-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Hunger Games (Dir. Gary Ross) |OT| May The Odds Be Ever In Your Favor
- Thread starter Replicant
- Start date
- Status
Pachterballs
Banned
peeta's hand in that shot being discussed.
- which he couldn't have planned for; a sign of his ballessness. He didn't even know she was around.
wasn't blood on peeta's hand in that shot being discussed. Its juice. He seems to be totally inept at picking berries having squished it all over his hands. but yeah, it was poisonous - the chick ate the fruit he laid out. - hence the whole "I didn't even realise she was trailing me comment". red haired chick probably wasn't tracking him to kill him; she seemed to spend her time in the film running away
why is an accidental kill
VeryGooster
Banned
I think I enjoyed this. I mean, I didn't hate it. However, what I took away is that this movie has a series of a great scenes and moments but as a whole film it feels uneven. I am either watching teenage Schindler's List or The Fifth Element. I enjoyed the book, yet it wasn't completely there for me. Lawrence was great, though. Was a bit disappointed with Kravitz as Cinna.
For some reason I always pegged Gale as a "Meh, whatever" kind of guy, so for whatever reason his line delivery in his opening scene with Katniss was really... weird.
Yet if someone asked, I'd recommend this movie, though, thumbs up I guess.
On a side note: I couldn't believe the reaction to the Breaking Dawn 2 trailer. People clapped and cheered at Kristen Stewart scowling menacingly at a deer. Bravo.
For some reason I always pegged Gale as a "Meh, whatever" kind of guy, so for whatever reason his line delivery in his opening scene with Katniss was really... weird.
Yet if someone asked, I'd recommend this movie, though, thumbs up I guess.
On a side note: I couldn't believe the reaction to the Breaking Dawn 2 trailer. People clapped and cheered at Kristen Stewart scowling menacingly at a deer. Bravo.
Demoncarnotaur
Member
For me the real issue was
why even have the camera pan towards his hand, seemingly implying something if he honestly didn't know anything about what happened. I mean, I believe it was just a coincidence, but it was weird from a filmmaking standpoint.
Shaky and ultrazoom cam sucked.off course having to sit in the first row didnt help. The story was Overall ok, nothing super original or suprising .didnt hate it , wont watch it again though. Heck i honestly think i prefer J.C.
Edit:i always enjoy seeing woody perform.
Now i gotta in me a copy of the running man.
Edit:i always enjoy seeing woody perform.
Now i gotta in me a copy of the running man.
Loved this. So did the audience I viewed it with. Captured the essence of the book beautifully. Some of the changes were noted but I understand that in adapting a novel for film certain content must be scrapped.
Made me want to read the book again in fact.
I loved Lawrence as Katniss and Hutcherson's Peeta (!!!), the role just fits him so perfectly.
Made me want to read the book again in fact.
I loved Lawrence as Katniss and Hutcherson's Peeta (!!!), the role just fits him so perfectly.
I don't see the problem with shaky cam. I didn't remember any shaky camera work and so I'd assume whenever it happened, it wasn't a big deal. I do plan on re-watching the movie in IMAX again as I adored it. So I guess I'll try to watch out for that and see if it was unnecessary. edit: I read a post in another thread that made it seem like the entire movie had shaky cam... A dude called it unwatchable. Wow, haha. I honestly did not remember any shaky cam.
I did love the movie so much though. I love a good story about dystopias. =) I liked the build up to the beginning of the actual hunger games, and the brutal way the contestants dwindled down as the movie went on. Plus the soundtrack was friggin awesome.
The people I saw it with just tore all the fun out of my soul and threw it in the crapper though. Oh my lord all they did was invent flaws out of nowhere because everything in the movie was done better in Battle Royale. I've never seen Battle Royale before but I got really ticked off while driving back home while they were comparing the two movies. What made it worse was that we were cruising on the 407 toll highway and the argument made me miss the 427 south exit and so I had to drive a little extra on the fucking 407 toll highway to get home.
I did love the movie so much though. I love a good story about dystopias. =) I liked the build up to the beginning of the actual hunger games, and the brutal way the contestants dwindled down as the movie went on. Plus the soundtrack was friggin awesome.
The people I saw it with just tore all the fun out of my soul and threw it in the crapper though. Oh my lord all they did was invent flaws out of nowhere because everything in the movie was done better in Battle Royale. I've never seen Battle Royale before but I got really ticked off while driving back home while they were comparing the two movies. What made it worse was that we were cruising on the 407 toll highway and the argument made me miss the 427 south exit and so I had to drive a little extra on the fucking 407 toll highway to get home.
Glad you enjoyed it. The comparison to Battle Royal is useless in my opinion. This is not supposed to be some American version of Battle Royal. ::sigh:: I mean, who cares.
Thankfully the 2 other people I saw the film with enjoyed it with me.
Fixed1979
Member
It's also the same few people being the loudest. I'm not insinuating that people shouldn't complain, but some of the complaints seem like their just going out of the way to look for things to complain about.
I actually watched BR tonight for the first time tonight. While I enjoyed the film the story is so far removed from the HG books comparisons outside of a bunch of kids that have to kill each other are silly. It was fleshed out near as much (not that I was expecting it to be).
demosthenes
Member
Just got back, I enjoyed it a lot. Was it perfect? Nope but I didn't expect it to be 
Read the first book this past week, books 2 and 3 are on the way. Look forward to the next movies, even though I've heard mixed things about the 2nd and 3rd book.
Read the first book this past week, books 2 and 3 are on the way. Look forward to the next movies, even though I've heard mixed things about the 2nd and 3rd book.
petethepanda
Member
Couldn't stand the camera work anytime things got actiony. There's handheld, which I'd defend, but then there's "shaky-cam," and this fell on the wrong side. You can shoot something handheld but still have a sense of space and clearly convey motion, this just didn't do that much of the time.
Aside from that, movie was alright. Solid but nothing special. Great casting amd performances, good art direction, appreciated that the score wasn't overbearing as it often is in movies like this. Felt a bit rushed, though, another ten minutes to let things breathe would have been nice.
My only problem adaptation-wise (read the first book and enjoyed it; couldn't make it more than 50 pages into the second) was the ending. It ends on a completely different note/tone and it doesn't work nearly as well. (End of book/movie)
The movie's ending does do a much better job at setting up future installments but I think it's to the detriment of this one as an individual story.
Edit: Not that I wanted "more romance" in the movie. The way it was handled for much of the book was incredibly annoying so it was nice that they toned it down, but events late in the book were pretty good so it's frustrating to see them leave out the only parts of that thread I actually enjoyed lol.
Aside from that, movie was alright. Solid but nothing special. Great casting amd performances, good art direction, appreciated that the score wasn't overbearing as it often is in movies like this. Felt a bit rushed, though, another ten minutes to let things breathe would have been nice.
My only problem adaptation-wise (read the first book and enjoyed it; couldn't make it more than 50 pages into the second) was the ending. It ends on a completely different note/tone and it doesn't work nearly as well. (End of book/movie)
In the book, Katniss (while mildly conflicted) makes it clear to Peeta that she was just "playing the part" with the romance, effectively tearing his heart out and stomping on it since to him his experiences in the games and its aftermath were actually fulfilling his genuine long-time feelings for her. He goes through the motions and smiles and kisses her for the cameras, but he's been deeply hurt and doesn't want anything to do with her off-camera. Katniss thinks of how she's alienated Peeta and how Gale will react to her "romance" and wishes she could pause before having to deal with these new circumstances. It's a somber ending that closes the book on an satisfyingly bittersweet note. Unless I missed something, the movie barely even deals with this in the end, it's pretty much smiles all around.
Edit: Not that I wanted "more romance" in the movie. The way it was handled for much of the book was incredibly annoying so it was nice that they toned it down, but events late in the book were pretty good so it's frustrating to see them leave out the only parts of that thread I actually enjoyed lol.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Saw it.
Didn't read the books but I really enjoyed it. (I love dystopian bleak future settings anyway).
Question for those that read the books:
Didn't read the books but I really enjoyed it. (I love dystopian bleak future settings anyway).
Question for those that read the books:
The movie seems really kinda self contained. What is covered in the other 2 books? The downfall of the Republic and The Hunger Games in general? Are the two "winners" forced to somehow defend their championship in a fucked up changing of the "rules"?
Pachterballs
Banned
I don't think they needed to play up the
The lead actress in this is great. She had that look to her; all stoic, independent and tough. perfectly cast imo.
I geniunely liked this and might go see this again
peeta/katniss/thorbro 3 way romance. They never showed the 2 having lingering love glances after the game; and they've made it quite clear; you PLAY to the camera; her first kiss in the cave was not even a kiss. She has it in her head that she can get "sponsors" good through playing a role so she went in for the full kiss. Gary Ross/Script + lawrence's character were very in control all the time so I just figured; the romance with peeta was not real.
I geniunely liked this and might go see this again
Kind of. (general spoilers for overall of later books)
The actions of the first movie lead to unrest in the districts, specifically sort of Katniss and her defiance as a symbol of revolution (which usually doesn't happen pan-District, since districts don't have communication between each other, so it's sort of a big deal); there's a tradition of every 25th Hunger Games having some fucked-up rule change. Coincidentally, the year Katniss is a problem for the government, the 75th's Rule Change is that the tributes are pulled from the pool of prior winners. Since she's the only female winner in her district, she's forced back into the games in the second book. The third book is all politics/rebellion though.
Yeah, thought that was pretty goofy as well. Peeta could've killed all the careers in their sleep/Katniss could've shot them from above as well. Katniss also could've taken out quite a few of them by detonating the mines while they were still camped around the supplies.
Some goofy decisions made all around.
I suppose they didn't want their main characters being too lethal/cold-blooded. Also that would've spelled the end for Katniss pretty quickly if Cato would've just walked around the tree.
petethepanda
Member
I was under the impression that they just weren't as good a shot as her and that she was too high up for them to be able to realistically hit her. But yeah, it could have been made clearer, same idea crossed my mind lol.
ryutaro's mama
Member
In the books
outside of places to farm combatants for The Hunger Games, what other purpose do the 12 districts serve? When a person gets older than 18, can they leave, or graduate out of the districts? Cycle into the "greater" society? I didn't see a distinct connection between societies like in The Time Machine.
I don't believe they can. Essentially, your life is heavily dictated by the role you're born into.
The twelve districts all have specific 'exports' of a sort, based on location. Katniss' district is responsible for coal, and almost everyone born there is going to grow up, be a miner, and die in the district ('upper class' people, like Peeta, get to do things like bake instead, but for most people... it's mining and then death.) Rue's district is responsible for agriculture, and the people there work all day in the fields picking fruit they don't get to keep to be sent to the Capitol for distribution to Panem, etc. District Four provides seafood, another district handles tech, District One (I think) produces most of the Peacekeeper force. The whole Tribute thing is basically the Capitol reminding the districts that while there may be more people subjugated in the Districts than living it up in the Capitol, the Capitol can still order you to send your kids to die and you can't do anything about it (note no Tributes come from the Capitol, because it's the Districts that revolted against the Capitol way back when.) The Capitol relies on the Districts to supply them with essentially everything needed for everyday life, the only thing they have going for them is their near-total control of the population.
Since almost nobody travels between Districts, and moving is unheard of, and all people really know is the life in their district and whatever propaganda the Capitol airs, Katniss threatening suicide with Peeta and getting the Capitol to let them both live is the first sign a lot of people have that you can stand up to the Capitol and win. And since the Hunger Games are basically mandatory viewing, serving to keep morale down, everyone everywhere at once saw it.
Since almost nobody travels between Districts, and moving is unheard of, and all people really know is the life in their district and whatever propaganda the Capitol airs, Katniss threatening suicide with Peeta and getting the Capitol to let them both live is the first sign a lot of people have that you can stand up to the Capitol and win. And since the Hunger Games are basically mandatory viewing, serving to keep morale down, everyone everywhere at once saw it.
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
This sucked. It's actually worse than the book, which surprised me, since I didn't have a high opinion of it in the first place.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Wow.
I know that stuff isn't needed for a 2 hour treatment but it's really fascinating. Good stuff.
Also, I thought that the reason it was called The Hunger Games was because
the winner also "won" food for the starving district they came from as well, making the desperation of winning higher.
I guess I was wrong. It was because
of the amount of times your name is entered is based on the amount of times you needed to eat @ the expense of the Capitol, right?
My guess is that the second movie will make a lot of that more clear.
There isn't an official stated reason I'm aware of--both of your theories would work, though, and it's easy to see either or both being used to justify the games back when they started.
TheChewyWaffles
Member
Per your last question, children can take an extra portion of food from the capital in exchange for another entry of your name in the reaping. Many poorer kids did this to help feed their families. Katniss did this extensively.
ryutaro's mama
Member
Is that why Primrose was so worried? Did she take several extra portions and that was giving her nightmares?
SteveWinwood
Member
Did they really not explain this in the movie?
Prim only had one entry in the bowl, because you just get one for turning 12. Katniss had a whole bunch because she was taking a whole bunch of food to help feed her family.
I just got back from seeing it. I've never touched any of the novels in my life or even knew much about it except it's light comparisons to Battle Royal. I went in with an open mind and a bit of interest about the whole thing.
As a movie it wasn't bad, I definitely enjoyed it somewhat, but I didn't find it to be very engaging. I didn't really care much about the characters, and they didn't really make the world all that interesting.
I know there's other books in the series, but the ending didn't really make me curious about what happens next (even though obviously something happens next). That said, I'll probably see the sequels if they make them.
As a movie it wasn't bad, I definitely enjoyed it somewhat, but I didn't find it to be very engaging. I didn't really care much about the characters, and they didn't really make the world all that interesting.
I know there's other books in the series, but the ending didn't really make me curious about what happens next (even though obviously something happens next). That said, I'll probably see the sequels if they make them.
Saw it earlier tonight. A lot of cliche stuff but it wasn't terrible.
The
The
seemingly magic technology they used to bring in dogs and fireballs seemed a little odd though. I think I would have liked it more if they didn't show that one dog materializing from thin air. Stuff coming from offscreen leaves more to the imagination.
toxicgonzo
Taxes?! Isn't this the line for Metallica?
I watched the movie and I liked it. I also read the book, which probably made the difference.
If it was not for the book, it probably would have just been an okay movie.
Jennifer Lawrence was a good choice for Katniss.
And the actor who played Caesar Flickman was awesome too.
That said, shaky cam was a problem and it was so bad at times I had trouble even identifying the gender of the attacker.
My friend said the blurring may have been to avoid an R rating.
The movie really felt limited at times by the PG-13 rating.
I'm not interested in glorifying child murder but it needed a little more gritty realism.
If it was not for the book, it probably would have just been an okay movie.
Jennifer Lawrence was a good choice for Katniss.
And the actor who played Caesar Flickman was awesome too.
That said, shaky cam was a problem and it was so bad at times I had trouble even identifying the gender of the attacker.
My friend said the blurring may have been to avoid an R rating.
The movie really felt limited at times by the PG-13 rating.
I'm not interested in glorifying child murder but it needed a little more gritty realism.
the dogs didn't come from thin air, they rose out of the ground. I don't see the big deal with that. The arena is supposed to simulate all kinds of settings. It is the future after all.
I liked it. I found the casting and actors to be really good. Especially since most of them were teens which usually tend to over-act.
I could have sworn they showed a dog phasing in like a hologram or something. I had to suspend disbelief a little more for that but if they rose up it's fine. Anyway it doesn't make much difference because it's just a means to progress the actual meat of the story and the technology isn't the main focus.
I agree about the casting. All of the kids were good and Woody Harrelson was a stand-out for me.
They laughed heartily at that in my screening, which was composed 90% of Twilight-type fans. I was impressed!
Top 7? What an arbitrary number.
It isn't though. You're supposed to get the feeling that the Capitol can basically do whatever they want. Simple science tricks like that are easily within their capabilities.
Remember that the games are just as much a form of humiliation for the Districts as they are a form of entertainment for the Capitol citizens.
This definitely sounds like a detrimental factor.
The book isn't extremely graphic, but it gives you a good idea of what's going on, and the violence is generally pretty good.
I don't really care about depictions of child murder. It isn't glorifying it. I'd definitely prefer an R-rated version of this story.
Ugh, the fucking camera. Someone please fire this cameraman/battle co-ordinator. WTF was that shit? I want to see the fights not getting headache. Definitely one of the worst camera work I've had the misfortune to see.
But Sculli must be crazy if he thinks this is worse than JOHN BOMBA. At least this movie was coherent and knows what story it wants to tell. Unfortunately, just like the book, I felt that the movie's sense of adventure deflates quickly post
. After that, the film felt a bit schmaltzy and romance-heavy for my taste.
I didn't like the casting of Jen.Law but after seeing the film she sold me as Katniss. She captures Katniss' ice-cold personality perfectly well and manages to convey the fake happiness and smile she occasionally flashes all in the name of the game. Not convinced at all of Josh Hutcherson though and I think he has zero chemistry with Katniss.
I like Gary Ross' stage and art direction but I can't help but wonder why anyone poor dress up like my great grandparents back in the olden days whereas the rich look like clowns. I'd thought with all the money the Capitol's residences have, they can afford better plastic surgery or at least have better taste.
Overall, I don't think this left the kind of visceral shock that Battle Royale gave me but I'm shocked to see people say that this is a bad movie. It is not. It's a solid movie that doesn't explore its full potential. But it's not a schlock like "The Last Airbender" or "John Carter".
But Sculli must be crazy if he thinks this is worse than JOHN BOMBA. At least this movie was coherent and knows what story it wants to tell. Unfortunately, just like the book, I felt that the movie's sense of adventure deflates quickly post
Rue's death
I didn't like the casting of Jen.Law but after seeing the film she sold me as Katniss. She captures Katniss' ice-cold personality perfectly well and manages to convey the fake happiness and smile she occasionally flashes all in the name of the game. Not convinced at all of Josh Hutcherson though and I think he has zero chemistry with Katniss.
I like Gary Ross' stage and art direction but I can't help but wonder why anyone poor dress up like my great grandparents back in the olden days whereas the rich look like clowns. I'd thought with all the money the Capitol's residences have, they can afford better plastic surgery or at least have better taste.
Overall, I don't think this left the kind of visceral shock that Battle Royale gave me but I'm shocked to see people say that this is a bad movie. It is not. It's a solid movie that doesn't explore its full potential. But it's not a schlock like "The Last Airbender" or "John Carter".
Whoa whoa whoa. I might not be as high on John Carter as Sculli is, but I really wouldn't put it anywhere near the absolute mess that was The Last Airbender.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Crazy like a fox!
John Carter racked up a higher kill count in a Disney movie than this movie about people fighting to the death. The score from my boy Newton-Howard was lackluster, the production design sucked, it was shot like a high budget tv show and the whole thing was just horribly written.
Acting-wise, I'll agree that it's better than "Airbender" but story-wise? Ugh. I mean there were moments in "Hunger Games" where I went "Where did that come from?". But nothing that made me rolled my eyes so hard to the back of my head like when I saw "John Carter".
Scullibundo said:
Riiiiiight. Because higher kill count automatically make a film better. Besides, if I want to see bloodbath done right, I'll see "Battle Royale", not "John Carter".
Synth_floyd
Banned
How does this compare to Battle Royale? I don't know really know anything about the Hunger Games except it seems like basically the same concept as Battle Royale, which I really enjoyed.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
John Carter was better directed, better shot, had a better score and whilst it had some ridiculousness within it, it didn't take itself too seriously. It knew it was a light-hearted romping adventure and wasn't scared to play up that angle.
The scenes between the main characters of The Hunger Games were Stephanie Meyer bad. I will say it again; a strong heroine isn't strong because every male character around her is written as a sobbing, blubbering pussy defined by the fact that can't possibly spare a second without pining for the female lead. Pretty much every emotional beat in The Hunger Games fell flat to the point of comedy.
That sounds kind of sexist. Katniss wasn't written in relation to the male characters. In fact, half of the movie she wasn't even interacting with the main male character. She was busy crafting her own identity and survival techniques. Moreover, she didn't have to parade around in skimpy bikini like the Princess in "John Carter", just to get a few lines in the film.
You want to talk about awful female representation? You don't need to look further than John Carter where the female lead need help from the male lead to save her. Meanwhile the girls in Hunger Games fight for themselves and die for themselves.
- Status