[Courtjezter]

Originally Posted by David DG

I've got an idea for a new thread. Someone comes up with two random films then your have to pointlessly identify similarities between the them. You could call it Todd Tomorrows Tenuous Link.

To be fair I made the link. And it was to the fact that Pooch said that Battle Royale was the first book/film that had kids killing each other. I then pointed him at Lord of the Flies which is one the first novels to have this kind of scenario. Which really isn't tenuous at all.

[Courtjezter]

Still showing 100% fresh on rotten tomatoes. And I am just watching Winters Bone, it seems like Jennifer Lawrence has already played Katniss, in all but name at least.

[David 8]

Originally Posted by Courtjezter

To be fair I made the link. And it was to the fact that Pooch said that Battle Royale was the first book/film that had kids killing each other. I then pointed him at Lord of the Flies which is one the first novels to have this kind of scenario. Which really isn't tenuous at all.

kids arn't killing each other in LOTF, only one dies and its sort of an accident as the bolder falls on him. the only similarities with BR are that there's an island with kids on it, so you just as easily make comparisons to Peter Pan.

Originally Posted by Courtjezter

Still showing 100% fresh on rotten tomatoes. And I am just watching Winters Bone, it seems like Jennifer Lawrence has already played Katniss, in all but name at least.

Does that mean she'll be moping about with a vacant expression on her face the whole time?

[KiLLiNG-TiME]

Originally Posted by Courtjezter

And I am just watching Winters Bone, it seems like Jennifer Lawrence has already played Katniss, in all but name at least.

A very good film Winters Bone

[bosque]

Originally Posted by David DG

kids arn't killing each other in LOTF, only one dies and its sort of an accident as the bolder falls on him. the only similarities with BR are that there's an island with kids on it, so you just as easily make comparisons to Peter Pan.

In the versions I've read and seen, Simon is attacked and killed (probably ripped to pieces) after being set upon by Jack's gang, so the Peter Pan reference looks a bit odd.

[David 8]

Originally Posted by bosque

In the versions I've read and seen, Simon is attacked and killed (probably ripped to pieces) after being set upon by Jack's gang, so the Peter Pan reference looks a bit odd.

My bad, I was just thinking of Piggy. It's been about 20 years since I read the book and saw the B/W film.

[richardb70]

Still tracking very nicely over at RT, 90% currently. Pretty stoked for this - and the sequel which should be even better!

[TheyCallMeTJ]

I had initially put in spoilers about Lotf in a previous post over who dies in the book. Why are we openly spoiling for those who havent read Lotf who dies? Anyway, I havent read the book since I was a teenager but there are moments that I just cant forget, I distinctly remembered and being shocked at Piggy and Simon being murdered! Never seen any of the films adaptations though.

Going to see THG tonight, look forward to it, havent read the books but if I like the film I might well do.

[Solomon Grundy]

Reading the book at the moment...it is very good!

[Purperen]

Originally Posted by Decadence

Reading the book at the moment...it is very good!

Me too! I've got to where the games have just started, very tense.

[Courtjezter]

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeTJ

I had initially put in spoilers about Lotf in a previous post over who dies in the book. Why are we openly spoiling for those who havent read Lotf who dies? Anyway, I havent read the book since I was a teenager but there are moments that I just cant forget, I distinctly remembered and being shocked at Piggy and Simon being murdered! Never seen any of the films adaptations though.

Going to see THG tonight, look forward to it, havent read the books but if I like the film I might well do.

I generally like to read the books first, myself. The book is worth it and it rips along at a good pace. Hope you enjoy the film. I am sure you will let us know either way.

[David 8]

Originally Posted by Purperen

Me too! I've got to where the games have just started, very tense.

I downloaded the book and trying to get it read before the weekend. I'm at about the same place. It's very easy to read, I can see why it's popular.

[Purperen]

Originally Posted by David DG

It's very easy to read, I can see why it's popular.

Yeah, no flowery prose just a pretty straight description of what's happening. I've found the world that Suzanne Collins has created quite believable so far.

[tonyk79]

Just back from watching this and I was quite impressed. I have read the first two books and the film follows the first very closely with obvious cuts for running time and pacing. I like Jennifer Lawrence and she does a good job recreating Katniss and I hope this gets the full trilogy treatment. It's nice to have something different to the recent slew of remakes and reboots. I only have one criticism and that was the 12a rating, I felt if it had of been a 15 it would have been able to show a bit more brutality to really hammer home the point of how harsh these games are. Solid 8/10 for me.

[raigraphixs]

Look forward to seeing this maybe next week


Empire Review
*****

Verdict

As thrilling and smart as it is terrifying. There have been a number of big-gun literary series brought to screen over the past decade. This slays them all.

others

- The Hunger Games - Rotten Tomatoes

[TheyCallMeTJ]

A bit tired again to write much after a double bill of films this evening (I had watched a preview screening of Act of Valour first then a late show of this film).

I haven't read the books but I know the synopsis is similar to Battle Royale which I had seen twice, first time was on its limited release in the cinemas over a decade ago, in which I literally stumbled out of the cinema after watching it. It was shocking, gory, hard core and ultimately brilliant. I never expect Hunger Games to be anything on that level so I did go into this not expecting too much despite the incredible hype its getting. Good thing too because I actually didnt get that much.

The positives first though...and there are plenty. Ok I lied about not getting much, it just kinda flowed to say it from my previous sentence! The build up to the games was brilliantly done with a wonderfully engaging exposition. So my anticipation from the film's first half was rocketing. This was promising to be a great film. Jennifer Lawrence carries this movie superbly as the main protagonist who is the only volunteer in order to save and replace her little sister who was initially drawn to enter the child killing games. Her transitioning motives and adapting to circumstance was lovely to watch.

Unfortunately, the second half of the movie was somewhat underwhelming. Some of the action scenes was the worst executed I have seen for a long while, it was an absolute mess of shaky cam, fast cut blur editing. Worse, our protagonist literally proclaims that the finale has come, so naturally expectations rise again, only to be completely dissipated by a finale that is so ordinary and visually incomprehensible. Then the end of the movie comes and I just couldnt help feeling terribly unsatisfied. The story is also incomplete but I wont be too harsh on that as this is intended to be a multiple film story arc. Its just the finale comes so sudden without any tension for it and worst of all, its not clear what the actual state of play is, until it was over. However, my emotional investment in the leading protagonist never wavers, so thank god for Jennifer Larence performance.

I know I seem to be emphasising more on the negatives but I did enjoy what there was to enjoy, the production, the well acted drama between the main unfortunate youngsters, Woody Harrelson and Donald Sutherland briefly giving some scenes much needed gravitas, Woody in particular nearly stealing the show.

I wonder to myself if I was subconsciously expecting Battle Royale hence my disappointment in the action? I'll go watch this again because sometimes, expectations can cloud my enjoyment on a first viewing. But I did actually enjoy this enough to want to read the books before the sequels appear.



7/10

PS I do not think there is any plagiarism of Battle Royale going on here, its sufficiently different enough. Sure there maybe some inspiration but the author denies knowing about Battle Royale which I can accept as a possibility.

[Purperen]

With it being unclear how much of the film Lionsgate cut and altered, as well as the cuts and alterations that the bbfc then imposed, do you think that the action scenes may have been somewhat truncated and had their impact lessened?
The book isn't explicit in its violence but it is still showing children stabbing, cutting and beating other children to death.
It would be good to hear the opinion of somebody who has seen the uncut US version of the film to get an idea.

[Lancia34]

Originally Posted by TheyCallMeTJ

I wonder to myself if I was subconsciously expecting Battle Royale hence my disappointment in the action? I'll go watch this again because sometimes, expectations can cloud my enjoyment on a first viewing. But I did actually enjoy this enough to want to read the books before the sequels appear.



7/10

PS I do not think there is any plagiarism of Battle Royale going on here, its sufficiently different enough. Sure there maybe some inspiration but the author denies knowing about Battle Royale which I can accept as a possibility.

Thanks for the great review

I'm planning on seeing this tomorrow night and quite looking forward to it. Never read the books and only heard of it about 6 months ago when the hype started.

I too am a massive Battle Royale fan, think it's one of the best Japanese films ever and can never get enough of watching it, so I'm a little sceptical as I am kind of thinking it's going to be similar but know it's not. I just need to remind myself that it's more of a teenagers film and not an adult film.

[barnaby jones]

Unfortunately, the second half of the movie was somewhat underwhelming. Some of the action scenes was the worst executed I have seen for a long while, it was an absolute mess of shaky cam, fast cut blur editing.

Now that is a real worry (particularly if this makes all sorts of crazy money as expected) as i thought the whole 'shaky cam' fad had passed.

[Solomon Grundy]

Probably did it in order to make it appear more violent than the certificate it has been given. If you can't "see" the kids killing one another but there they are, dead, at the end of a load of shaking flashy stuff it's okay to watch it if you're 12 years old, I guess.

[TheyCallMeTJ]

Originally Posted by Decadence

Probably did it in order to make it appear more violent than the certificate it has been given. If you can't "see" the kids killing one another but there they are, dead, at the end of a load of shaking flashy stuff it's okay to watch it if you're 12 years old, I guess.

I think you might be right there in why they used the shaky cam effect. Its a good theory I would along with. But this is definitely a case of a films quality and impact, seriously compromised for the sake of getting a wider audience. Its a real shame because this film has a superbly crafted platform for some good action set pieces, that just got ruined by some confusing editing.

Originally Posted by Lancia34

I too am a massive Battle Royale fan, think it's one of the best Japanese films ever and can never get enough of watching it, so I'm a little sceptical as I am kind of thinking it's going to be similar but know it's not. I just need to remind myself that it's more of a teenagers film and not an adult film.

Yeah BR was superb in all areas including packing an emotional punch too.

But definitely wipe it from your mind when seeing THG! Its still a must see movie as its a refreshing offering from the Hollywood stable at least

[Todd Tomorrow]

I thought Battle Royale was quite amusing for some black comedy moments, but I never thought it was that great a film. The characters and world were thinly sketched and I never quite bought the reasons for the battle apart from setting up some mildly transgressive carnage.

[richardb70]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I thought Battle Royale was quite amusing for some black comedy moments, but I never thought it was that great a film. The characters and world were thinly sketched and I never quite bought the reasons for the battle apart from setting up some mildly transgressive carnage.

Been a long time since I've seen BR, but doesn't it have a completely surreal moment involving the teacher and a telephone call near the end?

[Todd Tomorrow]

I borrowed a friend's 15 year old and we went to see The Hunger Games today. I thought it was watchable, but no great shakes. The boy, who had read the books, liked it. I didn't like the art direction for the futuristic world, which was loads of scifi cliches we've seen many times before. The dystopian reality TV satire felt obvious and stale. It gets better in the second half when the games get underway, but its still not that great. As a film it's rather bland and as people keep bringing up other kids literary franchises, it's nowhere in the same class as the better Harry Potter films (though almost anything is better than Twilight). That said, I wasn't bored and the film keeps moving along at 2.5 hours. Jennifer Lawrence holds the film together and makes a likeable heroine in a role that is not too dissimilar from the one she played in the excellent indie thriller Winter's Bone.

[Lancia34]

I saw this on Saturday and thought it was pretty good.
Unlike Todd Tomorrow I quite liked the take on the futuristic world :0 Yes, it was very cliché but it had that kind of 70's Sci-Fi feel to it which I think was well done.
However I did think the second half, the actual "Hunger Games" was a bit of a let down - wasn't particularly exciting or dramatic and I actually found it a bit boring, whereas the build up I though was done pretty well. I know nothing of the book but presume they must have cut a fair amount out of it.
Btw - that shaky cam is ridiculous - the director should be shot for using that technique throughout the entire film, almost gave me a headache!

Overall though I did enjoy it and would recommend it as a watch but not a must see. I easily think Battle Royale is a much better movie, though you can't compare them exactly like for like

Oh and luckily it wasn't too teenagery, except towards the end. Have only seen Twilight and regret that massively and haven't seen any Potter films so can't compare.

[David 8]

I saw this last night and thought it was great and also faithful to the book which I only just finished the night before so it was all still fresh in my head. Jennifer Lawrence was very good and near perfect as Katniss with perhaps the minor complaint that she looks a bit too old for the part. Woody Harrelson was also good casting as Haymitch but unfortunately they missed out a couple of drunken comedy moments (probably due to running time) which would have made his character much better. I enjoyed the lead up to the games and they got in most of the detail with her being prepped and interviewed etc. The Capitol wasn’t as visually impressive as I would have hoped for though.

The main gripe I have with the film, and I hate to say this because I know it’s a popular criticsm that get’s a bit boring after a while…but the fricken’ camera work in this film is awful! It’s mostly handleld and always moving, twitching, jiggling about, not just during the action sequences but also during quiet intimate scenes. There’s a time and a place for the technique and it needs to be done with restraint, here though it felt inappropriate and I was aware of it the whole time which was distracting. The handheld stuff should have been confined to the actual games but everything beforehand should have been filmed ‘properly’, and not hugging peoples facing all the time.

With regards to level of gore there are a few moments when I felt it should have been upped a notch. I’m surprised how little they can show in a 12A, I’m pretty sure I could handle a lot more than this when I was 12. The book actually has little violence and most of the killings occur ‘off-page’ however there are a few examples that I’ve spoiler tagged below which I think would have added to the sense of immediate danger and brutality of the games…

 

When Katniss is running away from the flames she get’s burned badly. This is supposed to be a really serious burn causing her to barely walk and which makes her queasy at the sight of it, however because of the films rating we get a small red patch barely visible through a hole in her trousers.

The Tracker Jacker bees are supposed to cause huge swellings filled with green puss. OK they briefly showed the badly disfigured girl who died, but there could have been a great ‘ewww that’s gross moment’ with Katniss squeezing the green puss from her wounds.

When Katniss finds Peeta injured we yet again get the peeky-wound-through-hole-in-trousers shot. This is pathetic because he’s supposed to be dying from these wounds but by not showing the severity we lose that sense of peril.

At the feast, Katniss gets pined down by another tribute and is about to get finished off but is saved. Thresh is suppose to cave the tribute’s skull in with a rock. OK this would have been a bit too much for the rating but the way they did it was laughable, he just shakes her a bit and pushes her against a wall and she’s dead. Surely they could have gone with him swinging a rock and then cutting away at the last moment?

The final showdown with Cato getting mauled to death by the dogs was slow and painful in the book but they ended it quickly in the film. I don’t really have any issue with this and think they made the right choice to get it over with. The dogs should have been much, much scarier though.

OK so that's quite a few criticisms but with the exception of the camera work they’re all very minor so I guess I’m just nitpicking. Overall if you liked the book then I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

Originally Posted by Lancia34

it had that kind of 70's Sci-Fi feel to it which I think was well done.

Yes I got that vibe too with all the naff costumes, I really liked it

[Courtjezter]

The book, i am not sure of the film, paints a future where the Capital is populated by people who, to me anyway, seem to be a cross between the residents of LA in Escape from LA and Joel Schumachers strange dayglo infused mind. I think the Capital is meant to represent imperialistic Rome, re-imagined in an unspecified future time. And all of the sub-districts are just there to service the needs of the capital. I am not sure if this is how it comes across in the film.

[Todd Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by Courtjezter

The book, i am not sure of the film, paints a future where the Capital is populated by people who, to me anyway, seem to be a cross between the residents of LA in Escape from LA and Joel Schumachers strange dayglo infused mind. I think the Capital is meant to represent imperialistic Rome, re-imagined in an unspecified future time. And all of the sub-districts are just there to service the needs of the capital. I am not sure if this is how it comes across in the film.

I agree, it's very Joel Schumacher and that's never a good thing.

This is one of those films where there was no real artisitic vision behind the art direction. It all felt cobbled together from earlier films and it was all too on the nose and carelessly executed. Ancient Rome meets 18th century and 80s New Romantic. Someone like Terry Gilliam can come up with something like it and its visually interesting and well executed. In this the sets and costumes were just dull and cheap looking.

[Lancia34]

Originally Posted by Todd Tomorrow

I agree, it's very Joel Schumacher and that's never a good thing.

This is one of those films where there was no real artisitic vision behind the art direction. It all felt cobbled together from earlier films and it was all too on the nose and carelessly executed. Ancient Rome meets 18th century and 80s New Romantic. Someone like Terry Gilliam can come up with something like it and its visually interesting and well executed. In this the sets and costumes were just dull and cheap looking.

I actually quite liked the way it looked a bit cheap and garish. As the whole concept of the film is ridiculous it makes sense to me that the world created would be as equally ridiculous

How did the style come across in the book then?

[Courtjezter]

Originally Posted by Lancia34

How did the style come across in the book then?

Read my post that Todd was commenting on