Escape to the Movies: The Hunger Games

DeaDRabbiT

New member
Sep 25, 2010
139
0
0
jFr[e said:
ak93]Rotten Tomatoes couldn't disagree more!

But, I can't say that I'm too surprised by this. Things were going to much toward the Twilight way of doing things.
Huge hype, books everywhere, sell outs.
Mocking Jay is already booked. That's before the film came out!
I think Bob set out to dislike the movie. I also don't believe Bob read the source material. Almost everything he complained about are things expressly put forth by Suzanne Collins' vision. I still need to see the movie (waiting for a 4 dollar showing sometime this week) however I can say without hesitation that I pity people that are looking for oh so much in a film, instead of simply enjoying what they are given.

FYI Bob just like in today's naming culture as in this quasi-future culture, everyone picks poor name choices for their children sometimes. It's just unfortunate that the example you chose to hate on, actually had a story to it, instead of just being "a name we give people because omg it's the future..."

Normally I'm all for people having their own opinions, but I do find it annoying when someones opinion wreaks of an opinion chosen specifically to be counter to the majority opinion. That's just my opinion.
 

DeaDRabbiT

New member
Sep 25, 2010
139
0
0
misterprickly said:
I was wondering what made it different from all the other movies of it's kind that came before it... The answer was, very little.

Remind me again how the filthy rich (of the future) get to treat the rest of humanity like a human chess set?

Is it supposed to be a commentary on the way today's governments say "Go forth and fight" and the people say "OK then"?
No in the future after whatever catastrophe destroyed North America, Panem rises and is fortified in a mountain. The 13 districts rose up against them and the rebellion was crushed. However, instead of enslaving or simply obliterating the rebels, they allowed them to live in abject poverty, use the games as a form of control, and in return the capitol gets the different districts to produce the goods that the capitol needs in order for them to live in the manner to which they have become accustomed. Either that or die.

Hell look at how it happened in Germany. Normally tyranny creeps up slow, and before you know it, you have a choice, either die fighting an un-winnable war, or live in a manner that is only slightly better than death.

The whole them is hunger, as played out in the games, but also in daily life. The people of the different districts are helpless, they are kept to weak to fight because there isn't enough to eat.

Read the books man, they are good enough stories.
 

jawakiller

New member
Jan 14, 2011
776
0
0
Whoopi, now I don't have to watch the movie! Thanks for saving me two and a half hours of my life plus a ten dollar movie ticket. Seriously, I had a thought of watching it, just to see what the hoopla was all about but after watching this I don't see any reason. It looks shitty.

So again, thanks for the insightful review.
 

WhompingPillow

New member
Nov 22, 2011
1
0
0
i thought the movie was amazing! yeah i've read the books and loved them, but i thought the movie surpassed the book because the movie had a clearer narrative while the book had to have a flashback every half a page. I thought the acting was great (especially Jennifer Lawrence). I realized that the special effects were not the best, but i didn't think they were horrible. I kinda knew Movie Bob wasn't going to like it, but I also think that more people are going to like it than people hate it. I didn't think the action scenes were great, but i found them watchable (and what do you expect from the director of Seabiscut?). My favorite scene was definitely when the games began and it was silent! So suspenseful and epic! I also thought the ending was more conclusive than the book. I loved the movie and would recommend it to anyone!
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Speaking as someone who hasn't read the books (other than the brief sample available for free on Android market, and that three days prior) and saw the movie tonight, I have to say that A) Moviebob's criticisms are all relatively accurate, yet B) he's still missing the point.

Or rather, Moviebob was more bothered by some things than I was, and I think he was excessively willing to be bothered by some things and allow them to diminish other positive points that most viewers would be more willing to let pass in favor of those same positive areas.

À la, "Waaah, the X-Men movie is making fun of their not wearing lurid yellow jumpsuits."

That the basic premise of lethal human vs. human bloodsport has been handled elsewhere before should come as a surprise to no one; it goes back at least as far as "The Most Dangerous Game", and yes, I've seen The Running Man and Rollerball as well as slightly more obscure entires like Series 7: The Contenders and Battle Royale. And none of those movies, to my recollection, handled the contestants own awareness of the necessity of playing to the public for their own survival as interestingly as The Hunger Games. That alone ought to warrant not being sneered at as nothing but a copycat.

The central performances are all also top-notch, and it pulls the fairly unusual trick, especially for arguably teen-targeted fare, of letting subtle details convey information and audience inference to fill in the blanks, rather than having every significant look and gesture be highlighted with a musical sting and a close-up.

It's not a perfect movie, I'll grant, but it's a hell of a lot better than this review makes it out to be. Some thought went into it, the characters aren't all cardboard cut-outs designed to sell dorm room posters, and the emotions don't feel cheap, manipulative, and easily bought.

Go see it.
 

verylost

New member
Jul 30, 2010
10
0
0
DeaDRabbiT said:
I think Bob set out to dislike the movie. I also don't believe Bob read the source material. Almost everything he complained about are things expressly put forth by Suzanne Collins' vision.
If he has to read the book to understand the movie then what's the point of seeing the movie exactly?

DeaDRabbiT said:
Normally I'm all for people having their own opinions, but I do find it annoying when someones opinion wreaks of an opinion chosen specifically to be counter to the majority opinion. That's just my opinion.
Or he just disagrees with the majority opinion that is possible right?
 

TheUnbeholden

New member
Dec 13, 2007
193
0
0
EnigmaticSevens said:
As far as the responsibility of a critic is concerned, I stand by what I've said. You 'review' one movie a week. If one intends to call the end product a 'review' by a 'critic,' instead of "man voicing opinions with pictures in the background",it implies a measure of research. Should he necessarily read the book, no (though it's a possibility, I chewed through all three of the bastards in three days).
No it isn't a possibility. I have never read a book in one day, let alone 3 in 3 days. (assuming the average length of a book being 300 pages) It would take about half of my free time to read one book in one week.
I get through about 100 pages in one day assuming I spend all of my free time that day...
If bob was expected to read the book the movie is based on, it would leave only half is time to get the review written/summarised to be within the clips short time frame & get clip edited with all his good takes ect

EnigmaticSevens said:
I'll agree that the handheld cam was annoying at times, but at least I can see the director's attempt at a sense of immediacy.
It was annoying to put it simply. No the director does not get points for attempting urgency, a person gets 'points' for attempting innovation... anything else you only get points for when you SUCCEED, not attempt... but win, accomplish, do well.

But even so, I agree mostly with what you said.. except the last part of your post where you try and explain away the movies failure to explain many stupid things.

EnigmaticSevens said:
As far as the film is concerned, it set out to create an entertaining visual companion to the novels, and it succeeded. Based upon its own merits, it's relatively meh but with a few good bits. I'm not sold on the idea that it need be anything else.
I think your statement here is essentially an insult to every movie maker, or movie aficionado. A movie isn't here to be a complementary snack to a book, a movie is supposed to be able to stand on its own to 2 feet. Able to create a coherent and original piece of work (in the medium its in, eg sci-fi movie) that can be judged on its own merits.
This movie does not. Its 2 and half hours long and its still not accessible to the "haven't read hunger games" crowd, in other words the general population.

EnigmaticSevens said:
That's how it plays out, that's how it makes a metric ass load of money. Would it make more if was more accessible, sure.
Should they be congratulated for that? a pat on the back? No.
Thats why people are speaking out, and being critical.

EnigmaticSevens said:
Is Lionsgate hurting for the viewer ship of non-book fans? Nah. The plain fact is that books by and large do not work as films(to a completely satisfactory degree), books work as television shows. Make a goddamn show. For a book to film translation to succeed on its own merits, it need only retain the general thrust of the novel, eschewing all else, becoming something fundamentally brilliant, but fundamentally different. Unfortunately, that shit is risky, and Lionsgate is not financing risky, it's financing something that will placate fans who ate up 29 million copies of the first book in the series alone, and keep them coming back for more. It really doesn't need to do anything else, and that's a pity, but that's the truth.
Exactly, here's a radical thought... why not make a original screen play! or only borrow some elements from book its based on. Hence take on the "inspired by so-and-so book or series" with honour and create something that doesn't require everyone to read the book in order to understand its plot or message.

But see they are getting a fair bit of the non-book readers (or atleast the ones that haven't read this particular book) to see the movie. Theres the uninformed who go with their friends to see it, theres the casual movie goer who sees it out of curiosity.
Then theres those who go by the reviews and the audience scores of Rotten Tomatoes (which have apparently given a highly positive praise, which is only now starting to decline)... they deserve their moneys worth. Lions Gate isn't going to get respect for playing it safe.
 

theSteamSupported

New member
Mar 4, 2012
245
0
0
theSteamSupported said:
I thought your review was funnier than usual, very ZP-ish. Do this more often.

As for the movie itself, I've read books, thought they were pretty good and I'm seeing it with my sister tomorrow. I hope I'll disagree with you, Bob. Fingers crossed.
Okay, saw the movie last Saturday. None of the disappointment I was expecting to receive showed up, really. To me it was a really thrilling ride, I have to say. I could feel my heart beating very fast when I left the theatre.

However, I'm seriously doubting I can recommend it to anyone who hasn't read the book. More than half of the book was about Katniss introspectively reflecting upon the situation seh ahs found herself in. That is where the book really shines, but it's downright impossible to implement those thoughts on the silver screen. Also, there's a lot of details in the novel, explaining how and why people behaved like they did, that didn't make it to the adaptation.

In contrast to Bob's opinion's, I actually thought the movie was at times too fast. Not enough time is given to the development of the essential, supporting characters. The only reason I could understand what the devil was going on, was that I with the novel fill in all the plot holes.

In conclusion, read the book before you go see the movie.
 

Chezza

New member
Feb 17, 2010
129
0
0
Last night me and my friends were deciding what to watch. The Hunger Games, or the Raid? We chose the Raid... and we chose well!

What a terrific movie, did not expect such quality! Glad I avoided a movie that seems to be targeted to a niche audience of teenage girl readers.
 

ImProvGamr

New member
Feb 2, 2012
70
0
0
Just saw the movie last night. Have to say, I would have been way happier with the movie if it wasn't for it's fairly shoddy camera work. I remember the complaints about Cloverfield's shaky-cam give a bunch of people motion sickness, and I didn't have a problem; on the other hand, the first 10 to 20 minutes of this movie made me feel like I was going to puke. Also, the camera got way too unnecessarily close during close up shots.

Besides that, I didn't think it was all too bad. I do think that all of the stuff that was caused by the organizers of the game (Fireballs? Really?) detracted from the potential survival-horror Battle Royale potential, but that's my only other big complaint about the movie. Overall, I think the Japanese were able to pull it off better.
 

ImProvGamr

New member
Feb 2, 2012
70
0
0
theSteamSupported said:
However, I'm seriously doubting I can recommend it to anyone who hasn't read the book. More than half of the book was about Katniss introspectively reflecting upon the situation seh ahs found herself in. That is where the book really shines, but it's downright impossible to implement those thoughts on the silver screen. Also, there's a lot of details in the novel, explaining how and why people behaved like they did, that didn't make it to the adaptation.

In contrast to Bob's opinion's, I actually thought the movie was at times too fast. Not enough time is given to the development of the essential, supporting characters. The only reason I could understand what the devil was going on, was that I with the novel fill in all the plot holes.

In conclusion, read the book before you go see the movie.
This is the problem ALL novel to movie adaptations though, and why some really great novels make fairly mediocre movies. You're trying to force a full novel's depth and information into only 2-1/2 hours, so a lot of non-essential development and explanatory material is going to be cut in order to get everything in.
 

DeaDRabbiT

New member
Sep 25, 2010
139
0
0
verylost said:
DeaDRabbiT said:
I think Bob set out to dislike the movie. I also don't believe Bob read the source material. Almost everything he complained about are things expressly put forth by Suzanne Collins' vision.
If he has to read the book to understand the movie then what's the point of seeing the movie exactly?

DeaDRabbiT said:
Normally I'm all for people having their own opinions, but I do find it annoying when someones opinion wreaks of an opinion chosen specifically to be counter to the majority opinion. That's just my opinion.
Or he just disagrees with the majority opinion that is possible right?
As far as your first query, is that a serious one? I mean If he had read the book, he would have known that there was a deeper meaning to Katniss being named Katniss (other than it just being future shtick) and if he had read the books, he might have a better understanding of why it's not inconceivable that the Capitol government would not be concerned that some of the youngest citizens of the 12 districts are being trained to be savage warriors IE: They aren't supposed to be training to be savage warriors, they are supposed to be starving, and only privy to training the week before the games.

In regard to your second comment, like I said, when it's someones prerogative to have a counter opinion just for the sake of having a counter opinion. That is a situation in which I find that person annoying. And in the case of "The Hunger Games" it's very tempting to shit on something, just because everyone else seems to love it. Hence the 85% on RT, and Bob's smug ass being all "I don't see what all the majority hub bub is about, this movie is shit."

I usually agree with Bob, but in the end I think he is just trying to be difficult about this film. I think if everyone shit on this movie, he would probably be giving a glowing review. That's just what I took away from this review.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
I think that if you read and enjoyed the book, you'll enjoy the movie a great deal, though you'll be mentally filling in a lot of backstory and detail. If you haven't read the book, you might still enjoy the movie, but it will seem thin and even nonsensical in places. Sme things don't get explained very well, like the fact that the hunting Katniss and Gale do is illegal, which is why it's a rare skill. The question of whether Peeta really feels something for Katniss or is just playing to the crowd isn't a question at all in the movie, so you lose a lot of what makes that part of the plot interesting.

I personally really enjoyed the movie, but I don't think it was really made with the wider audience in mind.
 

doublenix

New member
Jul 16, 2009
93
0
0
DVS BSTrD said:
I'm gunna go out on a limb and say he hasn't actually read the books.
Still it looks like the Hunger Games are a little...

*puts on sunglasses*

Starved for Substance
I would say he didn't read the book based on the complaints he had. Some of the things he mentioned would make a lot more sense if he read the first book. However, he would have a whole list of other complaints if he did. Some of the details included were cool, some completely unnecessary (like backpack contents), and some were just pulled out of thin air.
Some things, like the whole mutt scene, made me mad. The point of them were just stripped away by making them almost holo-creatures. They were twisted genetic creations made from the slain opponents. Much bigger point there than some dogs spawned out of nowhere.
However, looking at it from the position he had, I would probably make a lot of the same points without knowledge of the book myself.
 

Elijah Newton

New member
Sep 17, 2008
456
0
0
I'm usually a big fan of Movie Bob's reviews because he brings a lot of knowledge to the table, but today I'm in the uncomfortable position of feeling distinctly like he didn't do his homework on this one. Yes, movies should stand on their own, but Bob also rightly teaches us that we ought to know source material. This isn't like getting to know War and Peace, which in addition to daunting length requires history and cultural footnotes. The Hunger Games, if you're over 14, is practically a pamphlet and all the references are distinctly contemporary.

Movie Bob's technical criticisms of the movie (shakeycam, slow pacing, etc) were as always, totally on. But taking potshots at the names is an uncommonly cheap tactic for him to have used and I'm surprised that so many people in the forums are letting it slide and even encouraging him. This is, as has been noted, already Yahtzee's schtick.

It's not that the movie was a great adaptation of the books, but the source material is considerably more nuanced than I think Bob knows. Take the inevitable Battle Royale comparisons - I have also made them, they are fair game. But the devil is in the details and they are worth noting. Battle Royale is aimed at an adult audience and is an allegory about what it means to be young and survive in a dog-eat-dog world, making it really easy to toss off a teensploitation flick. The Hunger Games, by comparison, is aimed at a much younger audience* but deals with the more complex issue of the loss of humanity that comes with forced exposure to war and violence**. That the book pulls this off is a-fucking-mazing; that the movie does not absolutely should be cited as one of its chief failings, yes, but with the acknowledgement that this is a hard goal to reach. In fairness to it's intended audience, the movie needed to hit its goal within a PG-13 rating. I would've thought Bob would find this to have been a particularly intriguing challenge, given his knowledge of how ratings work.

Goddammit Bob, why'd you have to be so shallow with your points on this one? You had a steak dinner in front of you and you sipped a glass of water. This was an average movie when it could have been so much more, but the ways in which it fails elevate it and are really telling about what we expect of movies. I know I'm posting late in the reponse cycle but I really hope someone reads this and takes it into consideration when making their own decision.

See the movie. Read the books. They are absolutely worth your time.


* for me this nullifies a lot of the 'borrowed from other sources' arguments. It's all new to the intended audience, as adults we are the guests here.

** one of the movie's big failings is not setting up the book's central conceit that Capitol = U.S.A., District 11 = Afganistan / Iraq. I kinda figured they weren't going to go there, but the effete and weirdly dressed citizens? Yeah, that's _us_. The starving heroine with the distinctly American ideals? _Not us_. The book pulls it off incredibly well.
 

Nemu

In my hand I hold a key...
Oct 14, 2009
1,278
0
0
I'd never heard of the books before my g/f told me that she had read them, but I enjoyed this movie when we saw it. Perhaps it's because I hadn't read the books prior to my viewing, but I thought it was fairly interesting and that Jennifer Lawrence completely carried the flick.

After further description of what the movie didn't cover, my gf convinced me to read the first novel (and Amazon's $% Kindle sale for it didn't hurt).

Having not seen (nor read) Twilight, this HAS to be better than the preview of the next Twilight movie, at least.
I very nearly peed myself with laughter when I saw the Twilight trailer and heard the line "we're the same temperature now...". My god, that was PAINFULLY hysterical.
 

Falseprophet

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,381
0
0
Finally saw it yesterday. I agree with Bob about the shaky-cam. It was egregious and excessive to the point of nausea, especially during scenes that weren't even action.

That's about the only thing Bob and I agreed about this movie. Sorry, this is going to be one of those rare times I think you're out to lunch, Bob.

Callate said:
That the basic premise of lethal human vs. human bloodsport has been handled elsewhere before should come as a surprise to no one; it goes back at least as far as "The Most Dangerous Game", and yes, I've seen The Running Man and Rollerball as well as slightly more obscure entires like Series 7: The Contenders and Battle Royale. And none of those movies, to my recollection, handled the contestants own awareness of the necessity of playing to the public for their own survival as interestingly as The Hunger Games. That alone ought to warrant not being sneered at as nothing but a copycat.
This, this, a thousand times this. This is what I've been saying to people. If anything, I was surprised how much the film downplayed this aspect from the book.

I actually find the sequels to be better than the first book. Most stories in this genre are a comparatively simplistic, "if you win the arena, you overthrow the government" story. Catching Fire and Mockingjay go into the complexities of organizing a popular uprising based around a populist figure and how Katniss playing to the crowd is even more vital in that context. I'm very glad the sequel is all but guaranteed to be greenlighted.
 

EnigmaticSevens

New member
Sep 18, 2009
265
0
0
TheUnbeholden said:
No it isn't a possibility. I have never read a book in one day, let alone 3 in 3 days. (assuming the average length of a book being 300 pages) It would take about half of my free time to read one book in one week.

I get through about 100 pages in one day assuming I spend all of my free time that day...
If bob was expected to read the book the movie is based on, it would leave only half is time to get the review written/summarised to be within the clips short time frame & get clip edited with all his good takes ect
Yes, it is a possibility, all things are possible, though not all things are probable. How probable a solution this is for Bob is an unknown, I don't know how fast he reads, what other projects he has going simultaneously, if he's holding down a 9 to 5 in addition to this rather cush set up, etc. But is it possible? Hell yes. Folks are assigned 300+ page novels to read over a weekend. And if he's in that much a crunch for time, spark notes that shit. It's better than nothing, and what we have here is nothing. If you want to beat your breast and champion the cause of the movie maker and the movie aficionado, shouldn't you demand a higher level of criticism? What you've got, is a stream of verbiage and the pretense of witticism coupled with a slide show. This may not be without merit or worth in and of itself, but is this a review I'd expect most thinking souls to take halfway seriously? Hell no.

TheUnbeholden said:
I think your statement here is essentially an insult to every movie maker, or movie aficionado. A movie isn't here to be a complementary snack to a book, a movie is supposed to be able to stand on its own to 2 feet. Able to create a coherent and original piece of work (in the medium its in, eg sci-fi movie) that can be judged on its own merits.
This movie does not. Its 2 and half hours long and its still not accessible to the "haven't read hunger games" crowd, in other words the general population.
My friend, pause a moment, and realize the swaths of butthurt in the above series of statements. A movie doesn't have to me anything more than a series of moving pictures with or without accompanying sounds. If a film doesn't take the risks inherent in an adaptation rather than a translation (which by all means, I typically prefer), because it's meant to cater primarily to those hungering for a translation, it has the right to do so, and should be judged from both perspectives (that of outsider and intimate.) Don't talk to me about insult, not when we're calling this a successful review. The art, lit., and music majors don't give movies quite as much flak as video games, but the community as a whole hardly seems to consider them equal to their preferred cultural mediums. I'm not saying this is good or fair, it's merely true. You've got high enough standards for your films, but appalling standards for your critics.

Lionsgate isn't hurting for your respect, they'd prefer your coin. Go into the film expecting an adequate translation of the novels into celluloid, and more often than not, you'll walk away generally pleased. Walk into the theater expecting a half way decent film, and lo and behold, this is what you'll receive (dependent of course upon how you define a half-way decent film).

I'm not here to champion the film, never had been, never will be (I'll champion the Fountain, I'll champion that shit till kingdom come), you may like it, you might not, definitely get more out of it if you read the book, etc. etc. I'm generally more concerned with a man who tends (on occasion) to show a high level of critical insight and knowledge, half-assing it. (though this is rather indicative of the state of criticism for the medium).
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
http://www.uproxx.com/webculture/2012/03/dear-internet-stop-calling-the-hunger-games-a-battle-royale-rip-off/#page/1