Nice to see the snobs have their knives out (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews



Message


spartacus533 -> Nice to see the snobs have their knives out (23/3/2012 12:36:23 AM)

So what if it's a book that was written initially for 'teens'? So was Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Narnia (which was arguably for even younger children), as were most comic books.
I'll admit that I'm a fan of the Hunger Games Trilogy, but I still found the film to be fantastic. The flaws are minor; the camera work and quick editing during the action beats- you can argue it's symbolic for the frenetic pace of the Games and the disorientation Katniss or whoever is feeling, but it only just stays on the right side of coherent, most obviously in the release of the tributes into the Arena, and some slightly unconvincing CG. Expect both of these problems to be fixed in what will obviously be a considerably bigger-budgeted sequel.




yazoo88 -> RE: Nice to see the snobs have their knives out (23/3/2012 9:04:09 AM)

I'm seeing this tonight and am really looking forward to it, hope it doesn't disapoint.

It's a shame certain people judge this film based on its fan-base before they have even seen it. I wouldn't consider myself part of the teen literature fan base yet will still give this movie a chance and and see for myself. I try not to pre-judge a film based on gossip and even based on the trailer!




elab49 -> RE: Nice to see the snobs have their knives out (23/3/2012 9:43:31 AM)

Although some of us have read the books (and don't think much of them or Collins's writing and have a real issue with the word 'literary' being used simply because it's a book) the film - even with a director who hasn't excited since Pleasantville - does look to be a lot better.  I think it's possibly fairer to say that a lot of film fans are giving it a hard time because of the Twilight allusions and that particularly worrying, scary and frankly batty, fanbase. Snobs is an odd word to use.





spartacus533 -> RE: Nice to see the snobs have their knives out (23/3/2012 10:09:58 AM)

Hmm I agree snobs was an odd word, but what's the problem with using the word 'literary' to describe an adaption of a book.....a book is literature, hence the adjective 'literary'......and your Gary Ross argument makes no sense, he's only made one other film since Pleasantville for a start!




talpacino -> RE: Nice to see the snobs have their knives out (23/3/2012 10:27:29 AM)

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

I thought it was pretty decent. The two leads are quite good and Stanley Tucci is a good laugh. For those whining about the violence being tame, there is violence and there is blood and I thought it was quite effective. These are kids being killed so you don't exactly need to see too much gore, it's disturbing enough as it is.

Fans of the book will no doubt get a bit more from it than I did. There were teens in our screening, oohing and ahhing and squeeing and balling their eyes out during a certain scene but it didn't really affect me as I didn't really feel we got to know any of the kids bar the two leads.

3





elab49 -> RE: Nice to see the snobs have their knives out (23/3/2012 10:38:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: spartacus533

Hmm I agree snobs was an odd word, but what's the problem with using the word 'literary' to describe an adaption of a book.....a book is literature, hence the adjective 'literary'......and your Gary Ross argument makes no sense, he's only made one other film since Pleasantville for a start!


There's an entire thread in Books arguing what 'literature' is - essentially because the idea that Dan Brown or Stephanie Meyer propogate it is borderline offensive.

And Ross also writes, as he has with Hunger Games. So that'd be two very unimpressive pieces of cinema. Possibly should have expanded more than one of those sections in IMDB? Although I'd agree that particular bit of code, where they decide which role is most important for the name, is pretty annoying. And at least I gave him credit from his only good film, as opposed to looking at the dodgier earlier writing.




Swedle -> Pretty good but... (23/3/2012 10:40:20 AM)

first off, I felt it was a bit brief, maybe because they cut a lot of the violence, which was a shame, not because I wanted to see a load of blood, but because the violence is pretty important to the story, it seemed to be over too quickly. There were a couple of continuity errors but that's neither here nor there, the thing that really got me was the fact that a film set in a future, post-apocalyptic America is being run by a British guy, and not even a British guy, just Donald Sutherland doing an accent! do they just like to metaphorically slap us in the face?
Otherwise, the acting was mostly briliant (except for the incredibly wooden Liam Hemsworth) Jennifer Lawrence continues to live up to that oscar nomination, pretty-boy Josh Hutcherson is even pretty believable as the doe-eyed would-be love interest (as in, would-be if she actually was interested)
The action, cinematography, even the screenplay, which in these sorts of films always seems to be way dumbed down, were all brilliant. Definately worth a watch




thebackseatdirector -> The obvious blueprint for this year's I’m A Celebrity. (23/3/2012 10:52:16 AM)

These days I tend to see the tagline “Based on the epic series of novels” as a government warning label about inferior film products (see Harry Potter, Twilight and The Da Vinci Code for this particular legacy) and so I trudged to the preview of The Hunger Games expecting substandard acting led by a weak, bloated screenplay.

But delightfully, and possibly because I am a non-reader of the ‘epic’ novels, I was mostly proven wrong. Well, actually, I was very proven wrong. For a film adaptation of a teen sci fi novel series, this is actually very good.

The exposition is dispatched with panache, and the comeuppance for civil unrest, whilst a little far fetched, is remotely plausible in this dystopian future of extreme hairspray and high-speed trains. Couple that with the logical conclusion of Channel 5’s ever desperate bid to get the Big Brother audience back to its Ch4 high, and you have a future filled with echoes of today.




Mrwuzik82 -> Good attempt but am i missing something? (23/3/2012 12:00:42 PM)

After having watched the film last night i must confess to feeling very dissapointed with this adaptation. Whilst the build up to the actual game is very tense and exciting it all kind of falls apart once the games start. There is very little tension and excitement and the deaths of the children are uneventful and feel meaningless. I feel this could have benefited from being more raw and dare i say it even a bit more violent. You never really get a sense of the danger and terror that is conveyed so well in the book. After coming out of the showing it it just made me want to go home for a battle royal/truman show double bill, 2 films that have similar messages but are much smarter and clever in their execution. Also the camera work for the film was awful, i really struggled to follow alot of what was going on often not sure of who was fighting who and what was going on. Just keep the camera still and let the audience see what is happening! This isn't a bourne film! I wouldn't not recommend the film as i am clearly in the minority based on all the 4 star reviews doing the rounds.




Filmmuscle -> It's just about OK (23/3/2012 1:13:19 PM)

Having watched this film last night I was expecting to be wowed. I've never read the books but then again I never read Harry Potter but those films turned out to be very good. With The Hunger Games it most certainly feels like the running time of 2 hours and 24 mins. The build up to the games in the film was interesting but not tense. I have no complaints about the acting at all but the overall feel off the film, especially given the sound reviews it's getting all round, is rather underwhelming. This film would not get a second watch from me and most certainly will not end up in my blu ray collection.




st3veebee -> RE: It's just about OK (23/3/2012 4:29:23 PM)

10.40 screening this morning: about 1/3 full, maybe less. Heard great things about this so went in with high-ish expectations.

WHAT'S GOOD:

+Excellent central performance from Lawrence and mostly great acting elsewhere. Toby Jones is wasted but Tucci is as always fantastic.
+Brilliantly paced with several thrilling moments. Characters are killed off left right and centre leading to an unpredictable and well handed finale.
+The film never goes overboard on sentiment when it could so easily collapse under a saccharin avalanche. Heartfelt scenes are handled perfectly.
+Nice score that doesn't overpower. Nothing spectacular but efficient.
+ The metropolis area is interesting with fantastical characters and buildings a complete contrast to the outlying districts where we find our main characters.


WHAT'S NOT QUITE AS GOOD/ JUST PLAIN BAD:

-One moment is unintenionally hilarious and I noted that others found it very amusing as well. Reveal: When Peeta reveals his camouflage out in the wild
-Dog/Wolf creatures at the end just look pants.
-Side characters are wafer thin


I really enjoyed this. Lawrence is fast proving to be one of the best actresses around and is well accompanied with an impressive supporting cast. The story flows nicely and when the action gets going it is thoroughly gripping stuff. Far more than just another Teen flick this is easily one of the best films this year.




S. C. Lee -> RE: The obvious blueprint for this year's I’m A Celebrity. (23/3/2012 5:25:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thebackseatdirector

These days I tend to see the tagline “Based on the epic series of novels” as a government warning label about inferior film products (see Harry Potter, Twilight and The Da Vinci Code for this particular legacy) and so I trudged to the preview of The Hunger Games expecting substandard acting led by a weak, bloated screenplay.




Harry Potter is an inferior film product? Have you actually seen them?




racquetman75 -> mediocre (23/3/2012 6:19:17 PM)

Very average adaptation IMO. Stylistically it did not work for me at all. The beginning felt like a "found footage" movie - very shaky and annoying camera work. The whole movie had ADHD - it jumped around very quickly and felt over-edited even though it was a long movie. The action scenes were a joke - just a blurry, unperceivable mess. The whole thing was watered down, obviously to get the PG-13 rating. I have no idea why this was given 4 stars by Empire unless it was being reviewed by a 13 year old girl who just saw her first PG-13 movie. 2.5 to 3 stars at best for this mess.




Whistler -> RE: mediocre (23/3/2012 8:47:14 PM)

I'm struggling to decide what I thought of it. There's definitely a lot in there to like and to be enjoyed, but I just had a strange overall lack of satisfaction by the end. The camera work is very jarring at times (I'm sick of directors thinking ultra zoomed in and shaky cams = good fight scenes), but I don't think that's what the overall problem was. I'm not quite sure what was missing. I think I'll have to give it a little while to sink in, or maybe just go and see it again. Worth a look anyhow.




bretty -> RE: mediocre (23/3/2012 11:21:52 PM)

I wonder if the slightly annoying camera stuff was because they needed to hide some of the violence for the rating?




J_BUltimatum -> Boring Games (24/3/2012 12:16:52 AM)

Quite possibly the most boring film I've seen this year. Plus the story has been used in hundreds of forms before and is just a poor copy. For the majority of the film I found myself going "Oh, that was in the Running Man" and "This feels a lot like that bit in the Condemned, but without the action.". Maybe if it had a 15 rting it could've been better but I very much doubt it. Even great actors such as Woody Harrelson couldn't save this droll.




dyl2019 -> (24/3/2012 1:42:34 AM)

I'd like to see the film Empire saw. sounds really good. The one I saw was pretty rubbish though, very boring.




Wild about Wilder -> RE: (24/3/2012 10:14:11 AM)

Though I found it pretty good I don't think it'll be the Global phenominum everyones predicting yes maybe in the US but screening I was in had about a dozen people less than went to see Wild Bill.
7/10




S. C. Lee -> RE: RE: (24/3/2012 5:27:37 PM)

Edited.




vipey -> Food for Thought! (24/3/2012 5:53:58 PM)

Not the kind of film I would normally see - but the prescence of the excellent Jennifer Lawrence persuaded me to give it a look. Glad I did - no idea how it compares to the book - but an intriguing premise is well executed. Tense, exciting and thought provoking.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: Boring Games (24/3/2012 6:42:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: J_BUltimatum

Quite possibly the most boring film I've seen this year. Plus the story has been used in hundreds of forms before and is just a poor copy. For the majority of the film I found myself going "Oh, that was in the Running Man" and "This feels a lot like that bit in the Condemned, but without the action.". Maybe if it had a 15 rting it could've been better but I very much doubt it. Even great actors such as Woody Harrelson couldn't save this droll.


Very true - it is hard for any movie to live up to the greatness of the Condemned.




BelfastBoy -> RE: The Hunger Games (24/3/2012 9:17:40 PM)

Saw Hunger Games this afternoon, in a theatre that could've held a hell of a lot more than the 15 or so who turned up - am sure the worldwide opening box office takings will be huge, but I was expecting more people to attend on a local level. Anyway, thoroughly enjoyed the film, finding it far more sophisticated than I imagined. Here's my good and bad points:

GOOD

- Jennifer Lawrence, from start to finish an outstanding performance. Can't remember the last time I cared so much about any character in a film.
- Production design and Capitol residents' costumes are very impressive indeed. (Wes Bentley has the most amazing facial hair I've ever seen!)
- Since nobody else has mentioned him, I thought Lenny Kravitz was surprisingly good in his supporting role.
- IMPLIED violence is far more effective and - in the worst sense of the word - memorable than seeing the details of children slaughtering each other. I don't want or need to see that; anyone who does is welcome to watch Battle Royale!
- There isn't much music in the film, but James Newton Howard's score is consistently pleasant and occasionally beautiful.

BAD

- I'm assuming that the shaky camerawork is to conceal the violence, but it's practically vomit-inducing in places.
- The sound mixing is poor, making some of the dialogue hard to hear.
- Animal CGI near the end is pretty awful, and the fire isn't too hot either.
- Perhaps I'm in a minority, but I think the film could've done with more exposition in a few places. For instance, what is the in-universe function of Elizabeth Banks' character? I know she plays 'Effie Trinket', but is she even named as such on screen? Why do the Hunger Games even happen? (If it's any consolation, I liked the film enough to intend to read the books now, so maybe it all makes sense on the page - but the film is a little muddled in establishing the finer points and individual / governmental motivations of Suzanne Collins' world.)
- Why do some of the Tributes have stupid 'hero' names like Marvel, while others just use their real names?
- Toby Jones didn't have much to do or say, did he? (That made the final cut, at least.)
- The ending is presumably that of the book, but it's more like a pause for a commercial break (or a sequel), than a self-contained conclusion.




mackey -> RE: The Hunger Games (24/3/2012 10:24:04 PM)

Saw this earlier today in a cinema packed full of teenagers - the target audience who all loved it, huge round of applause at the end. I thought it had a solid, interesting first hour but once the actual games themselves began it went rapidly down hill and became quite tedious by the finale. Jennifer Lawrence was very good as were Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci. I found the action bland and unimaginative; obviously it's tricky to depict teenagers and children killing each other but the makers seemed to have settled on 'shaky-cam' as the best solution to the problem. I really enjoyed all the stuff leading up the games and world that surrounded them but unfortunately it wasn't developed well enough for me. There's certainly scope there for improvement so maybe the sequels will do a better job.




ashescartman -> You are not the only person in the world! (24/3/2012 10:41:45 PM)

Sick of 'What film did Empire watch'-type reviews, from people who think that their opinion is the only one that matters. I saw a brave and strong adaptation of difficult material. I (and the reviewer) saw a film we liked, you saw a film you didn't like. Accept that you are not an expert and move on




ashescartman -> You are not the only person in the world! (24/3/2012 10:47:21 PM)

Sick of 'What film did Empire watch'-type reviews, from people who think that their opinion is the only one that matters. I saw a brave and strong adaptation of difficult material. I (and the reviewer) saw a film we liked, you saw a film you didn't like. Accept that you are not an expert and move on




racquetman75 -> RE: You are not the only person in the world! (25/3/2012 3:13:57 AM)

The film critic's job is to look at the movie objectively. The reviewer here did not appear to do that IMO. Hence, some of us non-professionals, who also have the ability to watch a film and form opinions and conclusions, decided to step in with some of our criticisms.

You appear to be saying that you liked the movie and the Empire reviewer liked the movie so the rest of us should keep our mouths shut? In essence your opinion (and the reviewers) are the only ones that matter then? Are you seeing the hypocrisy yet? [;)]





Babyara -> RE: You are not the only person in the world! (25/3/2012 7:55:58 AM)

So some people are saying that a film has to be graphic and gory to be affective. Anyone seen Blair Witch? There's more gore in Watership Down (also a great adaptation of a fantastic book, sort of aimed at kids but which would move most adults).




ashescartman -> RE: You are not the only person in the world! (25/3/2012 9:18:45 AM)

@racquetman75, read my post again. At no point do I say that I think people who didn't like the film are wrong. I'm actually attacking people who are saying the reviewer's opinion is wrong. That's what I find annoying: people who say that someone has a wrong opinion (which is arrogant and downright impossible anyway). You have a right to dislike it, I (and the reviewer) have a right to like it, and I have a right to be annoyed at people who think that their opinion is the only one that matters.People can think whatever they want, bu for people to slam people for liking something they don't like is trying to be hip and cool, but just sounds bitter.




IIHERACLES -> You must see this! (25/3/2012 11:34:59 AM)

I came into The Hunger Games not knowing anything about it apart from watching the trailer about 10 times(Best trailer ever). Then getting pulled into the film from the first line Stanley Tucci says! He is awesome in this by the way.
The film is not rushed in anyway as its about 1 hour in the games actually start. There are so many surprises I wasnt expecting. Everything about the film is great, Acting, Character devlopment, Cinemotgraphy, Editing, Soundtrack and most of all the Story. The story of Teenagers being used as entertaiment for the satire future. With the Box office results so far I can easily see the sequels get made, Just hoping they are as good as this.
Cast and Crew did a great job! I would like to think it gets nominated at the Oscars. Definitly 5 stars. Go see it and enjoy yourself. Happy Hunger Games!




WheelsOnMeals -> Yawn... (25/3/2012 11:49:42 AM)

Rather boring actually. I haven't read the books but as a film it's not very entertaining. High five to Jennifer Lawrence but everything else pretty much sucks. Will not be going to see any sequels.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.109375