Register  |   Log In  |  
Sign up to our weekly newsletter    
Follow us on   
Search   
Forum Home Register for Free! Log In Moderator Tickets FAQ Users Online

RE: It's just about OK

 
Logged in as: Guest
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: It's just about OK Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: It's just about OK - 25/3/2012 12:12:33 PM   
Whistler


Posts: 2965
Joined: 22/11/2006

quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

-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



Yeah, seemed a pit pointless... Surely it would've been easier to just hide his face like the rest of his body instead of spending all that time camouflaging it into a rock

_____________________________

Eddy's Film Review
Latest: Need For Speed, Under The Skin, 300: Rise Of An Empire

(in reply to st3veebee)
Post #: 91
RE: It's just about OK - 25/3/2012 2:55:55 PM   
S. C. Lee


Posts: 356
Joined: 1/12/2011
quote:

ORIGINAL: Whistler


quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

-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



Yeah, seemed a pit pointless... Surely it would've been easier to just hide his face like the rest of his body instead of spending all that time camouflaging it into a rock


Doesn't he hide his whole body in the book? But not with rock like camouflage - unless I'm wrong, I haven't read it for a while. Even if he does, they could have left that part out. I'm not sure if it was supposed to be funny or not.

< Message edited by S. C. Lee -- 25/3/2012 3:10:32 PM >

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 92
RE: The Hunger Games - 25/3/2012 3:03:40 PM   
S. C. Lee


Posts: 356
Joined: 1/12/2011
quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy

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.


Spoilers follow. One major.

- I liked the camera work, it showed how frantic the situation was (in that moment.) You mustn’t have seen Cloverfield at the pictures...
- I heard every word.
- Most likely budget problems, although it wasn't that bad.
- More exposition would have been nice, the author doesn't spend much time discussing the minor characters in the book. It's Katniss's journey. As for the Hunger Games, they do explain why they take place, did you pop off to the loo at that point? The film is already two hours twenty - maybe an extended cut on DVD?
- I'm not sure, down to the author. It doesn't bother me.
- This character doesn't have much to do in the book. More Toby Jones is always good though.
- I thought the ending was perfect, they've returned home.



< Message edited by S. C. Lee -- 25/3/2012 3:16:25 PM >

(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 93
generous review - 25/3/2012 6:48:31 PM   
tysmuse

 

Posts: 348
Joined: 24/9/2007
It's totally devoid of originality. It doesn't really have a point. And, it doesn't really make a lot of sense. The world it's set it is never really explained with any detail. But, it was competently made, and was never that boring.

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 94
RE: It's just about OK - 25/3/2012 10:17:15 PM   
ChickMagnet

 

Posts: 1765
Joined: 19/5/2008
From: Salford
I went to see it on Friday, and having read and loved the books several months ago, and re-read the first book recently in preparation, I went in a bit nervous as to how they'd adapt the book and sadly I feel my fears were founded.

Up until they got into the arena I was quite happy with what I was seeing, although Prim didn't seem to have been portrayed right, I didn't mind it too much as it was only one flaw and the excellent performance by Lenny Kravitz as Cinna more than made up for it.

However there's so much that happens in the arena that's majorly different to the books, that I walked out disappointed, the biggest disappointment being the mishandling of the ending.

Personally I think as a stand-alone flick it isn't that bad, but as an adaption of the book, they've sadly missed a great chance to create a classic.

(in reply to Whistler)
Post #: 95
RE: It's just about OK - 25/3/2012 11:51:11 PM   
S. C. Lee


Posts: 356
Joined: 1/12/2011
Edited.

< Message edited by S. C. Lee -- 26/8/2012 2:02:56 AM >

(in reply to ChickMagnet)
Post #: 96
RE: It's great! - 25/3/2012 11:51:18 PM   
S. C. Lee


Posts: 356
Joined: 1/12/2011
Double post

< Message edited by S. C. Lee -- 25/3/2012 11:56:15 PM >

(in reply to ChickMagnet)
Post #: 97
What is the fuss about? - 26/3/2012 2:48:14 AM   
tonyworrall

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 26/3/2012
Wow. What hype. What a let down. What wooden acting. What a cheap looking film. What's with the 4 stars Empire? What film did you see?

That Jennifer lass barely makes a decent stab at making the unoriginal plot intelligible. The rest of the cast are so full of ham and wood I am surprised they didn't call it the 'hamwood games'. And who went hungry in these 'Hunger Games' anyway?

Most of the action takes place in a forrest and an open field, Nothing to worry the art directors or budget controllers there. And the forrest location echoes in the wood like performance of Hollywood stalwart Donald Sutherland, Lenny Kravitz (what is he doing here) and the frankly awful Josh Hutcherson.

After an age to get going (come on, the film is sold on the premise of being ACTION) it is predictable and derivative (Battle Royale and a Star Trek episode I remember) the plot barely sustainable for more than a few minutes. Why choose feeble children as contestants? What is the significance of the 'sponsors' they keep goin on about (if the sponsors drop the parachuted items why were they not highlighted or the items more useful)? Why the strange emotional outpoor by Katniss over the death of a fellow contestant who she would have to kill at some stage to win? Why introduce huge fantasy hounds when this was supposed to be a contest between the tributes (massive double DOH here)

The scenes where Peeta camouflaged himself rasied a few unintentional laughs in the audiance I was in (it was just silly) and all the fight scenes were very tame/lame

The review by Empire sadly leads me to think that they are swayed by studio hype. I hope they look at their rating again in the futureand re-evaluate

(in reply to Empire Admin)
Post #: 98
RE: What is the fuss about? - 26/3/2012 8:35:47 AM   
Dr Lenera

 

Posts: 3828
Joined: 19/10/2005
The nation of Panem has risen out of the ruins of what was once known as North America. Because of an unsuccessful uprising by the districts of Panem, a raffle, known as the “reaping”, is held to choose one boy and one girl (ranging from ages 12 to 18) from each of the twelve remaining districts to participate in the Hunger Games. This is a competition in which each contestant (known as the “tributes”) battles to the death until only one is left. The winner or victor receives fame and fortune. In the poverty-stricken District 12, sixteen-year-old Katniss Everdeen cares for her mother and her sister “Prim” since her father died in a mine accident when she was 11. Each year, since the age of 12, Katniss’ name has been placed in the reaping more than once in return for her recieving extra grain and oil for her family, though she has also been illegally hunting for food with her friend and admirer Gale. Prim, now age 12, has her name placed in the reaping for the first time—and it is unexpectedly drawn. Katniss volunteers to replace her sister in the Hunger Games…….


I am going to try really hard with this review to do something. That ‘something’ is to not mention something which I detest and is prevalent in modern cinema, something which I seem to constantly moan about in reviews, especially recent ones, and which has infected and is spreading through cinema like a disease. Let’s see if I can do this! So, moving on, we come to The Hunger Games, which may be based on the first of three books but immediately seemed to me, upon first hearing of the project, a teeny rip-off of the Japanese Battle Royale. Children are ordered to fight each other to the death in a dystopian future. Sound familiar? Film, like any art form, is constantly informed by what has come before it though, and I am told that the original novel of Battle Royale is very different in feel to the book of The Hunger Games. I hope that The Hunger Games is a big success at the box office – something it does seem on the verge of becoming- because it really is a good science fiction actioner that may be more targeted at girls than boys but should be enjoyed by most people, even if you’re not teenagers.

Yes, Twilight this is not. It may be obvious in its timely allegorical elements, from its rich folk keeping the poor in their place, to the lethal I’m A Celebrity, Get Me Out Of Here nature of the actual Hunger Games, and for all the supposed borrowing from Battle Royale, you can trace it all back to The Most Dangerous Game and other films and stories, but the movie really does work as a futuristic, feminist action-adventure, albeit not one which rubs its feminist aspects in your face. It does depict a heroine battling to overcome a corrupt, male-dominated system, but rarely stops being entertaining. Influenced perhaps by some nasty experiences by the Twilight movies, I was pleasantly surprised at how well crafted and exciting The Hunger Games was. It is only really let down by…..something…..that thing…..which I am trying not to mention but does let the film down considerably…..

Anyway, the movie smartly establishes its future world very quickly, after which its first half becomes a gradual build up to the Games, but is never boring. Rather, the suspense increases and increases, and even signs of a love triangle, in one of several unpredictable aspects, don’t really slow things down. When Katniss’s game partner-to-be Peeter confesses his love for her in front of millions of people, she later gets angry with him and pushes him against a wall, then, a short time later, the two engage in a dialogue scene where they skirt around the issue in a surprisingly realistic way. Woody Harrelson shows up more and more as Haymitch Abernathy, a drunk who won the competition many years ago, and is the source of most, though not all, of the well-placed humour in the movie, while Stanley Tucci as Caeser Flickerman the game show host does what seems at times like an American variant of Anil Kapoor’s smug, self-loving game show host in Slumdog Millionaire. The garish costumes and indeed the general look given to the rich results in some colourful visuals and, as we approach the actual Games, it seems like we really are going to have a great movie.

Well, that doesn’t really happen, though the film is certainly not totally ruined and remains gripping as well as, sometimes, unpredictable, with at least one death I did not expect. However, I have decided I can’t do it. I cannot not mention it, of course I’m aware that I have totally failed in what I set out to do. ‘It’ is, of course, the horrible filming of most of the action scenes, and I’m sure you know what I mean. The camera shaking about, as if the cinematographer has epilepsy. The camera giving us lots of one second shots, as if the cinematographer has ADD. Said shots being mostly close-ups and often very random, as if the cinematographer just doesn’t know he is doing. There is some of this stuff early on in The Hunger Games, but it seems to dominate in the second half. I know that some readers will think I’m an old fuddy duddy who should just accept the way films are shot nowadays, but why SHOULD I accept it when it ignores basic rules of filmmaking AND gives me sore eyes, to the point where I had to close them a couple of times? Surely, if something is taking place, we ought to see it? I don’t ‘buy’ the argument that it makes the violence more appropriate for teenagers either. Remember in the old days where careful editing could convey a violent act without showing anything? Those days are obviously gone. Nowadays, all we tend to see is a great big blur and I am sick of it! Why are good directors such as Gary Ross shooting films as if they were a ‘found footage’ movie [where at least it is appropriate]?

Anyway, I’m not sure that neither the premise nor the actual plot of The Hunger Games benefit from toning the brutality down, brutality which, apparently, was stronger in the book, but which you may still feel is not really suitable for a young child to see. Thanks to this wonderful ’12A’ rating we now have in this country, a four year old can get into this film and see [unexplicitly, but that's not the point] children’s necks broken, children smashed against walls,clubbing each other to death and gorily wounded by arrows [and this is stuff that is not blurry]. The Hunger Games is a solid watch for most of us though. Despite the way much of it has been shot, I reckon you’ll probably be pretty excited in the second half as Katniss battles not only other contestants but many other perils too such as mutated bees that can cause hallucinations to a crappy CG fire to crappy CG wolves. This may sound a bit crap, but so much tension has been built up, so much has been invested in our heroine, and she is so likeable and well played by Jennifer Lawrence, that I reckon you will be on the edge of your seat at times. I was. Overall The Hunger Games should be commended. It creates a reasonably convincing future world which reflects our own, has a fascinating premise which is as metaphorical as you could want, and is exciting. The 142 mins certainly don’t seem that long. I hope they film the next book in Suzanne Collins’s trilogy. I also hope they get a camera person and even a director who know how to shoot a film.

Rating: 7/10

_____________________________

check out more of my reviews on http://horrorcultfilms.co.uk/

(in reply to tonyworrall)
Post #: 99
RE: What is the fuss about? - 26/3/2012 8:36:41 AM   
flipper0

 

Posts: 21
Joined: 6/3/2012

quote:

ORIGINAL: tonyworrall



The review by Empire sadly leads me to think that they are swayed by studio hype.


You haven't been reading Empire long, have you.

(in reply to tonyworrall)
Post #: 100
RE: A fucking teen book? - 26/3/2012 9:50:52 AM   
Kayotik

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 13/1/2012
From: Edinburgh
I was severely unimpressed by the film. I haven't read the books, which despite what this review has stated, was actually required to understand a few things in the film. For example I had no clue what that hand salute meant at all.
I found the film to be lacking in direction, possibly as the writer/director had never tackled something of this genre. The result was a badly edited, rather lacklustre affair which was devoid of any tension, character personality or drama. I was bored for a lot of it.
They also didn't seem to really know who their target audience were, and so the violence was barely shown in order to keep the rating down, but then it was filled with clunky dialogue instead. I actually ended up laughing at a few of the 'emotional' moments because the lines were so cheesy.
The camerawork annoyed me so much, even on scenes where nothing was happening it was as if the cameraman was jogging on the spot and unable to keep the camera focused on one point. The action scenes were atrocious. The camera was flying in every direction and cutting away constantly.

I think another problem I had was just with the overall story. I found the idea that the tournament existing to be entirely unbelievable. Would we really get to the stage where we happily made and watched a bunch of little kids massacre each other for television?

It's a real shame that a film like John Carter, which was in many of my peers opinions far better than this, got panned by critics and has made a huge loss. Yet this film, which I and many of my friends agree was a rather unimpressive effort, is being hailed by critics as being incredible and will go on to make ludicrous amounts of money.

Sadly that is the age we have entered. Brainless blockbusters will dominate whilst well written films will fail.

< Message edited by Kayotik -- 26/3/2012 10:12:55 AM >

(in reply to jcthefirst)
Post #: 101
RE: A fucking teen book? - 26/3/2012 10:01:13 AM   
Rob


Posts: 2473
Joined: 30/9/2005
I thought it was really good - not perfect but an extremely entertaining and surprisingly emotional film.

I thought Lawrence was great and delivered a really strong performance. I thought Ross just about got the pacing right and delivered most of the key aspects well.

Peeta didn't do much (apart from hide himself as a rock - rubbish) but that's pretty true of the book and some of the CGI was below par. However, all-in-all it delivered the story, the protagonist and the pay off that I wanted.



_____________________________

Same thing happened to me when I played Neil Armstrong in Moonshot. They found me in an alley in Burbank trying to re-enter the earth's atmosphere in an old refrigerator box.

(in reply to Kayotik)
Post #: 102
RE: The Hunger Games - 26/3/2012 1:08:52 PM   
BelfastBoy

 

Posts: 531
Joined: 30/11/2005
quote:

ORIGINAL: S. C. Lee

quote:

ORIGINAL: BelfastBoy

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.


Spoilers follow. One major.

- I liked the camera work, it showed how frantic the situation was (in that moment.) You mustn't have seen Cloverfield at the pictures...
- I heard every word.
- Most likely budget problems, although it wasn't that bad.
- More exposition would have been nice, the author doesn't spend much time discussing the minor characters in the book. It's Katniss's journey. As for the Hunger Games, they do explain why they take place, did you pop off to the loo at that point? The film is already two hours twenty - maybe an extended cut on DVD?
- I'm not sure, down to the author. It doesn't bother me.
- This character doesn't have much to do in the book. More Toby Jones is always good though.
- I thought the ending was perfect, they've returned home.



Thanks for this. To respond to your points:

- If you liked the camerawork, you seem to be in the minority. Like I said, I understand that the jerkiness has got to be at least partly to conceal explicit violence and, as you say, to convey speed and character desperation etc. However, the Cloverfield comparison is irrelevant here, I think. Cloverfield was a deliberately lo-fi looking, 'found footage' high concept film, while Hunger Games is a well-budgeted literary adaptation from an authorial universe with an intricate backstory.
- Maybe the theatre I was in didn't have their own sound mixing sorted, but I struggled in places to make out Donald Sutherland's dialogue in particular. Generally, unless someone was shouting bombastically, dialogue tended to get swamped by sound effects or occasional music.
- I accept that CGI comes down to personal taste. My impression was that much of the CGI budget went on the Capitol itself, which I thought was very impressive. Since this is a matter of personal taste, I still think the dogs and fire were nothing special. Maybe the inevitable sequel will be allowed a bigger budget now that HG looks like being a massive hit.
- Elizabeth Banks' character showed the District 12 citizens a film, which did indeed provide some sort of explanation for the Games. However, I was confused because it didn't make any sense. I don't want to start nitpicking, because disbelief clearly has to be suspended. But, for example, are all districts being punished because they all rebelled against the Capitol? This doesn't compute because, as even the film manages to convey, the lower-numbered Districts are considered more affluent etc, and with trained-up volunteers participating in the Games. I could ask many such rhethorical questions but I think the point I'm trying to make is that even though the books may have plotholes, the film isn't great at trying to rationalise or explain them. (Another example: Katniss makes a hand gesture at a certain point that clearly has great significance in the outside world, judging by the immediate consequences - if the film explained any of this, I either didn't see or hear it!)
- Character names are obviously down to authorial discretion. Didn't bother me that much so I probably didn't need to mention it as a 'Bad' observation.
- Toby Jones is a superb actor who seems to get lots of film parts that don't make much use of his considerable skills (Exhibit B: Captain America!) In HG as released theatrically, he seems to do a lot of nodding to, and responding to, Stanley Tucci, rather than driving any of their scenes.
- As I previously mentioned, I'm assuming the book and film end the same way. I think this is maybe symptomatic of a wider plotting problem (if indeed it is a problem) when a writer conceives of a story as having multiple parts. Since there's an overall story arc to service, earlier episodes often aren't given independently satisfying conclusions when the overall plot is still hanging unresolved. In terms of HG, my only real gripe is that I'll have to either read the books, or wait until autumn 2013 for the next film to be released. The film just stops at a moment that serves the initial storyline, but sets up so many possibilities that it can't possibly stand alone completely the way, for example, the 80s Indiana Jones films do. I think the point I'm struggling to make is that HG will always have to be watched / read alongside its sequels; this isn't a fault by any means of either the film or Suzanne Collins' books.

(in reply to S. C. Lee)
Post #: 103
RE: The Hunger Games - 26/3/2012 2:28:46 PM   
S. C. Lee


Posts: 356
Joined: 1/12/2011
To respond to your points.

- When I referenced Cloverfield I meant in the way it was shot, vomit inducing camera work. Obviously HG and Cloverfield are nothing alike (thank God.) The scenes in HG were nowhere near as bad.

- Fair enough.

- I can't argue with that.

- Basically everyone is starving, which is why Katniss is hunting, it's why Peeta throws her the bread when it's raining. People rose up against the Capital (the Government) and now they're being punished, to make sure they don't do it again. The hand gesture shows that they're united (that is all.) I couldn't remember it from the book but this is what I took it to mean.

- Agreed.

- Makes sense :)

- I don't agree, it feels like an ending to me. They've been through hell, now they've returned home and nothing will be the same. But we're not gonna agree on this so let's move on.

(in reply to BelfastBoy)
Post #: 104
RE: A fucking teen book? - 26/3/2012 2:31:33 PM   
S. C. Lee


Posts: 356
Joined: 1/12/2011
Edited.


< Message edited by S. C. Lee -- 26/8/2012 2:03:41 AM >

(in reply to Kayotik)
Post #: 105
RE: A fucking teen book? - 26/3/2012 2:44:17 PM   
Kayotik

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 13/1/2012
From: Edinburgh

quote:

ORIGINAL: S. C. Lee


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayotik


Sadly that is the age we have entered. Brainless blockbusters will dominate whilst well written films will fail.


Brainless blockbusters will dominate? I'm sorry but the HG is anything but, you actually have to use your brain. Now John Carter...



John Carter was a very well made film with some heart and soul to it. Not to mention the fact it was the inspiration for everything from Superman to Star Wars.

If you actually used your brain whilst watching Hunger Games, which a few people have done, you'll start to wonder why the fuck these Hunger Games would actually happen, let alone continue for 75 years before any actual uprising was staged.

(in reply to S. C. Lee)
Post #: 106
RE: A fucking teen book? - 26/3/2012 2:59:11 PM   
S. C. Lee


Posts: 356
Joined: 1/12/2011

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayotik


quote:

ORIGINAL: S. C. Lee


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayotik


Sadly that is the age we have entered. Brainless blockbusters will dominate whilst well written films will fail.


Brainless blockbusters will dominate? I'm sorry but the HG is anything but, you actually have to use your brain. Now John Carter...



John Carter was a very well made film with some heart and soul to it. Not to mention the fact it was the inspiration for everything from Superman to Star Wars.

If you actually used your brain whilst watching Hunger Games, which a few people have done, you'll start to wonder why the fuck these Hunger Games would actually happen, let alone continue for 75 years before any actual uprising was staged.


Because that's the premise of the film. People rose up against the Capital / the Government and now they're being punished to keep them in line. Everyone is hungry (hence the name of the film), food is a valuable commodity. Katniss is breaking the law by hunting, she shouldn't be beyond the perimeter, at one point she's starving, so Peeta throws her the bread. The Capital / Government control everything, if people don't enter the games they – along with their families will starve to death.

(in reply to Kayotik)
Post #: 107
RE: A fucking teen book? - 26/3/2012 3:22:10 PM   
Wild about Wilder


Posts: 1630
Joined: 9/4/2010
From: Hertfordshire
Well no surpise with the massive numbers in the US yet only took £5million in the UK compaired to the £6million in Austrailia? (A far smaller population than over here) even though it's a 12A here & a 13 in the US.

(in reply to S. C. Lee)
Post #: 108
RE: A fucking teen book? - 26/3/2012 3:38:32 PM   
Kayotik

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 13/1/2012
From: Edinburgh
quote:

ORIGINAL: S. C. Lee


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayotik


quote:

ORIGINAL: S. C. Lee


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayotik


Sadly that is the age we have entered. Brainless blockbusters will dominate whilst well written films will fail.


Brainless blockbusters will dominate? I'm sorry but the HG is anything but, you actually have to use your brain. Now John Carter...



John Carter was a very well made film with some heart and soul to it. Not to mention the fact it was the inspiration for everything from Superman to Star Wars.

If you actually used your brain whilst watching Hunger Games, which a few people have done, you'll start to wonder why the fuck these Hunger Games would actually happen, let alone continue for 75 years before any actual uprising was staged.


Because that's the premise of the film. People rose up against the Capital / the Government and now they're being punished to keep them in line. Everyone is hungry (hence the name of the film), food is a valuable commodity. Katniss is breaking the law by hunting, she shouldn't be beyond the perimeter, at one point she's starving, so Peeta throws her the bread. The Capital / Government control everything, if people don't enter the games they – along with their families will starve to death.


To be fair, all you did there was explain what was told to you. You haven't explained why or even how anyone allows this to go on, or why they came up with the thought "You know what would be a great idea, let's have some little kids butcher each other for live television!".
Upon seeing their own children murdered, the parents and other parents would rise up in such anger. They would have something to fight for and that would be the safety of their own kids. There's no way they would allow such a government to take their children and gleefully make them fight to the death.

Either that or everyone in this world is a raving sociopath.


< Message edited by Kayotik -- 26/3/2012 3:41:24 PM >

(in reply to S. C. Lee)
Post #: 109
RE: It's great! - 26/3/2012 3:57:32 PM   
S. C. Lee


Posts: 356
Joined: 1/12/2011
It's not that different from the time we currently live in, which is one of the reasons why the film / book is so popular. People are struggling to feed themselves, costs (like gas and electric) are rocketing. We had rioting in this country last year, something which seemed unthinkable (in this day and age) until it happened. My point is who knows what could happen in the future? It's believable that if everyone is starving (and the Capital controls everything) they would do whatever they're told to do, in order to be able to feed themselves.

< Message edited by S. C. Lee -- 26/3/2012 4:32:18 PM >

(in reply to Kayotik)
Post #: 110
RE: A fucking teen book? - 26/3/2012 4:03:48 PM   
Kayotik

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 13/1/2012
From: Edinburgh

quote:

ORIGINAL: S. C. Lee

It's not that different from the time we currently live in, which is one of the reasons why the film / book is so popular. People are struggling to feed themselves, costs (like gas and electric) are rocketing. We had rioting in this country last year, something which seemed unthinkable (in this day and age) until it happened. My point is who knows what could happen in the future? It's believable that if everyone is starving (and the Capital controls everything) they would do whatever they're told to do, in order to be able to feed themselves.


I might have missed it, but at what time is the reality tv show in which we arm small children and force them to slice each other's guts out?

Yes our current times are hard and poverty stricken. That doesn't mean we don't still have a sense of humanity. Look how much the First World throws a fit over the idea of the poorer nations having child soldiers. You think the West would ever go "actually that's not a bad idea, but even better let's add a showbiz twist..."

No. I'll believe alien invasion before I'll believe that a First World nation would ever be so full of homicidal maniacs that they'd enjoy watching a huge 17 year old kid hack up a tiny 12 year old girl.

(in reply to S. C. Lee)
Post #: 111
RE: A fucking teen book? - 26/3/2012 4:26:15 PM   
S. C. Lee


Posts: 356
Joined: 1/12/2011

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayotik


quote:

ORIGINAL: S. C. Lee

It's not that different from the time we currently live in, which is one of the reasons why the film / book is so popular. People are struggling to feed themselves, costs (like gas and electric) are rocketing. We had rioting in this country last year, something which seemed unthinkable (in this day and age) until it happened. My point is who knows what could happen in the future? It's believable that if everyone is starving (and the Capital controls everything) they would do whatever they're told to do, in order to be able to feed themselves.



No. I'll believe alien invasion before I'll believe that a First World nation would ever be so full of homicidal maniacs that they'd enjoy watching a huge 17 year old kid hack up a tiny 12 year old girl.


Look at the feelings the book / firm is stirring in you. The debate we're having about it's content, that is the whole point, to make you think. It's not just a piece of throw-away entertainment.

People were starting to riot in the film, when Rue was killed, and what happened? The Capital pushed them back, others wouldn't dare, they're too hungry to fight.

You might not buy into the premise of a lot of films, Star Wars for example (in the future we almost certainly won't have that type of technology) warp speed / light speed but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.

What if people in the western world couldn't afford to live, they rose up against the Government, everything was destroyed. In order to get control again they pushed us into districts, forced us to offer a child (or two) as sacrifice so we wouldn't forget who was in charge. Far fetched, maybe a little but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.



(in reply to Kayotik)
Post #: 112
RE: A fucking teen book? - 26/3/2012 4:32:39 PM   
Kayotik

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 13/1/2012
From: Edinburgh
quote:

ORIGINAL: S. C. Lee


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayotik


quote:

ORIGINAL: S. C. Lee

It's not that different from the time we currently live in, which is one of the reasons why the film / book is so popular. People are struggling to feed themselves, costs (like gas and electric) are rocketing. We had rioting in this country last year, something which seemed unthinkable (in this day and age) until it happened. My point is who knows what could happen in the future? It's believable that if everyone is starving (and the Capital controls everything) they would do whatever they're told to do, in order to be able to feed themselves.



No. I'll believe alien invasion before I'll believe that a First World nation would ever be so full of homicidal maniacs that they'd enjoy watching a huge 17 year old kid hack up a tiny 12 year old girl.


Look at the feelings the book / firm is stirring in you. The debate we're having about it's content, that is the whole point, to make you think. It's not just a piece of throw-away entertainment.

People were starting to riot in the film, when Rue was killed, and what happened? The Capital pushed them back, others wouldn't dare, they're too hungry to fight.

You might not buy into the premise of a lot of films, Star Wars for example (in the future we almost certainly won't have that type of technology) warp speed / light speed but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.

What if people in the western world couldn't afford to live, they rose up against the Government, everything was destroyed. In order to get control again they pushed us into districts, forced us to offer a child (or two) as sacrifice so we wouldn't forget who was in charge. Far fetched, maybe a little but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen.






We're arguing that the premise of the film was far too unbelievable, that is not a success on behalf of the book/film.

Also, as you are saying about how easily the Government put down the small riot that District 11 had over Rue's death, and using that as reason to why the Hunger Games are allowed...I'm guessing then you haven't read the other two books.

Still, we're not addressing the fact that we're supposed to believe everyone in the wealthiest districts are total sociopaths.

< Message edited by Kayotik -- 26/3/2012 4:37:24 PM >

(in reply to S. C. Lee)
Post #: 113
RE: A fucking teen book? - 26/3/2012 4:35:46 PM   
S. C. Lee


Posts: 356
Joined: 1/12/2011
But it's set in a different time! It's not NOW. I haven't read the other books - no, I'm about to start Catching Fire tonight.

Did you like the books then? Or did you hate the first book as much as the film? It seems a little odd that you'd read the next two if you disliked HG's so much.

(in reply to Kayotik)
Post #: 114
RE: A fucking teen book? - 26/3/2012 4:35:50 PM   
S. C. Lee


Posts: 356
Joined: 1/12/2011
Service error - tripple post


< Message edited by S. C. Lee -- 26/3/2012 4:36:59 PM >

(in reply to Kayotik)
Post #: 115
RE: A fucking teen book? - 26/3/2012 4:35:55 PM   
S. C. Lee


Posts: 356
Joined: 1/12/2011
Service error - tripple post


< Message edited by S. C. Lee -- 26/3/2012 4:36:33 PM >

(in reply to Kayotik)
Post #: 116
RE: A fucking teen book? - 26/3/2012 4:39:56 PM   
The REAL Bozz


Posts: 3285
Joined: 15/5/2007
I was on the fence with this for a while due to it being cut. Now that I've seen it I can understand the reason for the style of shooting which covers the violence. The later being played so real it leaves you with no desire to see these kids meet their maker up close. Also, I think this is a case of what you don't see can be more effective at times. Overall the film is solid. Enjoyed it. Enjoyed the books so that's no real surprise. Only issue I had with it being a flick based on a book is the norm you get from these kind of things, it felt more like a episode with more to come. Which of course it is, but I'd just like to see 'em make self contained films. To anyone who liked the film but hasn't read the books...you haven't seen nothing yet. The best is yet to come.

_____________________________

Films I've watched
Star Trek Into Darkness ***
Iron Man 3 *****
Evil Dead (2013) ***
Bait 3D ***

(in reply to Kayotik)
Post #: 117
RE: A fucking teen book? - 26/3/2012 4:40:44 PM   
Kayotik

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 13/1/2012
From: Edinburgh

quote:

ORIGINAL: S. C. Lee

But it's set in a different time! It's not NOW. I haven't read the other books - no, I'm about to start Catching Fire tonight.

Did you like the books then? Or did you hate the first book as much as the film? It seems a little odd that you'd read the next two if you disliked HG's so much.



I haven't read the books, but I know the stories (my friend has read them and filled me in. He was also disappointed in the film.).

So you're saying that in ten, twenty or thirty years time the wealthiest part of America will become a nation of twisted psychopaths who derive entertainment from little children being slaughtered and everyone goes along with it? You find that remotely believable?

(in reply to S. C. Lee)
Post #: 118
RE: A fucking teen book? - 26/3/2012 4:42:42 PM   
The REAL Bozz


Posts: 3285
Joined: 15/5/2007
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kayotik


quote:

ORIGINAL: S. C. Lee

But it's set in a different time! It's not NOW. I haven't read the other books - no, I'm about to start Catching Fire tonight.

Did you like the books then? Or did you hate the first book as much as the film? It seems a little odd that you'd read the next two if you disliked HG's so much.



I haven't read the books, but I know the stories (my friend has read them and filled me in. He was also disappointed in the film.).

So you're saying that in ten, twenty or thirty years time the wealthiest part of America will become a nation of twisted psychopaths who derive entertainment from little children being slaughtered and everyone goes along with it? You find that remotely believable?


Not meaning to but in but I will anyway, I don't find Gremlins believable but it doesn't stop me from enjoying the film. How is this even being talked about seriously? It's fiction.


< Message edited by The REAL Bozz -- 26/3/2012 4:43:28 PM >


_____________________________

Films I've watched
Star Trek Into Darkness ***
Iron Man 3 *****
Evil Dead (2013) ***
Bait 3D ***

(in reply to Kayotik)
Post #: 119
RE: A fucking teen book? - 26/3/2012 4:43:45 PM   
Kayotik

 

Posts: 112
Joined: 13/1/2012
From: Edinburgh

quote:

ORIGINAL: The REAL Bozz

To anyone who liked the film but hasn't read the books...you haven't seen nothing yet. The best is yet to come.


Really? Because everyone I've spoke to who has read the books said the first was the best.

(in reply to The REAL Bozz)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: It's just about OK Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


 
Movie News  |  Empire Blog  |  Movie Reviews  |  Future Films  |  Features  |  Video Interviews  |  Image Gallery  |  Competitions  |  Forum  |  Magazine  |  Resources
 
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.125