I found the film to be incredibly mediocre. It inspired no hatred but not much joy. I thought the balance between action and drama was too tilted. I didn't expect much action but the shakycam killed my mood.
Escape to the Movies: The Hunger Games
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Lolness.
Yeah, I kinda guessed that... but then I wonder why someone would send in soup. If I'm supporting them, I'd send in the meds quickly. It made me think the soup was... not sent by a sponsor or something.EnigmaticSevens said:
Risky? It makes it bad TV. It's the equivalent of someone getting knocked out of survivor for misspelling a word or something. It's anticlimactic and dumb. If I was watching TV to see children kill each other, I'd feel cheated if all the contestants died from berries.EnigmaticSevens said:
Wha... no. No. No. No. No. No. No. ...No. What? No. First off, we know she can hunt. Second off, you just made a comparison between contemporary America and this alternate fictional universe. Finally, my beard is cake. So your statement is invalid.EnigmaticSevens said:
This is only kind of a good point. We saw them shooting targets from seventy feet away and hitting their mark exactly... We saw the knife girl hit her in the face. We saw a little girl climb a really big tree... and we saw her do it while she had an injured leg, yet no of the lethal assassins could figure out how to climb the tree or shoot her? That's just dumb.EnigmaticSevens said:
I get that Rue was the humanist, but I'd probably have killed all of them in that situation. If not I, then I think someone else might have. It's kinda... strange. And also, if they got stung twice as many times... so six? Then I would expect them to (if they are not instantly killed by the poison) die from dehydration, but that doesn't happen. Instead, they go about, as if they weren't stabbed at all, and they gather all of the supplies into one spot AND they boobie trap it... with a lethal dose of poison in their systems.EnigmaticSevens said:
I wasn't saying that I expect him to be evil, I'm just saying that his personality was never explained. Wouldn't it have been cool to find out that he once had a brother who died in the hunger games? Or something like that? The affection that they had him display was misplaced. Also, what is this, D&D?EnigmaticSevens said:
Okay, but I'd think that if his life was on the line, he might listen more closely. The pressures he felt weren't well explained. Was there some other force pushing him to make it more entertaining... aside from a drunk? Seems like a stupid reason to risk your life.EnigmaticSevens said:
It was a specific scene... not the one where they were rolling on the ground. The one where katniss is hit in the head by a knife, and the knife chick is running full speed. It just seems kinda stupid for a knife chick to not have a knife when she is a knife chick.EnigmaticSevens said:
Watching this review has made me watch Battle Royale again. Though some may accuse me of blasphemy for saying this, but in the light of last year's riots, an English remake would not be a bad idea.
Especially if Stephen Fry was given Beat Takashi's role. The idea of that man in that position would be chilling to say the very least.
Especially if Stephen Fry was given Beat Takashi's role. The idea of that man in that position would be chilling to say the very least.
watched it today with my wife and it was a solid movie. had some good scenes in it. but some a better explanation about the arena would have been nice though.
i havent read the book but i was curious about the movie anyway. so i think it was a alright movie. have seen far more worse. but i do agree, some more violence would have suited the movie more to make it more shocking/dramatic. running men for sure did a good job with that.
i havent read the book but i was curious about the movie anyway. so i think it was a alright movie. have seen far more worse. but i do agree, some more violence would have suited the movie more to make it more shocking/dramatic. running men for sure did a good job with that.
Tut, tut bro. Someone who's a big enough fan of FLCL to tag themselves as Raharu, should not have this much trouble grasping relatively simple concepts (half of these aren't even holes, just "I woulda done..." arguments. I'll go through these one more time, then I'm done with this. You desire further detail, read the book, that's what its there for. *points to former comments*
But if today's contestant on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire gets the first question wrong because he a dumbass, he'll go home and that'll be anticlimactic.
But if the first challenge on Survivor involves a modicum of physical effort, some people might fail and then they wont get immunity, but I liked them! But they got sent home, how anticlimactic!
All reality game shows involve an element of risk. Why? Because they're are 23 other contestants, and if you're dumbass wasn't clever enough to check and see if anything else was eating this stuff before stuffing it down your gob, too bad.
Knife throw -> head wound
Arrow shot -> dodged
Second knife throw -> dodged
Tackle
Grapple
Body lock
Third knife to throat.
When a person's suffering from a sever fever brought on by an ill treated laceration (blood poisoning/ septicemia) it's incredibly difficult for them to retain solid foods, yet its vital that they remain hydrated and continue to take in nourishment (this is why mothers treat ailments with gatorade and chicken noodle soup). It goes, food < medicine < weapons, in terms of cost. By this stage in the game, sending anything other than food would've damn near bankrupted not one, but several individuals. Even mild medicine is expensive, much less magic medi-gel that instantly heals wounds.Raharu Haruha said:
But-but if today's variant of lucky fool on Deal or No Deal chooses the wrong briefcase, he'll go home penniless and that'll be anticlimactic.Raharu Haruha said:
But if today's contestant on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire gets the first question wrong because he a dumbass, he'll go home and that'll be anticlimactic.
But if the first challenge on Survivor involves a modicum of physical effort, some people might fail and then they wont get immunity, but I liked them! But they got sent home, how anticlimactic!
All reality game shows involve an element of risk. Why? Because they're are 23 other contestants, and if you're dumbass wasn't clever enough to check and see if anything else was eating this stuff before stuffing it down your gob, too bad.
She can hunt. One person, one girl, out of 24 competitors. An arena is not based around one person. If she can take advantage of it, good for her. But everyone else? When do they learn to hunt, when to they have the opportunity or the resources? The majority of them are from vassal states with different terrains and environments, and even the Careers focus on straight up killing over hunting/gathering, because a forest this time, may be ruins next year, may be a desert the next, might have no animal life the next, etc.Raharu Haruha said:
1. The only person capable of hitting a target with an arrow at seventy yards is currently in the tree. The knives have a shorter effective range (when handled by little Caucasian girls and not Apaches), and a javelin is unwieldy at best at that given angle. You know what's fascinating about trees? Often times the higher you go, the less weight the tree branches will support. All of a sudden being the skinny, hungry chick from future West Virginia has an immense advantage for Mr. well fed, 200 pounds of muscle. Sure you could send the little knife happy one up after her, but that's hardly strategically sound. Attacking a defensible position from a lower level? There are easier ways to commit suicide. How many armed forces need charge dramatically up a hill only to be shredded to pieces before this simple stratagem becomes easily recognizable. Personally, I'd have set the tree on fire and waited, but considering the fact the 'wait her out' option was proposed by the one person who didn't want to see her die... one should expect the plan to be fundamentally flawed.Raharu Haruha said:
All supply gathering and booby trapping occurs before the Career pack were stung, that's how they could afford to go howling into the woods after prey. Add to this the fact that how long each of them were down is an unknown. We don't know their metabolic rates or inherent physiological resistances or deficiencies. In short, poison effects people differently. What brings one down, may only make the other sluggish. What puts one into a coma, may only case the other to hallucinate wildly for six hours. Personally, I'll not take a chance messing with a trained killer tripping balls.Raharu Haruha said:
Mercy does not need an immediate rationale, that's what I'm saying. Some people will actually realize that instead of this 'fun entertaining spectacle', this young girl is about to be subjected to a possibly horrific death, maybe she could use a hug. Compare Cinna with Effie and you have two contrasting views of the Capitol population. Sure most of them are high on their own supply and more then happy to indulge the spectacle, but a few did have the sheer nerve to perhaps fill a touch of, oh, I don't know, guilt or remorse.Raharu Haruha said:
Would I have loved even a brief cutaway to establish those pressures? Yes. But it's really not that hard to construe. His judgments felt sound to him, even he panicked in the end. It's easy to sit back and call the decision stupid, but that's a luxury. When/If you have an actual job, you will at times make poor decisions, even if the answers seem clear in hindsight. Everything is clearer in hindsight. A pity those mistakes will still have consequences. Some of those consequences might be fatal.Raharu Haruha said:
Apparently we're not watching the same scene. By my count, knife chick (Clove) had three knives at the least.Raharu Haruha said:
Knife throw -> head wound
Arrow shot -> dodged
Second knife throw -> dodged
Tackle
Grapple
Body lock
Third knife to throat.
Heheh.. Nice, funny review Bob!
Oh and I liked your saying "the big draw" while she's drawing the bow.
I wasn't planning on seeing it anyway. The trailer completely underwhelmed me. I normally like trainers themselves as a mini-art-form, so when one leaves me so completely cold; I avoid the film its trailing.
Oh and I liked your saying "the big draw" while she's drawing the bow.
I wasn't planning on seeing it anyway. The trailer completely underwhelmed me. I normally like trainers themselves as a mini-art-form, so when one leaves me so completely cold; I avoid the film its trailing.
For one talking about Bob getting a thicker skin, you sure don't take your advice. Great googley moogleyRaharu Haruha said:
"Aimed at young teenage girls."
Hold up, what? I was not aware that a book series involving the forceful slaughter of youth, a dark as hell setting, with extremely gruesome deaths was aimed at young teenage girls.
Even the love story is dark, with Katniss having to play along as to not get herself killed.
Just because a certain group likes it does not mean it is marketed toward them.
As for the movie, I liked it. After hearing the review I kind of got the feeling Bob was judging it harshly because of the supposed main fanbase. Sure, it wasn't the best thing ever, but it was better than a lot of movies I have seen recently.
Hold up, what? I was not aware that a book series involving the forceful slaughter of youth, a dark as hell setting, with extremely gruesome deaths was aimed at young teenage girls.
Even the love story is dark, with Katniss having to play along as to not get herself killed.
Just because a certain group likes it does not mean it is marketed toward them.
As for the movie, I liked it. After hearing the review I kind of got the feeling Bob was judging it harshly because of the supposed main fanbase. Sure, it wasn't the best thing ever, but it was better than a lot of movies I have seen recently.
Bob has been calling for an 80's films comeback ever since he started making these videos. Spoiler: you are not gonna get one. Which is why I have been taking his opinions with a grain of salt for some time now.
Battle Royale was Battle Royale. Even if I had seen it, I wouldn't check any trailers for THG. So I would still be surprised. I would still be intrigued by the title and the flaming bird emblem.
I didn't know anything about the concept, I didn't even know the Mystique girl was in it until I saw a poster with her face. I went, saw the movie and I really really liked it.
For the ones saying that he has a problem with the fanbase, he doesn't cause the same people that like this and Twilight, there is a pretty good chance that they have also red Harry Potter.
This a young adult novel. Ergo, 10-20 years old. Your moral compass is being developped during this time so I think it is a pretty dark setting for these ages to experience. Besides, one of the districts trains their would be participants since they were kids. You know who else did that ? Spartans.
Just to take a stab in the opposition however:
No, having red the book in order to get a movie isn't an excuse for the movie to suck. Remember the fuck-ton of locations in the Lord Of The Rings ? When you saw the 1st one, did you know whose giant statues they were near the end of the film ? No.
If it happened in the book as well, the end of the movie with the muttations is a cop-out. Sad about Cato though.
The concept of a rebellion should be explored more. It is a trilogy, yeah but I don't see how the next 2 films can be as good as the 1st.
MB was right about one last thing: the franchise is gonna snowball like Twilight. Too big to handle correctly.
It all depends on when you first saw the movies and settings this film expands upon. It also depends what you were expecting to see. I didn't go for the action scenes (and let's be frank, Batman Begins' action scenes suck the hardest). I really don't think people would see this for the action as much as for the message it tries to send.
I can't tell yet if it succeded but I was under a great deal of pressure during the majority of the film, which pretty much means it won me over.
Battle Royale was Battle Royale. Even if I had seen it, I wouldn't check any trailers for THG. So I would still be surprised. I would still be intrigued by the title and the flaming bird emblem.
I didn't know anything about the concept, I didn't even know the Mystique girl was in it until I saw a poster with her face. I went, saw the movie and I really really liked it.
For the ones saying that he has a problem with the fanbase, he doesn't cause the same people that like this and Twilight, there is a pretty good chance that they have also red Harry Potter.
This a young adult novel. Ergo, 10-20 years old. Your moral compass is being developped during this time so I think it is a pretty dark setting for these ages to experience. Besides, one of the districts trains their would be participants since they were kids. You know who else did that ? Spartans.
Just to take a stab in the opposition however:
No, having red the book in order to get a movie isn't an excuse for the movie to suck. Remember the fuck-ton of locations in the Lord Of The Rings ? When you saw the 1st one, did you know whose giant statues they were near the end of the film ? No.
If it happened in the book as well, the end of the movie with the muttations is a cop-out. Sad about Cato though.
The concept of a rebellion should be explored more. It is a trilogy, yeah but I don't see how the next 2 films can be as good as the 1st.
MB was right about one last thing: the franchise is gonna snowball like Twilight. Too big to handle correctly.
It all depends on when you first saw the movies and settings this film expands upon. It also depends what you were expecting to see. I didn't go for the action scenes (and let's be frank, Batman Begins' action scenes suck the hardest). I really don't think people would see this for the action as much as for the message it tries to send.
I can't tell yet if it succeded but I was under a great deal of pressure during the majority of the film, which pretty much means it won me over.
Paolini? I wasn't asking about Eragon, I was asking about The Hunger Games. Unless by some freak coincidence the two authors share a name.animehermit said:
At least it was on a higher level then Eragon and The Last Airbender which are pretty much the lowest adaptions can get.
Went and saw it last night with my girlfriend, who's a big fan of the series, and we both hated it. She really disliked it because it cuts out vital parts of the book and changes things too much. I personally thought it was a confusing mess in the first half and incredibly dull/paint-by-numbers in the second half. The fight scenes are terrible, and the editing and camera work are truly amateurish. I also wasn't a fan of the constant Nazi and Holocaust iconography in the earlier parts of the movie because I view that as one of the more lazy ways to convey a totalitarian state (one of the earliest scenes is basically in a train yard with everyone lined up, dressed like it's 1943 and there's a giant eagle that is clearly based on the German eagle that holds the swastika).
Good things: I liked the Roman design of the Capital, and Woody Harrelson has a lot of fun with his role. Other then that, if you haven't read the books don't go and see it, they basically explain nothing and just expect you to know it.
Good things: I liked the Roman design of the Capital, and Woody Harrelson has a lot of fun with his role. Other then that, if you haven't read the books don't go and see it, they basically explain nothing and just expect you to know it.
But...but there's scenes where people say terrible things about violence and then other people reply with laughs or happy comments! That's totally social commentary! And random Nazi iconography is totally deep! And comparing modern reality tv based on social conflict to violent gladiatorial battles with children is totally logical! It's not like there's another movie like this, but instead it's about the Japanese school system and does it subtly...-|- said:
Oh wait.
I do not, nor will I ever, use my hard earned money to condone a movie that utilises a shakey camera in part or in full.