The Official What was the last movie you saw??

"muscle979 wrote:

Books are always better. I only read the first book of Hunger Games but I would agree it's definitely not on par with Harry Potter. For one I'm not in love with the first person POV the story is told from. The characters are also not done quite as well. But it's still pretty good. I probably won't see the movie until it goes to video.

I was looking forward to the movie b/c I wanted to see how they would would visually interpret some of the things that I had imagined. The problem with the movie was that much of book was about her internal monologue. She was very much the stoic character the actress portrayed on the outside, but you knew what she was thinking. If the actress had been more emotive to let you know what she was thinking then she wouldn't have been true to the character as the other characters saw her. Short of constant voice over or narrative I didn't see a way around that.

"Firesole wrote:

I thought Hunger Games was the biggest pile of **** I've seen in quite some time.

It annoyed me that a supposed great hunter with a bow wouldn't take the opportunity to shoot the others from a distance while in cover. Any bad ass hunter/tracker with a bow could have ended that game in 1 day, especially when half of the kids stayed together and made tons of noise.

I won't be going back to watch the sequels

In the book you got a clearer picture that it wouldn't have been that easy. I did think she could have done that over several days, but the game maker kept messing with the participants to keep things even and moves things along and there were characters who stayed hidden and weren't in the open. I did think that taking out the leader would have been possible. But you got the impression that if she took out the main guy that she wouldn't have been able to escape all the others in the subsequent chase since she wasn't faster or better at hiding. Her range or head start would be a limited advantage since there were others with ranged weapons (knives, spears, trident) that would put her in danger once her shot revealed her. I think my plan would have been to set multiple traps along a planned route, take out the main threat and then run along that route (avoiding my traps) and hoping the traps took out a few others. Once a few were taken out the remaining, hopefully weaker opponents would have disbanded. I will see the sequels, but for me it was more about the coming rebellion vs. the entrenched govt. than it was about the main character or the love triangle.

"rafael wrote:

I thought Hunger Games was very good but not great. Actually, I would say the same about the books, although I enjoyed the books a little more. I put both the books and the movie below the Harry Potter series, which I felt were excellent.

This is about where I am at with this series. My wife read the book series, really liked it, and then bought me the first installment to read. It's certainly a compelling, albeit somewhat easy and predictable read ... I can certainly understand why they felt the need to turn it into a film series. For me, the novels have a cool concept but just didn't go far enough. I felt like the characters came across as a little flat and that there was a lot going on that didn't get explored. That may have been a creative choice by the author but I thought it was a misstep.

We finally got a chance to see the movie yesterday, and I came away feeling it was slightly above average. I feel like there were things in the book that were missed (that's always the case in film adaptations), but restructures and changes to tone that didn't really capture what I read in the novel. If anyone wants more information on what I'm alluding to let me know and I'll add further thoughts.

Those of you on the fence about this movie be warned; this is a chick flick / love triangle masquerading as an action flick. If you go in expecting a lot of violence and cool action sequences, prepare to be let down a bit. The director instead chooses to use a lot of quick cuts, shaky cam, and zooms to capture the action. It's sort of messy and I didn't really care for it. That may have been a creative choice by the director, but I thought it was a misstep.

If you've never read the books some of the dialogue won't make a lot of sense. I'm hoping that the studio goes for a LOTR-style Extended edition. The Hunger Games already clocks in at a lengthy 2 hours and 22 minutes but I felt like they could have easily added 45 minutes to it to help suss out some of the lost details. I felt like the film was in a hurry to pack everything in as quickly as possible - leaving us unable to really catch up or become emotionally invested in what was happening onscreen.

"rafael wrote:

I was looking forward to the movie b/c I wanted to see how they would would visually interpret some of the things that I had imagined. The problem with the movie was that much of book was about her internal monologue. She was very much the stoic character the actress portrayed on the outside, but you knew what she was thinking. If the actress had been more emotive to let you know what she was thinking then she wouldn't have been true to the character as the other characters saw her. Short of constant voice over or narrative I didn't see a way around that.

I too was wondering this as the book is not so much a novel on the state of the world, but almost a character study on Katniss Everdean.

This film wouldn't have worked with a constant voice over. I like how they used the commentators and control room to help explain what was going on, though obviously you lose the "are they really messing with her or is it in her head" vibe that you get reading the novel. It was a clever editing choice and one that worked, though obviously it wasn't perfect.

The thing I dislike about books to movies is that people do not understand that everything from the book cannot be included.

The attention to detail stuff is difficult to do with certain movies because there simply is not enough time.

Wife took me to Hunger Games and I didn't like it. I didn't read the books and based on the movie itself it was a very forgetful one. As a movie, there were themes that they could have delved into such as morality and the human condition but it didn't. It lacked substance, it was shallow, it was a superficial look at survival and a teenage love story. It targeted the Twilight demographic.

The characters had no depth. Either that or the actors failed. In the end I really didn't care what happened to the characters. The concept was interesting but it didn't go antwhere for me. It could have had a lot of potential if the characters were developed better and the story had some thought provoking issues.

The fight scenes weren't fight scenes. The action was mainly off screen or using too much close up. Poor editing or directing. The movie's violence was too toned down for me just to get a PG rating. Tarantino would have aced this movie! LOL

I like how this has turned into a Hunger Games thread. I haven't seen the movie yet, and I don't know if I will now after reading some of the comments. However I read the first two and enjoyed them so much that I put off the final book to read a Stephen King novel. I agree with a lot of you guys that the characters weren't developed enough, and a lot of the complaints I feel are due to the fact that this was aimed at the teen demographic. While it's not my cup of tea, I do have to give the books credit that it has caused kids to put down the remote and read a book. However why is it that teen novels feel the desire to create a Team Edward/Team Jacob love triangle? It's annoying and insulting.

"finsincebirth wrote:

I like how this has turned into a Hunger Games thread. I haven't seen the movie yet, and I don't know if I will now after reading some of the comments. However I read the first two and enjoyed them so much that I put off the final book to read a Stephen King novel. I agree with a lot of you guys that the characters weren't developed enough, and a lot of the complaints I feel are due to the fact that this was aimed at the teen demographic. While it's not my cup of tea, I do have to give the books credit that it has caused kids to put down the remote and read a book. However why is it that teen novels feel the desire to create a Team Edward/Team Jacob love triangle? It's annoying and insulting.

I wouldn't call it surprising that there is discussion about the current #1 movie in a movie thread. As for the team edward/team jacob thing, my buddy and I were discussing this the other day. We came to the conclusion/realization that having to choose between two guys is a predominant female fantasy. Being desired/loved by two attractive males and the angst about who to choose and not wanting to hurt the feelings of the one you don't choose seems to be the most fertile field of discussion for many women.

I saw Huger Games. I thought it was a fine movie. I think they could have done more to care about the kids, however I was entertained.

I have to say it was 100% better than the first Harry Potter movie which still think is a terrible movie. As someone who didn't read either book I think Hunger Games did a better job of telling an interesting story.

"finsincebirth wrote:

I like how this has turned into a Hunger Games thread. I haven't seen the movie yet, and I don't know if I will now after reading some of the comments. However I read the first two and enjoyed them so much that I put off the final book to read a Stephen King novel. I agree with a lot of you guys that the characters weren't developed enough, and a lot of the complaints I feel are due to the fact that this was aimed at the teen demographic. While it's not my cup of tea, I do have to give the books credit that it has caused kids to put down the remote and read a book. However why is it that teen novels feel the desire to create a Team Edward/Team Jacob love triangle? It's annoying and insulting.

One thing I enjoy about the love triangle in the Hunger Games is that it made sense with the situation. She had a boyfriend at home, however due to the situation for her survival she had to create a love story to get sponsors. However anytime you go through something like that with someone you will create a bond. Plus the fact that the girl is kind of a bad a** where I can see guys being interested in her and not some stupid girl who just makes stupid faces.

"rafael wrote:

I wouldn't call it surprising that there is discussion about the current #1 movie in a movie thread. As for the team edward/team jacob thing, my buddy and I were discussing this the other day. We came to the conclusion/realization that having to choose between two guys is a predominant female fantasy. Being desired/loved by two attractive males and the angst about who to choose and not wanting to hurt the feelings of the one you don't choose seems to be the most fertile field of discussion for many women.

Which is sad lol but true.

They use that kind of blueprint for so much garbage these days it's insane.

"rafael wrote:

I wouldn't call it surprising that there is discussion about the current #1 movie in a movie thread. As for the team edward/team jacob thing, my buddy and I were discussing this the other day. We came to the conclusion/realization that having to choose between two guys is a predominant female fantasy. Being desired/loved by two attractive males and the angst about who to choose and not wanting to hurt the feelings of the one you don't choose seems to be the most fertile field of discussion for many women.

According to my wife who loves the Hunger Games books (and gave the movie a 9/10) but hates Twilight, there is no real love triangle in HG. The chick loves the her guy and pretends to love the other guy from the games because that is what kept them alive. So its not a triangle at all really. Plus for awhile they are never sure the guy from the games loves her either, for awhile anyway. She says a lot of that was lost in the movie.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

I saw Huger Games. I thought it was a fine movie. I think they could have done more to care about the kids, however I was entertained. I have to say it was 100% better than the first Harry Potter movie which still think is a terrible movie. As someone who didn't read either book I think Hunger Games did a better job of telling an interesting story.

Oh hell naw.

"BlameItOnTheHenne wrote:

Oh hell naw.

Watch the first Harry Potter movie and take off your fan glasses. It was like watching kids go to school. School is boring.

"slickj101 wrote:

It's the lack of attention to detail or continuity right there that makes movies like this one fall flat on their face for a male audience.

Obv most women don't care about things like that, but as a man it's impossible to take something serious after a serious misstep like that.

Really? I thought it was because she didn't really want to kill anyone.

Which was shown when she first when to hit the target and couldn't hit it at first because it was shaped as a human. Plus the first person she actually directly killed was only because Rue was in danger.

"Finascious D wrote:

According to my wife who loves the Hunger Games books (and gave the movie a 9/10) but hates Twilight, there is no real love triangle in HG. The chick loves the her guy and pretends to love the other guy from the games because that is what kept them alive. So its not a triangle at all really. Plus for awhile they are never sure the guy from the games loves her either, for awhile anyway. She says a lot of that was lost in the movie.

My impression from the books was different. I think there was a love triangle in the books, but her feelings went through the ups and downs that most teenagers go through. Add in the extraordinary circumstances you face in the story that most teenagers don't face and you have more extreme ups and downs. Also she was a girl who was pretty closed off from her feeling naturally. She was not a girl who dreamed of falling in love and having kids. So while she was pretending at times, I thought it was also clear that there were times that she loved Peeta. In fact, one of my female friends, main complaint about the books was that she felt it was too much about the love triangle. So I disagree that there was not a love triangle, but I do agree that a lot of that was lost in the movie.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

Really? I thought it was because she didn't really want to kill anyone.

Which was shown when she first when to hit the target and couldn't hit it at first because it was shaped as a human. Plus the first person she actually directly killed was only because Rue was in danger.

Which still makes no sense, imo.

Honestly man I really disliked the movie as a whole so I'm sure I'm being at least a little overly-critical.

"slickj101 wrote:

Which still makes no sense, imo.

Honestly man I really disliked the movie as a whole so I'm sure I'm being at least a little overly-critical.

How does that not make sense? It is actually known that most soldiers in war do not want to kill people when they first go to battle. It perfectly fits in when you consider human nature.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

How does that not make sense? It is actually known that most soldiers in war do not want to kill people when they first go to battle. It perfectly fits in when you consider human nature.

Not really. Survival is the most basic goal for most humans.

If you accept that if you don't kill your enemy, they'll kill you, then that's all there is to it.

"slickj101 wrote:

Not really. Survival is the most basic goal for most humans.

If you accept that if you don't kill your enemy, they'll kill you, then that's all there is to it.

http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm
Here is an article on the psycology of killing.

Here is a quote.

A look at history might help illustrate what I am talking about. In World War Two, it is a fact that only 15-20 percent of the soldiers fired at the enemy. That is one in five soldiers actually shooting at a Nazi when he sees one. While this rate may have increased in desperate situations, in most combat situations soldiers were reluctant to kill each other. The Civil War was not dramatically different or any previous wars.

It is not part of human nature to kill humans. Even if it is survival. The problem of humans not really want to kill other humans is something the military puts a lot of work on due to the fact their job when going to war is killing humans.

"slickj101 wrote:

Not really. Survival is the most basic goal for most humans.

If you accept that if you don't kill your enemy, they'll kill you, then that's all there is to it.

Most people take time to accept that.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

http://www.military-sf.com/Killing.htm
Here is an article on the psycology of killing.

Here is a quote.

It is not part of human nature to kill humans. Even if it is survival. The problem of humans not really want to kill other humans is something the military puts a lot of work on due to the fact their job when going to war is killing humans.

Completely disagree. And it's certainly not a topic that you can point to one article and say oh ok it's a fact now.

I did find this funny though:

While this rate may have increased in desperate situations

lol Really? You're in a war, in close enough proximity to see the enemy, and that's not already a desperate situation?

I just can't agree with aaaany of that.

The whole idea that it's not in our nature to kill other humans is completely ridiculous to me. I'd say it's a lot harder to kill people up close and personal with a knife as opposed to pushing a button to launch a missile from a thousand miles away, sure. But make no mistake humans kill each other for awful reasons all the time.

"rafael wrote:

Most people take time to accept that.

I can see if it's a reaction in a situation you probably wouldn't be expecting, like being mugged or something.

But if it's a scenario where you know you're going in to war, it has to be part of the mental preparation.

"slickj101 wrote:

Completely disagree. And it's certainly not a topic that you can point to one article and say oh ok it's a fact now.

I did find this funny though: lol Really? You're in a war, in close enough proximity to see the enemy, and that's not already a desperate situation?

I just can't agree with aaaany of that.

The whole idea that it's not in our nature to kill other humans is completely ridiculous to me. I'd say it's a lot harder to kill people up close and personal with a knife as opposed to pushing a button to launch a missile from a thousand miles away, sure. But make no mistake humans kill each other for awful reasons all the time.

That is because there are 5 billion people. OF course there are exceptions to the rule, even the study has 20% of people willing to kill. If 20% of the people are fine with killing then that would mean that 80%.

I just found one article. I have read a few studies that show it is hard for the average person to kill people. The human condition is an interest of mine. I am not talking about psychopaths or sociopaths, I am talking about average human beings who do not live a life where killing people is normal.

People who grow up in situations where killing peoiple isn't normal, generally do not want to kill people. The average person would take longer than a day to become a cold bloody killer in the hunger games.

"Dol-Fan Dupree wrote:

One thing I enjoy about the love triangle in the Hunger Games is that it made sense with the situation. She had a boyfriend at home, however due to the situation for her survival she had to create a love story to get sponsors. However anytime you go through something like that with someone you will create a bond. Plus the fact that the girl is kind of a bad a** where I can see guys being interested in her and not some stupid girl who just makes stupid faces.

Except in the books, especially the first one Gale isn't her boyfriend at home. In fact she makes a point of mentioning that she she's Gale as a brother. Also in the novels she states how she never wants to get married or have kids, because she doesn't want them to have to participate in the Hunger Games.

"Finascious D wrote:

According to my wife who loves the Hunger Games books (and gave the movie a 9/10) but hates Twilight, there is no real love triangle in HG. The chick loves the her guy and pretends to love the other guy from the games because that is what kept them alive. So its not a triangle at all really. Plus for awhile they are never sure the guy from the games loves her either, for awhile anyway. She says a lot of that was lost in the movie.

No offense to your wife Fin D, but her reading comprehension is a bit lacking. Like I said above she initially regards Gale as like a brother, plus she has no desire to get married. Then in the Thunderdome errr the Hunger Games she does indeed pretend to love Peeta for their survival. All the while thinking about how it's affecting Gale, because she does realize his true feelings. However she also believes Peeta is faking it too, until the end of the first book when she finds out Peeta really loves her. However there is a scene when they are huddled in the cave after she finds him and they are kissing for the cameras and she mentions she feels some deep down stirring she never felt. Then in the second book she kisses Gale and almost decides that she love him, but later kisses Peeta and almost gets Frisky and again references that deep down stirring emotion she originally felt in the cave. The whole time she always feels bad about the other person's feelings. If that isn't a love triangle I don't know what is. I haven't finished the third book (I almost have no desire to) but seriously Gale is like Edward and Peeta is like Jacob.