The Hunger Games

[areaseven]

So, who in here watched the film adaptation of the Suzanne Collins novel The Hunger Games? I just saw it earlier tonight. Yes, it has some plot issues, the shaky camerawork is severely nauseating, and the costume design is too weird by dystopian standards, but it's almost as watchable as Battle Royale. Almost.

The Hunger Games Official Site

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire Official Site

Edited November 27, 2013 by areaseven

[Benson13]

When something is described as the next Twilight, I'll pass.

[Roy Focker]

Don't care. Really I don't. I just hate these over hyped books that people read because they are over hyped that are then made into a movie because it was an over hyped book and now it is an over hyped movie.

Twilight, Davinci Code, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Harry Potter and what ever else I'm missing. Haven't read none of them nor saw more than a movie trailer for them.

[Keith]

Heard they went soft on the actual killing, which makes no sense whatsoever. I'll stick with Battle Royale thanks!

[myk]

Don't care. Really I don't. I just hate these over hyped books that people read because they are over hyped that are then made into a movie because it was an over hyped book and now it is an over hyped movie.

Twilight, Davinci Code, Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Harry Potter and what ever else I'm missing. Haven't read none of them nor saw more than a movie trailer for them.

'Dragon Tattoo, 'Potter, and Hunger Games are great stories; don't let these mind numbing, made for the idiot public movies and the slobbering mainstream media scare you away from a great story. Read the books, stay away from the movies, and you'll see what I mean. Those of us who have read the books and have the intelligence to appreciate the material have nothing but disdain for the movie versions.

As for the Hunger Games, I enjoyed the books, so I was looking forward to seeing this movie, although these books are SO 2009. I figured that there was no way they could screw this movie up. Guess I was wrong? I'll get around to seeing it but not hearing anything positive about it...

Edited March 26, 2012 by myk

[anime52k8]

'Dragon Tattoo, 'Potter, and Hunger Games are great stories; don't let these mind numbing, made for the idiot public movies and the slobbering mainstream media scare you away from a great story. Read the books, stay away from the movies, and you'll see what I mean. Those of us who have read the books and have the intelligence to appreciate the material have nothing but disdain for the movie versions.

As for the Hunger Games, I enjoyed the books, so I was looking forward to seeing this movie, although these books are SO 2009. I figured that there was no way they could screw this movie up. Guess I was wrong? I'll get around to seeing it but not hearing anything positive about it...

Movies based on books are so mainstream.

[Mr March]

I would see this film, but it's not something that grabbed my attention initally. I will say that Jennifer Lawrence is one of the best actors of her generation and I would watch this film just for her. Anyone who saw Winter's Bone would agree, in spite of the film itself. I hear The Hunger Games did killer at the box office! Something like $155 million in it's opening weekend, plus another $60 million internationally. Looks like everyone and their dog went to see it

As a rule, any time a film adaptation comes of a highly popular Young Adult Book, Airplane Novel or a pick from Oprah's Book Club, I'm immediately skeptical. I know this may sound like I'm criticizing popular mainstream fare, but it's more than that. I'm not sure how to describe it, but some works just have a style that indicates this isn't your kind of stuff. They feel like movies I'd enjoy if I didn't already have a long history and comfortable familiarity with the genre. Perhaps I'm wrong assuming as much about the The Hunger Games?

[PetarB]

I saw it - and it was good. Not great, but good. The camera work, however, is appalling. The acting in contrast is great - especially Jennifer Lawrence, and the young baker fellow.

[Archer]

I've read the books, and I saw the movie, and I thought it was pretty good! I liked the action and stuff, and although the killings are a bit softened, I think they have to to keep the movies PG-13.

As for more "adolescent" or mainstream books being bad, I don't really agree much with that. TBH, the act of not liking mainstream stuff is sooo mainstream that it's kind of funny to think about. A lot of books like the Girl with Dragon Tattoo and Hunger Games are really good material, and that is probably WHY they are popular in the first place. Last time I checked, good stuff actually becomes popular while stuff nobody likes doesn't....

I like "intelligent" reading as much as the next guy, but don't discredit some good stuff just cuz it's "mainstream" or movies are made out of it....

Edited March 26, 2012 by Archer

[TehPW]

I thought the reason they tamed all the children-killing-children was more in concern with certain religious groups going nuts (as well as the aspect that it really isnt cool to glorify the concept of CvC, from the nation that makes its a sad regularity in the number of Killers-per-Kills in America... If i watched FoxNoise, i'd probably those retards bashing the film FOR ITS CONTENT OF CvC...)

i havent seen it yet (and having kids, that means i gotta ask the Gmom if she will watch the brood if i want to watch it with the fiance) but if it's anything like BR, then it'll be ok in my book...

as for some of you thinking the hype is too much? yeah, most of those movies were over hyped, but only Harry Pothead actually DESERVED IT. HP is on the level of LotR in terms of when you mention the subject, what we imagined when we read the books will always be superceded by what we saw in those films...

[myk]

I would venture to say that not one person would know about Hunger Games if it wasn't hyped up by Hollywood. On that note, I'm glad that Hollywood steps in every once in a while to bring a good story to life, it's just a tradgedy that most will never take the effort to read the books and truly experience what the writer was trying to create. It's also a greater tradgedy when Hollywood ruins these stories but what can we do...

[Gunbuster]

Questions to those who read the books, did it ever explain why the chosen ones are between 13 and 18? why not choose 18 and older?

[Kelsain]

The wife & I just saw this yesterday. I enjoyed the book, and I thought the film was pretty good. The camera work was shaky at first, but it either backed off, or I got used to it. The casting was spot on, though and the production design was cool.

It seems that young adult novels translate better to movies because they don't delve too deep. It's not that they're always shallow, just more accessible. 'Course, they also come with a built-in audience... Which makes them a safe bet.

(null)

[Kelsain]

Gunbuster, it's a punishment for the rebellion of the districts. Having to offer up their children in exchange for safety keeps the districts in line. But instead of just killing the teens, the games give the people hope that they might win out. And so it works, a little carrot, a lotta stick, year after year.

(null)

[miles316]

Dystopian shock value with a evil overlord commanding children to kill other children to perpetually punish rebellious provinces or what ever they are called.

Although I have not read the books or watched the movie.

Media that deals with Dystopian futures have to use obscene and violent imagery to make up for a lack of logical and reasonably narrative that explains how things came to be.

Do the books explain the previous hundred year and how North America became a giant internment camp.

Edited March 27, 2012 by miles316

[areaseven]

Edited July 29, 2014 by areaseven

[Jasonc]

Saw it, and it was just OK. Not a great movie by any means. The camera work was horrible, and for awhile there, I was getting a little motion sickness, which is very hard for me to get. I liked Batlle Royale better. As for the idea of skipping all the book turned movie in favor of books, I'm not a movie or book snob, so I don't think you're any better or worse off by watching them. I thought this would be a good movie to watch, and it was just OK. I enjoyed John Carter more.

[Graham]

Heard it described as like The Running man, but with teenagers.

Graham

[Negotiator]

I liked it. Jennifer delivered. Didn't read the books and wouldn't have known that it was from a book until someone told me. It was absolutely nothing like twilight, don't even know how twilight was mentioned in the same breath. I've seen battle royale 1 and 2. The concept did remind me of it. Regardless, in my opinion, story was ok, acting was great and kept me interested. I think I read in the credits that the author was also part of the screenplay. Also, of course they won't show kids graphically kill eachother, but you get the point when they do.

[TehPW]

I liked it. Jennifer delivered. Didn't read the books and wouldn't have known that it was from a book until someone told me. It was absolutely nothing like twilight, don't even know how twilight was mentioned in the same breath. I've seen battle royale 1 and 2. The concept did remind me of it. Regardless, in my opinion, story was ok, acting was great and kept me interested. I think I read in the credits that the author was also part of the screenplay. Also, of course they won't show kids graphically kill eachother, but you get the point when they do.

guess we'll have to wait until the DVD comes out to see if they ever did film enough material for a R-rated CvC film...

[Old_Nash]

Battle Royale for emo:

Not blood, no violence deads, no trauma.

Have a love story in the background.

I pass.

[peter]

Looks and sounds ghey. I heard the books got their inspiration from Battle Royale but from what I've seen, it's weaksauce compared to BR.

[electric indigo]

I heard the books got their inspiration from Battle Royale

That is actually nonsense.

-

Did anybody read the Bachman/King novel "The long walk"?

[peter]

That is actually nonsense.

-

Did anybody read the Bachman/King novel "The long walk"?

Nonsense or not, it still looks like a stupid movie....no idea what all the hype is about.

[Old_Nash]

Like The Island (or Why Don't Call This Movie Logan's Run Anyway?)

[PetarB]

Its nothing to do with The Island, which I quite liked, or Logan's Run either (which I also liked!). Not sure why there are comparisons there. But it's not a bad movie. Just not 'great'. I enjoyed it.

[Penguin]

Just saw it last night and it's quite good. Never read the books.

Mentioning Twilight in any relation does the film a disservice. It's "the next Twilight" only in that it's the latest movie series adapted from a successful series of novels aimed at young adults. To be fair, I've never seen Twilight. A friend whose opinion I trust was dragged to Twilight by one of her friends, and proclaimed it irredeemable drivel. Thus, I never bothered. The Hunger Games does NOT fall into that category.

Similarly, it has a slight relation to Battle Royale only in that both stories involve adolescents forced to kill each other. The tone, atmosphere, and theme of the stories are otherwise completely different. By the available evidence, claims that The Hunger Games was derivative or a copy of Battle Royale are unfounded. Even if Collins is lying and did know of Battle Royale when writing her series, the end result stands as an independent entity. It's no more a copy than, I dunno, a movie about a heist is a copy of every other movie about a heist. Neither is it "emo Battle Royale". That implies some sort of angsty, melodramatic movie, and it's not. I hate that crap (even when I was an angsty teenager), and this really isn't it. Frankly, Battle Royale is for more angsty and melodramatic than The Hunger Games. "Shuya!!!" "Nobu!!!!" *boom* <sob> <rage>

The Good

The story is well-paced. With an over 2 hour running time, it never felt sluggish or padded with filler. The highest points are the performances. Jennifer Lawrence, Stanley Tucci, Woody Harrelson, Lenny Kravitz, and Donald Sutherland all are in solid form. Wes Bentley's character could have used a little more development, but no one seems to be phoning it in or just there for the paycheck. They did a good job of contrasting the perspective on the Hunger Games themselves: a highly-anticipated and opulent gala for the Capitol, and a horror show for the rest of the nation. For those who rate such things, I found the violence brutal enough. No, they didn't dive into showers of gore or graphically depict the killings, but neither did they shy from driving home what these burdgeoning sociopaths were doing. Watching one of the tributes hack away at another... frankly, if you can't connect with the fact that he's butchering another person without seeing the actual gore, you're too desensitized to approach it rationally anyway. As for the romance part, yes there is a slowly building emotional connection involved, but it's not some cloying, saccharine teen love affair that the movie revolved around. It's a plot point, and it services and advances the story in a solid fashion.

In fact, it starts out as a cold manipulation to gain favour with the viewing audience, and then starts to develop into something real in the way that a bond can form between two people in an extreme situation.

The Bad

The door of the theatre had a notice about the film causing motion sickness. I thought that meant an excess of fast-cut action during the fight scenes, but no. For about the first half hour of the film, the cinematography and editing are frustrating and downright annoying. Almost every shot is an unnecessary close-up or an unbelievably shaky hand-held, or both at the same time. I started thinking "I know Jennifer Lawrence has arms and legs. I saw them in X-Men: First Class. Where are they now?" The editing is nothing but rapid, 10-second bites, even during calm conversations. I have no idea what the cinematographer and editor were trying to achieve, but they failed miserably. It was seriously making me angry, and I might have walked out had it continued. Thankfully, after that first half hour, someone got slapped upside the head or took their Ritalin or something, because the camera finally pulls out and we get to linger on scenes for more than a couple of eye blinks. The fast cuts and close-ups still pop up now and again, but not nearly so often. Really, by that point, they were being used in a regular fashion, but I was just over-sensitized to them.

Aside from that, there are only some minor complaints. Some of the characters are thinly drawn. The film alludes to the idea that the other districts are nigh-starving, but it could have shown us a bit more to bring that plight home. It also could have done a bit more to show how the Capitol enforces its will on the other districts, because they frankly didn't seem menacing enough to force the rest of the nation to submit to their perverse games year after year.

All in all, I enjoyed the film. As others have noted, it's good not great, but still solid entertainment.

Who in their right mind compares Logan's Run to The Island? We're talking about the Michael Bay The Island, right? One is a story about a society where everyone is killed at age 30, the other a story about illegally raising human clones for organ harvesting and other unsavoury uses. Is it because they're both chase movies? If so, then that's kinda ridiculous.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Penguin

[Gubaba]

Who in their right mind compares Logan's Run to The Island? We're talking about the Michael Bay The Island, right? One is a story about a society where everyone is killed at age 30, the other a story about illegally raising human clones for organ harvesting and other unsavoury uses. Is it because they're both chase movies? If so, then that's kinda ridiculous.

Sorry, I know this is off-topic, but can we at least compare The Island to Parts: The Clonus Horror?

However, the trailer made it look like it was going to be Logan's Run.

[Penguin]

Sorry, I know this is off-topic, but can we at least compare The Island to Parts: The Clonus Horror?

However, the trailer made it look like it was going to be Logan's Run.

Seeing as the makers of Clonus brought a lawsuit against DreamWorks for The Island, I'd say that would be fair comparison.

[Old_Nash]

I related The Island (Michael Bay's movie) with Logan's Run, because I very much like thematic:

*The novel Island of Aldous Huxley are very different from the movie, which is more like Logan's Run

*Both have near or over 30 and have to flee.

*Both will be killed and used for specific purposes: Lincoln will be a donor and Logan will be food for others.

*Logan and Lincoln looking for a safe place.

As for Parts: Clonus Horror, I admit I never saw him, since he don't come to my country and unaware of the existence of such a work.

[Uxi]

Wife was all over the books so wanted to see this. I tried to read the book but it just felt like the cheesy young adult fiction it is so didn't get too deep into it and made sure not to read the spoilers or plot summary until after the movie.

Ending was pretty predictable (without knowing the story I figured it would come down to the love interests being the last two but having a happy ending). I thought the violence itself was portrayed ok though some of the behavior was a bit dumb (anyone on the team with the blonde dude shouldn't have trusted him much less been able to sleep with that camp). Ok movie, but not great or horrible.

[scannerfish]

Dystopian shock value with a evil overlord commanding children to kill other children to perpetually punish rebellious provinces or what ever they are called.

Although I have not read the books or watched the movie.

Media that deals with Dystopian futures have to use obscene and violent imagery to make up for a lack of logical and reasonably narrative that explains how things came to be.

Do the books explain the previous hundred year and how North America became a giant internment camp.

In the books the story is set hundreds of years after a nuclear war. The districts themselves were basically just hold outs of civilization.

[Goodman Models]

I thought it was well done, very watchable film and interesting concept and themes. The hand held camera added a lot of grittiness and texture. I thought it emphasized how the characters and citizens in the furthest districts were just teetering on the brink. The tributes' battle was pretty intense and pretty dark. I'm looking forward to the next one. Oh, and it was a cool homage to Battle Royal which the director acknowledged as one of his influences.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Caseymunchkin

[areaseven]

Edited July 10, 2015 by areaseven

[myk]

Eh, if you can't stomach the movies then read the books; they're totally worth it...