Escape to the Movies: The Hunger Games

skankingfool

New member
Oct 29, 2009
2
0
0
This review was spot on. My suspension of disbelief was tenuous at best until late in the movie when it was absolutely blown out of the water. Even up to that point I felt like it did not do a good job of conveying the world to me. Then it reaches a point where they are trying to explain too much about things that don't really matter, but that ends up destroying the fragile illusion.
 

jmarquiso

New member
Nov 21, 2009
513
0
0
Frank_Sinatra_ said:
There's also Roger Ebert Americas most beloved film critic.
Mr. Ebert gave the film 3 stars, but if you read the review he seems more indifferent towards the movie which makes me wonder why he didn't give it 2 stars.
Ebert tends to give slightly above average movies 2 1/2 to 3 stars, so it's not too surprising. That, and sci-fi just isn't his thing it seems.
 

Tarkand

New member
Dec 15, 2009
468
0
0
katsabas said:
It wasn't about her death. It was about her funeral being made by someone from another district, which from what I gather, doesn't happen very often. When the districts lost the war and the Capitol decided to start the Hunger Games, they didn't do this just for entertainment's sake. This was punishment and a way to make the districts direct their fury against each other, instead of planning how to start a revolution. Mob control at its basic.

Now granted, it took 75 years for them to reach that conclusion but still.

The other reason was that Rue's district afforded to go over the edge. Why ? Cause a pretty fair amount of barley and food in general that the Capitol needed came from that district. You can see that in the movie and President Snow also mentions this.

I didn't think the love story was cute. Cato (the guy with the sword) left a 10 year old in charge to guard their supplies. The supplies get blown up. What does he do ? He doesn't care about what happened, he snaps the little boy's neck without even blinking. That's the sort of environment the love story takes place.
Wait what?

This is a TV show, we know/see everything. Everybody knows that Katniss volunteered to save her sister. Everybody know that those other tributes are ripped out of their district and don't really want to do this. They are terrified. We only see District's 12 reaping, but it's obvious that doom and gloom fills the air and that none of those kids want to be there.

And this has been going for 75 years. On camera. One can only imagine the amount of human drama that is seen every year. That's what seems to be making the show popular (it certainly isn't the non-stop action...)

And yet you're telling me the District hate each other instead of hating their tormentor? That doesn't make any sense. It's clear that those game happens as punishment for the lower class... the freaking 'moto' of the Games said at beginning flat out says so!

And not to mention that after seeing your own kids get killed by other district for 74 years, it's totally ridiculous to assume one funeral will suddenly flip everything around. That Katniss would become extremely likeable and popular and lead the peasant revolt that is hamfistedly foreshadowed through the movie - sure... that'd they'd suddenly flip their shit tho?

'Oh my god! The people of other district are people too! Even thought we've known this for 74 years since it's been reinforced in the only tv show we have access too! My mind is blown! I'm gonna riot!'

-_-


And don't even start with LOTR. The core story is understandable, but there are a miriad questions on the side. Assuming you haven't red the book, would you be able to tell me how come Gandalf ended up at the top of a mountain after fighting the Balrog and falling to the bottom of Moria ? Or the meaning of Elrond's phrase 'Anduril, flame of the west, forged from the shards of Narsil' ? Or who do the giant statues in the first film represent ? Or the reason why Sauron can see through the Palantir ? And that's only some of the questions.
It's established very early on and reinforced many time that Gandalf is a Wizard, the Elves are cryptic and mysterious, that the world is old and ancient with many secrets and that Sauron is essentially a god with telepathic and farsight powers.

All the 'questions' you raises fall within things the movie spend time to be coherent about and can thus be handwaved without further expositions.

Hunger games shows you stuff and expect you to connect the pieces (or more likely, have read the book) to give you context, rather then actually establish much of an internal consistency with itself.
 

Raioken18

New member
Dec 18, 2009
336
0
0
I'm a 24 year old male... I enjoyed it a lot. (hadn't read the books)

-Noted the shaky handcam and horrible editing that was done to imply travelling (close up of face, random scenery shot, another close up of face)... if we don't know the locations or distances, then doing that is pointless!

But... I dunno, I think a lot of peope disliked that it featured a tough female lead and just automatically started picking it to pieces... it did seem to have a lot more feminine traits to design choices, but I thought that increased the... ummm fakeness? of the people who lived in the main city.

>>>Spoilers<<<

What were people having trouble understanding about the plot? It was a distopia type setting kind of like Brave New World where there is a government in a main city that controls the lives of everyone, however the pull of the people was important because even with their advanced technology they still needed cheap labour and the vast natural resources to continue their consumer driven society.

Except you started out in the wild, and the competition was based there, interlaced with the fakeness of how the competitors were meant to act on the stage of that talk show. The audience in the main city obviously viewed the outer districts as animals.

And the riot surrounding Ru seemed to be based in their actual realisation that Katniss had shown more compassion to her than their government would. It seemed that the competitors corpses were usually left on the battlefield.

It did seem like a bit of a cop out that nobody good was killed by any of the good guys, the nightshade thing... even though it set the romeo and juliet style ending, seemed pretty crummy.

>>>End spoilers<<<
 

Saladfax

New member
May 16, 2008
15
0
0
No work of anything is immune to criticism, hole-poking, or anything else. Your continued desire to express the weaknesses of The Hunger Games pretty much only shows that you dislike it, which makes your suspension of disbelief waffle against the little issues you see in them.

I won't say I know anything about Suzanne Collins' motivations in writing, but the series definitely seems to be geared toward a young adult market, leaning towards females. By its genre and target audience, it's safe to assume it was not intended to be an completely original work of brilliance or a master class in world-building techniques. They are quite short novels leading to a faithful adaptation, spending more time on character and story than they do the hows and whys of the world.

Yes, I understand there's not much depth, and much of the functioning of the world is to be taken on faith (or, of course, suspension of disbelief). If you enjoy and can get immersed in the story, suspension of disbelief isn't hard. If you don't, then it's probably not the genre or style for you.

Go read/see Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, V for Vendetta, Logan's Run maybe...

Complaining about something which you don't like by sheer preference doesn't mean the obvious choices made by the writer are any less valid. Yes, there are weaknesses to the world of the Hunger Games, maybe more so than other stories, but many of them can be boiled down to a general simplicity of concept which can be expressed as intentional toward the target audience.

Or, at least that's how I see it.
 

Mangue Surfer

New member
May 29, 2010
364
0
0
Susan Arendt said:
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.
I disagree. The book is all narrated by Katniss and this make some things less interesting for some because the ?I'm deducting like a ninja? factor. Make ?The Truman Show? approach put the game itself and the policy discussion more in focus for a lot of people. Besides, put the young to suffer is already the wider audience thing these days.
 

katsabas

New member
Apr 23, 2008
1,515
0
0
Tarkand said:
Wait what?

This is a TV show, we know/see everything. Everybody knows that Katniss volunteered to save her sister. Everybody know that those other tributes are ripped out of their district and don't really want to do this. They are terrified. We only see District's 12 reaping, but it's obvious that doom and gloom fills the air and that none of those kids want to be there.
That's not true. A certain district has actually been training its kids for the games since they were 5 or 6 years old. The sword guy and the knife girl really liked what they were doing.

Tarkand said:
And this has been going for 75 years. On camera. One can only imagine the amount of human drama that is seen every year. That's what seems to be making the show popular (it certainly isn't the non-stop action...)

And yet you're telling me the District hate each other instead of hating their tormentor? That doesn't make any sense. It's clear that those game happens as punishment for the lower class... the freaking 'moto' of the Games said at beginning flat out says so!

And not to mention that after seeing your own kids get killed by other district for 74 years, it's totally ridiculous to assume one funeral will suddenly flip everything around. That Katniss would become extremely likeable and popular and lead the peasant revolt that is hamfistedly foreshadowed through the movie - sure... that'd they'd suddenly flip their shit tho?
The Ottoman occupation of Greece lasted almost 400 years. The Feudal Era of Japan 700. Civil Wars were inevitable. It has more to do with the state of mind of the populace than the length of occupation. You can never quite tell when a person is fed up. Koreans actually cried when their most recent oppressive prime minister died.

You cannot tell what's going on inside a person's head. There were certainly people in the districts that thought they deserved what happened to them, so they decided to stay quiet. Others would be scared. So they also stayed quiet. Katniss may have represented her people, but that doesn't mean everybody in district 12 was brave.


Tarkand said:
It's established very early on and reinforced many time that Gandalf is a Wizard, the Elves are cryptic and mysterious, that the world is old and ancient with many secrets and that Sauron is essentially a god with telepathic and farsight powers.

All the 'questions' you raises fall within things the movie spend time to be coherent about and can thus be handwaved without further expositions.

Hunger games shows you stuff and expect you to connect the pieces (or more likely, have read the book) to give you context, rather then actually establish much of an internal consistency with itself.
Totally depends on how deep the viewer wants to dig. You have questions about THG, I had questions about LOTR.
 

Elpollomyloco

New member
Oct 31, 2011
2
0
0
Yeah, the special effects were cheap-looking, and yeah the ending was very anticlimactic, but I think you'll be happy to know that the effects caused by Katniss Everdeen's rebellion is much more evident throughout the next two films/books. For somebody who enjoyed Captain America, I thought you'd appreciate the character development and pacing of this movie a little more.
 

Pebblig

New member
Jan 27, 2011
300
0
0
My friend mentioned to me a while back that their was a hideous western "version" of Battle Royale coming out, it wasn't until today when I read the IMDB description that I realised this was it xD

I suppose I may watch it in about 10 years if it hasn't been lost.

canadamus_prime said:
Oh boy, it's going to be Eragorn all over again.
The Eragorn movie was UNBELIEVABLY shit. I adored the books, but I actually had to attempt to forget the film it was so bad.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Pebblig said:
canadamus_prime said:
Oh boy, it's going to be Eragorn all over again.
The Eragorn movie was UNBELIEVABLY shit. I adored the books, but I actually had to attempt to forget the film it was so bad.
You're about the 5th or 6th person now who apparently completely misunderstood what I meant.
 

Pebblig

New member
Jan 27, 2011
300
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
Pebblig said:
canadamus_prime said:
Oh boy, it's going to be Eragorn all over again.
The Eragorn movie was UNBELIEVABLY shit. I adored the books, but I actually had to attempt to forget the film it was so bad.
You're about the 5th or 6th person now who apparently completely misunderstood what I meant.
Then expand upon your statement sir! I assume it's because I misinterpreted "oh boy" as being negative?
 

wolfgirl90

New member
Mar 6, 2009
24
0
0
katsabas said:
Tarkand said:
Why is there a riot after Ru dies?

I understand why the viewers are supposed to feel sad. She's young. She's cute has a button. She's nice. She's essentially the hero's sidekick.

But did they not know she was going to die? Have they not been watching this show for 75 years? Is there a riot after a kid die in every district and they decided not to show us? If anything, Ru actually had a pretty clean death compared to some of the other kid.

She died honorably even. Which considered the unfairness linked to her youth in this competition, should make her family and district proud.

On top of that, compared to every single contestant that died, she has the closest thing resembling a funeral, given to her but someone who's the closest thing to a people's champion the lower class have. This should be a great honor.

But nope, they flip their shit.
It wasn't about her death. It was about her funeral being made by someone from another district, which from what I gather, doesn't happen very often. When the districts lost the war and the Capitol decided to start the Hunger Games, they didn't do this just for entertainment's sake. This was punishment and a way to make the districts direct their fury against each other, instead of planning how to start a revolution. Mob control at its basic.
That's not the reason. Not even close.

Ya see, the Hunger Games are a reminder of the position of the Districts; they rebelled, they lost, and this is their punishment. Now, the Capitol likes to dress this up as a big ceremony that brings "honor" to the Districts and that it is something that is done to maintain the peace between the Districts and the Capitol, but most of the Districts don't see it that way; the Career Districts (1, 2, and 4) have the best relationship with the Capitol, but everybody else hates them. The hate is directed at the Capitol, NOT between Districts (that wouldn't make any sense). The reason that the Districts didn't start planning revolutions left and right is because 1) the Peacemakers have better weapons and technology; simply speaking of revolution is going to lead to a bullet to the skull and 2) communication and traveling between Districts is severely limited. Most people will spend their entire lives within one District. So even if a District wanted to rebel, they wouldn't be able to spread their intentions to other Districts.

Now, the reason that the people in District 11 rioted (which, in the book, didn't happen at Rue's death, but later in the series) was because they realized that Katniss wasn't willing to take the Capitol's crap anymore; she was willing the stand up and resist the status quo (whether Katniss meant to send that message or not).

Usually, during the Hunger Games, an alliance is a temporary partnership; no emotion is involved because the two people are just going to kill each other. Because of this, some back stabbing is going to occur. But Katniss genuinely cared about Rue's well-being and tried to help her survive. When Katniss decided to recognize Rue's death by giving an impromptu funeral (something that is simply unheard of), she was (effectively) flipping off the Capitol. Nobody else in the Arena may care about Rue, and the Captitol may care about Rue, but SHE does. The fact that she cared about Rue, a fellow Tribute, someone she was supposed to kill (hell, the younger ones are usually picked off first) causes District 11 to support her and rebel, although in the book, they don't cause a full riot because of this (in fact, showing District 11 rebelling at such a scale throws off the story a bit and complicates an emotional scene).
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Pebblig said:
canadamus_prime said:
Pebblig said:
canadamus_prime said:
Oh boy, it's going to be Eragorn all over again.
The Eragorn movie was UNBELIEVABLY shit. I adored the books, but I actually had to attempt to forget the film it was so bad.
You're about the 5th or 6th person now who apparently completely misunderstood what I meant.
Then expand upon your statement sir! I assume it's because I misinterpreted "oh boy" as being negative?
Nope you were right, that was intended as a negative. However I was despairing because of the fan reaction to the Eragorn movie, not the Eragorn movie itself.
 

Furrama

New member
Jul 24, 2008
295
0
0
Sorry Bob, you have too many petty and hypocritical reasons to dislike this one. Future sounding names are overdone to YOU. Oh yes, there are things to dislike about the editing and camera work, the fact that they cut out perhaps too much for time and left non readers of the book out in the dark, but your general disregarding of the material on the bases of "this has all been done before" without giving credit to some of new twists on old tropes is pretty shallow given some of the ridiculous stuff you do like and find "sacred" or give passes to because it is the same old thing you've always liked.
 

Dreadjaws

New member
Nov 29, 2011
48
0
0
I don't understand people thinking this is in the same vein as the Twilight books. Where did that idea came from? Is it because the protagonist is a girl? I honestly don't know where did this rumor originate from, but it couldn't be farther away from the truth.

This is hardly a movie focused in teen angst or a love story. Sure, those things are mentioned here and there, but they're not a main part of the film. Also, there are real, interesting and deep characters here, not empty shells or submissive main characters. And the acting is much, much better.

I really enjoyed the movie. I haven't read the book is based on, but I'm definitely going to. And I respectfully disagree with the review. I don't think the movie is neither cheap, generic nor lifeless. Sure, it has a few issues, but nothing major. I think you don't like it not because it's been done before, but because it doesn't happen to be the story that's been done before and you like.
 

Ruley

New member
Sep 3, 2010
192
0
0
People have to understand that a film adaptation of a book is a fantastic way to generate more business for the franchise if handled well. It defiantly did the job with Harry Potter as i know many people who watched the films first before going to track down the books (although i like to read books before seeing the film adaptation so that the film is more an extension to my enjoyment). But the film should not just be an extension to the franchise for the already established fans - they're already going to see it even if you cast cats and dogs to play the lead actors - they're already fans!!

By not giving proper care and attention to setting up the film as a stand alone entity they have seriously damaged their credibility and lost out on millions of book sales by not making people want to go away and buy the books.(Although, they might still get loads of book sales from people who saw the film but want to know what the hell they were originally wanting to see).

I think the film is a good way to waste a rainy afternoon and isn't that what the general public wants at the end of the day? Just don't expect to come out wanting more, the film stinks of twilight subplots in the attempt to get teenagers to cling to a new Hollywood love interest.

My advice would be to read the books then just go watch Battle Royal.
 

Rythe

New member
Mar 28, 2009
57
0
0
As someone who's decided not to touch Twilight with a ten foot pole, I also don't see the comparison between that franchise and The Hunger Games, especially the movie. Oh, I understand why people would try to connect the two, but it tempts me to think rather unflattering things about those people who are earnest about it.

That said, I figured out that I didn't agree with Movie Bob a long time ago, and only watched this out of a mixture of boredom, mild curiosity, and lack of alternative distractions. I didn't finish watching his review for all the reasons I generally try to avoid it in the first place. Succinctly - rich in experience but shallow in perspective.

The other disclaimer is that I agree, the movie didn't quite reach the heights it could have, but I don't think graphic, explicit violence would be the answer. (Besides which, isn't that part of the point the movie is trying to make?) I'd go with better editing, and an expert if deft hand at action. Hunger Games said a lot by what it didn't show, which I appreciate and would expect out of the improved action sequences as well. Peeta needed more character to his character, and shaky cam needs to die in a fire as usual, even if I understand the theory of it in the beginning of the film.

But the movie was good, quite good really. Better than any I've seen in a long time. I enjoyed the costume design and that the visuals in general weren't the usual hyper-real, Hollywood tripe, because the acting and vision behind the movie were the heart of the experience and the reason it shined above the masses, not the production values. The disparity between the two left a lot more room for the former, and it helped in this case. Since when was a good movie defined by production values anyway?

The weaknesses weren't pronounced enough to hurt my experience, the strengths were more than worth seeing, and really, how many movies can say even that much these days?

Oh, I haven't read the books either.
 

Cosplay Horatio

New member
May 19, 2009
1,145
0
0
I recently rented and watched the Official Battle Royale DVD release in it's English dubbed option because I'm most likely not gonna go see Hunger Games in theaters and the dubbed English format is as horrible as 60's and 70's dubbed Chinese Kung Fu movies but at least we have the option to watch Battle Royale because Hunger Games to me will never be as sexy and brutal as BR 1 and 2.
 

Frozengale

New member
Sep 9, 2009
761
0
0
For the most part I thought this was a good movie, but OH MY GOSH GET A TRIPOD! I agree with you fully on that part Bob. This could easily have been called "The Hunger Games: Close-ups and Shakey Cam". Close-ups can be used to make a scene feel claustrophoic, or focused, or any number of things. But when EVERY SINGLE SHOT IS A CLOSE UP all I feel is like I'm watching a movie through binoculars.