Page 1 of 1
The Hunger Games
Posted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 11:52 pm
by Psyko
Based off the YA novel published in 2008.
Simple plot overview (via IMDB):
Set in a future where the Capitol selects a boy and girl from the twelve districts to fight to the death on live television, Katniss Everdeen volunteers to take her younger sister's place for the latest match.
This is the best movie I have seen of 2012 thus far!
If you haven't read the book, it is still a very good film. Strong story, good cinematography, and the action keeps you locked into the story. It's 2 hrs 22 mins long and I hardly noticed.
For those who have read the book (or the full trilogy), you will enjoy that it stays very true to the novel. There are some considerations to be made in a film adaptation but each change only bettered the story.
I spent $24 to see it with a friend and I don't regret a cent of it. It's been a long time since I've been able to say that about a film. I'd see it again in a second if any of my other friends mention an interest.
Go! Share your thoughts. (Maybe start a debate with me if you disagree
)
Re: The Hunger Games
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:03 pm
by Gohan
I loved this movie but HATED the ending. So not to hand out spoilers about the movie, its all below!
[spoiler]The start was amazing and i loved it, Cat was hot and she was good at what she did, the plot was all working perfect and running smoothly. The middle, well elezabeth bank's costume was a lil WTH, but shes hot so we'll let her off. Then we meet Woody, in my eyes, after that prefermance, still one of the best and most underrated around! Its just the ending, i **Filtered** hated how they ended it. If they had finished with them eating those berries and dying in a vague Romeo and Juliet way, i would of said its the greatest and most powerful movie I've seen in past 10years. I know it was following a book, but the route it took, no. It should of went a lil off the beaten path, screw any follow ups, or if you need a follow up, get the guy to 'avenge' Cat. However, no, they should of commited suicide, a big middle finger at the government and that we are not your play things. Would of worked and transcended the movie in so many levels. It would of been a revolt, a classic and one of my all time fav movies ever. End of Rant.[/spoiler]
Re: The Hunger Games
Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:23 pm
by R8
I saw this the other day. I love jennifer lawrence. I had the pleasure of seeing her in Xmen first class which i played a small role as an extra. she is HOT.
as for the story line of the hunger games there was something about putting 24 kids in a jungle to kill each other which ultimately I did not find appealing. It kinda reminded me of some of those documentaries where starving children in certain countries have to literally kill and hunt for food. I like to think our world will not be like that in the future.
The action and other parts of the story line and "the flames" were pretty cool
good film overall.
Re: The Hunger Games
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:19 am
by sarparto
They ruined the story and the shaky camera was awful. The acting, set design, and costume design were great. Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson were especially great.
Re: The Hunger Games
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2012 10:31 am
by ~Drunken Master~
wasn't to sure if I should see it, seen the trailer but from the feed back I guess I should see it.
I seen John Carter the other day not bad 5 from 10
Re: The Hunger Games
Posted: Sun Apr 15, 2012 3:26 am
by EAT THE WATERMELON
i actualyh was in jaul when i first read the book, going to see the movie was a get out of jail present
though i was highly mad
[spoiler2=heres why]they compleetly took away 99.62% of the significance away from the mocking jay
its kinfo a crutial element to the story line and the movie made it seem like a piece of junk she happend to find at the hob[/spoiler2]
Re: The Hunger Games
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 3:45 pm
by semper
Very good film in my opinion, well worth the 4/5 stars Avatar equivalence it got. However it is a little overrated. I would not say it was genre defining or any of that...
Re: The Hunger Games
Posted: Tue Apr 17, 2012 4:28 pm
by Angnoch
the movie was not bad, it was a pretty decent translation from the book, however the one thing that I feel was lacking strongly in the movie was the inner dialogue that Katniss has. Yes I know its difficult to put that in a movie its just that, that was one of the most important aspects of the book you felt what she was going through because you were with her the entire time, and that I think was the missing link in this movie
Re: The Hunger Games
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:47 pm
by Castiel
sarparto wrote:They ruined the story and the shaky camera was awful. The acting, set design, and costume design were great. Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson were especially great.
The shaky camera is mainly to due the fact that a large portion of the fans are teenagers. The shaky
camera makes the fight scenes less brutal as you can't see as much to whats going on, so if they wouldn't
have used the shaky camera the movie would probably not have passed as PG-13, meaning they'd betray
a large portion of the fan base by denying them to see it in cinemas due to rating
Re: The Hunger Games
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:39 pm
by sarparto
Castiel wrote:sarparto wrote:They ruined the story and the shaky camera was awful. The acting, set design, and costume design were great. Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson were especially great.
The shaky camera is mainly to due the fact that a large portion of the fans are teenagers. The shaky
camera makes the fight scenes less brutal as you can't see as much to whats going on, so if they wouldn't
have used the shaky camera the movie would probably not have passed as PG-13, meaning they'd betray
a large portion of the fan base by denying them to see it in cinemas due to rating
I agree with a large part of what you say, but they used the shaky camera during dialogue scenes too.
Re: The Hunger Games
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:50 pm
by EAT THE WATERMELON
they blatently ignored the significance of the mocking jay
they massivley downplayed catniss's relationship with rue
infact everything remotly important they downplayed
the only thing they did get right was the goofy looking capitol people
watch the movie first then read teh book
Re: The Hunger Games
Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:31 pm
by sarparto
EAT THE WATERMELON wrote:they blatently ignored the significance of the mocking jay
Ya. I understand why they had to alter the way she gets it in the movie, as compared to the book, but don't feel they did enough to demonstrate the significance of it.
they massivley downplayed catniss's relationship with rue
Given the time constraints I thought they covered this relationship well. The relationship they royally **Filtered** was Katniss/Peeta. Which is one of, if not, the most significant relationship in the movie.
infact everything remotly important they downplayed
the only thing they did get right was the goofy looking capitol people
Story-wise this is true. I still think the acting, costumes, sets were fantastic.
watch the movie first then read teh book
The only way to enjoy both, imo, is to experience them in this order. I heard the director may not be back for the second film and that'd be for the best. While I enjoyed the behind the "Games" scenes that weren't in the book, he used the shaky camera too much and messed up most of the significant aspects from the book as you mentioned earlier. That's the mother of all run on sentences, but **Filtered** it.
Re: The Hunger Games
Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 2:58 am
by Psyko
I just want to be clear on one aspect of this discussion: the Director is not necessarily the person "behind" the shaky camera shots. You see, there's this thing...well, person...called the Cinematographer. The beauty of this Cinematographer is that he is in charge of actually shooting the film, and even how the film is shot, including vast amounts of knowledge and wisdom in regard to camera angles, film speed, and method of filming. Yes, some directors take a more hands-on approach or work more closely with this elusive Cinematographer, but others trust the Cinematographer to know what he's doing. The director merely directs the people on the other side of the camera lens.
I'd be more concerned about if the same cinematographer comes back for the sequel than the director if that were one of my biggest issues with the film.