The Hunger Games

[rockNrollaDIM]

LMFAO BK. :lol:

[baumer]

my god, what a boring mess. A bag full of emptiness. capitol full of caricature characters. they don't inspire fear, just laughter. how can anyone take them seriously? no stakes, i didn't care about either of the players. no emotional investment, no backround story to get us to care about these kids. lenny kravitz should never act again. jennifer L was okay, but i expected better. Josh hutcherson was the best thing about this movie.

the combo of the capitol caricature with the supposed life threatening games simply didn't work. you know they are laughable, not life menacing. it takes you completely out of the movie. i treated them like a joke.

this movie was garbage,pure kitsch

please people, watch Battle Royale. It's an insult to that movie to be compared to this mess

Kind of agree with this. Battle Royale, as you say, did it much better.

[baumer]

My points about the film clearly illustrate that I just couldn't get into it. If I liked the film, if it connected with me, then you have suspension of disbelief. When you don't connect with it you start wondering why Stanley Tucci has blue hair. You can't try to make me like a film. Either you do or you don't. For the most part I didn't.

[BiffMan]

My points about the film clearly illustrate that I just couldn't get into it. If I liked the film, if it connected with me, then you have suspension of disbelief. When you don't connect with it you start wondering why Stanley Tucci has blue hair. You can't try to make me like a film. Either you do or you don't. For the most part I didn't.

I think that's a perfectly expected and probably not uncommon reaction for folks who haven't read the books. And that shouldn't be necessary for a film. This may be a case of the filmmakers being a little too immersed in the source material that they take certain knowledge for granted.As with most good books that are made into films, the movie comes off as a bit of a hollow echo of the greater richness and detail of the book. If you found the subject matter or setting at all interesting, it would be worth giving book 1 at least a try. Not to change your opinion of the film, just to enjoy some "more" surrounding what you did get to see.

[Webslinger]

My understanding was that the blue hair is a visual representation of how garish the people of the higher, more well-off districts are in comparison to the people of the lower, poorer districts. Their reactions to the Games were another representation: the folks in District 1 are totally taken with the glamor of the tributes beforehand despite knowing that twenty-three of them will be slated to die painfully, while the ones in Districts 11 and 12 just watch stone-faced in the few scenes we see of them. My assumption is that the distinctions between districts and how they perceive the government's grip over their lives will be further fleshed out in the next two/three movies.As far as recent adaptations go, I think the filmmakers here did a far better job at achieving a sense of clarity on the world in the film (or at least making comprehensible implications about it) than was done in John Carter, where I was lost through most of the first act. But it probably also helps that I had read most of the book before seeing the movie in this case.

[lab276]

As far as I'm concerned, you take the movie as it comes at you. If the people in the Capital have weird-ass clothes, then so be it, that's just the way it is.

[baumer]

As far as I'm concerned, you take the movie as it comes at you. If the people in the Capital have weird-ass clothes, then so be it, that's just the way it is.

For you, that's great. But for me, no deal. I want to know why. How did humanity go from what we are now to what they are in this film? And what caused the uprising? What war caused there to be districts? How are the haves and the have nots so segregated in this world?The Matrix explained it very well, why can't this?

[lab276]

For you, that's great. But for me, no deal. I want to know why. How did humanity go from what we are now to what they are in this film? And what caused the uprising? What war caused there to be districts? How are the haves and the have nots so segregated in this world?The Matrix explained it very well, why can't this?

Those questions are, quite frankly, immaterial to the movie. What caused the world to be this way? A war. What caused the uprising? They weren't very happy. What war caused there to be districts? The war. How are the haves and have nots so segregated? I think you mean why, in which case, it's because they lost the war. Edited March 26, 2012 by lab276

[baumer]

Those questions are, quite frankly, immaterial to the movie. What caused the world to be this way? A war. What caused the uprising? They weren't very happy. What war caused there to be districts? The war. How are the haves and have nots so segregated? I think you mean why, in which case, it's because they lost the war.

Great. You got more out of it than I did. This means you can enjoy it much more than I can. This should make you happy.

[cozmeesah]

To be fair, baumer, a lot of what you are asking is somewhat answered in the follow-up books. You can't expect them to have explained EVERYTHING in the first book/film. Especially the stuff that shouldn't and doesn't need explanation.

[rockNrollaDIM]

I already can't wait for the blu-ray.

[Noctis]

I just wanna watch the mutts chasing them. That was so exciting.

[CJohn]

No, it's not that. I enjoyed the film in some ways. I just didn't take it all in the way the masses did.

I was just joking

[Plain Old Tele]

I don't agree with all his points, but here's a pretty solid review that sums up largely how I felt (although this dude read the books beforehand and I hadn't, so all the "the books did it better" comments are pointless to me):http://lostangelesblog.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/my-review-of-the-hunger-games/

[baumer]

I don't agree with all his points, but here's a pretty solid review that sums up largely how I felt (although this dude read the books beforehand and I hadn't, so all the "the books did it better" comments are pointless to me):http://lostangelesbl...e-hunger-games/

That is a fantastic review. I think he nailed much of how I feel about the film. It was too quick and not epic enough and surely not violent enough. Well done Bearfighter.

[Plain Old Tele]

That is a fantastic review. I think he nailed much of how I feel about the film. It was too quick and not epic enough and surely not violent enough. Well done Bearfighter.

Interesting that we both felt the review summed up our own feelings in general, but I'm much more positive towards the film than you. I guess for me the negatives didn't outweigh the positives, and for you they did.

[baumer]

I liked aspects of the film and I didn't hate it overall, but it did have a lot of problems.

[Gopher]

I don't agree with all his points, but here's a pretty solid review that sums up largely how I felt (although this dude read the books beforehand and I hadn't, so all the "the books did it better" comments are pointless to me):http://lostangelesbl...e-hunger-games/

This is a great review. He makes a lot of true points, but I'll just quote one I really resonated with-

The most epic part of the Hunger Games was the trailer for Prometheus before the movie.

The book has a scope that measures up to Potter or LOTR, but nothing in the movie really showed this. Maybe Lionsgate will write them a blank check for Catching Fire and the next movie will feel grandiose. But that's not the big problem- as long as these movies are PG-13, then they just won't be as effective as they should be.

[75Live]

That is a fantastic review. I think he nailed much of how I feel about the film. It was too quick and not epic enough and surely not violent enough. Well done Bearfighter.

Yeah that review is pretty much how I felt as well, as can be seen in my quick review early in this thread. I liked it enough and will most likely see the next one, but overall, the movie was just there and nothing stood out to me. I think Bearfighter called it exactly right

[John Marston]

the violence in this is overrated. There was nothing made this close to an R