The Hunger Games

[stokeriño]

The film was perfectly adequate, but after being hyped to shit by everyone (I've not read the books), I couldn't help but be underwhelmed. Perhaps if I'd never seen Battle Royale in my life it would have been more engaging, but as it was it seemed like a paint-by-numbers version of the same setup, only with fewer amusing characters and a duller ending. The only additional flavour came from the reality TV element, which is probably why I found those parts the more interesting. That, and spending the whole film pretending the mentor guy was Robbie Savage.

So pretty predictable throughout. I'm told the books had more of a...

Peter: "What, you were just playacting at love for the cameras? Well FUCK YOU"

...ending, but I guess if you're trying to hook the teen girl audience for sequels, maybe they couldn't handle that level of downer.

Summary: Sure, fine. Not bothered to ever see it again though. Nor in anticipation of the sequel which, I'm told, is pumped fuller of gimmicks and/or Russo-calibre swerves than a 1998 episode of Raw is War.

[Sir Alan LCSugar]

Yeah, I went last night and find myself in the same boat as Stoker. Enjoyed the reality parts of the story, but there was too much stuff at the beginning and not enough action in the woods. That's where the excitement is, where the stories are told!

[Herr Matzat]

The film was perfectly adequate, but after being hyped to shit by everyone (I've not read the books), I couldn't help but be underwhelmed. Perhaps if I'd never seen Battle Royale in my life it would have been more engaging, but as it was it seemed like a paint-by-numbers version of the same setup, only with fewer amusing characters and a duller ending.

The only thing you can compare to battle royal is the "only one can get out of the arena" style contest. The approach is vastly different, while BR is an over the top manga this is a "serious" drama. You can see this in the reason given for the Games existance already. And while BR is all about gore and comic wackyness this is an adaptation of a childrensbook (that in writing feels aimed mostly at girls - hench the PG13 rating for the movie even if the book sounded a bit bloody at times).

And besides that, the story did not end, only the movie did. It´s a trilogy of which i think the last third is the best one as it brings a lot together from the first two and completely moves away from the BR Hunger Games theme.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Michael Matzat on a Plane

[stokeriño]

Okay then, how about this:

"The BR style scenario 'serious drama' was dull and predictable."

Better?

[TGC]

I loved it, but then I already enjoyed the books (mostly). There were changes from the novel, there were a few (necessary) additions to the story, and as is always the case there were a number of omissions, but all in all it was very faithful and very well done. My only complaint was as Ruki said the shaky cam during every fight scene.

In the beginning at the cornucopia I loved it, as it added to the holy fuck this is insane element of the first few minutes of The Hunger Games. From then on though it was unnecessary and a distraction. They could have eased up on the blood or whatnot if that was the reason all of the fights were filmed like Bourne Identity On Crack and it would have made for a better film overall. Just my opinion.

And the actress who played Rue was fantastic. Just perfect.

Being a 40 year old male in a 1030am showing, I was expecting the thing to either be empty or full of tweens. Imagine my surprise to find it full of 40+ year old men and their significant others, and plenty of single mommies with the young kid in tow. It was a great experience. Oh and I got to see The Amazing Spider-Man (looks better) and The Avengers (looks so awesome) trailers on the big screen.

[Herr Matzat]

Okay then, how about this:

"The BR style scenario 'serious drama' was dull and predictable."

Better?

From adequate to dull and predictable in just one posting just to disagree with me more?

I remember when i was still in school some of my classmates made the same argument you do about a Jim Carry movie called The Trumanshow. They went in there expecting Ace Ventura because Jim Carry was in it... if you go see Hunger games and think of this:

you will obviously be let down by the way slower paceing, different characterisation, overall more serious and tame approach of things.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Michael Matzat on a Plane

[stokeriño]

The film as a whole was adequate. The plot was predictable, as I had already said. The dull part was the 'drama' because, fuck me, teen romance just isn't a good medium.

Also you're really overplaying my whole link to BR thing. I wasn't expecting the same style of film - I was using it as a comparison because the core of the majority of the film is a similar scenario.

On a sidenote, The Truman Show is a film I never tire of watching, and I think it's about time I did so again quite soon...

[Herr Matzat]

Actually it was surprising how little they used the romance. It´s way more present in the books.

[stokeriño]

That I don't doubt.

[Gongsun Zan]

I'm with Stok on this one. I was all prepared to like this movie, but after a while I just wanted it to end.

Stuff that bothered me:

For someone hailed as a "strong" female protagonist, the main character kinda did nothing after the whole fireball scene, replying mostly on other characters and sponsor-ex-machinas to solve her problems. The wasp nest? That was Rue's idea. Figuring out the mines? Thanks Foxface. Not dying? Thanks random black guy!

Also, magic attack dogs, seriously? Why not summon a pack of velociraptors while you're at it.

Anyway, as for the Battle Royale comparison, I'll I can say is that BR actually bothered to develop people other than the main character. I don't care about the main character, because I know she's going to win because she's the only one they actually develop. Cato gets one line right before he dies, and the rest of his crew is pretty much EVIL KIDS ARE EVIL. Even Rue is really just a walking sympathy device. Maybe that developed them more in the books, but overall I found everyone pretty flat.

[TGC]

I'm with Stok on this one. I was all prepared to like this movie, but after a while I just wanted it to end.

Stuff that bothered me:

For someone hailed as a "strong" female protagonist, the main character kinda did nothing after the whole fireball scene, replying mostly on other characters and sponsor-ex-machinas to solve her problems. The wasp nest? That was Rue's idea. Figuring out the mines? Thanks Foxface. Not dying? Thanks random black guy!

Also, magic attack dogs, seriously? Why not summon a pack of velociraptors while you're at it.

Anyway, as for the Battle Royale comparison, I'll I can say is that BR actually bothered to develop people other than the main character. I don't care about the main character, because I know she's going to win because she's the only one they actually develop. Cato gets one line right before he dies, and the rest of his crew is pretty much EVIL KIDS ARE EVIL. Even Rue is really just a walking sympathy device. Maybe that developed them more in the books, but overall I found everyone pretty flat.

The book does a lot of the same in that most of the HG kids in the first book are not overly developed. Rue is better in the books though, which is why her onscreen death touched me a lot as I remembered the Rue of the book as well.

I will say that Peeta is very well developed in both, so I'm not sure why you would think he falls flat.

There are actually a ton of points I could make based on your comments, but it seems you didn't like it and don't have any desire to, so it would just be wasting my time.

[Summers]

The "magic attack dogs" are like mutant wolves. In the book they have the eyes of the dead tributes.

The book is written AS Katniss. So the only way the other characters can be built up is by her interactions with them and/or what she sees/hears.

[Liam]

I watched it yesterday, and like the book, was engrossed at points like the middle, but largely just wanted to get it over with by the time the ending came around, which wasn't good in the book and was no better on film. It was OK, but it just isn't anything special. My biggest issue was that:

They really glossed over the 'love each other to win' thing in the book, and then Peeta's anger towards Katniss when it was all revealed. I thought that would have at least added a bit more to it.

[ChrisSteeleAteMyHamster]

Matzat, Battle Royale is a serious drama with elements of black comedy and political satire. The novel especially, while playing up the brutality, does so for reasons more than just being gratuitous. Often the deaths and how they come about are there to tell you a lot about the character. The manga is really, really serious and often goes off into long, rambly, existential monologues....but it's an adult-rated manga and being shown the brutality is important for the story it's telling.

More more Japanese cinema and you'll realise that the movie is not quite what you think it is.

Of course, BR and Hunger Games are very different beasts, I was just responding to Matzat.

[stokeriño]

I watched it yesterday, and like the book, was engrossed at points like the middle, but largely just wanted to get it over with by the time the ending came around, which wasn't good in the book and was no better on film. It was OK, but it just isn't anything special. My biggest issue was that:

They really glossed over the 'love each other to win' thing in the book, and then Peeta's anger towards Katniss when it was all revealed. I thought that would have at least added a bit more to it.

I think the reason they didn't put that in the film is because it would have just sent the idealistic teeny audience away hating the heroine...you know, for not being completely puppy dog eyed in all her actions. Which probably isn't the best idea when trying to sell them a new franchise to obsess over.

[Gongsun Zan]

I'm with Stok on this one. I was all prepared to like this movie, but after a while I just wanted it to end.

Stuff that bothered me:

For someone hailed as a "strong" female protagonist, the main character kinda did nothing after the whole fireball scene, replying mostly on other characters and sponsor-ex-machinas to solve her problems. The wasp nest? That was Rue's idea. Figuring out the mines? Thanks Foxface. Not dying? Thanks random black guy!

Also, magic attack dogs, seriously? Why not summon a pack of velociraptors while you're at it.

Anyway, as for the Battle Royale comparison, I'll I can say is that BR actually bothered to develop people other than the main character. I don't care about the main character, because I know she's going to win because she's the only one they actually develop. Cato gets one line right before he dies, and the rest of his crew is pretty much EVIL KIDS ARE EVIL. Even Rue is really just a walking sympathy device. Maybe that developed them more in the books, but overall I found everyone pretty flat.

The book does a lot of the same in that most of the HG kids in the first book are not overly developed. Rue is better in the books though, which is why her onscreen death touched me a lot as I remembered the Rue of the book as well.

I will say that Peeta is very well developed in both, so I'm not sure why you would think he falls flat.

There are actually a ton of points I could make based on your comments, but it seems you didn't like it and don't have any desire to, so it would just be wasting my time.

Like I said, I wanted to like it. Heck, I enjoyed the buildup to the competition, but I disliked the actual competition itself. After all the buildup as to how scared the kids are of the competition, it all kinda vanishes once the competition actually begins. The tension from the first half of the movie just didn't carry over, and makes the second half seem duller by comparison.

As for Peeta, the most interesting thing about him was when he talked about not wanting the competition to change him. Maybe the book developed it a little more, but I really would have like to see more of that played out.

[Liam]

That is a part that gets developed further in the book.

[TGC]

I'm with Stok on this one. I was all prepared to like this movie, but after a while I just wanted it to end.

Stuff that bothered me:

For someone hailed as a "strong" female protagonist, the main character kinda did nothing after the whole fireball scene, replying mostly on other characters and sponsor-ex-machinas to solve her problems. The wasp nest? That was Rue's idea. Figuring out the mines? Thanks Foxface. Not dying? Thanks random black guy!

Also, magic attack dogs, seriously? Why not summon a pack of velociraptors while you're at it.

Anyway, as for the Battle Royale comparison, I'll I can say is that BR actually bothered to develop people other than the main character. I don't care about the main character, because I know she's going to win because she's the only one they actually develop. Cato gets one line right before he dies, and the rest of his crew is pretty much EVIL KIDS ARE EVIL. Even Rue is really just a walking sympathy device. Maybe that developed them more in the books, but overall I found everyone pretty flat.

The book does a lot of the same in that most of the HG kids in the first book are not overly developed. Rue is better in the books though, which is why her onscreen death touched me a lot as I remembered the Rue of the book as well.

I will say that Peeta is very well developed in both, so I'm not sure why you would think he falls flat.

There are actually a ton of points I could make based on your comments, but it seems you didn't like it and don't have any desire to, so it would just be wasting my time.

Like I said, I wanted to like it. Heck, I enjoyed the buildup to the competition, but I disliked the actual competition itself. After all the buildup as to how scared the kids are of the competition, it all kinda vanishes once the competition actually begins. The tension from the first half of the movie just didn't carry over, and makes the second half seem duller by comparison.

As for Peeta, the most interesting thing about him was when he talked about not wanting the competition to change him. Maybe the book developed it a little more, but I really would have like to see more of that player out.

I posted my full thoughts on the film and why I think you almost need to read the book first before seeing the movie at my blog. www.timothysvilla.com

To stok:

It wasn't that at all. The books do contain some elements of the three person love triangle, but not nearly as much as so many people claim it does, but what the first book did so well with Peeta and Katniss was use Peeta's love for her in The Game as a way to keep her alive. Eventually she sees this is a sound strategy and does the same. The difference is while he has loved her since they were very little, the bread scene for instance happens when the two are younger, she has given him little to no thought as her life was about providing for her sister and mother since her father died. Her game play was just that, and intended to keep them both alive. His was because he wanted her to live since he loved her. In the book he thinks she has fallen for him too in the game, and is (rightfully?) upset post game to learn it was not the case at all.

Also, and I have seen it all over, it sucks that people judge these books and films based on Twilight and other teeny romance genre fantasy books. The Hunger Games trilogy is so much more. Yes it features a lead character who is a 16 year old girl and it contains nary a swear word nor explicit sexual content. All this means is that it was very much intended for ALL AGES. It has appeal to males and females alike of all ages. I understand that you might not have liked the movie, fair enough, but to paint it with a brush that it does not deserve is short sighted.

[Herr Matzat]

More more Japanese cinema and you'll realise that the movie is not quite what you think it is.

Of course, BR and Hunger Games are very different beasts, I was just responding to Matzat.

I actualy just got the Battle Royal Manga a cupple of days ago, never saw more than the first movie. And i know a lot of gore lovers like to talk more depth in their movies besides the gore... but most of the time they are not. But thats not the point of this topic.

I assume that when he was saing "If i not had seen Battle Royal i might have liked this more" he was talking about the movie and not books and Manga. And i stand by my Ace Ventura comparison. If you go see the Trueman show expecting Jim Carry going bonkers like in his previous movies you very likely will be let down by the different tone. Same with this movie. If you go to see it "wow, the hype sounds like something battle royaly" you likely will be let down because besides the "kids send to kill each other in an arena" it´s just vastly different.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Michael Matzat on a Plane

[TGC]

LOS ANGELES (AP) — "The Hunger Games" has filled fan appetites with a $155 million opening weekend that puts it near the top of the domestic record book.

The huge haul marks the third-best debut ever in terms of revenue, behind the $169.2 million opening for last year's "Harry Potter" finale and the $158.4 million opening of 2008's "The Dark Knight."

"Harry Potter" and "Batman" were well-established franchises. "The Hunger Games" set a revenue record for a non-sequel.

It also was by far the biggest start for a film opening outside the busy summer and holiday seasons. According to Sunday studio estimates, "The Hunger Games" came in nearly $40 million ahead of the previous March record-holder, 2010's "Alice in Wonderland" at $116.1 million.

"The Hunger Games" slid into the No. 3 spot on the domestic revenue chart ahead of "Spider-Man 3," which opened with $151.1 million in 2007. Factoring in today's higher tickets prices, "The Hunger Games" sold fewer tickets over opening weekend than "Spider-Man 3," though.

With a broader fan base than the "Twilight" franchise, "The Hunger Games" pulled in bigger crowds than the top-grossing installment of that series. "The Twilight Saga: New Moon" leads that franchise with a $142.8 million opening weekend in 2009.

Women and girls have made up as much as 80 percent of the audience for the "Twilight" flicks. Though it features a female lead, "The Hunger Games" drew more balanced crowds, with girls and women accounting for 61 percent of audiences, according to distributor Lionsgate.

Despite its teen fan base, "The Hunger Games" also did well among older moviegoers. Fans 25 and older made up 56 percent of the crowds.

"The Hunger Games" stars Jennifer Lawrence as a teen who is one of 24 youths forced to compete in a televised death match in a post-apocalyptic North American society.

The film is based on the first novel in the best-selling trilogy by Suzanne Collins. Lionsgate plans to release part two, "Catching Fire," in November 2013.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.