Movie-Specific : "The Hunger Games"

[Stewball]

If nothing else, The Hunger Games is a box office phenomenon and will in all likelihood set an all time record. I talked to the manager at the theater where I saw it and found out it sold out all 14 screens for the midnight showing and they even had an overflow 3 AM showing. The mid-afternoon showing I attended was the first of 4 dedicated full time screens not to sell out (for which I was grateful) with about 90%. It'll give a killer boost to the 2012 box office. It, like Twilight, is a combination of marketing skill and dumb luck. With a reported budget of only $78 mil (a good portion of which was apparently spent on costumes), it's even more phenomenal.

As for the movie itself, I call it half step above my Hollywood average at 7 1/2--10. It has some very good elements, and some not so good. The primary examples of the latter are the shaky cam which dominates the first 15-20 minutes (for some reason, not much action going on) and is then used infrequently thereafter, and the weak ending with its eye obviously on the 2 now certain sequels.

The story is hard not to be engaging, obviously. It's been called a rip off of the 2000 Japanese movie, Battle Royale, which I haven't seen, but what HG kept bringing to my mind was the TV show Survivor, and especially Gladiator with its overall theme of individual combat before the mob, chariots used by the contestants for their grand entrance (my favorite scene), and the necessity of winning the crowd. The link to Survivor, in my mind was it's biggest flaw. The "contestants" are introduced in m/f pairs from each district, and they also form alliances, which makes some sense when the goal is money, but not with the ultimate need for all but one to die--even your district partner. The plot does shift a couple of times in that regard, but the incongruity of that plot element bugged me for most of the movie, and in retrospect, still does.

Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks and even Woody Harrelson (out of his normal character), are all excellent in their rolls. Wes Bently and/or his make up artist deserve an academy award for his beard. But Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen (I love that name) is stunning with her mercurial, shifting personality, and beauty which runs the gamut from combat survivor to glamorous charmer--which to the directors credit was created and captured well, and is the movies biggest plus.

[CMonster]

I didn't even know the Hunger Games series existed till about 3 weeks ago and didn't really care. I wasn't even planning on seeing it till I was invited by a friend to go opening night (free ticket!!!). I also haven't seen or read Battle Royale even though both are on my to read/watch list. From that perspective, I'd mostly agree with what you have to say. It was fun and worth watching. Probably a little better than an average teen action flick. I thought that the cinematography and editing were the biggest issues. The pacing felt off because despite the run time, there was still a lot of stuff to get through so they couldn't really flush out a lot of stuff and it seemed to slow down in odd places. Also the shaky cam took me out of it when used in this. I'm not irritated by shaky cam like a lot of people seem to be, but I felt the film could have been served better some something different, such as the thing Aronofsky often uses where the actor/ress has their face still in center screen and the background is what moves. Setting, plot, CGI, etc., were all good even though I could say the elements of each have been done better in other places. I would agree with the acting for the most part except for Elizabeth Banks who was a waste of time. I also read the previous thread on the Hunger Games and would agree that more graphicness to the violence would have made it better. I was surprised by how much they showed and how much blood there was, but the movie was begging for more. It made me think of the movie Super staring Dwight Schrute and how that was very graphic but by the time you got to the end the meaning of it had more of an impact because of how graphic it was. In the end I'd recommend it because it was enjoyable, but I wouldn't have baited breath because its just a step above average.

Also fuck Wes Bentley's beard and Stanley Tucci's hair, they were both annoying.

[Stewball]

Tucci's hair, yeah, but the beard....maybe I was looking at it from a makeup perspective. All I know, I couldn't take my eyes off of it when it was on screen. I kept wondering how continuity was handling it. Did they have an invisible grid tattooed on his face? Sorry you didn't like Liz. I just thought her range was great.

[ayall]

As for the movie itself, I call it half step above my Hollywood average at 7 1/2--10. It has some very good elements, and some not so good. The primary examples of the latter are the shaky cam which dominates the first 15-20 minutes (for some reason, not much action going on) and is then used infrequently thereafter, and the weak ending with its eye obviously on the 2 now certain sequels.

I agree.

The movie was just above par for Hollywood movies.

I too had heard it ripped off that 2000 Japanese Movie Battle Royale, but i don't really care... i don't know why people care so much when Hollywood takes stories from other Arenas and remakes them in a more Hollywood style (such as Black Swan)... Hollywood typically does a better job IMO.

I had also heard it was similar to the Twilight Series, though I was never a fan of them... i don't like when movies try to make Reality out of Vampire/Warewolfs... kills the entire plot when you add such unrealistic elements to a story trying to mimic reality.

I found the HG story rather fascinating, and may pick-up the books to get some more detail... i'll also be looking forward to the sequels. The mix of Survivor and Gladiator was definitely interesting... i enjoyed the fact that it was kids not adults, thought that was a brilliant Lord of the Flies spin.

With so much money being pumped into Hollywood movies these days, I've come to expect top-notch cgi, set design, wardrobe and make-up... this movie didn't fail at any of these.

As for acting, I wasn't overly impressed by anything necessarily worth mentioning, but I will give Jennifer Lawrence a nod for doing a good job in Winter Bone and keeping up her performances in X-men & HG... she's got potential, and could turn into something in her later years.

In the movie lull season, this is a good flick to keep the cinema lights on.

[Stewball]

For me the reliance of movies like Twilight and Avatar et al on the supernatural is a huge turn off, and HG didn't fall back on that. If it had, I don't think I'd have even made it into the theater.

[ayall]

the reliance of movies like Twilight and Avatar et al on the supernatural is a huge turn off

agree'd

[ShogunRua]

I too had heard it ripped off that 2000 Japanese Movie Battle Royale, but i don't really care...

No, it rips off the internationally best-selling novel of the same name.

i don't know why people care so much when Hollywood takes stories from other Arenas and remakes them in a more Hollywood style (such as Black Swan)... Hollywood typically does a better job IMO.

It would be one thing if it were better, but typically, it's a far shittier, dumbed-down version. Also, have you seen "Perfect Blue"?

[ayall]

I too had heard it ripped off that 2000 Japanese Movie Battle Royale, but i don't really care...

No, it rips off the internationally best-selling novel of the same name.

I had heard it was based off of the Suzanne Collins book/series, but i'm assuming you are indicating that she may have ripped off another book?

Either way, it doesn't matter to me. As an end user, I really don't care where the story came from.
I'd rather it rip off something and be good then not rip off something and be awful.

i don't know why people care so much when Hollywood takes stories from other Arenas and remakes them in a more Hollywood style (such as Black Swan)... Hollywood typically does a better job IMO.

It would be one thing if it were better, but typically, it's a far shittier, dumbed-down version. Also, have you seen "Perfect Blue"?

No, of course not. It's a fucking cartoon.
And, worst yet, it's not even in English! (that's right, I said it... i loath watching foreign language films and having to read the subs; might as well read the book)

I watched the trailer for Perfect Blue and it reminded me of Pokemon.

Compared to Perfect Blue, you may have found Black Swan to be "far shittier, dumbed-down" but i found Black Swan to be very entertaining and enjoyable.

Besides the story alone, there are plenty of filming aspects (acting, cinematography, etc.) a non-cartoon movies brings to the table which cartoons and books can not.

I will agree that Hollywood at times botches a remake or a retelling of a great book, but sometimes they also get it right (much credit to the writer/director). Obvious examples of this (for me) are TWBB which was based off of Upton Sinclair's 1927 novel Oil!, and even A Clockwork Orange based off of Anthony Burgess novel. While both of those original novels are amazing, so are the films.

Similar to your Adam Carola MB comment, don't be so jaded about the tweaking of "an original story."

For example, a movie coming out this year, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) will be based off the book and you could even argue the "original" cartoon movie The Hobbit (1977).
I won't be comparing them at all, they're all seen as completely different in my eyes.
I enjoyed reading Tolkien books on long family vacation car rides as a 10 year old, but when i tried going back and rereading some of them in my 20's, they couldn't hold my attention.
I also enjoyed watching The Hobbit cartoon movie, but in no way will I compare it to the moving coming out this year.


In Summary, I think the amount of amazing stories/movie ideas is far lower then the demand of movies needing production (i.e. look at this crap Adam Sandler is putting out).
If a movie is made based off of an existing story (novel, cartoon, book, etc.) and ends up being good, that's a win in my book.

[ShogunRua]

I too had heard it ripped off that 2000 Japanese Movie Battle Royale, but i don't really care...

No, it rips off the internationally best-selling novel of the same name.

I had heard it was based off of the Suzanne Collins book/series, but i'm assuming you are indicating that she may have ripped off another book?

Suzanne Collins ripped off the book "Battle Royale", which came out in 1999 and received an English translation a few years later. Her own rip-off, "The Hunger Games", came out in 2008.

Either way, it doesn't matter to me. As an end user, I really don't care where the story came from.
I'd rather it rip off something and be good then not rip off something and be awful.

Yes, but with the knowledge of it ripped off something that was better, aren't you more curious to read the original, superior work?

No, of course not. It's a fucking cartoon.

It's not. You might want to try watching it first.

I watched the trailer for Perfect Blue and it reminded me of Pokemon.

Now this is bizarre. Are you sure you watched the right trailer? Even the animation style is not even remotely similar.

I will agree that Hollywood at times botches a remake or a retelling of a great book, but sometimes they also get it right (much credit to the writer/director). Obvious examples of this (for me) are TWBB which was based off of Upton Sinclair's 1927 novel Oil!, and even A Clockwork Orange based off of Anthony Burgess novel. While both of those original novels are amazing, so are the films.

You're comparing apples and oranges, though.

All the above examples are film adaptations of books.

I'm talking about bald-faced rip-offs where one movie copies another, except in a dumbed-down, Hollywood manner. Or, in the case of Battle Royale/Hunger Games, the even more egregious example of a book copying another in a dumbed-down, "young adult genre" manner.

In Summary, I think the amount of amazing stories/movie ideas is far lower then the demand of movies needing production (i.e. look at this crap Adam Sandler is putting out).

I think the number of amazing stories/movie ideas is far, far higher than the production demand.

You're simply making a mistake in believing anyone cares in the slightest about whether a movie idea is amazing or not. They don't, nor should they. Instead, they only cares about what can turn a profit.

I'm glad you brought up Adam Sandler, because he's a fine example; his films have been awful shit for many years now, and every producer and Hollywood decision-maker knows it. Doesn't matter. His pictures make money, and that's why they keep getting made, while an amazing idea doesn't.

[ayall]

Is this not perfect blue?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0156887/