The Hunger Games

I saw an interview with Woody Harrelson talking about his level of drunkenness. He wanted to go over the top with it, but the director made him tone it down.

I don't think it should've hit cartoony levels, but a little more OTT couldn't have hurt.

Just saw the movie.

Worth every second of my life span spent on it

While there are some things the movie didn't do as well (building Katnissx Peeta, demonstrate the raw survival aspects of the Games) and some things I hoped for that didn't come through (I wanted to see more over the reactions around Panem as things played out in the games, more emphasis on the Reality TV aspect) in many ways the movie did much better then or just as good as the book.

What did everyone else think?

Having caesar narrate katnisses info dumps on certain things was a well done bit, I was curious on how they would do it. Also katniss had olive skin, thing sinktone between Jessica Alba to Mila Kunis for how her skin shod like. Jennifer has olive skin. I hate the "this movies is racebending bullshit from people that just don't understand want olive sink means. Use Wikipedia people. It helps.

Just saw the movie. I don't know what I was expecting, having not read the books, but ultimately I was let down. I saw this huge wave of hype and all I could hear was excited buzz about this movie, so I became interested. After seeing it though... I don't get it. It was kinda... meh.

I think the movie did build better dramatic tension then the books, for instances it managed to get a reaction out of me at Prim's picking, where as in the books I just rolled my eyes since there was hardly any build up at all to it.

I do feel like the ending was a bit rushed, but on reflection they had a lot of ground to cover, despite the shortness of the books, because the sheer timeline is pretty long. I feel like Katnissx Peeta need more development and the ending should have been more dramatic. (The Nightlock berries where barely set up, they cut out the really cool scene where Katniss is pounding on the glass screaming for Peeta as they take him away.) Worst of all their was no sense of triumph when they where announced the winners, which I felt should have the pay-off for the entire movie's set up of how impossible it was going to be for Katniss to win the Games.

I am glad they cut down the gore however, I don't think Peeta having his leg ripped off would have flown with a PG-13 ratting.

I haven't read the books nor seen the movie yet, so I don't really have an opinion on The Hunger Games. However, it turns out that this movie has made more money in its opening weekend than ANY of the Twilight movies. For that, I have to say:

-laughs happily- Only to be expected. Still somewhat gleeful that Harry Potter still has the lead.

Box office records get broken every year or so these days; they really need to stick with inflation-adjusted numbers if the records are going to mean anything.

edited 25th Mar '12 2:44:42 PM by WarriorEowyn

My cousin didn't like the movie that much, and after watching it I can see why. This movie really isn't made for non-fans. I had been wondering why the movie felt a little rushed, and now that I think about it, it's because the movie was going through all the events like a checklist. It felt less like a movie and more like a series of Youtube-ish scene recreations. This movie is perfect for purists like my friend, who found the only major difference to be the muttation's eye color. (then again, he was using Percy Jackson And The Olympians as a benchmark, so his view might be a bit skewed.

I still liked the movie though. It covered all the events of the book very well, and it did the amazing service of not making me listen to Katniss bitch and whine for 2 1/2 hours. My only major concern other than the pacing was the camera work. Most of the time was fine, but there were a couple of scenes where it did get a bit obnoxious. Especially the tracker jacker bit. You don't need to make a prototype Skrillex video to show hallucinations.

I hope this reaction I see doesn't spread too far,last time people decided The Film of the Book was too much like it,...we got The Prisonerof Azkaban in response,*shudders* and then to It Got Worse,kinda went up again when Steve Kloves was replaced with a fair screenwriter that didn't hate Ron,but quickly went back down until the final part.

I fear these reactions will cause Catching Fire to be "artsy" and crap like that,and you can count on Gale x Katniss or worse Cinna x Katniss (Sort of like how Luna x Harry came out of nowhere) to take over

As for the film not from Katniss view,well great now I won't see it. All of the characters lack personality because Katniss barely knows them,it's Protagonist centered because she's a product of the Crapsack World. If you take that out,everything feels wrong

It was the prose that made Hunger Games shine,if there isn't even voice overs by Lawrence,the whole feel is lost. I'm not saying I want it to take over,ala The Last Airbender,but it's very much necessary.

@terly

Really? The prose I felt was one of Hunger Games weakest points.

The prose was one of the weakest points.

And how does "the characters only have personality because Katniss knows them" make any sense? The characters can act in a manner befitting them without being filtered through someone else's perception.

Been meaning to check out this series for a while now, how its it?

"I hope this reaction I see doesn't spread too far, last time people decided The Film of the Book was too much like it, ...we got The Prisonerof Azkaban in response, *shudders* and then to It Got Worse, kinda went up again when Steve Kloves was replaced with a fair screenwriter that didn't hate Ron, but quickly went back down until the final part."

I actually have to disagree there. Prisoner of Azkaban was the definitely the least faithful to the books, but I think it made it a better movie because of it.

Katniss can't exactly know everything about those characters because she only sees them at certain bits,Peeta,Haymitch,Gale have a lot of personality because she has sees them and gets to talk to 'em

For all we know half the Capital citizens could actually be very profound and deep,and with the right information even be against it.Because we only see them say very shallow things in Katniss ear-shot,that's all we get. So yeah we have an Unreliable Narrator

It's not like the natural person thinks coherently,thoughts are usually very disorganized,so yeah if Prim is mentioned randomly it's very much justified. If she goes into Gale same thing.

The prose is very unique,it definitely started to get worse over time. The weak spot ain't the prose,the weak spot is the world building outside of district 12 and the arena,I'll admit it's kinda justified but it's still pretty lame.

Prisoner Of Azkaban was too damn fast-paced,only M Night Shyamalan has ever made a more mind-blowingly fast film,one so fast you can't pick up what just happened. If I hadn't known the details,I would've wondered what the hell just happened every scene.

If you're going to screw over the material as to "make a better film" it has to be at a reasonable pace and all crucial information must be explained well and get the feel. Only Yates actually did that,the other two hacks tried being "artsy" and "actiony" while leaving out Dobby,not explaining the Maurader's Map,putting every character on the backburner other than Harry,etc.

Catching Fire cannot afford to do that,not with all the new characters like Finnick or Annie or Wiress or Mags. It cannot afford to Flanderize lets say,... Haymitch,like every not Columbus Potter film did Ron. At worst,it'd be barely explained how there ended up being 12 districts for real instead of 13.

All in all,I wish it was The Underland Chronicles that became a movie,that's the Magnum Opus of Suzanne Collins,not this,Mockingjay proves it

I just saw it with my brother. I read the book very recently, he hasn't read it yet. We both enjoyed it a lot. He said that it was much better than he expected, and I think it's about as good an adaptation as I could have hoped for.

My only real issue with it is that Lenny Kravitz is so not what I wanted out of Cinna. He was my favourite character in the book, and feels kind of wasted in the movie. That said, Woody Harrelson did a great job as Haymitch. Not at all what I imagined, but just as good.

Harrelson stole the show.

I think Donald Sutherland gives him a bit of a run for his money, though.

I kind of missed Effie's little arc, but I think it's made up for by having Cato be a bigger presence before the Games start.

Haymitch is amazing

The mentor who's drunken, cyinical, but knows what to do and cares for his pupils in the end? Yep. Fits coolness.

So, apparently, some people are upset that Rue and Thresh were black. That's kind of disheartening.

Rue was almost exactly how I imagined her, if perhaps a bit bigger, and a bit more...innocent looking? Less shrewd might be a better word for it.

Wait... //

The character describe as black...is black?!

WHAT SORCERY IS THIS

Lindsay and Nella review the movie

This was probably the first movie where my little brother read the book and I didn't. I really enjoyed it though. After going over it in my head I conclude that District 11 = Best District since everyone I saw from there was awesome.