The Hunger Games

[egoplant]

I was disappointed that they didn't show the deaths very much because they wanted to keep a PG-13, where something like Battle Royale embraces them completely. I thought Jennifer Lawrence was stiff and didn't bring much to the role. Stanley Tucci was probably the best part. I think they went overboard with the crazy hairstyles for the Capitol residents. They also seemed to rush the arena parts, but the pre-arena stuff was well paced. The shaky cam and editing overall didn't really fit.

[egoplant]

I don't get how a PG-13 forces them to limit the "violence." Revenge of the Sith showed a close-up of Anakin burning alive with his skin getting charred and dropping off and it got a PG-13 no problem. You can go pretty damn far nowadays in violence and retain a PG-13.Or is it solely because of the "children" dying factor that they're dancing around the whole "death" portrayal?

You can't show very much blood. If you think about it, there wasn't a single drop of blood in things like Return Of The King or The Dark Knight. It's hilarious when in Inception Joseph-Gordon Levitt gets shot in the face and it appears as a black dot.

[lab276]

There's plenty of blood in this, much more than I was expecting.

[Dementeleus]

Like I said earlier, you don't need to show a lot of blood to imply brutality.

[egoplant]

There's plenty of blood in this, much more than I was expecting.

I think it was kind of a trade off though, there was some blood, but that means they couldn't focus on the deaths to much as a compromise.

[Dementeleus]

Look at it this way, when Boromir died in FOTR, it was a very brutal death, but you didn't see a drop of blood. Not saying you needed to show all the deaths here in the same way (or even to the same extent), but half-assing it in crazy Handheld-Vision sells the whole enterprise short.

[MovieMan89]

There's plenty of blood in this, much more than I was expecting.

Yeah I was quite frankly shocked with what they got away with there, especially since it was dealing with youth violence. There was way more gore than I ever expected out of a PG-13 rating. I don't see how you can complain about that aspect.

[egoplant]

If you compare the deaths to something like Battle Royale (not that they had to go that over the top), but you can see a pretty big difference. A couple quick cuts of blood on the ground, and faces doesn't cut it. Sorry.

[Warhorse]

OK, I saw this earlier. Never read the book, and don't know much about what's going on, so I went in with an open mind. I liked the movie. The scenes were tense, the acting was excellent, and I really liked the main characters. There were also some excellent scenes that evoked quite the emotions, especially with Katniss volunteering and Rue.What I didn't like. I loathed the shaky cam, and I really wish the big studios would just ban it forever, there is no need for it. The girl fight near the end was so badly shot, it's just disappointing that what could have been a truly excellent movie is scarred by some dumb director who thinks he is being stylish.I also felt the ending was a bit abrupt, and perhaps the movie could have used another 15 or 20 minutes for just a bit more character development. I have no intentions of seeing this again in the theater, but I'll probably buy it when it comes on Blu-Ray.I give it a B. I would have given it an A if it wasn't for that ridiculous shaky cam.

[egoplant]

The movie would have been better at 3 hours in my opinion. I think this would have made a good TV series to be honest.

[AniNate]

I think it was kind of a trade off though, there was some blood, but that means they couldn't focus on the deaths to much as a compromise.

And they shouldn't have. If you linger too much on the deaths you risk crossing into exploitation. If the tributes aren't lingering over them, I don't think the film should either. That's also why I didn't mind the shaky cam during the games because it's all a chaotic blur to the tributes, and it's like experiencing it with them. Edited March 25, 2012 by tribefan695

[Webslinger]

Arriving as the newest "it" young adult literary saga to make the jump to the big screen, The Hunger Games delivers upon the lofty hype that its adherents have set up for it. Under the direction of Gary Ross (who evidently picks his projects carefully given the fact that this is only the third movie he has directed between 1998 and now), this film is one that immediately grabs audiences and pulls them into the world onscreen, and doesn't lose its grip at any point during its lengthy 142-minute running time. As one would hope with this adaptation, the filmmakers take the themes about media power and manipulation seriously, and the violence achieves the desired effect of being sobering rather than rousing. Indeed, this is easily the darkest and most violent of the movies adapted from young adult fantasy, and it's the work of clever editing and camera angles that keep things contained in the PG-13 ballpark. In addition to engaging the intellect with fascinating ideas about government control, the power of media to keep people in check, the rewards that can come from making brave sacrifices for others, and the things one can do to maintain identity and dignity amid oppression, it also packs an emotional punch on numerous occasions, and has one scene about two-thirds of the way through that is so poignantly done that it shouldn't come as a surprise to see much of the audience tearing up. Another major factor working in the film's favor is the stellar performance from Jennifer Lawrence. Lawrence is at turns commanding and tender as the protagonist Katniss Everdeen, which allows her to sell the character exactly as Suzanne Collins wrote her on the page. The role itself is reminiscent of the Oscar-nominated one she had in Winter's Bone, and her work here is at least on par with what she did in that film, if not better. And of course, the audiences who rightfully bemoan the idea of Twilight's Bella Swan as any kind of role model for young women will be happy to see that Katniss is a brave, determined, and often selfless person who looks out for the well-being of people she cares about. Josh Hutcherson and Woody Harrelson are also very good as Katniss' fellow district competitor and mentor, respectively. Hutcherson ably conveys his character's own acting within the games, while Harrelson packs a great deal of inferred information into his character simply through his tone and gestures. Although the word in many quarters is that this installment is the strongest one of Collins' trilogy, I remain excited for the sequels; the filmmakers have opened up an interesting world filled with intriguing ideas, and perhaps the highest compliment I can pay to it is that even though I was not a rabid fan going in (I only read through about 250 pages of the first book beforehand), I was left hungry for more by the time the credits started to roll.

A-

And to respond to one of the issues that has been brought up elsewhere in the thread, I didn't have a problem with the shaky camerawork. Given that the filmmakers seemed to be trying to disorient the audience in a similar way to how the protagonist experiences disorientation in the film, I thought it went with the territory, so I didn't find it to be significantly distracting.

[Dementeleus]

And to respond to one of the issues that has been brought up elsewhere in the thread, I didn't have a problem with the shaky camerawork. Given that the filmmakers seemed to be trying to disorient the audience in a similar way to how the protagonist experiences disorientation in the film, I thought it went with the territory, so I didn't find it to be significantly distracting.

Really? Not even in the beginning?

[AniNate]

Given that the filmmakers seemed to be trying to disorient the audience in a similar way to how the protagonist experiences disorientation in the film, I thought it went with the territory, so I didn't find it to be significantly distracting.

Exactly. I don't think the shaky cam was just some lazy way to avoid cleanly filming the violence. It was a stylistic choice that probably made a lot of sense to the filmmakers.

[AniNate]

Really? Not even in the beginning?

At the beginning I think it was intended to further differentiate District 12 from the glossy Capitol. It was probably less necessary there, but I didn't mind it.

[lab276]

Really? Not even in the beginning?

It did kind of bug me in the beginning, even though it didn't the first time I saw it. But for the games, it worked perfectly.

[Dementeleus]

For the early scenes, clearly they were going for a docu-feel, along with desaturating the color, etc. Fine, fine -- but the problem is that if you're actually trying to shoot a documentary,you try to minimize your shaky cameras. And you'd settle down once you picked your shot. Consistently and continually racking focus, staying out of focus, snap-cutting across the line, not cleanly framing shots.... all this is really distracting, and if you don't have a good reason to do it, it's almost worthless and runs the risk of ruining other aspects of a scene.It's very rare that I'm actually bothered by handheld shots; I felt this film was particularly poor in that regard.The action scenes are somewhat more justified (for the reasons mentioned I earlier posts), but I question their overall effectiveness compared to other options. Handheld cameras for action scenes is old hat and pretty exhausted as an aesthetic choice these days. It's a cheap way to introduce intensity.

[AniNate]

I really don't think filmmakers care if something is "old hat", they just go with whatever they think fits the atmosphere of the story the best. Shaky cam is just a new filmmaking technique that can be used either skillfully or terribly. It's not something that's ever going to go away.

Edited March 25, 2012 by tribefan695

[Dementeleus]

I really don't think filmmakers care if something is "old hat", they just go with whatever they think fits the atmosphere of the story the best.

Yeah, but it's been done a million times. Not that interesting or compelling (although my annoyance with it in the combat scenes is less because of its use and more because I felt there wasn't much impact to the initial beginning if the Games and especially to the district riots).

[Webslinger]

Really? Not even in the beginning?

Not really. As tribefan was getting at, it was a decision that seemed to contribute to the gritty feel the filmmakers were going for in establishing the setting.But to be fair, I usually don't tend to have that much of a problem with the shaky cam technique, and I did see the film on a relatively small screen.