The Hunger Games
Discussion
Anyone seen it?
I was disappointed big time - got sucked in by the hype unfortunatley.
A poor mans Battle Royale.
I foudn this article amusing and worrying at the same time - may contain spoilers: http://jezebel.com/5896408
I was disappointed big time - got sucked in by the hype unfortunatley.
A poor mans Battle Royale.
I foudn this article amusing and worrying at the same time - may contain spoilers: http://jezebel.com/5896408
Mojooo said:
Anyone seen it?
I was disappointed big time - got sucked in by the hype unfortunatley.
A poor mans Battle Royale.
I foudn this article amusing and worrying at the same time - may contain spoilers: http://jezebel.com/5896408
My favourite has been the outcry in the Daily Mail from mothers who have been happy to let their children read the books; but suddenly when it's on screen it's too violent. I was disappointed big time - got sucked in by the hype unfortunatley.
A poor mans Battle Royale.
I foudn this article amusing and worrying at the same time - may contain spoilers: http://jezebel.com/5896408
Which reminds me, I haven't looked for the Mumsnet stance yet...
I was disappointed with the number of kills - TBH I went in expecting a Battle Royal style fest of kills but the vast majority were masked by the (annoying) camerawork. I think there were only 1 or 2 clear onscreen kills. It was not anywhere near as violent as I was expecting or it should have been.
I have not read the book, does it read violent or does it not mention the deatsh in much detail?
Clearly they were aiming for a low rating so they could gte as big an audience as possible - that is probably why it is so soft.
I have not read the book, does it read violent or does it not mention the deatsh in much detail?
Clearly they were aiming for a low rating so they could gte as big an audience as possible - that is probably why it is so soft.
Mojooo said:
I was disappointed with the number of kills - TBH I went in expecting a Battle Royal style fest of kills but the vast majority were masked by the (annoying) camerawork. I think there were only 1 or 2 clear onscreen kills. It was not anywhere near as violent as I was expecting or it should have been.
I have not read the book, does it read violent or does it not mention the deatsh in much detail?
Clearly they were aiming for a low rating so they could gte as big an audience as possible - that is probably why it is so soft.
FFS, why would you possibly expect a film rated as '12a' which is widely publicised as having been further cut to allow it to get that rating to be some way comparable with an R rated film?I have not read the book, does it read violent or does it not mention the deatsh in much detail?
Clearly they were aiming for a low rating so they could gte as big an audience as possible - that is probably why it is so soft.
The film and the books are aimed at "young adults" and any sort of research would have made this pretty obvious.
This reminds me of one of those product reviews on Amazon where someone buys something clearly unsuitable and then gives it 1* because it is in some way the products fault they are stupid...
Edited by SWoll on Monday 2nd April 10:19
Edited by SWoll on Monday 2nd April 10:20
Seems to be polarising opinion on IMDB, Sitting at 7.8/10 just now, but i scanned through the first few pages of reviews and it appears to averaging about 3/10, although as usual it's mostly the book-readers that are up in arms, although a weak plot, poor character development and a 'clearly not hungry' cast are in there too!
Was going to see this week after reading some critical acclaim, not so sure now!
Was going to see this week after reading some critical acclaim, not so sure now!
Mojooo said:
Point taken
It was still a weak film.
It was still a weak film.
Not seen it myself yet but my 11 year old daughter is very excited after having read the books so I pretty much know what to expect I think.
From what she tells me there is a little more violence described in the books although not in too much detail.
It's been getting some decent reviews in the press so I'll give it a go.
Guffy said:
Seems to be polarising opinion on IMDB, Sitting at 7.8/10 just now, but i scanned through the first few pages of reviews and it appears to averaging about 3/10, although as usual it's mostly the book-readers that are up in arms, although a weak plot, poor character development and a 'clearly not hungry' cast are in there too!
Was going to see this week after reading some critical acclaim, not so sure now!
It will absolutley nosedive down to 6 - 7 IMO. Maybe maintain a 7 because of the hardcore fans.Was going to see this week after reading some critical acclaim, not so sure now!
Hvaing read the sypnosis of the book it looks like they left a couple of good bits out.
To be fair the film is advertised as kids having to kill eachother to survive, so its not unreasonable to expect some kills and the majority of the film to be about 'the hunger games' - but tis not - it has almost an hour of build up for a very poor 'hunger games'.
I also found it amusing that one of the most exciting bits effectivley came down to a chase between humans and an animal
Mojooo said:
Guffy said:
Seems to be polarising opinion on IMDB, Sitting at 7.8/10 just now, but i scanned through the first few pages of reviews and it appears to averaging about 3/10, although as usual it's mostly the book-readers that are up in arms, although a weak plot, poor character development and a 'clearly not hungry' cast are in there too!
Was going to see this week after reading some critical acclaim, not so sure now!
It will absolutley nosedive down to 6 - 7 IMO. Maybe maintain a 7 because of the hardcore fans.Was going to see this week after reading some critical acclaim, not so sure now!
Hvaing read the sypnosis of the book it looks like they left a couple of good bits out.
To be fair the film is advertised as kids having to kill eachother to survive, so its not unreasonable to expect some kills and the majority of the film to be about 'the hunger games' - but tis not - it has almost an hour of build up for a very poor 'hunger games'.
I also found it amusing that one of the most exciting bits effectivley came down to a chase between humans and an animal
Just watched this drivel. 0/10 worst film I've seen in a long, long time.
Ultimately you don't give a toss which one survives they're all either boring or irritating.
Baylor Royale did this a thousand times better. Even the Running Man is better.
The director must have watched a Bourne moie and asked for shaky cam in every scene. Even the scene-setting shots at the start, of life in the district have vomit-inducing shaky cam.
When there was a fight you could barely see anything.
I realise I'm not the target demographic for this, but it was powerfully sh
t
Ultimately you don't give a toss which one survives they're all either boring or irritating.
Baylor Royale did this a thousand times better. Even the Running Man is better.
The director must have watched a Bourne moie and asked for shaky cam in every scene. Even the scene-setting shots at the start, of life in the district have vomit-inducing shaky cam.
When there was a fight you could barely see anything.
I realise I'm not the target demographic for this, but it was powerfully sh
tRaify said:
Just watched this drivel. 0/10 worst film I've seen in a long, long time.
Ultimately you don't give a toss which one survives they're all either boring or irritating.
Baylor Royale did this a thousand times better. Even the Running Man is better.
The director must have watched a Bourne moie and asked for shaky cam in every scene. Even the scene-setting shots at the start, of life in the district have vomit-inducing shaky cam.
When there was a fight you could barely see anything.
I realise I'm not the target demographic for this, but it was powerfully sht
Totally agree,was absolute garbage,cant understand what the fuss is all about.Ultimately you don't give a toss which one survives they're all either boring or irritating.
Baylor Royale did this a thousand times better. Even the Running Man is better.
The director must have watched a Bourne moie and asked for shaky cam in every scene. Even the scene-setting shots at the start, of life in the district have vomit-inducing shaky cam.
When there was a fight you could barely see anything.
I realise I'm not the target demographic for this, but it was powerfully sh
tIt was st.
Once the fighting started, I spent the rest of the film praying for the cannon to go off again. Repeatedly.
Also, there was a massive cop out, which you could see coming a mile off regarding the diminutive one.
Matey boy pretending to be a piece of wood may, however, have been a post-modern ironic statement on his acting skills, but I doubt it.
t.Once the fighting started, I spent the rest of the film praying for the cannon to go off again. Repeatedly.
Also, there was a massive cop out, which you could see coming a mile off regarding the diminutive one.
Matey boy pretending to be a piece of wood may, however, have been a post-modern ironic statement on his acting skills, but I doubt it.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff