Hunger Games:

rednekk98 wrote: Rofl_Mao wrote: rednekk98 wrote: Rofl_Mao wrote: Reb Cpl wrote: The whole world is talking about it. I am clueless.  The lead actress was good in Winter's Bone, so it has that going for it. ... Is that a prono? Totally sounds like it, but it's about an Appalachian teen trying to support her mentally-ill mother and younger siblings, and hillbillies on meth. Jennifer Lawrence did get a nomination for her performance, and she really carried a decent low-budget film. I'm thinking I'm going to wait and catch this one after theaters. The fact that they keep making Twilight comparisons is a major turn-off for me. Who knows, it could be better than Star Wars I-III. The comparisons that keep getting made are lowering the bar for it, which doesnt make me want to see it.

Ohh I see. Sounds like a good drama.

I thought about going Saturday night to see it, but I would've gone alone. Not that it bothers me, I just didn't want to be the creepy dude in the corner breathing heavy at inappropriate intervals, throwing back milk duds and slurpees and whatnot. Maybe I'll try again this weekend, with company that is.

DeTrevni wrote: Then the books must be terrible. There were many forced relationships between the lead actress and the other minor characters, from friendship to romantic, and simply not enough time to hash them out. The consequence of this was that pretty much ALL the relationships felt shallow and artificial, and I never felt the intended joy when something worked out or the pain when something didn't.

Without trying to give too many spoilers away, that's actually the point. Kat doesn't have any real relationships other than with her sister and Gale, she doesn't really know how to act around other people, nor does she trust others at all. Her relationship with Peeta is forced and contrite because she IS forcing it and considers it just another necessary action to appease the crowd and survive. When she says on the train as they arrive in 12 "I just want to forget everything" she really means EVERYTHING, Peeta, their relationship in the arena, etc.

Katniss NEVER changed as a character, which is something a battle royale to the death would seem to do. She was the same coming out as she was going in. Same complaint for the character Peeta.

What you have to realize about her character is that she's always been in a battle for her life. Her father died in a mine explosion when she was young, her mother went catatonic, they had no income, so she had to fight tooth and nail just to put food on the table to keep them alive. The games were just an extension of that. It's still survival, just of a different type. She doesn't change much in the book, and I've been critical of the lack of character development in the book itself, but "Catching Fire" starts making up for that, and by "Mockingjay" we really get a lot deeper with the characterization.

Aaaaaand that was it, really. Sutherland was in the movie for a total of 5 minutes, so that really doesn't count. Jennifer Lawrence did a good job, though her character wasn't really complex. I did facepalm a bit when Woody popped out, and the whole time I found myself asking "Is that Lenny Kravitz?" Turns out...

Hey, I thought Kravitz did a damned good job as Cenna.

To top it all off, the ending seemed rushed (apparently this was a complaint with the books as well), and left far more questions than answers. There were a couple of gratuitous scenes that seemed like they could have been relevant had they been better explained (District II, anyone?) Also, there were more than a few technical issues I noticed (I used to practice archery...), but those can be overcome with suspense of disbelief.

Well, it IS just part one of a trilogy, and the end is definitely rushed in the first book. However, the district 11 riots are actually a bonus in this movie as they are only alluded to in the second book. I think that it actually does a good job of setting the story to show that the districts are a powder keg simply needing a spark to set them off. Really, my only big complaint is that they changed the back story on the mockingjay pin. In the books, one of Katniss' only friends gives it to her as a token to wear in the arena. It's kind of important because that pin belonged to the friend's aunt (the friend is the daughter of the governor of district 12 btw) who was a tribute the same year as Haymitch. That connection becomes fairly important in the second book.

Yeah, I think it's one of those series (like Harry Potter was) where if you read the books AND see the movies, it ties everything together a whole lot better. I was impressed that it was 2:22 which is a pretty long run-time for a PG-13 movie based on a young-adult book.

Also, it'll take you all of a week to read all three book at the most.

Edit: I almost forgot, one important thing they do leave out is that the Tracker Jackets and "Muttations" (the dogs) were biological weapons cooked up by the Capitol to be used against the districts during the war. Same with the mockingjays. They made some bird that would eavesdrop on the districts and report back to the capitol troops, but the districts found out and started spreading disinformation. So the capitol just let the birds go thinking they'd die off, but they wound up intermixing with wild birds and surviving, hence her pin is a sign of defiance. Kinda important but left out.

Edited by tallen702 - 26 March 2012 at 2:56am

My brother and law and his wife went to see it. She'd read the books and was climbing the walls to get to the movie.
He'd never read any of it and had pretty much the same 'meh' attitude that I do.

His report was that it was a good movie, worth the watch.

So we'll see. Should the opportunity to dump Jr. on someone for a few hours arise, maybe I'll take a peek at it.

FreeEnterprise wrote: Great story, lots of complex issues that were glossed over and if you don't know someone who can explain it you will leave confused to a degree. As there is tons of backstory (like the mockingjays) that only people that read the book would understand.

Was it in the same ballfield as "Cloverfield" shaky-cam?  That was a movie that left me with motion sickness and a grievous headache.

**SPOILER**

I enjoyed the movie, but liked the books for for the sheer fact that someone who hasn't read the book doesn't get the subext of Katniss' relationships with the people.

One of the biggest struggles in Kat's head in the book is if she has feelings for Peeta... or is it Gale? No, it's Peeta. No it's Gale again. And back to Peeta. And now I hate Peeta, so back to Gale. However in the movie they make it seem like she's not wrestling with it at all.

Same with the relationship with Rue. In the book, she bonds with her, and she likens her to her own sister, Prim. However, in the movie, it seemed rushed and out of place when she cried over Rue.


I understand the constraints of moving from textual books to a movie, and the issues that come with that, but wish they'd find a way to portray her inner-mind as that's how most of the books are... her wrestling with decisions and what she's seeing. Good movie, looking forward to the next 3 (yes, 3, as the 3rd book will be split in to 2)

Edited by Linus - 26 March 2012 at 7:46pm

Okay, just finished the first book. My opinions of the movie have been only slightly raised. For my biggest complaint, I agree with Linus. We could not get into Katniss's head in the movie, so all her relationships were hollow and empty. The book, being first-person, did a far better job giving us a glimpse into Katniss's thought process, which I think was necessary. What they did with the movie was a terrific representation of the book, however. Well, for what they managed to fit into the movie anyway. The character designs were pretty much spot on with the descriptions in the book, as well as the settings. But it was more of a multi-million dollar illustration than a recreation of the story.

Edited by DeTrevni - 31 March 2012 at 8:02pm