|
IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/ SA Reviews: http://www.somethingawful.com/d/cur...unger-games.php After hearing non-stop glowing reviews for this film from basically every jerk I know I was all prepared to love this film. Then reality set in. As I watched it I found that I was basically filling things in with my knowledge of the book. If I hadn't read the book I imagine I'd just be shaking my head, asking someone else when Katniss gets saved by Harry Potter. There's no system to this film. It jumps from one scene to the next, and seems to just want to highlight the most exciting moment from the book and nothing more. But there's the problem with this film; it's all meat and no drat potatoes. Here's my honest biggest issues with this filming style: 1) I don't get any sense that anyone's hungry. Yes District 12 looks shabby, no one looks like they're starving. In fact Katniss looks rather healthy, like shaking a couple pounds might not hurt her. All through the games she's shown to easy get food and water, and there's never any of the danger the book presented of her starving or dehydrating. 2) I've read the book and I still look at the "fake" relationship between Peeta and Katniss as being forced and awful. There's a whopping two minutes or so of development to this, and then we're just basically taking the film at its word that the people of the Hunger Games worlds are loving retarded enough to think it's so emotional. And the whole scene with Peeta giving her burned bread... They've ripped out the whole idea of him having burned it intentionally! And there's no clue here that Katniss is starving, because it looks like this whole scene happened the day before the first act began. 3) They give us less of Haymitch and then too much of Haymitch. His character is lost to this film. What a waste of Woody. 4) Peeta and Katniss basically end this film no worse for ware. They don't look at all injured. If anything they've gotten fatter during the games. Peeta has his leg. Katniss has her hearing. Hell, they're not even that dirty. Well I could go on ranting forever. Read the SA review to get a full gist of what's wrong with this film. 2/5
|
| # ? Mar 26, 2012 04:21 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 21:18 |
|
|
I'll be a jerk and admit I loved this film. If you're also a grown-assed man who enjoyed the books like me then odds are you'll like this. Excellently cast and acted (Jennifer Lawrence nailed it) with nice cinematography if you don't get a headache from shaky cam. Almost by necessity some of the world-building from the books had to be left out, but the subtractions for me were outweighed by the solid additions like Seneca Crane's sublot, Cato's pre-death monologue, District 11 uprising. Very solid adaptation, 5/5
|
| # ? Mar 26, 2012 13:45 |
|
|
The problem with the movie is that the book stresses the point of war being an atrocity inflicted upon the young, and the movie softens the violence to get a PG-13 rating. The movie dismisses what were originally some very violent scenes with quick-cut editing and off-screen action, when the camera style could have been used to draw the audience into incredible acts of violence committed by children. If the director had any balls they could have made a rather good movie, instead they dodged the issue entirely and the movie is worse for it.
|
| # ? Mar 26, 2012 17:36 |
|
|
I saw this movie without reading the book. It seemed like an interesting storyline but the movie was all over the place. The whole time I was watching it, I kept thinking to myself "well they didn't wrap that up" and "they didn't really say much on that" etc. A lot of plot points were left half-explored. This kinda pissed me off because the entire time I knew that I wasn't seeing a full movie. I was seeing the first movie in a trilogy. I know there are three novels, but that doesn't mean the movie has to seem like the season premiere of a TV show. This movie could not stand on it's own without sequels or without having read the book. I also got the impression that this movie would have been a lot better with more gore. Not because I wanted a slasher film about children getting murdered and over the top violence. But because it seemed like there was supposed to be over the top violence, there was supposed to be brutality, and the fact that the contestants were children was supposed to make it even more horrifying and controversial. The people who have read the novels were telling me that it was supposed to be more violent, but I guess the movie makers just couldn't resist that juicy wallet of the PG-13 crowd. I was expecting a serious movie about children participating in something like Unreal Tournament, making the audience think that the world is hosed up for not only having created this but also making it popular. This would give it that "post-apocalyptic" flair that was advertised, yet absent in the movie. I'd give it a 2/5. Not a bad movie, but it's one gigantic missed potential.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2012 00:28 |
|
|
The whole time I was watching, I was thinking about the Twilight reviewer who said 'Twilight was a movie masterfully directed and brilliantly designed, strangled to death because it can't stray from the miserable source material'. I thought this description came from SA's 'Current Releases' column but a quick scan shows I'm wrong, maybe it was Cracked or something. Anyway, I thought of this because HG suffers from the exact opposite problem: the great material suffers from the wrong parts being cut and the wrong parts being emphasized and drawn out. Everyone needed more characterization in the first act, and I have no idea how people who haven't read the books could have followed the games as they were displayed. Book spoilers! I talk about missed implications and deleted scenes. Not once were the core themes of the book addressed and the movie was made more like a romance movie, as if someone said 'We'll make more money if this were Twilight'. Not once is Katniss, or anyone else, treated with scorn by a Capitol citizen, nor is there any oppression at all outside the Reaping. District 13 is not mentioned, despite being a core icon of the failed rebellion. Katniss was never shown playing to the cameras or shown putting effort into putting the Capitol in their place, even the Rue burial was depicted as one of mourning, missing the twin spiteful meaning. The dog scene missed the implication that they were twisted bodies of fallen tributes, which was a show of power from the Capitol. We get one brief scene of a previous Game, as opposed to the several previous games the book mentions that serve to highlight the brutality of the games. The Avox Girl, another highlight of brutality and oppression, makes no appearance. It did its job as a movie, I guess. 2/5. There's hope and potential for the second book.
|
| # ? Mar 27, 2012 02:56 |
|
|
Big spoilers in this review, so beware if you choose to continue. I was one of those who did not read the book and went into the movie with only passing knowledge of what was going on. I cannot say anything about the books, but I can review the success or failure of the film. First of all, the exposition is very short, and I was a bit confused as to why the Capitol was making them give up their children for the sick amusement of the rich people. There was a rebellion, and the rich people got butt hurt I suppose, and now they get to kill your children for the rest of all time? Seriously, that in itself should cause another rebellion. I mean, all the parents do is sit around and mope. No one raises a finger to help the children being carted off to be butchered on live TV. And they all watch it, even the poor people. I guess their spirit is broken or something, but there should have been at least some sort of underground resistance, come on! I mean, beaten down or not, I would try to take a few with me to get my kid back. The "police" force seemed limited and they have one ship that kind of flies around, but Katniss easily hides from it under a tree, so, it isn't like they have infrared scanners or anything. I know it was for people who read the book, but a few more sentences of explanation would have helped. I think it was literally 15-20 seconds of text and boom! let's go to Panem! The first 45 mintutes or so are good, the costumes are a bit weird, but the whole thing felt like winning a prize, and that is how they wanted you to feel! The whole media circus and getting dressed up to meet the slobbering fans was pretty well done, and Jennifer Lawrence (J-Law) was very up to the task of playing a strong female lead. I really liked her a lot in this film. I liked her a lot in Winter's Bone... strangely a very similar feeling film. But, then the Games start, and to be honest, I expected a LOT more of Katniss. Even in reviews I have read, and people I have talked to, Katniss is referred to as resourceful, as a warrior, as some sort of awesome survivalist. It might be fleshed out in the book, but none of it comes through in the film. Let's recap a bit of the film: She runs for the woods. Makes a snare or something which is never used or explained, climbs a tree and avoids everyone. Hides. Hides. Sleeps. Hides. Game makers get mad, force her back into the clutches of the most dangerous tributes, and she gets hurt, but then runs and hides. Someone watching feels sorry for her and they give her medicine. Pure luck allows her to escape (why they didn't just burn the FREAKING TREE DOWN I will never know)and she gets a weapon. She just kind of wanders a bit and avoids everyone until pretty much all the others are dead or dying. She would have died if her sponsors hadn't helped her. Oh, and about that, they never really explain what the heck a sponsor can do, and why, or how you get one. They just keep telling her she needs people to like her. They show Hamitch shaking some hands, and then magical omni-gel shows up. I guess that is what they do, but a line or two explaining exactly what a sponsor really can do for you would be better: Hamitch: Sponsors are your lifeline, Katniss. They can give you weapons, medicine, food, blankets. The more they like you, the more stuff you get. Anyone can be a sponsor if they have enough money, and I will give you a list of your sponsors before the game starts (if any). Just let us know during the game when you need something... or something, I dunno, anything! Maybe that isn't how it works, but that is my best guess as to what the film gave me. So she didn't come off as a warrior at all, or particularly clever (a little girl had to save her from the gang of the more dangerous kids) and her plan was what would pretty much be everyone's plan I guess, but I was expecting her to give us something to set her apart from the rest, and I didn't see it. Yeah yeah, maybe it was about her maintaining her humanity throughout the slaughter, but hunting down at least the older kids who presumably drink infant blood by the look in their eyes when they killed people would have been cool. Also, they made it seem like the gamelords had total control and could kill anyone they wanted for any reason.. wow, so they determine who wins... that... sucks... and so you don't actually win by any skill if they don't like you, I guess. Ok, that took a bit of wind out of my sails when they could just add fires, mutant dogs, and explosions at will. Running Man, anyone? Lastly... and here is the thing: I watched the teens in the theater in wide-eyed fascination as they watched the film, cheered at the high points, cried at the low points, and left the theater babbling about how cool and amazing it was. I was depressed. I have kids, the film was about children brutally killing other children, some only 12 years old! The concept is really depraved for a PG-13 flick, and there were 6-7 year olds in the theater. The deeper meanings of totalitarian governments and rule by force, and the author's deeper and truer meanings got lost in "oh, how cute is Peeta" Oh Jennifer looks so cool, wow how cute is Rue... etc etc, and I don't think they got it, and that disturbs me. I can't see leaving the film feeling good. AT ALL. But, it made a gillion dollars and I hope it at least sparks some discussions around the dinner table about our own history and where things can go very wrong and have in our not too distance past. 2/5 ZenMaster fucked around with this message at Mar 31, 2012 around 04:17 |
| # ? Mar 31, 2012 04:11 |
|
|
I too went into this without having read the book. Woody Harrelson showed some sparks of brilliance (which may just be me thinking Woody himself is awesome) but for something billing itself as an action flick...the fight scenes were terribly choreographed and shot. I've seen Bollywood flicks with better fight scenes. Way too much reliance on the shakycam for DRAMATIC EFFECT. In the end, I just sat through a few hours of bad fight scenes and kids smearing Vaseline on each other. I've been hearing for ages about how this was some "post apocalyptic" story and went into it hoping for a little more Fallout / Book of Eli and less...well I don't even know what that was, except that I don't want to watch it or any of its sequels. The only good plot point I saw was the whole District 11 uprising, and they left that as quickly as they picked it up. The whole thing feels like a setup for some true grand rebellion but it never delivers. Supposedly the other books / movies will address this but that's no reason for a film to fail to deliver any sort of actual payoff. 1/5. Most overrated movie I've ever seen.
|
| # ? Apr 2, 2012 07:32 |
|
|
I read the book and then saw the movie. (Hey, it was the girlfriend's idea and at least it wasn't something REALLY awful like Twilight.) I would say, yes, the movie is aimed squarely at people who read the books. The main problem with adapting these type of super-popular books to movies is "damned if you do, damned if you don't" syndrome. Books generally have way too much storyline to fit into a few hours of movie. So you have to do massive cuts in order to make a workable film. So you can either: 1) completely rewrite the story, taking inspiration from the original source or 2) hack and slash the original source down to bits in order to make it fit. The Hunger Games movie goes with option 2. So the movie starts out in fast forward. You are zipped along at a frantic pace as it tries to feed you all the setup information you need to know for the plot points to work. Of course, the whole idea of the Capital forcing the Districts to send 2 children to their deaths every year doesn't really make any sense in the books either. After a rebellion, you are only asking for a repeat by continuing to antagonize the general populace. I think the movie should have made the Games pit the Districts against each other more. Focus people's hatred on each other instead of the Capital. So anyways, unless you watch the movie several times or have the read the books where a lot of this stuff is explained in more detail, you are going to be scratching your head a lot. I understand that they want to get to the Games ASAP. That's what they are selling; that's what people want to see. But they really should have tried to streamline things more. Honestly, they did do a good job condensing things down, but unless you really pay attention and I mean, don't cough otherwise you could miss some crucial bit of info. That's really not a reasonable expectation for the general audience. The build-up itself was a bit of a let down, but things start to click more during the training phase and the Games themselves. I did like how in the movie they establish Kato as a threat early on. In the book, he sort of pops up in the end as just being one of the last survivors. The movie does a much better job foreshadowing his part as "end boss". We are quickly launched into Thunderdome and all the carnage kicks in. I'm not a fan of shaky cam, but I think it actually works here. In other movies with elaborate choreography, it just makes everything a mess and you can't follow any of the action. Here, the children are doing basic sloppy moves (which you would expect) and so it helps to show the chaos of battle as well as softening some of the shocking gore. You have to remember that you can't alienate the core audience of teens by making this an R-rated film. The movie seems to strike a decent balance of implying gore and showing gore. Overall, the action scenes are decent and the pace is good enough you don't feel bored. I mean, Katniss is no warrior. If you expect her to go all Rambo on people, then you will be sorely disappointed. Instead, she takes the resourceful survivor route: Run and hide. She isn't really that extraordinary, other then being skilled with a bow. She is supposed to be a common every-girl for the reader/viewer to identify with. So with a bit of luck and skill, she manages to outlast everyone else. Of course, we find out that the game really isn't about skill. The gamelords don't care about ending up with a worthy winner. They have total control over the arena, exactly like how our current "reality TV" is rigged. It's purely about entertainment. Panem et circenses. Bread and Circuses. At least the screenwriters has the sense to clean up the extremely confusing book ending involving werewolves. The lycans are swapped out for genetically engineered dogs and things flow much better, so if nothing else, the movie improved on the book on that point. Essentially, "The Hunger Games" is kind of a mashup between "Lord of the Flies" and "Ender's Game". It's kids being thrown into adult situations and the consequences that result. Unfortunately, it doesn't break any new ground and doesn't go deep enough to connect with any real issues. But as a decent summer time action flick, I'd say give it a shot. 3/5
|
| # ? Apr 3, 2012 08:52 |
|
|
This movies tries to do a lot of things and does none of them well. To start, the whole tone didn't resonate with me. It's starts off grim enough, but once the games begin, there isn't any of the dark tones that you would expect with children killing other children. What really bothered me is the protagonist being portrayed as a reluctant hero, and yet she kills a total of 4 people without any real emotion. It completely cheapened the whole emotional breakdown over a companion's death, as the character only showed emotion when it was convenient. Actually, the entire plot is convenient; the evil characters fight Kat because they're evil, and the good guys save Kat because they're good. There's no moral quandaries in a winner-takes-all battle to the death, everything chugs along merrily. The whole thing seems a bit campy, like Robin Hood. Performance-wise, I think everyone under the age of 25 acted horribly. This seemed to be a combination of inexperience and bad writing, because the only emotions expressed were from actors who knew how to bring life to dead lines. Pete, as an example, was a terrible foil, who brought out no real personality in Kat (aside from her "fake" personality), and added no real substance to the plot. I didn't care about any of the red shirts, either. I think they could have had more clear personality groupings between the "hunters" and "prey" or, at the very least, focused on a few characters. Instead, they took a big steaming character dump on my brain, and made me feel stupid for not remembering the crafty ginger's name. I hope the books were better written than the movie, because the dialog was absolutely terrible. What sticks out in my mind is the scene when Kat was talking to Rue (after being knocked unconscious by psychedelic bees): "How long was I out" "4 days" "How's the battle?" Seriously? No reaction at all for missing half the battle? No "Holy poo poo I could use a drink of water" or "Well we sure lucked out, considering 9 people died in the first day, I assume we're pretty much done here". I didn't really buy the whole social message, either. It almost had me with the District 11 scene, but in a movie with child gladiators, there could be many nuanced messages besides "drat those evil bourgeoisie! They all dress like Bowie and gently caress over the 99%!". I think they could have done more with children in the themes of death, innocence lost and murder. Instead, they used children killing other children to push across an unoriginal message. It's a shame, because they could have done a lot more with the concept. By going off the ending, I assume the sequel will be: A ragtag group of teenagers take on big government, with a love triangle subplot. If I'm right, this triology is in the same league as Twilight. 1/5
|
| # ? Apr 11, 2012 18:56 |
|
|
Just watched the Blu-Ray, having read the books but not having seen the movie in theatres. As others have mentioned, I think it's a little weak in some areas. I feel the adaptation from the book was mostly well-done, in terms of choosing what parts to trim, but I think the section with Rue should have been longer. On the other hand, I felt that regardless of how the story itself and pacing were handled, the set/costume/prop design were all fantastic, even if they didn't quite match up with how I'd imagined things. I know a lot of people hated the shaky camera work, but I didn't mind it when watching the film, and after hearing Ross explain it in the extra features of the Blu-Ray, I think it was a good choice overall. I especially liked the stylized cinematography during the initial Cornucopia scene, and during Katniss' hallucination. Casting-wise, the standouts for me were Woody Harrelson and Lenny Kravitz. Everyone else delivered good performances, but those two really knocked it out of the park and added to their characters beyond what was in the book. Jennifer Lawrence did an excellent job of portraying Katniss as she was written in the book, which I suppose is quite the job considering it was written from the first-person perspective, so I guess I shouldn't take anything away from her performance either. Everyone else was reasonably well-done, but ultimately forgettable. Overall, I personally feel that, despite moderate flaws, this was one of the better book-to-movie adaptations I've seen (better, for example, than any of the Harry Potter movies, in my judgement), so I'm going to give it a 4/5, but I'd say my true feelings are closer to 7.5/10.
|
| # ? Aug 21, 2012 04:56 |
|
|
Definitely overrated in my book. Great actors giving blah performances. Costumes were well done. Love story wasn't great, kind of annoying. One of the least enjoyable experiences Ive had watching a movie. I wouldn't be opposed to reading the books, but I just did not like this. 1/5 jimcunningham fucked around with this message at Sep 14, 2012 around 18:42 |
| # ? Sep 13, 2012 16:40 |
|
|
I really had a hard time buying the setting for this film. I just can't believe that humans could ever be so horrendously sadistic and still manage to maintain an advanced civilization. I also don't understand why they need slave laborers to do their dirty work when their machinery would be 3x more advanced than ours. I'm not sure how the release of the book related to the movie "Battle Royale" but the similarities are huge, almost to the point of being a complete rip-off. At least in "Battle Royale most" of the characters behaved in a believable way by crying most of the time and going suicidal. The stupidity of the characters really bugged me at times but I get that from most movies it seems. The scene where the black girl dies was infuriating. "Hey you just set off a trap and were making a lot of noise, lets take some time to embrace!". And why wouldn't they go up a tree when the dogs were coming? I also agree with what other people said about the violence. The premise of this movie is incredibly bleak and violent, so it seems weird to have a "pg-13" scene that involves killing a 12 year old boy. It also didn't seem like this movie had any actions scenes, just "violence scenes". 2/5 - Mostly for decent production value
|
| # ? Feb 16, 2013 03:18 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2013 21:18 |
|
|
"This movie is like (and made for) a teenage kid; Angsty, jittery, and immature with too much wasted potential. They could have really done this right, and perhaps someday someone will. Unfortunately not before we have to endure patiently through two more from this go round. My advice? Fire this entire crew, especially the cinematographer who clearly has a bad case of Parkinson's. Start fresh and go for that hard R. I don't want pretty faces. I want to be mentally scarred." SA Score 2/5 Criticker Score = 50/100
|
| # ? Feb 27, 2013 15:04 |
|
