The NEW Build Your Own Arcade Controls
Main => Everything Else => Topic started by: Ginsu Victim on March 24, 2012, 07:41:23 pm
-
Enjoyed it. Haven't read the book, but thought the movie was pretty good.
Pic I just submitted to reddit:
http://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/rc0da/hunger_games_cake_decorator_fx_wiz/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/rc0da/hunger_games_cake_decorator_fx_wiz/)
(http://i.imgur.com/YfTLE.png)
-
I also read the books and enjoyed them. It kind of goes downhill, but the next two are still pretty good. I felt like they dragged on some parts and then all of sudden would rush through a major point.
I read they were splitting it in to 4 movies. I can't believe they will be able to do that. I'm surprised the first book is a 2+ hour movie. I'm planning on seeing it next week.
-
I also thought that the plot of one good size novel was stretched across three books unnecessarily, and was initially surprised they're splitting it into three movies.
+1
I've not made it to the movie yet but I've read the books. I really liked the first book but the 2nd and 3rd were a bit weak. Would have been better as one tight book.
I've heard that they may actually stretch it into four movies somehow.
-
I like the movie well enough to buy the book. There is a neat article on i09; What if Roger Corman or Alfred Hitchcock directed The Hunger Games? (http://io9.com/5896201/what-if-michael-bay-directed-the-hunger-games?tag=hungergames)
With already 74 seasons of the Hunger Games completed, they have a bunch of room for the "history" to be filled in. I haven't read the first book, let alone the rest, but I am curious to know how Woody made his kills. If the movies do well enough I can see this getting syndicated. Maybe Fox will pick it up and cancel it after its a hit.
-
I have read all three books, have not seen the movie yet.
I agree with you guys, all 3 could have been one, but I liked them.
-
I am almost through the second book and haven't seen the movie yet. The books are entertaining, but they seem to be getting more predictable. The pacing getting much worse as well. If feels like they can spend an entire page talking about eating a meal of biscuits and squirrel, and then a serious part of the story gets skimmed over in a couple sentences. I'm a sucker for dystopians so I won't complain too loudly, but the plot is really nothing original and laced with tween romance. Still, I really am looking forward to seeing the movie. I hear Donald Sutherland and Woody Harrelson are both in it.
-
Read all 3 books a while back, then saw the movie yesterday. Thought the movie was well done and faithful to the book.
Two complaints (no spoilers):
1. Camera work was a bit Blair-Witch style. If you get motion sick at such things (I do, yay :( ) then beware. An hour later I still felt icky.
2. Followed the book really well, but it could have used more time to explain some of the backstory leading to the various sequence of events -- that would have made it even longer of course. Still a good movie, but I highly recommend reading the book first.
Really good movie.
-
To those that have seen it how was Harrelson? I always pictured Kevin Costner in the role while reading.
-
My friend: "You should read these Hunger Games books"
Me: "No, I'm not interested in reading teenage girl survival sci-fi"
Friend: "Its not just for kids"
Me: "My niece reads them, the heoine is a teenage girl"
Friend: "adults enjoy them too"
Me: "Its published by Scholastic..."
I'll take your words for it...
-
It's actually not teenage angst survival at all. If you're thinking it's another twilight, it's not. No skin off my nose per se if you don't want to read it, but you're missing out on a pretty compelling read. I was reluctant, was talked into reading the first book finally by my wife and kids (of both genders), and finally did. Immediately read books 2 and 3 afterwards.
-
I'm going to go read these now. My daughter has all three...
-
Harrelson:
Spoiler:
He was fine in the role, but they minimized his part. Part of the back story I wish they'd expanded on.
-
I haven't seen the movie, but I have seen (and read the Manga version) of Battle Royale, which this movie/story is getting a lot of flack for sounding really similar to. I loved Battle Royale and am hesitant to see this, and the note above about some shakey camera work will probably prevent my wife from being able to watch it.
Anyone else who has seen (and liked) Battle Royale AND this care to comment?
-
Saw the movie Saturday night. I thought it was great.
Never read the books. I had a semblance of an idea of the story after a friend at work told me about it. I don't really care how the stories went or how the books were written because the movie was very well put together.
I don't see how they could have forced anything else into the movie, but it sounds like the book may have gone into to much detail or something. I have to disagree that there was shaky blair witch style camera work. I don't remember it ever being like that. There were quick action scenes, but the vast majority of the movie is much smoother flowing.
I liked Woody as well. His character was a little rough around the edges but you can start to like him as it progresses along. Walking out of the movie, my wife and I had no complaints at all. Only questions about what the next two movies will be about.
-
I have to disagree that there was shaky blair witch style camera work. I don't remember it ever being like that. There were quick action scenes, but the vast majority of the movie is much smoother flowing.
Depends on how susceptible you are to problems with motion. I guarantee you the camera work was shaky and if you're susceptible it's going to bother you a lot. If you're not I doubt it bothers you at all, it wasn't shaky as Blair Witch. I couldn't watch more than 30 seconds of Blair Witch without being almost violently ill (sucks a lot btw), but I was able to grit my teeth and watch Hunger Games. However, if you are at all susceptible, it'll bother you and if you're more than a little bit then you'll have a problem.
If you've ever been riding in the back of a car and gotten motion sick, that's the feeling.
-
BTW, the pic I posted above was number 1 in the movies subreddit and number 2 for ALL of reddit. That made me happy. I've also found many blogs that have reposted it. :)
-
I don't mean to harp on it, but if you get bothered by shaky camera work it can really make you sick, so it's worth noting for anyone in that boat. Anyway, I'm not the only one who noticed...
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=hunger+games+movie+camera+work (https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=hunger+games+movie+camera+work)
-
BTW, the pic I posted above was number 1 in the movies subreddit and number 2 for ALL of reddit. That made me happy. I've also found many blogs that have reposted it. :)
Heh. Have an upboat. ;D
-
Heh, OK I'm *really* not trying to harp on how I thought the camerawork was, but saw this today:
Insight in to how The Hunger Games were filmed.
(http://i.imgur.com/IuIVB.png)
-
^ thats the official j j abrams camera :laugh:
-
I don't mean to harp on it, but if you get bothered by shaky camera work it can really make you sick, so it's worth noting for anyone in that boat. Anyway, I'm not the only one who noticed...
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=hunger+games+movie+camera+work (https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=hunger+games+movie+camera+work)
After reading some of the comments, I think one guy really nailed it.
"The camera shake is similar to the Bourne movies. When there's action there's more shake to imply the energy of what's happening."
I think that sums it up best. It isn't like you will puke, but I guess some parts moved quick, however you are so ingrained in the movie you don't notice unless you are an old man like saint. ;)
-
I think that sums it up best. It isn't like you will puke, but I guess some parts moved quick, however you are so ingrained in the movie you don't notice unless you are an old man like saint. ;)
Heh. Dude, started in my 20's and gets worse as I get older. No first person shooters for me. Barf city.
-
^ I always had it too. just didn't know about it. back in the day I played medal of honor like 2 levels at a time then wondered why I felt like throwing up and had to take a nap :dizzy:
its worse now. I get headache just from watching call of doodoo 3493454 videos.
-
Shakey cam doesn't make me sick, but annoys the crap out of me. It is about the most overused filming technique out there too. It reminds me of those star trek scenes when the enterprise gets hit with a torpedo or something, but it just keeps going on and on and on...
-
all the degenerate, home made amateur porn I have watched has made me immune to the shaky camera... or something like that
-
I haven't read the books, but my wife has, and from what she describes, they sound pretty poor. She also pointed out that they are a single book. It's such a ripoff when authors do this. I'm afraid Quentin Terantino invented the concept with Kill Bill (which sucks, cos I love that movie). Your ---smurfing--- work has to be complete. It has to be able to exist on its own. You can't just ---smurfing--- sell a 1/3 completed novel at retail. Except you apparently can now. Which sucks.
J.K. Rowling actually understands this. Her series is a long story arc, but each novel is complete on its own.
Anyway, my impression is that the books are about John Grisham quality (read: pretty crappy), and the movie is quite good.
-
I'm afraid Quentin Tarantino invented the concept with Kill Bill.
He wanted one full length film, but Miramax balked at the idea. When "The Whole Bloody Affair" gets released, we will finally see the version of the film he originally intended.
-
I'm afraid Quentin Tarantino invented the concept with Kill Bill.
He wanted one full length film, but Miramax balked at the idea. When "The Whole Bloody Affair" gets released, we will finally see the version of the film he originally intended.
Beat me to it. Yeah, the whole kill bill was filmed and in editing before Tarantino compromised and agreed to split it up to save it from getting chopped up.
Just finished book 2 of the hunger games. I am getting annoyed with the authors redundant vocabulary. I should have kept a running tally of how many times she uses the word "temple" for the side of the head.
-
all the degenerate, home made amateur porn I have watched has made me immune to the shaky camera... or something like that
Are you sure it was the camera that was shaking, or the desk your monitor is on? >:D
-
I haven't read the books, but my wife has, and from what she describes, they sound pretty poor. She also pointed out that they are a single book. It's such a ripoff when authors do this. I'm afraid Quentin Terantino invented the concept with Kill Bill (which sucks, cos I love that movie). Your ---smurfing--- work has to be complete. It has to be able to exist on its own. You can't just ---smurfing--- sell a 1/3 completed novel at retail. Except you apparently can now. Which sucks.
Been thinking about this comment a bit. I know what you mean about Hollywood milking movies for every dollar and unnecessarily splitting things up, and this seems to be the case for the film. From what I read so far, I think that the series just seems like it could be rounded up into a single movie without screwing things up. The books simply are not plot-filled enough to need to preserve the complete unabridged story for the film.
I don't think that this is an issue with the books though. Each book is almost 400 pages, and they do find an ending point between books, even if it is a bit of a cliffhanger on the 2nd book. However, that is really nothing new to books at all. In the Lord of the rings, the whole first book really resolves nothing. They realize they have to destroy the ring, create a fellowship to carry that out, and then the fellowship repeatedly gets busted to pieces and the book ends with the Sam and Frodo running off alone. It is totally an incomplete story by itself.
-
In the Lord of the rings, the whole first book really resolves nothing. They realize they have to destroy the ring, create a fellowship to carry that out, and then the fellowship repeatedly gets busted to pieces and the book ends with the Sam and Frodo running off alone. It is totally an incomplete story by itself.
WTF VIGO? Ever hear of the spoiler tag? DAMMIT! Another book ruined.
:P
-
In the Lord of the rings, the whole first book really resolves nothing. They realize they have to destroy the ring, create a fellowship to carry that out, and then the fellowship repeatedly gets busted to pieces and the book ends with the Sam and Frodo running off alone. It is totally an incomplete story by itself.
I dunno. It's been too long. I don't remember Fellowship of the Ring seeming incomplete. The Game of Thrones series, on the other hand, is awful. When I was about 4/5 through the book I was like, "WTF? If the author intends to wind up all these story lines he's opened, he better get moving." The the book just abruptly ended. I was pissed. It wasn't even a very good book and now, if I wanted to find out ANYTHING I had to get the next one. The book just ---smurfing--- stops. Absolutely nothing is resolved. But if Tolkien is guilty, he's guilty. It's bad writing, and commercially it basically amounts to bait-and-switch.
-
Shakey cam doesn't make me sick, but annoys the crap out of me. It is about the most overused filming technique out there too. It reminds me of those star trek scenes when the enterprise gets hit with a torpedo or something, but it just keeps going on and on and on...
It's so much more apparent if you have it on mute. Had sound off once for Diners, Drive-ins and Dives (cooking show), the filming is insanely annoying. Quick zooming in on a guy throwing paprika into a pot. I was getting nauseus and hungry at the same time.
-
I haven't read the books, but my wife has, and from what she describes, they sound pretty poor. She also pointed out that they are a single book. It's such a ripoff when authors do this. I'm afraid Quentin Terantino invented the concept with Kill Bill (which sucks, cos I love that movie). Your ---smurfing--- work has to be complete. It has to be able to exist on its own. You can't just ---smurfing--- sell a 1/3 completed novel at retail. Except you apparently can now. Which sucks.
Been thinking about this comment a bit. I know what you mean about Hollywood milking movies for every dollar and unnecessarily splitting things up, and this seems to be the case for the film. From what I read so far, I think that the series just seems like it could be rounded up into a single movie without screwing things up. The books simply are not plot-filled enough to need to preserve the complete unabridged story for the film.
I don't think that this is an issue with the books though. Each book is almost 400 pages, and they do find an ending point between books, even if it is a bit of a cliffhanger on the 2nd book. However, that is really nothing new to books at all. In the Lord of the rings, the whole first book really resolves nothing. They realize they have to destroy the ring, create a fellowship to carry that out, and then the fellowship repeatedly gets busted to pieces and the book ends with the Sam and Frodo running off alone. It is totally an incomplete story by itself.
Having seen the movie, I have to disagree with that one.
Like I said, my knowledge of the books is what is posted on wikipedia, but the movie was very well done. I really don't see how they could incorporate the remainder of what I read on wikipedia into a single movie without it seeming like Spiderman 3.
At no point in the movie was I getting annoyed and wanting them to speed it up. It isn't like watching Drive, god what a crappy movie that was. And actually they did a really good job of wrapping up the movie. It could easily have ended and be done. There are no holes left at the end of the movie you want answered. If I didn't know there were 2 more movies I wouldn't have known they would be making several more movies in the series.
-
I haven't read the books, but my wife has, and from what she describes, they sound pretty poor. She also pointed out that they are a single book. It's such a ripoff when authors do this. I'm afraid Quentin Terantino invented the concept with Kill Bill (which sucks, cos I love that movie). Your ---smurfing--- work has to be complete. It has to be able to exist on its own. You can't just ---smurfing--- sell a 1/3 completed novel at retail. Except you apparently can now. Which sucks.
Been thinking about this comment a bit. I know what you mean about Hollywood milking movies for every dollar and unnecessarily splitting things up, and this seems to be the case for the film. From what I read so far, I think that the series just seems like it could be rounded up into a single movie without screwing things up. The books simply are not plot-filled enough to need to preserve the complete unabridged story for the film.
I don't think that this is an issue with the books though. Each book is almost 400 pages, and they do find an ending point between books, even if it is a bit of a cliffhanger on the 2nd book. However, that is really nothing new to books at all. In the Lord of the rings, the whole first book really resolves nothing. They realize they have to destroy the ring, create a fellowship to carry that out, and then the fellowship repeatedly gets busted to pieces and the book ends with the Sam and Frodo running off alone. It is totally an incomplete story by itself.
Having seen the movie, I have to disagree with that one.
Like I said, my knowledge of the books is what is posted on wikipedia, but the movie was very well done. I really don't see how they could incorporate the remainder of what I read on wikipedia into a single movie without it seeming like Spiderman 3.
At no point in the movie was I getting annoyed and wanting them to speed it up. It isn't like watching Drive, god what a crappy movie that was. And actually they did a really good job of wrapping up the movie. It could easily have ended and be done. There are no holes left at the end of the movie you want answered. If I didn't know there were 2 more movies I wouldn't have known they would be making several more movies in the series.
I wish they would have done that with the Matrix, just left it at the first one and forget about the rest of the crap. I read all 3 books in 3 days and I found them pretty entertaining. It was predictable, but like Vigo said, I love a good dystopian novel. I enjoyed them, I was wondering how they were going to handle the killings and violence though, I hate stuff watered down. I also didnt agree with 90% of the casting. Woody Harrelson, and Lenny Kravitz were not who I was picturing in my head while reading the book. Same with Rue, and a bunch of the tributes. I think they got Katniss, and Gale down though. Peeta is a joke. The dude is a midget in real life. I cant get over it. The gf and I will probably check it out this weekend. Everyone, whether read the books or not, said it was a good movie.
I just hope I dont barf. I get neauseous if I sit in the back seat of a long car ride. :puke
-
That chick from Hanna (crappy movie that started out with lots of potential) is an awesome actress. So is Jennifer Lawrence, though, so shrug. I haven't read the books so I have no issues with her age. And, almost without exception, I'd rather they up the age of a character for a movie rather than stay faithful and use untalented child actors. Take Ender's Game, for example. Imagine trying to do that movie while staying faithful to the character being six/seven years old. It'd be absurdly bad. Ender will be twelve in the movie and probably played by a fourteen-year-old.
-
Take Ender's Game, for example. Imagine trying to do that movie while staying faithful to the character being six/seven years old. It'd be absurdly bad. Ender will be twelve in the movie and probably played by a fourteen-year-old.
Agreed. I don't think that movie could be made any other way.
-
I dunno. It's been too long. I don't remember Fellowship of the Ring seeming incomplete.
I think Fellowship was incomplete in itself, but it was so ridiculously good that you were OK with being left hanging. Hunger games you just want more to happen so when it cuts out for the next book, you would end up feeling dissapointed if you didn't have the second/third book in hand already.
Having seen the movie, I have to disagree with that one.
Like I said, my knowledge of the books is what is posted on wikipedia, but the movie was very well done. I really don't see how they could incorporate the remainder of what I read on wikipedia into a single movie without it seeming like Spiderman 3.
I still haven't read the third book, so you may be right. The first book can be film worthy on its own, and all the reviews seem to confirm that it is. The second book, to me, doesn't seem too deserving of it's own film. To go to Mike's comparison, it would probably end up like a Matrix 2, some action and entertainment, but not much plot and a cliffhanger ending. Until I read the 3rd book, I can't say whether the 3rd should be made into a film either.
I also didnt agree with 90% of the casting. Woody Harrelson, and Lenny Kravitz were not who I was picturing in my head while reading the book. Same with Rue, and a bunch of the tributes. I think they got Katniss, and Gale down though. Peeta is a joke. The dude is a midget in real life. I cant get over it.
I agree. I can't say for sure how the actors will do, but when I read Lenny Kravitz was Cinna, I was laughing about it. I really like Woody Harrelson, but I don't see him being able to pull off all the angles of Haymitch's character. For the tributes in general, I was thinking more Lord of the Flies than Twilight, but I guess I am not the targeted audience. I am Sure Donald Sutherland could make a badass Snow even though he is pretty much a non-character in the first book.
-
I thought Jennifer Lawrence was way too old for the main actress, to be honest. I figured that weird looking kid from City of Ember might work, but then she's already been in a Hunger Games knock off called Hannah.
Jennifer Lawrences' eyes bug me.
-
I haven't seen the movie, but I have seen (and read the Manga version) of Battle Royale, which this movie/story is getting a lot of flack for sounding really similar to. I loved Battle Royale and am hesitant to see this, and the note above about some shakey camera work will probably prevent my wife from being able to watch it.
Anyone else who has seen (and liked) Battle Royale AND this care to comment?
I've seen and read them both. While I enjoyed the Battle Royale novel (not sure if it's different than the Manga version) more than the Hunger Games books, I didn't care at all for the Battle Royale movie. There were way to many plot points changed from the book and not for the better. I think the Hunger Games movie does much better in capturing the spirit of the book than BR.
-
Lana Del Rey's "Hunger Games" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OjnbRv3krA#ws)
Oh yeah, I meant to mention. This is awesome.
-
fyi- saw this on Slickdeals this morning:
Link (http://slickdeals.net/permadeal/71560/kobo-ebooks-the-hunger-games-series-ebooks-the-hunger-games-0.83-the-hunger-games-movie-tiein-edition-0.83-catching-fire-1.16-mockingjay?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SlickdealsnetFP+%28SlickDeals.net+Frontpage%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher)
The Hunger Games Series eBooks: The Hunger Games $0.83, The Hunger Games: Movie Tie-In Edition $0.83, Catching Fire $1.16, Mockingjay $1.07
Kobobooks has great prices on Hunger Games Series eBooks. Use promo code hungergamesdeal. Thanks wi22ard
Note: Code is limited to one Hunger Games eBook.
Prices after promo code
Hunger Games $0.83
The Hunger Games: Movie Tie-In Edition $0.83
Catching Fire $1.16
Mockingjay $1.07
I think the file format on these is epub.
-
It reminds me of those star trek scenes when the enterprise gets hit with a torpedo or something
All the actors lean to the left and right in sync?
-
I've read the books and saw the movie and I thought it was a good movie. I thought Jennifer Lawrence did a great job but I felt that Josh Hutcherson was piss poor as Peeta.
Also, working at a movie theater for 6 years of my life with boat loads of movie undergrad/grad students gave me an interesting perspective on cinematography and lighting. The camera work was horrible. I'm hoping they work on that for the next movies.
-
I saw it last night...I'd like to chime in with my thoughts. Tried to keep it spoiler-free.
Jennifer Lawrence, I think, nailed it. She did very well at conveying all the changes that Katniss went through over the course of training and the Games themselves. Especially during the Games in the book, there's not much dialog but boatloads of exposition and insight into what's happening in Katniss's mind that would have been hard to do without voiceover. Lawrence was able to show, subtly, the changes in Katniss throughout the games.
The actor that played Peeta wasn't given much to do in the movie. I can't really knock the kid, although the acting seemed pretty...basic. Peeta doesn't really get that interesting in the book until quite a ways into it anyway. Not sure they could have made that work in a movie at all.
The actor that played Gale was terrible, IMO. Waaaay too emo-y for me. Without giving anything away, I have trouble seeing how well that will translate as they turn the next two books into movies.
Woody did very well. I've liked him in most everything, though, so I'm jaded. Lenny Kravitz was actually VERY good as well. Kept it extremely low-key.
Also, if you don't like shaky-cam (which I don't), be patient through the beginning. It's used WAAAAAAAY too much early on. Like, the first ten whole minutes of the movie. It backs off considerably and is then used pretty judiciously throughout the rest.
Donald Sutherland wasn't given a ton to do, either, but made the most of it. Hopefully he's signed as President Snow for the rest of the movies.
-
Donald Sutherland wasn't given a ton to do, either, but made the most of it. Hopefully he's signed as President Snow for the rest of the movies.
I think perhaps that he isn't intent on working much anymore. This has characterized pretty much every role he's had for years. The Italian Job, Pride and Prejudice, and A Time to Kill come immediately to mind, but I'm sure there are others. I seem to only ever see him in very small supporting roles these days, where he might have only two or three scenes in the entire film.
-
Donald Sutherland wasn't given a ton to do, either, but made the most of it. Hopefully he's signed as President Snow for the rest of the movies.
I think perhaps that he isn't intent on working much anymore. This has characterized pretty much every role he's had for years. The Italian Job, Pride and Prejudice, and A Time to Kill come immediately to mind, but I'm sure there are others. I seem to only ever see him in very small supporting roles these days, where he might have only two or three scenes in the entire film.
Well shinikies he's been acting for 40+ years. The man deserves a break. Besides, Kelly's heroes is still his best.
-
Saw the movie, really liked it, decided to give th books a chance
Book 1 was close to the movie and good, liked how the movie had some behind the scenes stuff that the girl didn't see. Really didn't like the change they did in the movie for the "finale" where the mutts weren't specific to what the book did. Book definitely did that better.
Book 2 was ok, there were some flashes of bad story that werent as present in Book 1.
Book 3 was just awful. It was like living in girl mind for 400 pages.
-
Katniss should not have saddlebags.... I thought everyone was supposed to be starving? Guess that's what you get using Americans.
:stupid I haven't seen the movie yet, but all the photo stills I have seen, I kept thinking why the heck do all the kids from every single district look so damn healthy.
-
Just saw this. The main actors were too old to portray kids. We recruit younger to shoot women and children in Iraq. Katniss should not have saddlebags.... I thought everyone was supposed to be starving? Guess that's what you get using Americans.
She was a hunter. She caught/shot/foraged enough food to feed her family and trade the excess for other stuff.
-
A work colleague saw it the other day, and I asked him "I thought this was a kids movie?". He couldn't articulate what demographic it is aimed at, I went and watched it anyway. Yep, it's a kids movie. Not bad mind you, and it was freakin' awesome to see Lenny Kravitz in an acting role. I give it 3/5
my score for recent movies you may have seen:
5/5 - The Way Back, The Kings Speech, Michael Clayton, In Bruges, Gran Torino, Mary and Max
4.5/5 - Taken, Iron Man, Reign Over Me, Watchmen, The girl with the dragon tattoo
4/5 - True Grit, Traitor, Bedtime Stories, Sunshine, pineapple express
3.5/5 - 300, Max Payne, You dont mess with the Zohan, Yes Man
3/5 - That new Indiana Jones flick, Disturbia, That new TMNT flick,
2.5/5 - Angels and Demons
2/5 - The Love Guru. Note: My 2 is probably someone elses 1. Just leaving room for worse!
-
Anyone else catch she used the wrong side of the knife to saw at the tree limb and notched her arrows the wrong direction more than once? :P
I saw the knife thing also and want to look at it again. Don't some knives have a sharp edge, and a serrated edge? Gonna look at that when I get the Blu-Ray.
-
Katniss should not have saddlebags.... I thought everyone was supposed to be starving? Guess that's what you get using Americans.
:stupid I haven't seen the movie yet, but all the photo stills I have seen, I kept thinking why the heck do all the kids from every single district look so damn healthy.
Its cause its supposed to rival Twilight. All the damn kids look the same with their stupid hair, and everything. ::) I still think Katniss has a slight case of down syndrome. :dunno
-
I thought Jennifer Lawrence was way too old for the main actress, to be honest. I figured that weird looking kid from City of Ember might work, but then she's already been in a Hunger Games knock off called Hannah.
+1000
I read all of the books twice. Saw the movie two days ago.
I really liked the books. I wanted to get up and leave this movie it was so bad.
I agree 100% with saint's assessment of shaky camera work. I don't get motion sick from it but it annoys the crap out of me. There is no reason to be watching people ride a train and the camera is shaking. Ooh, we're walking down a hallway in an emotional moment. Let's skip the acting and just shake the camera around. The idea wrecks a whole movie.
Katniss is too old, she very clearly isn't starving, and she has nice clothes. How does that fit the story at all? When they finally got around to the bread sequence with Peeta they are the same age. Katniss isn't starving in the rain, she looks like she got drunk and fell asleep on the ground, and Peeta comes out to judge her. And it was just last week judging by their age. That is probably the key element to the entire first book completely botched out of laziness. Total fail on a character development standpoint. Especially on Peeta. Peeta is no longer a kid who took a punch to give some bread, he's no longer a kid who helped the drunk clean himself up, he's just a kid that has a little charisma for the audience. Katniss is no longer a survivor who kept her family alive. She's just a hot chick in a village short on them. Haymitch is no longer a suicidal drunk tormented by his role as Mentor. He's just a guy with bad hygiene. Katniss' mom isn't a "middle class" woman who gave up her comfort for a man she loved, and then was crushed by his death, by crippling depression. She's just a weak woman who can't support her kids. The whole basis for every main character in this movie is watered down to nothing. The result is a bunch of cardboard cutouts, a ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- load of camera shaking, and eventually some CGI pit bulls that even tommy wouldn't like.
I thought this movie was a piece of crap from beginning to end.
-
You might have just saved me 24 bucks Chad. I enjoyed the books as well, so we probably share the same feelings as to how the characters should be portrayed in the movie. If they are done that poorly, and missing the mark completely, I probably shouldnt see it cause it will ruin the books for me.
-
Wait until it comes out on DVD. Or get it some other way to watch at home. Don't spend $24 on it.
I spent $55. :banghead:
-
Maybe Ill get the GF to buy my ticket PBJ, then if I hate it, I would have just wasted hours off my life rather than money. :cheers:
Damn dude that sucks. :dizzy:
Then again, the GF is making me take her to see Titanic in 3D... I should have a few beers before I go so I can fall asleep. ::)
-
Then again, the GF is making me take her to see Titanic in 3D... I should have a few beers before I go so I can fall asleep. ::)
Leave after the 3D boobs.
-
:laugh2:
If you Grab a copy of the VHS for a quarter from your nearby thrift store, you can FF until the boob scene and get the timestamp. Then at the theater you can just run off to the arcade until the time that the 3d boobs come up.
Movie avoided and 3D boobs FTW!
-
i watched Hunger Games on saturday night. thats time from my life i will never get back. this was a terrible movie which makes me not want to venture within ten feet of the books.
-
I thought Jennifer Lawrence was way too old for the main actress, to be honest. I figured that weird looking kid from City of Ember might work, but then she's already been in a Hunger Games knock off called Hannah.
I don't get this ???
I've seen both movies. Is Hannah a knock off of the book because they both feature a heroine?
-
There's no resemblance between the stories of The Hunger Games and Hanna.
-
We saw it this weekend. I liked the movie better than the book. I enjoyed the books but the writing style is rather annoying. It was like reading a journal being written in real time. I tried re-reading it recently and gave up once I got past The Reaping.
I thought the acting was great and the actors were well cast for the most part. Cato and Peta looked a little too similar at times which got confusing. I expected to not like Peta from what I've read but I thought he was fine.
-
We saw it this weekend. I liked the movie better than the book. I enjoyed the books but the writing style is rather annoying. It was like reading a journal being written in real time. I tried re-reading it recently and gave up once I got past The Reaping.
The book definitely reads at a very low level and sentence structure is designed to keep children entertained, because the author knows she is competing with xboxs and ipods. I can see it being a very annoying read for some people. I know book 3 for me was almost impossible to read and I had to force my way through it. I hope the movie is done better, but since the author is adapting the books to screenplays herself, I don't hold out much hope.
-
I know book 3 for me was almost impossible to read and I had to force my way through it. I hope the movie is done better, but since the author is adapting the books to screenplays herself, I don't hold out much hope.
I had to skim the 3rd book as well. I also was dissapointed to see her name all over the credits. I was hoping the 2nd and especially 3rd book would get some tweaking for the movies.
OT - They showed the trailer for the new Twilight movie before Hunger Games. Looks like it is going to be a comedy. >:D
-
The book is young adult reading. It is intentionally written at a middle school reading level. :dunno
-
The book is young adult reading. It is intentionally written at a middle school reading level. :dunno
Agreed. But it could have been written better anyway. JK Rowling was able to make her books compelling and interesting to readers of all ages.
-
Agreed. But it could have been written better anyway. JK Rowling was able to make her books compelling and interesting to readers of all ages.
Content doesn't address reading level. Her books aren't any more advanced than the Hunger Games books. They're just better stories.
-
There's no resemblance between the stories of The Hunger Games and Hanna.
The trailers for Hanna made it look like the whole thing was her fighting for her life in the woods. The actual movie, of course, was all weird and made no actual sense and seemed to involve the same 2 or 3 city blocks they kept trying to pass off as different countries.
Hanna sucked.
-
Agreed. But it could have been written better anyway. JK Rowling was able to make her books compelling and interesting to readers of all ages.
Content doesn't address reading level. Her books aren't any more advanced than the Hunger Games books. They're just better stories.
I doubt this. While I haven't read The Hunger Games, I think the concept of Harry Potter, an 11-year-old kid who finds out he's a wizard, is far more juvenile than the dystopian future of the Hunger Games. The Harry Potter books, while not especially literary, are pretty well written, far moreso than Dan Brown's novels or most John Grisham.
-
Grisham's first few novels were great. Thought provoking, deep and entertaining. The Chamber, in particular, stands out in his first set.
Once he started popping books out every couple of weeks, they turned to fluff. Just garbage. The last couple I read, I kept waiting for the arc in the story. Never happened.
Dan Brown's are worse. The stupid helicopter scene in Angels and Demons is just idiotic.
-
I doubt this. While I haven't read The Hunger Games, I think the concept of Harry Potter, an 11-year-old kid who finds out he's a wizard, is far more juvenile than the dystopian future of the Hunger Games. The Harry Potter books, while not especially literary, are pretty well written, far moreso than Dan Brown's novels or most John Grisham.
Helped you out a bit clarifying your position on the Hunger Games' quality of writing.
Not to mention that I was talking about the difficulty level of reading it and not the content involved.
-
I prefer the original:
(http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lp6ytkCdMR1qa5mz5o1_500.jpg)
-
Let's be real about this.
(http://www.highwaygames.com/db_images/machine_lge200)
-
Content doesn't address reading level. Her books aren't any more advanced than the Hunger Games books. They're just better stories.
JK does have a much better grasp at storytelling, she could use a lot of work on her battle sequences though. Her stories lost a lot of steam when it came time to write a battle. The movies did some better and some worse than her version, so they didn't do much better overall.
-
Reading level: Grammatic structure, complexity of analogies, direct/indirect vocabulary usage, average number of syllables and clauses per sentence and/or paragraph.
It's not about the story or how effectively the story is told.
The irony here is making my foot twitch.
-
The book is published by SCHOLASTIC people, its marketed towards little kids, its silly to see middle aged fat guys argue about the literary importance of a book written for 13 year old girls.
3D Titanic? Sure there's boobs, but if I am going to sit through that mess, I would expect better hotness than a naked Kate Winslett
-
Helped you out a bit clarifying your position on the Hunger Games' quality of writing.
How exactly does quoting me word-for-word clarify my position?
Anyway, I believe that the Hunger Games are not well-written books because my wife has read them and I've listened to her frequently describing the stupidity of various situations and the often crappy writing. And I've read quite a few excerpts illustrating as much (at my wife's prompting). My wife compares them qualitatively to The Twilight Saga, i.e., mostly crappy.
So yeah, my opinion is not based on having read the series. Perhaps that's why I prefaced everything I said with, "While I haven't read The Hunger Games . . ." And then I only talked about the premise of the novel, which I don't have to have read the books to know.
It's rich criticism, at any rate, coming from BYOAC's resident expert in everything known to man (except loading MDF).
-
Clarification was emphasis put on the fact that you didn't actually read the books but have a strong opinion on them based on what you've heard. You did not present the opinion as that of your wife at the time. Now, your position is clearer. You're welcome. :cheers:
It undermines the credibility of the opinion, of course. Then you throw in indignance and an insult to make it that much stronger a position. Good work! :laugh2:
-
I doubt this. While I haven't read The Hunger Games, I think the concept of Harry Potter, an 11-year-old kid who finds out he's a wizard, is far more juvenile than the dystopian future of the Hunger Games. The Harry Potter books, while not especially literary, are pretty well written, far moreso than Dan Brown's novels or most John Grisham.
You're silly Chad. Read that again. How in the name of god is that an unreasonable thing to say? How can you even clarify it as a "strong opinion". Don't be a princess.
-
i watched Hunger Games on saturday night. thats time from my life i will never get back. this was a terrible movie which makes me not want to venture within ten feet of the books.
Don't judge a book by it's movie. I very much enjoyed the books. Well written.
-
Almost everyone I know who has both read the books and seen the movie say the movie is better.
-
Almost everyone I know who has both read the books and seen the movie say the movie is better.
I have read the books and seen the movie and the books are better. The movie is good, but the books are better.
-
I don't know this guy.
-
Hanna sucked.
Hanna was awesome.
Wow, opinions! ;D
-
I thought it sucked. It had moments of great potential, especially in the beginning. Then it had moments that strained suspention of disbelief way beyond breaking, but which I was inclined to forgive because the scene was fun and badass (escape from captivity in a highly secure facility). Then it just became mostly stupid, frequently nonsensical, and usually neither action-packed nor otherwise engaging for long stretches. And I don't remember how it ended (which says a lot since I watched it in the last couple months) but I remember it sucking.
Wanted to like it, though.
-
There's no resemblance between the stories of The Hunger Games and Hanna.
The trailers for Hanna made it look like the whole thing was her fighting for her life in the woods. The actual movie, of course, was all weird and made no actual sense and seemed to involve the same 2 or 3 city blocks they kept trying to pass off as different countries.
Hanna sucked.
I thought it was good...
-
The book is published by SCHOLASTIC people, its marketed towards little kids, its silly to see middle aged fat guys argue about the literary importance of a book written for 13 year old girls.
3D Titanic? Sure there's boobs, but if I am going to sit through that mess, I would expect better hotness than a naked Kate Winslett
a naked FAT kate winslett.
Have you seen her lately? Looks much better than she did 10ish years ago. I would prefer 2012 3D winslett's.
-
Hanna sucked.
Hanna was awesome.
Wow, opinions! ;D
I was leaving work so I didnt have time to put anything poetic. :lol A friend of mine told me that Hanna was great and thank god I waited for netflix cause if I saw that in theatres I would have been pissed. The ending was totally predicatable, I called it, you can ask the GF. She said the same thing she said when she shot the wolf in the beginning. I love survival movies ( I want to see The Gray) and that was a huge let down.
You guys think she is fat?! See, I dont like my women really skinny. I thought she was attractive. She was annoying in Contagion though.
-
Skinny is good, as long as there are still curves where it counts. We don't want no Olive Oyl. Also has to be a natural skinny. Some chicks have more frame, and when they get skeletal, that is pretty darn gross.
-
Hanna sucked.
Hanna was awesome.
Wow, opinions! ;D
I was leaving work so I didnt have time to put anything poetic. :lol A friend of mine told me that Hanna was great and thank god I waited for netflix cause if I saw that in theatres I would have been pissed. The ending was totally predicatable, I called it, you can ask the GF. She said the same thing she said when she shot the wolf in the beginning. I love survival movies ( I want to see The Gray) and that was a huge let down.
You guys think she is fat?! See, I dont like my women really skinny. I thought she was attractive. She was annoying in Contagion though.
I am not saying I like really skinny. Not even remotely.
I am just saying winslett compared then and now......NOW.
Actually I think it is just the fact she looked like a train wreck by comparison to today.
(http://static.wetpaint.me/network/ROOT/photos/310/split--1024293880000274162.jpg)
(http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2012/stylewatch/blog/120409/kate-winslet-300x400.jpg)
-
I don't like Calista Flockhart skinny, but I like a not as curvy athetic build. Different strokes for different folks.
-
I generally prefer them with a vagina and a pulse.
pulse optional
-
Now this thread is picking up some steam. :laugh2:
-
I don't care, then or now, I look at Kate Winslett and at no point do I ever think that I would want to pay money to see her naked
-
I'm pretty sure Google images will let you see it for free...Just don't do it at work.
-
You guys are absurd. She was and is attractive.
https://www.google.com/search?q=kate+winslet&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=ZuB8T4btGYi09QTv7_igDQ&biw=1760&bih=1014&sei=aOB8T_DJLJOq8AS4sqH7DA (https://www.google.com/search?q=kate+winslet&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=ZuB8T4btGYi09QTv7_igDQ&biw=1760&bih=1014&sei=aOB8T_DJLJOq8AS4sqH7DA)
-
Not at all hot.
-
I still havent seen the movies, but if what PBJ is accurate about how the whole theme to the story is using hunger as a weapon, then how can the movie be so good? I wish they would have said how the rest of the world fared after the nuclear war, or whatever it was. Hell, I read the books a few weeks ago and I already forgot how the world ended. :lol I also remember reading thinking the author was kind of lame when she used phrases or slang that would have no place in the type of society that they lived in. I cant rememember any specific examples, but I remember it occuring more than once. :dunno
-
I also remember reading thinking the author was kind of lame when she used phrases or slang that would have no place in the type of society that they lived in. I cant rememember any specific examples, but I remember it occuring more than once. :dunno
Movie "Avatar" (blatant ripoff of "Fern Gully" btw) does the same thing. Some phrases and slang seem right out of 1985, which is weird in a futuristic space flick.
-
Well, I watched the movie over Easter Weekend. I meant to post earlier, but I agree with PBJ a lot. I felt the whole hunger element was gone. The funny thing is during the games, they were showing her eat...a lot, but they never bothered showing much passage of time. They show probably 6 meals take place during the games, but only visually show you that maybe 4 days have past. My wife who never read the book was confused why she was always going around eating all day. In the movie, it seems like she finds water within 20 minutes of the games starting.
I think character development was cut short as well, you had no connection to why Rue was a big deal, it feels like they knew each other for one afternoon. When you get to the brutality and killing, it was done well and kept pace. They thankfully cut back at the cheesy teen romance. Gale's anger against the capitol was completely gone, so he is just a dope gazing off into the sunset. Haymitch was one dimensional, which is a shame because woody did a great job, they just didn't give him any film time. They didn't even bother chopping off Peeta bread's leg, but I guess that wasn't a critical thing to do for the movie.
District 12 was a shaky fail, you had no sense of how Katniss had to trade to survive and put her name in for rations of grain. They just shook the camera for ten minutes while she ran around. Her thunder thighs and the well-fed nature of everyone in the district takes away any notion of hunger being a key element. They didn't even seem poor when townsfolk are watching the games on a couch on their 60" flat-panel tv screens.
But even after all my complaints, it wasn't necessarily a bad film. It was just not a masterfully done film. Kinda like one of the frustrating Harry Potter films. You just end up cringing when they miss the mark or chop out parts that were critical to the story, but you will still watch it again.
-
I cant remember any specific examples.
The movie itself captures the actual games part of the book pretty well.
I had forgotten how much of a central theme this was to the story
-
There's no resemblance between the stories of The Hunger Games and Hanna.
The trailers for Hanna made it look like the whole thing was her fighting for her life in the woods. The actual movie, of course, was all weird and made no actual sense and seemed to involve the same 2 or 3 city blocks they kept trying to pass off as different countries.
Filming locations for
Hanna (2011) More at IMDbPro »
Bad Tölz, Bavaria, Germany
Berlin, Germany
Essaouira, Morocco
Fehmarn, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany
Filtergewoelbe Wasserwerk Friedrichshagen, Berlin, Germany
Hamburg, Germany
Hotel Concorde, Berlin, Germany
Kemijärvi, Finland
Leger, Lenggries, Bavaria, Germany
Lenggries, Bavaria, Germany
Ouarzazate, Morocco
Ruka, Kuusamo, Finland
Spreepark, Plänterwald, Treptow-Köpenick, Berlin, Germany
(amusement park)
Studio Babelsberg, Potsdam, Brandenburg, Germany
-
A work colleague saw it the other day, and I asked him "I thought this was a kids movie?". He couldn't articulate what demographic it is aimed at, I went and watched it anyway. Yep, it's a kids movie. Not bad mind you, and it was freakin' awesome to see Lenny Kravitz in an acting role. I give it 3/5
my score for recent movies you may have seen:
5/5 - The Way Back, The Kings Speech, Michael Clayton, In Bruges, Gran Torino, Mary and Max
4.5/5 - Taken, Iron Man, Reign Over Me, Watchmen, The girl with the dragon tattoo
4/5 - True Grit, Traitor, Bedtime Stories, Sunshine, pineapple express
3.5/5 - 300, Max Payne, You dont mess with the Zohan, Yes Man
3/5 - That new Indiana Jones flick, Disturbia, That new TMNT flick,
2.5/5 - Angels and Demons
2/5 - The Love Guru. Note: My 2 is probably someone elses 1. Just leaving room for worse!
A friend was visiting town, and she was keen to see this. I didn't have the heart to say I'd already seen it, so off we went. I actually enjoyed it more the second time around!
-
For a while, had no idea what any of this "Hunger Game" crap was - figured it was something like "Twilight". Out of curiosity (and the witnessing of men my age glued to their copies of the first book), I decided to give it a read. I am glued to it. Right now I'm almost done with the second book. Want to see the movie now.
I'm really not much of a fiction reader (I prefer biographies and instructional books) so perhaps maybe the fact it was written for the young adult made it easier for me to plow through.
-
I saw it on Friday. Thought it was pretty good, but if the main characters was starving, why was the main character not skin and bone? Why was she not gorging on the food during the movie?
It could have been a bit more violent, as I would have taken most of the sleeping kids out while waiting up that tree, or setting traps etc.
If it was anything like online gaming I'm sure I would be dead after 5 minutes.. :lol
I just can see a Hunger Games mod coming out for CSS.
Maybe in the next movie we will get a NC17 Rating and more action.
-
It could have been a bit more violent, as I would have taken most of the sleeping kids out while waiting up that tree, or setting traps etc.
If it was anything like online gaming I'm sure I would be dead after 5 minutes.. :lol
I just can see a Hunger Games mod coming out for CSS.
Maybe in the next movie we will get a NC17 Rating and more action.
You wanted to see Battle Royale.
Enjoy! :cheers: