Hunger Games
- POOPERSCOOPER
- Paparazzi
- Posts: 5035
- Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 1:50 am
- Location: California
Hunger Games
It's a movie based off a popular book series by the same name. It's not necessarily a new type of story that we haven't seen before but it's the type of movie I like a lot (people killing each other for survival ). I don't know if I completely understand the back story but I think there was some type of war and the victors allowed the losers to live by having each district select a boy and girl between the age of 12-18 to compete in the hunger games.
The hunger games is a big spectacle where 24 young adults compete in a game of survival by killing each other and the survivor gets to live and receive prizes or something. There is more to it like having to gather the favor of the spectators and getting help or forming alliances.
The movie was pretty much split into two parts, the big setup before the games and then the game itself. I liked how they took their time to set up the games before rushing completely into it, kept you wondering how things were going to go down. Although I liked the build up, watching the game is the most entertaining so you feel someone let down it doesn't last longer.
The subject matter doesn't really sound like a kid or teenager movie but there was tons of them in the movie watching it so it felt kind of like a Twilight or Harry Pooper movie with the hysteria. It was PG-13 and doesn't show much gore or anything too brutal so it was all good I guess. It was no battle royale in terms of graphic violence and didn't have the same depth of Running Man (heh).
I never read the book but I was expecting them to pull some major bullshit and cut the movie in half since I was under the impression all three books dealt with one game but I happily proven wrong. One bullshit thing in the movie was the shaky camera, holy shit when the action happens good luck watching it. I've been told though that watching shaky camera actions scenes on the big screen ( I saw this one in IMAX) makes it look a lot worse than it would be on your home television so perhaps my hate for shaky camera is a bit overstated.
Anyways, I thought the movie was enjoyable but perhaps it could have been improved with more important scenes to really get the idea that it's a televised spectacle ( I feel like running man did this a lot better) and more back story. Other than that I think most Dackers will be split about the movie thinking it's either a kiddy bullshit movie of more mature stories or they will think its a fun movie.
The hunger games is a big spectacle where 24 young adults compete in a game of survival by killing each other and the survivor gets to live and receive prizes or something. There is more to it like having to gather the favor of the spectators and getting help or forming alliances.
The movie was pretty much split into two parts, the big setup before the games and then the game itself. I liked how they took their time to set up the games before rushing completely into it, kept you wondering how things were going to go down. Although I liked the build up, watching the game is the most entertaining so you feel someone let down it doesn't last longer.
The subject matter doesn't really sound like a kid or teenager movie but there was tons of them in the movie watching it so it felt kind of like a Twilight or Harry Pooper movie with the hysteria. It was PG-13 and doesn't show much gore or anything too brutal so it was all good I guess. It was no battle royale in terms of graphic violence and didn't have the same depth of Running Man (heh).
I never read the book but I was expecting them to pull some major bullshit and cut the movie in half since I was under the impression all three books dealt with one game but I happily proven wrong. One bullshit thing in the movie was the shaky camera, holy shit when the action happens good luck watching it. I've been told though that watching shaky camera actions scenes on the big screen ( I saw this one in IMAX) makes it look a lot worse than it would be on your home television so perhaps my hate for shaky camera is a bit overstated.
Anyways, I thought the movie was enjoyable but perhaps it could have been improved with more important scenes to really get the idea that it's a televised spectacle ( I feel like running man did this a lot better) and more back story. Other than that I think most Dackers will be split about the movie thinking it's either a kiddy bullshit movie of more mature stories or they will think its a fun movie.
- Wolfman Walt
- Mamma's Gang member
- Posts: 5243
- Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 1:31 pm
- Location: La Grange, Kentucky
- Contact:
- SenisterDenister
- Haha you're still not there yet
- Posts: 3535
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 3:03 pm
- Location: Cackalackyland
- POOPERSCOOPER
- Paparazzi
- Posts: 5035
- Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 1:50 am
- Location: California
It's been so long since I've seen Battle Royale. I think I first heard about it from here in like 2003 and decided to download it then had to load subs into it. It was my first downloaded movie ever and it holds a special place in my heart just for that. The emotions I felt in be able to get movies that weren't available anywhere else was pretty cool and also I felt hardcore to be able to use my computer in something other than playing games and looking at the internet.Wolfman Walt wrote:I liked the movie better when it was called "Battle Royale."
That being said I don't remember the movie that much other than the concept, I should watch it again some time.
Join us on IRC at #fallout on the gamesurge.net network.
- Wolfman Walt
- Mamma's Gang member
- Posts: 5243
- Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 1:31 pm
- Location: La Grange, Kentucky
- Contact:
- Cimmerian Nights
- Striding Hero
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:51 pm
- Location: The Roche Motel
I caught BR in theaters when it came out in Japan, but my Japanese really sucks so I didn't grok much of the dialogue, probably worth rewatching.
Was there not a sequel? Never heard much of it, so assuming it was no good.
Was there not a sequel? Never heard much of it, so assuming it was no good.
I heard there were some Orwellian tones, but can't be enough to redeem it. I kind of dig that chick, she was really good in Winter's Bone. That was a good one.Tofu Man wrote:BR + Twilight - Takeshi = Not if I was
You can't argue with a good blow job -George Carlin
You assume correctly. The kids now get automatic rifles and full body armor and are sent into another island where they have limited time in which to kill the winner of the first film, who's leading a bunch of kalashnikov rebels against the old people. There's a couple of semi-interesting parallelisms with world events here and there but all in all, it's quite missable. The young vs old dilemma was dealt with suitably in the first film, in this one it's just not doing it any favors. You could've exchanged the kids for adults and remove the BR act crap and the film would be the same. But then, the japanese do love their teenagers.Cimmerian Nights wrote:Was there not a sequel? Never heard much of it, so assuming it was no good.
In a sense, it's comparable to Fallout 3. Same name, same dressing but a completely different purpose, a completely different set of messages and that tangy "this is something that's been glued to something else for the sake of marketing and it has barely any relation to the original, despite the obvious similarities" aftertaste.
Give it a miss. Or maybe try "Confessions" (though I've a sneaking suspicion you already have). It's funny, but I'd even go so far as to say that it'd have fit in better as a prequel to BR than BR2 does as a sequel.
Still not convinced it's any sort of Burmese Animal 84. I'll let you do the honors, if you dare. Meanwhile, WB sounds like my wednesday flick, big up.Cimmerian Nights wrote:I heard there were some Orwellian tones, but can't be enough to redeem it. I kind of dig that chick, she was really good in Winter's Bone. That was a good one.
- Cimmerian Nights
- Striding Hero
- Posts: 1367
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:51 pm
- Location: The Roche Motel
Tofu Man wrote: Give it a miss. Or maybe try "Confessions" (though I've a sneaking suspicion you already have). It's funny, but I'd even go so far as to say that it'd have fit in better as a prequel to BR than BR2 does as a sequel.
Haven't seen that one, but my wife just told me she liked the book. Will check it out.It's got this real ugly red-neck noir vibe. About as unglamorous and unhollywood as an american movie can get. Must be some gay rule about only portraying po' back folk.Meanwhile, WB sounds like my wednesday flick, big up.
BR always reminds me of Red Dawn, not really because of the content or themes, but in all the outrage it engendered. I remember authority types not being to fond of the scene in Red Dawn where they gun down the teacher in front of the HS class.
Red Dawn hasn't aged so well.
Really solid american drama. Hadn't watched one of those in a while, it seems they're a Hollywood casualty, with their fixation on everything being pg-13. And you were right, the kid nailed the part. But then everyone else was really solid throughout, especially Avellone's evil twin.Cimmerian Nights wrote:It's got this real ugly red-neck noir vibe. About as unglamorous and unhollywood as an american movie can get. Must be some gay rule about only portraying po' back folk.
And it's getting a remake... It's northern Kim this time.Red Dawn hasn't aged so well.