the hunger games

[the darknees abyss]

i saw the hunger games on sunday it was awesome so what other people think did you cry at all i did
so what did guys think of the hunger games

 

[Dr Pussymagnet]

ya i saw it 3 times it was p good i cried very tiem

 

[Spambot 3000]

Out of 10 I give it a 5 and a half.
It was alright, but I didn't find it noteworthy. I also couldn't figure out if the ending was simply inconclusive or one of those 'implying sequel' endings - which I fackin hate.

 

[bobmus]

I really hope the second post was just taking the piss....

Anyway, I liked it. Other than the shaky action shots (which were clearly only there for the censors) it was pretty damn true to the book.

Spoiler

I would've liked to have seen more of an effort in making the mutt-ations have the faces of the competitors (which is kinda the whole point in the book). Also I think the end of the film actually messes a little with the start of book 2, which has several chapters written on the train home.

I also couldn't figure out if the ending was simply inconclusive or one of those 'implying sequel' endings - which I fackin hate.

Uh, there's a sequel - there's three books. How do people not know these things?

 

[Vrex360]

alright film
terribly shot though, the action scenes were some of the worst id ever seen thanks to shakey cam bs.

I can't help but feel that was supposed to be intentional though. After all the book and movie were not about the celebration of violence but rather the horrifying implications of what these young people have to go through in service to a society that celebrates violence.

After all these are children being forced to kill one another in brutal ways for the sake of an audience watching. For that reason I think it's good that they use shaky camera footage, and don't stylize anything and spend more time emphasizing characters reactions to the implied violence rather than violence itself. The camera is hectic and panicky because it fits with the tone of the film and I think that, again, given the entire theme is essentially 'violence is bad and there is something wrong with a society that would glorify it', don't you think it'd be a bit off message to make it into an all uber stylized action film?

 

[Spambot 3000]

I also couldn't figure out if the ending was simply inconclusive or one of those 'implying sequel' endings - which I fackin hate.

Uh, there's a sequel - there's three books. How do people not know these things?

I thought there was just the one book. Not that I've read it either - I only heard of this books existence after the movie was released.

 

[bobmus]

I also couldn't figure out if the ending was simply inconclusive or one of those 'implying sequel' endings - which I fackin hate.

Uh, there's a sequel - there's three books. How do people not know these things?

I thought there was just the one book. Not that I've read it either - I only heard of this books existence after the movie was released.

Fair enough. Anyway, it's a trilogy, and the general rule is that the book is always better - so read the books!
[small]Disclaimer: I didn't like Book 3[/small]

 

[Ultress]

It was ok, a little on the long side but it had some fun performances and effects though they could have explained things better or you know developed Gale a little bit.

 

[StriderShinryu]

I quite liked the movie. I wouldn't call it perfect by any means, and some of the edits they made from the books had me scratching my head, but I think it was definitely a success as a film. I can't say exactly how it would play for those who hadn't read the books beforehand but as someone who did read the books I liked it enough to want to see it again in theatre at some point.

alright film
terribly shot though, the action scenes were some of the worst id ever seen thanks to shakey cam bs.

I can't help but feel that was supposed to be intentional though. After all the book and movie were not about the celebration of violence but rather the horrifying implications of what these young people have to go through in service to a society that celebrates violence.

After all these are children being forced to kill one another in brutal ways for the sake of an audience watching. For that reason I think it's good that they use shaky camera footage, and don't stylize anything and spend more time emphasizing characters reactions to the implied violence rather than violence itself. The camera is hectic and panicky because it fits with the tone of the film and I think that, again, given the entire theme is essentially 'violence is bad and there is something wrong with a society that would glorify it', don't you think it'd be a bit off message to make it into an all uber stylized action film?

Yep, this be the truth. I know some people don't like the style, but it was deliberately chosen to mirror the mindset of the storyline. They could have made a big budget blockbuster version of the books with super slick action scenes, but that would have essentially been creating the sort of spectable that the books very clearly take issue with.

 

[Westaway]

It's a horrible knock off of an actually good book movie, Battle Royal. Watch Movie Bob's review for my full opinion.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

I liked it. I was the one who was commenting on Moviebob's review saying it was pretty good as I really didn't like how so many people were acting so damn smug about predicting it to be bad. I also needed something to do as I hadn't and couldn't sleep.

I also couldn't figure out if the ending was simply inconclusive or one of those 'implying sequel' endings - which I fackin hate.

Uh, there's a sequel - there's three books. How do people not know these things?

I thought there was just the one book. Not that I've read it either - I only heard of this books existence after the movie was released.

Fair enough. Anyway, it's a trilogy, and the general rule is that the book is always better - so read the books!
[small]Disclaimer: I didn't like Book 3[/small]

Seems not much of anybody likes book 3. I personally thought it was fine, though mostly because I appreciated the very end of it all. The majority of the third act however...

 

[bobmus]

Seems not much of anybody likes book 3. I personally thought it was fine, though mostly because I appreciated the very end of it all. The majority of the third act however...

The third act killed it for me. I agree that the conclusion was very good, and plot-wise stayed strong, but the pacing of the third act was just appalling. Characters were lost so fast it was difficult to keep track, just as new ones had been introduced. To me it felt like she wanted to write four books, or at least a longer third act, but had been edited down to a shorter book.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

alright film
terribly shot though, the action scenes were some of the worst id ever seen thanks to shakey cam bs.

I can't help but feel that was supposed to be intentional though. After all the book and movie were not about the celebration of violence but rather the horrifying implications of what these young people have to go through in service to a society that celebrates violence.

After all these are children being forced to kill one another in brutal ways for the sake of an audience watching. For that reason I think it's good that they use shaky camera footage, and don't stylize anything and spend more time emphasizing characters reactions to the implied violence rather than violence itself. The camera is hectic and panicky because it fits with the tone of the film and I think that, again, given the entire theme is essentially 'violence is bad and there is something wrong with a society that would glorify it', don't you think it'd be a bit off message to make it into an all uber stylized action film?

Yeah, but that doesn't explain the excessive use of shakey cam at the very beginning of the movie. Here is someone walking down a corridor. SHAAAAAKKKKKEEEEEE EEEARRRTTHTHHQQUAAKKKEEEE AAARRRGGGHHHH. Which I personally found quite distracting.

Other than that I thought it was a really good movie (haven't read the books). I liked the way they drew you in to the idea of being trapped into having to do the games, and go along with the whole horrible affair, so at first you were against the whole spectacle of it and wanted nothing more than to see her going postal on everyone. (Go on! Punch smiling pink lady in the face, kick president Birdseye in the gonads!) Until you realised that the only way to win was to play the game; You had to act like it's a privelege, and win the crowds over, because you were actually powerless to change the system so all you could do was survive it.

 

[Robert Ewing]

I watched it, and thought it was decent enough. Not an amazing film, but very decent.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Seems not much of anybody likes book 3. I personally thought it was fine, though mostly because I appreciated the very end of it all. The majority of the third act however...

The third act killed it for me. I agree that the conclusion was very good, and plot-wise stayed strong, but the pacing of the third act was just appalling. Characters were lost so fast it was difficult to keep track, just as new ones had been introduced. To me it felt like she wanted to write four books, or at least a longer third act, but had been edited down to a shorter book.

I'd agree with that. The third act could have easily been a book all its own, or at least half of one. Either the book should have been longer or there should have been four books.