Jump to content
King Mark

The Hunger Games Movie Series Thread

Recommended Posts

I guess I'll start one.

I think it's the best "blockbuster" style movie of the year. One where you can actually take the stakes seriously and care about what happens and make you feel something coming out of the cinema. The actors are all top notch and you can see everyone gave it their all to elevate the movies

It can be accused of being a " teen romance" movie not worthy of older people's attention, but the Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies also had romance as central elements of the films .Personally, I do not think Hunger Games has anything to do with the Twilight franchise (I saw most of them too)

Catching Fire was clearly a better film than the first one, but the original Hunger Games was great too and very underrated IMO.

I saw 3 trailers of blockbuster movies tonight, Godzilla, Spiderman 2 and 300part 2. All had the same CGI shots of cities and buildings falling over or being blown to bits...do we even care anymore about massive CGI destruction of cities?

PS in second place is Desolation of Smaug for blockbuster this year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the first one and was mostly just confused and bored by it. Is the second one generally considered to be better than the first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I saw the first Hunger Games movie, it was at home in a room full of friends, probably 6 of us total. Out of the 6 of us, none of us had seen the film before and only one of us (my girlfriend Marcy) had read the book. Well, there were many times throughout the film when we were all confused, and Marcy had to explain what was going on because the book made clear something that was muddy or just plain not covered in the film. So that was a big flaw in the first film (on top of the shaky camerawork and uninteresting action scenes).

Hopefully the second movie makes more sense to people who haven't read the book, and hopefully the action scenes are better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree. But scenes like Katniss cutting off the bee's nest were very convincing because of Lawrence acting. you could feel she was scared shitless doing it

The second one is more standalone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jennifer Lawrence is really talented, and seems like a very smart and down to earth person too.

Well, I'm more interested in the second film now. Still, I'll wait to watch it at home, probably won't see it in the theater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jennifer Lawrence is really talented, and seems like a very smart and down to earth person too.

It was with the first Hunger Games movie that I immediately thought she was special and might win an Oscar eventually. She did the same year with Silver linings Playbook.

I never saw Winter's bone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still haven't seen Winter's Bone either, I only really know Jennifer Lawrence from Hunger Games, Silver Linings, and lots of talk shows / interviews / internet videos.

I gotta see American Hustle....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall it was okay with some good moments but some of the ideas simply weren't so good or were at least simplistically executed (Spoilers: The mist that deforms, but hey, this pool of water cures it. The attention the movie gave to the blonde with curly hair to make her likable. The voice imitating birds and the especially the instant, no questions asked, exaggerated way the characters responded to them). In my case, it led to a somewhat disappointed experience. Still, I easily prefer The Hunger Game franchise over Potter or Twillight, and so does my kid.

images_zps563daa59.jpg

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Catching Fire is easily the best big budgeted film this year.

I have not read the books, and will not until after the fourth film. I have been told MockingJay is the least of the 3 books and splitting it into 2 films is unnecessary.

My sister and friend both agree Catching Fire is one of the most literal adaptions in a long time.

I can't believe Alex doesn't get that Effie, the blond girl with the curls, is not being made likable but becomes aware of the true role she is playing. Nor does Alex get the idea of the MockingJay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MockingJay has the least amount of action from what I've been told.

I get why Potter did the split, the last book was nearly 800 pages. Just think if Jackson did this book it would have been 6 movies.

Twilight was short and it wasn't an artistic decision, it was a money decision.

MockingJay is strictly a money/greed decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read all the books before the films were released. I liked the first book, but I felt the series had problems that worsened as it went on.

With the films, I enjoyed the first and was even more impressed with Catching Fire. I thought it surpassed the first film, as well as the book. In a more exciting year for movies it might have faced more competition, but in this (IMO disappointing) year it stood out.

The third book is a big mess, and will be difficult to adapt satisfyingly. It does have a lot of action, though, as well as several big action scenes that happen "offscreen" in which Katniss should have played a more active role. If the film's producers pick up on this, the films could easily be more coherent than the book. Of course the third book could have been adapted into just one film, but given the quality of the film series thus far, I don't mind getting an extra installment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

World wide is more impressive Joe.

For Iron Man 3 they actually shot scenes especially for the Chinese market.

Distribution costs to foreign countries are far lower then they used to be thanks to digital projection. Foreign gross matters my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jena Malone, who plays Johanna in Catching Fire was in Stepmom, a John Williams scored film of which few are fond, and in Contact as Ellie as a child, and in Sucker Punch and the underrated The Ruins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

or were at least simplistically executed (Spoilers: The mist that deforms, but hey, this pool of water cures it.

The poison is designed by the game master. If you can figure out how to get to the water it will remove all trace of it meaning you "beat" the challange.

"real" poisons aren't cured by water

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that was in the movie, KM. She said something like: "Hey, start drinking guys, this water seems to cure it. And so everybody drank from the pool and their deformities magically disappeared like smoke in the air." Anyhow, whether I missed something or not, it's a poor idea (or poorly sold), IMO. It belongs in Potter world.

Alex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it was the idea. I the first film there's cream that heals skin wounds instantly.

So in that future world medicine is more advanced and I guess you have to accept this kind of stuff. The poison and healing water in this case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that was in the movie, KM.

Perhaps not, but it was obvious. I haven't read the books, but it's clear from the first film that the game master can create anything he likes under the game dome.
he has absolute power. Yesh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hunger Games

Actually very good!

The actual story is quite an obvious pastiche of ideas previously seen in books or movies (The Running Man especially), but that's OK, so was Star Wars.

The whole film has a 1970's vibe to it, in the way it was shot, even some of the set design and costumes. The contrast between the "real" world Katniss inhabits and the Bourgeois upper class from Capitol, with their grotesque hairstyles, beards and make up, with a nice nod to France before the Revolution. All if this is done with fairly broad strokes, but it works.

The supporting cast boasts some impressive names, at this point doing merely more then cameo's. Stanley Tucci is one of the most measured, subtle actors of our times, so it's interesting that in this film he gives his character no debt at all. As the host he exists to ask the most obvious of questions, to get the viewer caring. Woody Harrelson gets do do a little bit more as a former victor turned drunk. My take on that was that his drunkenness comes more out of survivor's guilt then wealth. And Donald Sutherland can of-course be quietly menacing by just staring in a camera.

All of these actors need to do little more then depend on their charisma, but it works.....

The star of the film is of course Jennifer Lawrence. Her casting is key to the success of the film. Given us the exact mix of toughness versus vulnerability that the role requires. She plays the game, even plays the audience (the one in the film and us perhaps) but feels detached enough from it that we feel we can invest in her emotionally.

She carries the film without seemingly even trying. It's not often you see an actress of that young age acting so calmly and restraint.

Restraint is also a word one might use for the direction.

Gary Ross' knows he is making a film that satirizes reality TV, the audiences lust for bigger, REALLER, MORE!!! And therefore holds back on all the big moments you would expect in a major Hollywood blockbuster.

CGI is kept at a minimum, I'm sure there is more there then you think, but it's wonderfully understated. I like the fact that even though the game takes place in a very artificial environment, it's treated as real. So a real forest instead of a fake one. Big moments of death, sorrow and love are treated with restraint instead of milked for all they are worth. Often depending on the actors rather then gaudy trickery.

There is quite a lot of shaky cam in the film. But at key moments it represents the disorientation of Kattnis. The film has surprisingly few special effects porn shots. You know the ones. CGI camera towering over everything, showing us the splendorous CGI environments. Even the "beautiful landscape" shots are kept to a minimum. The film is very much focused on it's characters. The world of Panem is one they inhabit, rather then a world designed to show off to the audience. I really liked this.

Despite it's PG13 rating, there are a few moments of pretty severe violence. Particular when the game begins and some of the tributes begin what is nothing short of a bloodbath.

I didnt get the score when I listened to samples of it last year. But it makes sense with the film. Scenes involving Katniss, her district etc are scores with a almost folk like sensibility, while everything related to The Capitol and the Hunger games gets a gaudy, RCP treatment. Still nothing I'd listen to outside the film, but it works.....

Weak points? Nothing serious. But once Katniss becomes part of the game the real world seems very detached. So the few scenes of people rioting seem to come out of no where. It would have been more daring if we didn't see any scenes from the outside world at all maybe.

I didnt feel anything for Peeta, positive or negative. But again, it's the first of a franchise.

Impressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a better, more brutal film in my opinion.

I enjoyed The Hunger Games and am looking forward to the sequel, but I seem to remember being underwhelmed by certain parts of it. I can't remember exactly what now, gonna have to find my review and remind myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The book had several accusations made against it about it lifting ideas from BR, but the author continues to deny it and says she never saw the film (or something like that).

I always thought the first Hunger Games film was pretty overrated. There were things I liked, and things I didn't like and overall didn't come out with much of a great impression. Perhaps it was just the hype.

The second film is much better in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to go see Catching Fire for the second time but it was sold out today. (special prices on Tuesdays)

Interesting, it's not playing at many cinemas anymore but it means it still might be around for a while

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw Catching Fire yesterday. I thought it was an excellent film, much more enjoyable than the first one (which I thought was good, too).

The story is finally starting to take off, and that's what makes the whole thing more interesting. Wasn't a fan of the abrupt ending, though I quite liked the twist (even if it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny). The score is pretty generic, and the Horn Of Plenty cue is a bit overused. The cast is pretty strong overall, with no particularly weak performance.

If I had to find one major flaw to this film, it probably would be the fact that there is a lack of "connective tissue" (so to speak) between the two parts of the film (before the Hunger Games and when the Hunger Games finally take place). It's not a big problem to me, but it's there. The two parts of the movie almost feel like two different stories. That didn't dampen my enjoyment of the film that much, though.

7/10

Two questions I've got for those who have seen the film/read the book:

- A minor question: around the beginning of the film, Katniss and Peeta go to a party with fireworks and all that shit. During the fireworks, you see President Snow drinking champagne, which suddenly turns red for some reason (as if it was blood). Did I miss something here? Was that meant to be something symbolic? Didn't understand that.

- Concerning the twist: so, if I get this correctly (which I'm not sure I did, since someone sitting next to me was talking during that scene), Peeta didn't know about the whole revolution thing, right (just like Katniss)? And do we know who were the tributes who were part of the revolution? I mean, apart from the obvious ones, such as Johanna, Finnick, Beetee and Wiress?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...