky-cam got a bit too much overuse. I felt the whole movie was very original in this day and age. Not to mention the idea of children fighting each other to the death and this thing not being picketed by asshole conservatives makes me happy.
 

Mandalore_15

New member
Aug 12, 2009
741
0
0
Does anyone know the name of the TV show the character at 4:37 was from? I used to have an action figure of him as a kid but I can hardly remember the show at all!
 

Amaror

New member
Apr 15, 2011
1,509
0
0
Coreless said:
Decided to go and see it since there was nothing else playing that seemed worth checking out. Haven't read the books and really didn't know it even existed until the first trailers came out so thought I would give it a shot. After going in blind I have to say that it was actually pretty good, the lead actress did a pretty good job keeping me interested and it was overall pretty entertaining. Even with the film being about 2 hours and some change it didn't really seem to drag for me, I thought its pacing and the lead up to the ending were just about right.

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?

edit: I guess I shouldn't be surprised with the tech now that I think about it, since they did show some kind of digital flame thing throughout the movie.
Yeah i didn't liked the dogs, too.
That and the fact that they changed the daytime was a little bit too much "advanced" (They don't do that in the book).
Otherwise i liked the movie really much and my friends did too.