The Hunger Games?

Has anyone here seen it yet? How was it?

Fucking shit.

Skelly, you didn't like it?

I saw it and really dug it. Good fun. Here's my review;

4.5 stars (out of five)

This is an excellent movie, a must-see almost. Two thirds into the movie I realized what was making the difference and why this isn't another Twilight. The acting is TOP DRAWER (or is it top shelf?). The performances feel real.

This rating might be a little generous but I thoroughly enjoyed it. I don't understand though why these popular young adult novels always have the infamous love triangle. I guess we'll get into that more in the sequel but I'm not looking forward to another Team Edward/Jacob-type split.

I couldn't figure out how a movie about teens killing each other could pull off a "G" rating in Canada but they did it and it didn't ruin the movie at all. I still felt like the violence was real and it was not over the top or gory or anything. Very tastefully done.

Overall very satisfying movie and I look forward to the next one.

The books are a crap sandwich. Why would I see the movie?

I actually agree with Barney on this one -- the wife wanted to see it and it was enjoyable enough. Just have to remember that it is a story written for teen girls.

I'm looking forward to seeing it, I thought the books were okay. I still don't get where this is written for teen girls. Cause the leads a girl? I like that the author essentially took Battle Royale and gave the setting more of a back story as well sets up what happens after the Games.

I would have loved these books as a teen.

Yeah, I probably woulda had huge crush on the lead character as well who's foolin who.

Only for teen girls in that there is a lot of time spent on the love triangle (and inner-dialogue about it) in the books. The movie is actually better in that respect....although I thought the movie was worse in others.

It was alright.

Good:
-I like the world building, though it's not exactly ground breaking stuff.
-Well acted.
-While not always on the money, I dug the overall production design and costuming, especially all the Capital stuff.

Bad:
-I've grown really tired of the shaky cam hard-to-follow action scene shooting that's all the rage these days and this is no exception. Tons of hard to follow bullshit fighting with terrible choreography.
-Little to no real character development. We get no real sense of who the characters are or the potentially complex and conflicted issues they are facing.
-REALLY heavy handed with the "this is a person you should be sad is dead" "now this is a person you should be glad is dead". We should care because of who the characters are in the story, not cause we're told we should care.
-HUGE plot holes. I'm told the book doesn't leave a lot of these open in the same way, but why the fuck is Katniss sometimes awesome at killing people and other times totally terrible at it? Why do these super trained motherfuckers make all sorts of hilariously stupid tactical decisions? You have a goddamn bow, shoot a motherfucker from across the meadow when you have a chance!
-What's up with the weird computer controlled/created fire and dogs and shit? If you're gonna have this totally weird element, don't just kinda gloss over it as nothing cause it just feels super weird and confusing.

The wife, who is a big fan of the books, said it was a pretty big letdown.

Dr. Mabuse wrote: I like that the author essentially took Battle Royale and gave the setting more of a back story as well sets up what happens after the Games.

I've been trying to figure out what makes this different from Battle Royale and everyone I know that's read the books says simply "It just is." Seriously, every one of them says the exact same thing. That and "You have to read them." I'm not sure I'm buying it.

Hey Matt. My oldest daughter keeps talking about these books. Ask your wife if she thinks they're OK for a fifth grader/sixth grader. I keep hearing they're really good book, but I worry they may be too violent/intense for her at her age. Are they that bad, or is it just more PC overreaction?

Mr Skeletor wrote: Fucking shit.

Is that like Good Fucking Shit like you're smoking weed or Bad Fucking Shit like you're dropping acid.

jay718 wrote:

Dr. Mabuse wrote: I like that the author essentially took Battle Royale and gave the setting more of a back story as well sets up what happens after the Games.

I've been trying to figure out what makes this different from Battle Royale and everyone I know that's read the books says simply "It just is." Seriously, every one of them says the exact same thing. That and "You have to read them." I'm not sure I'm buying it.

I'm generalizing, the two books are different. In BR the focus is from the POV of the students in the game and ends with the game's conclusion.

HG gets into the whys and hows of the different societal class structures. The game is connected to that. It also becomes an arena (no pun intended) for rebellion.

Kids killing kids for entertainment is what connects the two.

All that being said, I think BR may be more to your liking though.

I thought it was lackluster. My girlfriend, who read the books and was excited to see it, also felt it was a bit of a letdown. The relationships between characters were very weak and glossed over. I get the feeling they were much better developed in the books. And as mentioned before, the constant shaky-cam was irritating.

Because the forgone conclusion that Katniss would win, none of the other characters deaths were surprising or impactful in any way.

jay718 wrote:

Dr. Mabuse wrote: I like that the author essentially took Battle Royale and gave the setting more of a back story as well sets up what happens after the Games.

I've been trying to figure out what makes this different from Battle Royale and everyone I know that's read the books says simply "It just is." Seriously, every one of them says the exact same thing. That and "You have to read them." I'm not sure I'm buying it.

Here's an article that compares the two:

io9.com/5888124/did-the-hunger-games-rea...ip-off-battle-royale

I rarely see movies but this week I saw two. First night was John Carter, last night was Hunger Games.

I liked Hunger Games, but Loter's points are right on. What I find most interesting about it is that it dramatizes tensions I assume are very alive among young people. The first tension is obviously about navigating and negotiating cliquish social spaces. The different teams in the Hunger Games reminded me of different cliques in high school. An arena of conflict beyond the moral contraints of the adult world. Then there is the tension that the combatants are performing for others and feel pressure to adapt to the expectations that others have of them, and here I can't help but think of social media, how younger people do social interaction by documenting and manufacturing images of themselves for others to consume...and those others are not only other young people, but also their parents etc. The duplicity of the lead's love interest in the other dude from her district in the games probably struck a cord about how the force of cirucmstances (whatever that may be) can require going out with the person you don't want to go out with.

The Hunger Games was more interesting sociologically than John Carter, but I preferred JC.