8 replies to this topic

[Stone]

I haven't read the books, so I don't know how much of the movie is simply being true to original. It was enjoyable, but with some very poor acting, which I put down to the fault of the director/producer.

The backstory is absurd. The world has been divided into 12 Districts, ranging from extremely affluent to dirt poor. Hollywood on one end, the Ozarks/Appalachians on the other. 75 years ago, the poorer districts revolted* and were defeated. At that point, the government instituted the Hunger Games. 2 teens from each district compete in a televised fight to the death set in a massive Truman-Show-Esque stage. Somehow, this is meant to bring everyone together.

Katniss, a dirt poor girl from a mining town volunteers to go when her younger sister is chosen as the female representative from her District 12. (No, sadly, the District 9 people are not prawns.) She takes a train to the capital city for quick training before heading into the game.

The people in the capital city are absurd caricatures of mindless, arrogant overly-pampered rich people. They dress in silly colorful costumes with absurd makeup and hair styles that looks like something from a surreal fashion show or Tim Burton's Willy Wonka. They're all smiles and giddy in a way that's meant to be campy and, perhaps even an indictment of the 1%. It's just dumb. Stanley Tucci & Elizabeth Banks do what I assume is what they were told to do, but their characters are too absurd to be taken seriously in any way.

The fight itself is done pretty well, although the brutal deaths of young teenagers is unpleasant. The writing isn't particularly good, the plot points fairly obvious, the love story sappy and contrived, the deep social pronouncements that people are on about are simplistic. It's an enjoyable movie, nonetheless.

*That's the wrong word, isn't it?

[hollywood]

Some say Hunger Games was lifted from a Japanese film, Battle Royale. But the writer of of the former denies it vehemently.

[Rail Paul]

Fourth week as box office leader.

The Three Stooges wasn't an especially strong challenger for the leader board.

[Abbylovi]

I saw it twice.

The first time I barely had any idea of what the book was or the plot. A friend of mine was randomly invited to a pre-screening of it at an IMAX theater and she invited me along. I really liked it though I think I"m too old for IMAX theaters. Especially with all the camera whipping around, I felt dizzy and my friend actually had to move because she felt nauseous.

Second time I was on a beach vacation and my friends wanted to see it. I decided to also try reading the book (literally a beach read) and so the second time I understood more and thought they did a good job staying close to the book.

Acting-wise, I thought that Jennifer Lawrence was amazing. I disagree with Stone in that I thought that Tucci and Banks also did well, the characters are absurd so that's what they portrayed. I also thought Woody Harrelson was good in his role. Everyone's bashing poor Lenny Kravitz saying what a dull performance he gave to such a flamboyant character. Maybe I missed something but the character seemed pretty tame in the book too.

What baffles me about this whole Hunger Games phenomenon is that this is a book geared for pre-teens and it is loaded with killing pre-teens. Parents are letting their kids read this?

[Stone]

I disagree with Stone in that I thought that Tucci and Banks also did well, the characters are absurd so that's what they portrayed.

Actually, we agree.

I hadn't realized that Jennifer Lawrence was the girl from Winter's Bone. She's very mopey.

[SLBunge]

What baffles me about this whole Hunger Games phenomenon is that this is a book geared for pre-teens and it is loaded with killing pre-teens. Parents are letting their kids read this?

I haven't seen the movie but parents letting their kids read the book doesn't baffle me at all. Pretty clearly written that the game is brutal and the government is bad. By the time a kid is 11 or 12 they've read a lot of books dealing with good and evil where there is violence (Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc.)

[Daisy]

What baffles me about this whole Hunger Games phenomenon is that this is a book geared for pre-teens and it is loaded with killing pre-teens. Parents are letting their kids read this?

I haven't seen the movie but parents letting their kids read the book doesn't baffle me at all. Pretty clearly written that the game is brutal and the government is bad. By the time a kid is 11 or 12 they've read a lot of books dealing with good and evil where there is violence (Harry Potter, Star Wars, etc.)

Agreed. Children are bloodthirsty creatures and there is a long history of brutality and violence in childrens literature. Treasure Island and some very gory Grimm Brothers stories come to mind.

[yvonne johnson]

Hansel and Gretel! Gee, I could hardly take it at the Met recently. But all the kids were on the edge of their seats with faces of glee.

[SLBunge]

Agreed. Children are bloodthirsty creatures and there is along history of brutality and violence in childrens literature. Treasure Island and some very gory Grimm Brothers stories come to mind.

Yep.

Lord of the Flies. Outsiders.