The Hunger Games - Page 4 - AVS Forum

AVS Forum > Other Areas of Interest > Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion > The Hunger Games

Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion

Waboman's Avatar Waboman
10:16 PM Liked: 778
post #91 of 267
03-21-2012 | Posts: 7,258
Joined: Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

From what you read what you think waboman?

The book is pretty awesome. It's hard to put down. I can't wait to see these characters come to life on the big screen. This movie should be off da hook.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Yes at home

Touché.
Franin's Avatar Franin
10:19 PM Liked: 299
post #92 of 267
03-21-2012 | Posts: 17,593
Joined: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post


The book is pretty awesome. It's hard to put down. I can't wait to see these characters come to life on the big screen. This movie should be off da hook.

Well then waboman going by the reviews on Rt and here i guess it should be as you say " off da hook."
Waboman's Avatar Waboman
10:26 PM Liked: 778
post #93 of 267
03-21-2012 | Posts: 7,258
Joined: Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Well then waboman going by the reviews on Rt and here i guess it should be as you say " off da hook."

Lol. I was thinking of a good "down under" euphemism. How about this: This movie will be throw another shrimp on the barbie, and open a can of Fosters good.
Franin's Avatar Franin
10:34 PM Liked: 299
post #94 of 267
03-21-2012 | Posts: 17,593
Joined: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post


Lol. I was thinking of a good "down under" euphemism. How about this: This movie will be throw another shrimp on the barbie, and open a can of Fosters good.

Well that says it all then lol
Dbuudo07's Avatar Dbuudo07
11:24 AM Liked: 128
post #95 of 267
03-22-2012 | Posts: 2,800
Joined: Apr 2007
"The dingo ate your baby" good.
archiguy's Avatar archiguy
01:07 PM Liked: 709
post #96 of 267
03-22-2012 | Posts: 18,349
Joined: Mar 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

Partner, you are far too kind. It's been so long since anybody could accurately call be "young," the last time may have been before many if not most of the posters here were born.

There are two axioms I go by:
1) Age ain't nuthin' but a number.
2) Youth is wasted on the young.

Heaven knows I wasted a bunch of mine.
mr. wally's Avatar mr. wally
02:09 PM Liked: 54
post #97 of 267
03-22-2012 | Posts: 3,826
Joined: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

Thanks Pokekevin. You can watch this in a regular theater. The IMAX sound would be great, but an image that big with that much motion... Not the best recipe.

Mr. Wally, this one is not in 3D, only 2D.

weird. i saw a 3d trailer earlier somewhere on the internet when checking out this flick.
looks like this is the opposite of john carter.
Dbuudo07's Avatar Dbuudo07
04:02 PM Liked: 128
post #98 of 267
03-22-2012 | Posts: 2,800
Joined: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

weird. i saw a 3d trailer earlier somewhere on the internet when checking out this flick.
looks like this is the opposite of john carter.

Might have been a trailer before a 3D movie.
pokekevin's Avatar pokekevin
05:45 PM Liked: 101
post #99 of 267
03-22-2012 | Posts: 5,071
Joined: Jun 2011
According to an email I got the hunger games will only be showing in imax for a week at amc's. What's up with that
Waboman's Avatar Waboman
07:00 PM Liked: 778
post #100 of 267
03-22-2012 | Posts: 7,258
Joined: Sep 2005
The "real" IMAX by me will still be showing John Carter. While I enjoyed JC, I'd like to see the Games at the 'Max.
David F's Avatar David F
09:39 AM Liked: 24
post #101 of 267
03-23-2012 | Posts: 2,501
Joined: Aug 1999
My 12-year-old son begged me to take him to the midnight showing last night. Since I loved the books as well, I indulged him.

It is a phenomenal piece of cinema. It captures the major character and story beats of the book without losing much in the inevitable eliding process that comes with book-to-film adaptations.

The good:
  • Followed the book well. Made no unnecessary additions and was true to the characters
  • Acting was great. In particular Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, Lenny Kravitz, and Stanley Tucci, who were all mesmerizing when on screen. Need more Cinna!
  • Production design was good. I'm still not a fan of the 1920s era Appalachian look for District 12, at least without some explanation of how it came to be that (I always want to know how we got there from here when reading or watching future SF), but that's a minor quibble and one I had with the book as well.

The not so good:
  • Gale is too contemporary looking and stands out. He looks like he just walked out of a Hollister photo shoot. The one slightly jarring bit of miscasting, IMO.
  • I never really got the sense of District 12 inhabitants living on the edge of near-starvation, or just how crushing life could be for them. A minor quibble, but it plays into Katniss's motivations. She pleads with Gale not to let her mom and sister starve, but that's about it, and we never see it or feel it in any real way.
  • Shakycam is really bad in parts, especially at the beginning. I wanted to shout at the screen, "Hold the goddamn camera steady, already!" I despise this aesthetic and wish it would die, die, die!
  • Action scenes are largely shot to be incomprehensible. I am wondering if this is in part to keep a PG-13 rating in the scenes of kids killing kids, but it still sucks.

If you read the books, I think you'll love it, minor quibbles aside. This is as good as the better Harry Potter adaptations. If you haven't read the books, I think you'll be surprised at how good the movie is.

Let The Hunger Games begin!
oink's Avatar oink
09:59 AM Liked: 818
post #102 of 267
03-23-2012 | Posts: 26,553
Joined: Apr 2005
^Thanx for the review.
jwebb1970's Avatar jwebb1970
10:12 AM Liked: 35
post #103 of 267
03-23-2012 | Posts: 8,352
Joined: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by David F View Post

[*]Action scenes are largely shot to be incomprehensible. I am wondering if this is in part to keep a PG-13 rating in the scenes of kids killing kids, but it still sucks.

My wife read all 3 on the recommendation of her teenage niece. Loved them. And she is stoked like a Star Wars geek at the opening of this film. BUt she did mention after reading a few reviews that the shakycam business was surely done in part to keep this thing 'tween-friendly. I have not read the books, but the missus said there are some fairly gruesome bits that might go beyond PG-13 had they been properly depicted on screen.

I personally just have a massively innappropriate crush on Jennifer Lawrence, so I'm in.
Dbuudo07's Avatar Dbuudo07
10:15 AM Liked: 128
post #104 of 267
03-23-2012 | Posts: 2,800
Joined: Apr 2007
Great review David F. I whole heartedly agree on all points. I too wish there was a bit of backstory telling us how North America got to that state. And the shaky camera is ridiculous.
David F's Avatar David F
11:34 AM Liked: 24
post #105 of 267
03-23-2012 | Posts: 2,501
Joined: Aug 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwebb1970 View Post

My wife read all 3 on the recommendation of her teenage niece. Loved them. And she is stoked like a Star Wars geek at the opening of this film. BUt she did mention after reading a few reviews that the shakycam business was surely done in part to keep this thing 'tween-friendly. I have not read the books, but the missus said there are some fairly gruesome bits that might go beyond PG-13 had they been properly depicted on screen.

I personally just have a massively innappropriate crush on Jennifer Lawrence, so I'm in.

Hey, I've got the same crush. When she's dolled up a few times in the Capitol ... wow!

There are two distinct things here that I maybe wasn't completely clear about. There is a shakycam that is wholly inappropriate early in the movie when we first see District 12. It's like the camera guy was drunk and stumbling around the set. There's no action here. It's just shaky camera work for no discernible reason while people walk around the streets, and it is not subtle. That's one of those directorial choices that leaves me shaking (no pun intended) my head. It's like Ross was trying to insert some kind of found footage aesthetic into the film. I despised it, but fortunately it didn't last too long. But since it wasn't continually used, I have no idea why it was there in the first place. I guess the camera guy sobered up.

With the Games themselves, the fights between Tributes are staged in a largely incomprehensible way, which includes both shaky cams, extreme close-ups that do not include the action occurring at that moment (for example, focusing on a Tribute's face who is murdering someone just off camera), and very quick edits to "disguise" the action. That's what I figured was done to keep it PG-13. But it's not the shaky cam I was referring to.
jwebb1970's Avatar jwebb1970
12:06 PM Liked: 35
post #106 of 267
03-23-2012 | Posts: 8,352
Joined: Aug 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by David F View Post

Hey, I've got the same crush. When she's dolled up a few times in the Capitol ... wow!

Ms Lawrence had my full attention once she appeared naked & covered head to toe w/ scaley blue paint in the last X-Men movie.
Shaded Dogfood's Avatar Shaded Dogfood
12:14 PM Liked: 37
post #107 of 267
03-23-2012 | Posts: 4,857
Joined: Feb 2002
Actually saw it on opening day. I haven't read the books but intend to. It could have been better, but it was a good film, and parts of it were quite exciting. I'll wager they shot a lot more and had to cut it down to get it under the usually manditory under two-and-a-half hour limit. Plus, the shakey camera business is annoying as it rendered the fights incomprehensible, but as mentioned above it was also most likely manditory to get the PG-13 rating. It is sure to make a great deal of money.

And it may help viewers to appreciate the looney nature of the present day and what passes for entertainment. It may end up being more subversive than lots of people would like.
oink's Avatar oink
02:40 PM Liked: 818
post #108 of 267
03-23-2012 | Posts: 26,553
Joined: Apr 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaded Dogfood View Post

Actually saw it on opening day. I haven't read the books but intend to. It could have been better, but it was a good film, and parts of it were quite exciting. I'll wager they shot a lot more and had to cut it down to get it under the usually manditory under two-and-a-half hour limit. Plus, the shakey camera business is annoying as it rendered the fights incomprehensible, but as mentioned above it was also most likely manditory to get the PG-13 rating. It is sure to make a great deal of money.

And it may help viewers to appreciate the looney nature of the present day and what passes for entertainment. It may end up being more subversive than lots of people would like.

Uhh, you might be a little more prescient than you might think:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/an-apolo...-hunger-games/
Waboman's Avatar Waboman
06:44 PM Liked: 778
post #109 of 267
03-23-2012 | Posts: 7,258
Joined: Sep 2005
Going in. May the odds be ever in your favor.

Attachment 241472
LL
Dbuudo07's Avatar Dbuudo07
07:19 PM Liked: 128
post #110 of 267
03-23-2012 | Posts: 2,800
Joined: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post

Going in. May the odds be ever in your favor.

Attachment 241472

Nice!
Franin's Avatar Franin
07:29 PM Liked: 299
post #111 of 267
03-23-2012 | Posts: 17,593
Joined: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post

Going in. May the odds be ever in your favor.

Let us know waboman.
gwsat's Avatar gwsat
07:43 PM Liked: 555
post #112 of 267
03-23-2012 | Posts: 14,786
Joined: May 2004
Saw The Hunger Games today at a brand new digital IMAX house. The presentation was state of the art but the film's seemingly unending use of extreme closeups and the shaky cam technique often took me out of the story. It was so bad that I downgraded a film, which I might otherwise have rated at 9 Stars out of 10, to 7 Stars out of 10.

Now to the good stuff. The story was taut and mostly true to the book. Despite its 142 minutes runtime, the movie never dragged. The major difference I saw between the screenplay and the book was an improvement, I thought. Those of you who read the book will immediately understand what I mean. The scene in which we last saw little Rue was just as powerful and moving on the screen as it had been in the book.

Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss was mesmerizing and Woody Harrelson as the drunken but savvy Haymitch was terrific too. I also enjoyed Elizabeth Banks' comic turn as the earnest but clueless Effie Trinket.
oink's Avatar oink
07:48 PM Liked: 818
post #113 of 267
03-23-2012 | Posts: 26,553
Joined: Apr 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

Saw The Hunger Games today at a brand new digital IMAX house. The presentation was state of the art but the film's seemingly unending use of extreme closeups and the shaky cam technique often took me out of the story. It was so bad that I downgraded a film, which I might otherwise have rated at 9 Stars out of 10, to 7 Stars out of 10.

Thanx for the heads-up.
Just can't abide that style of "filmmaking."

I have already decided NOT to pay for a theater ticket, might rent the BD someday.
Fastslappy's Avatar Fastslappy
07:55 PM Liked: 753
post #114 of 267
03-23-2012 | Posts: 6,775
Joined: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Thanx for the heads-up.
Just can't abide that style of "filmmaking."

I have already decided NOT to pay for a theater ticket, might rent the BD someday.

same here Oink ,
thanx Guys saved me from even wanting to watch this film, screw Shaky Cam ... when are these ppl gonna learn that it just does not ADD DRAMA ! Faux Doco-drama sucks it takes away from the scene doesn't add to it ! Ever since "Blair Witch Hunt" it sucked then & it sucks now ... I M H O
Franin's Avatar Franin
08:14 PM Liked: 299
post #115 of 267
03-23-2012 | Posts: 17,593
Joined: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwsat View Post

Saw The Hunger Games today at a brand new digital IMAX house. The presentation was state of the art but the film's seemingly unending use of extreme closeups and the shaky cam technique often took me out of the story. It was so bad that I downgraded a film, which I might otherwise have rated at 9 Stars out of 10, to 7 Stars out of 10.

Now to the good stuff. The story was taut and mostly true to the book. Despite its 142 minutes runtime, the movie never dragged. The major difference I saw between the screenplay and the book was an improvement, I thought. Those of you who read the book will immediately understand what I mean. The scene in which we last saw little Rue was just as powerful and moving on the screen as it had been in the book.

Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss was mesmerizing and Woody Harrelson as the drunken but savvy Haymitch was terrific too. I also enjoyed Elizabeth Banks' comic turn as the earnest but clueless Effie Trinket.

Thanks for the review gwsat. Shame about the shaky camera. Ill still go and see it regardless.
gwsat's Avatar gwsat
08:20 PM Liked: 555
post #116 of 267
03-23-2012 | Posts: 14,786
Joined: May 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Thanx for the heads-up.
Just can't abide that style of "filmmaking."

I have already decided NOT to pay for a theater ticket, might rent the BD someday.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastslappy View Post

same here Oink ,
thanx Guys saved me from even wanting to watch this film, screw Shaky Cam ... when are these ppl gonna learn that it just does not ADD DRAMA ! Faux Doco-drama sucks it takes away from the scene doesn't add to it ! Ever since "Blair Witch Hunt" it sucked then & it sucks now ... I M H O

They will never miss you. I bought my ticket for today's IMAX showing on line on Monday but showed up at the theater over an hour early to ensure getting a good seat. The theater was already sold out by then. That early, I didn't have any trouble getting a good seat but the place was filled up by showtime.
Franin's Avatar Franin
01:50 AM Liked: 299
post #117 of 267
03-24-2012 | Posts: 17,593
Joined: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post

Going in. May the odds be ever in your favor.

Hey waboman how was the movie?
Waboman's Avatar Waboman
02:23 AM Liked: 778
post #118 of 267
03-24-2012 | Posts: 7,258
Joined: Sep 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Franin View Post

Hey waboman how was the movie?

Overall I really liked it. I can't believe how fast that 142 minutes went. Just having finished the book literally an hour before the movie, I thought they did a good job of bringing it to the big screen. My one big caveat is the damn shaky cam. Why movie makers shoot like this boggles me. If they think it adds realism, it does quite the opposite and takes me out of the movie. To be fair, this may be an age related thing. Both my wife and I hated the shaky cam. My kids OTOH, didn't mind it at all. Go figure.
Franin's Avatar Franin
02:25 AM Liked: 299
post #119 of 267
03-24-2012 | Posts: 17,593
Joined: Aug 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post


Overall I really liked it. I can't believe how fast that 142 minutes went. Just having finished the book literally an hour before the movie, I thought they did a good job of bringing it to the big screen. My one big caveat is the damn shaky cam. Why movie makers shoot like this boggles me. If they think it adds realism, it does quite the opposite and takes me out of the movie. To be fair, this may be an age related thing. Both my wife and I hated the shaky cam. My kids OTOH, didn't mind it at all. Go figure.

Thanks for that.
marjen's Avatar marjen
08:05 AM Liked: 19
post #120 of 267
03-24-2012 | Posts: 1,057
Joined: Mar 2001
Saw it last night. Overall very good. They made some changes I did not like, some I did like. Some of the omissions will impact the next movie however. Harder than I thought to fit a book into a movie as it felt very compressed.

JL was excellent as Katniss. A lesser actress could have ruined the entire movie as she is in nearly every scene. The shaky cam did not really bother me, not sure what all the fuss is about.

Reply Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion

Subscribe to this Thread

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3