Disappointment of the year goes to.....

[latro]

.....The Hunger Games.

OK, so to make people aware, I had pretty low expectations of this film going in so it might not sound totally correct for me to say this but bear with me because I cannot remember the last time I felt so colossally let down by a film!

The first two acts of the film are absolutely no-holds barred great. Jennifer Lawrence was fantastic and I was even willing to overlook all the minor flaws (poor cinematography, digital blood removal that looks like it was done in MS Paint and decidedly dodgy costume design) and the fact that the story rips off Battle Royale so much that I can't believe that the author and film makers are still yet to face the business end of a major lawsuit.
I was really, really enjoying myself.

Then the third act happened and without going into spoilers lets just say that some really stupid decisions are made that totally undermine all the character development for Cat over the first two acts and there some really bad editing choices.
Why was this done? Well, in hindsight its obvious - they were more interested in trying to get another Twilight than making a good film right down to the love triangle between three actors with no chemistry who couldn't care less about each other.
Yes perhaps it does follow the story of the books (which I haven't read) but honestly, if the book follows the same path then there must be about a solid two hours of deleted material that desperately needs to be put back in to make this make sense and be a satisfying ending.

Its really a shame that 30-45 minutes at the end of the film took this from a film I would have dragged you to the cinema to see to a film that I suggest you wait till its on TV (as long as theres nothing else on).

Right now I'm thinking that if Avengers, Prometheus, Dark Knight Rises and The Hobbit are all disappointing then it wouldn't be as much of a disappointment as this .

[latro]

I am not alone - http://www.escapistmagazine.com/vide...e-Hunger-Games

[monkeywonder]

I feel like I should be really into this, but I just can't get interested in it at all it's probably because people keep mentioning it in the same breath as Twilight and then comparing it to Battle Royale (which it doesn't really sound that much like from what I've read about it). It seems very consciously teeny though, which isn't a problem I ever had with Battle Royale

[silentNate]

I'll reserve judgement until I see it but I loved the books and it will be difficult for the film to live up to them

[silentNate]

Saw it this evening and really enjoyed it. They've added stuff that wasn't in the book and the way they toned down the violence was, I thought, quite clever. Hated the male lead but thought the girl playing Katnis was just awesome. Roll on the next one

This should be in no way seen as a recommendation btw, I've been a fan of the book for some time and though the book is so much better the film could have been so much worse. The fact that they didn't mess up the main relationship can only be considered a relief

[Jetsam]

I’m really not interested in this movie. I read the entire trilogy and have no desire to see each novel played out on screen as it was bad enough trying to read them in the first place. Clearly this is a franchise based on hype, much like the Twilight saga, and should be approached as such.

My main complaint is that the protagonist – Katniss – is portrayed initially as typically valiant but soon becomes almost entirely anguished to a Shinji Ikari (Evangelion) state of being with contradictions of character in-between. When the time comes when she should be stepping up to overthrow the government that creates such hardships and torment for her people, she’s busy being piteous, withdrawn and mechanical. There’s never a moment in the trilogy where I didn’t think that she wouldn’t have taken the opportunity to go back to how things were in chapter one if someone, anyone, had given her the option, which speaks of someone too gutless to lead a live or die genre.

And it’s important to remember that the live or die setting is a genre. While this story may have connotations to Battle Royale, that story had similar connotations to The Running Man and Lord of the Flies, both of which could be referenced all the way back to the story of Cain of Able and that to, I’m sure, to many stories before.

There are also the questionable characterisations of Peeta and Gale to remark upon, both of whom quickly become unfavourable to the point of failure. It’s worth noting that Peeta never becomes useful in the trilogy: he’s almost dead in the first novel and never reclaims any sense of worth until the epilogue. Gale, meanwhile, proves himself to be naïve and self-absorbed.

As is to be expected, there are several supporting characters that appear infrequently for whatever purpose, Rue would be the main example in the first novel and most of these are brushed past haphazardly. Rue in particular is written to create a sense of sentimentality, solidarity and familiarity during the first games but in the novel she appears and is written out within about two short chapters (generalising, but you get the point). She’s a strong character (or at least appears to be) but is never given enough time or opportunity to prove her worth so all reminiscences about her from Katniss fall flat and only create plot progression rather than generate an actual emotive response.

As the movie goes, it looks solid from the trailers. I expect the novel’s been streamlined and the more important areas have been emphasized for the script and I’m sure it benefits from being separated from Katniss’s constant thoughts, but I still can’t find the will to care. Maybe it’s because I know where it’s headed. Jennifer Lawrence as the lead is a fine choice but I can’t say anything more about her. Besides seeing her in X-Men First Class, I don’t believe I’ve seen her in anything else and can only comment that she blended in suitably. If there’s anything special about her then it’s so far lost on me.

The guy who plays Peeta looks suitably bland. I’m not sure if that’s a compliment.

[Matt Kamen]

I saw it last night, and having never read the novels I have mixed feelings. Overall, I was entertained, but left with far too many questions. Was the forest entirely artificial? Why did CGI dog monsters suddenly get introduced? Why did Katniss never address Peeta's betrayal and siding with Kato? If it was all a survival ploy on his part, why didn't he ever make that clear when reconciling? Why does the future look like it's the aftermath of a Jean Paul Gaultier armageddon?

Interesting moments but not exactly entering the annals of favourite movies I've ever seen.

[silentNate]

Originally Posted by Matt Kamen

I saw it last night, and having never read the novels I have mixed feelings. Overall, I was entertained, but left with far too many questions. Was the forest entirely artificial? Why did CGI dog monsters suddenly get introduced? Why did Katniss never address Peeta's betrayal and siding with Kato? If it was all a survival ploy on his part, why didn't he ever make that clear when reconciling? Why does the future look like it's the aftermath of a Jean Paul Gaultier armageddon?

This is explained a lot clearer in the book where his leg injury is a lot worse and doesn't suddenly 'get better'

In the book he is whisked off in an ambulance for emergency surgery while Katnis meets with her advisers

Originally Posted by Jetsam

And it’s important to remember that the live or die setting is a genre. While this story may have connotations to Battle Royale, that story had similar connotations to The Running Man and Lord of the Flies, both of which could be referenced all the way back to the story of Cain of Able and that to, I’m sure, to many stories before.

When I first saw Battle Royale I thought it was a rip-off from Strontium Dog's The Killing comic strip

[Banahesu]

Not seen it yet, but I did see a picture on Facebook that had John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson from Pulp fiction in a car, and the caption read:

"Do you know what they call The Hunger Games in France?" "A Battle Royal with cheese.."

I Lol'd

[silentNate]

Originally Posted by Banahesu

Not seen it yet, but I did see a picture on Facebook that had John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson from Pulp fiction in a car, and the caption read:

"Do you know what they call The Hunger Games in France?" "A Battle Royal with cheese.."

I Lol'd

I also lol'ed

[Scorpion03]

Just thought id add Haikasoru's opinion on this whole comparison between Battle Royale and The Hunger Games

I can think of no better promotion for Battle Royale than the success of The Hunger Games. (Well, except for an American remake of the film, but such a remake could also just end up being awful…)
On the question of the link between Battle Royale and The Hunger Games, author Suzanne Collins says she was unfamiliar with the former when writing the latter. Of course there is absolutely no reason to doubt her, but Collins was working in television around the time of the initial Battle Royale controversies—the media trade followed that story pretty closely. It’s certainly easy enough to have heard of something, then forget about it, only to have it emerge in one’s mind a few years later as a “new” idea. But again, there’s no evidence of even that. (How could there be?)

http://www.haikasoru.com/battle-roya...-hunger-games/

Not that theyre gunna complain its good business... Plus on a random note it will certainly help the official release of Battle Royale on US Blu-Ray

Now all they need to do is release bloody Battle Royale on the kindle... Really dont want a paper copy ive got enough books i havent got space for.

[Psychojon]

While I've tried my best to overlook the obvious similarities to the likes of Battle Royale and Series 7: The Contenders (etc) I can't help but feel like I've seen this story already before only done much better (albiet with a lower budget).

Maybe it's the fact it's a 12a/PG-13. Maybe it's the fact that there was a lot of oppotunity for some challenging satire and social commentary. Maybe it's the complete lack of character personality outside of Woody Harolson (mostly playing himself) and the central Mary Sue. Maybe it's because they relied too heavily on tired cut & paster cliché nicked soulessly from a myriad of other dystopian nightmare films for all their imagery. Maybe it's for the complete cop-out of an ending.

I've heard that this is based on a series of books from around 2005 and that this is the first of a trilogy. I'm not interested in following this franchise up right now.

[silentNate]

I'm reading the second book of the trilogy now and loving it more than the first

[Dark Hearted Disco Queen]

I quite liked the film and thought it was a good adaptation - it really benefits from not having to be in first person so they get to show the stuff which Katniss only hears about later.

I think people need to remember that this book series is primarily aimed at 15 year old girls, and yes the love triangle is a huge element - I think there is a whole paragraph of Katniss looking at Peeta's eyelashes, for example She seems to spend a lot of her time fussing about feeling guilty when she is with Peeta, and guilty when she is with Gale. This is where the Twilight comparisons come in. I dislike that side of it and wish they weren't in the novels, and hope they will be toned down in the next films.

I don't think the Battle Royale comparisons are fair - there are so many deathmatch films / books, everything from Lord of the Flies to Year of the Sex Olympics to Bloodlust etc etc. The deathmatch is really the only similarity to them, which is what, half of the first book and the final third of the second book? The main story is what is happening around the Hunger Games - the reaping, the training, prep time, the rebellion, the life of a victor after the games etc, these are where it is more interesting than just a deathmatch.

[silentNate]

That's the second time someone has failed to use the spoiler tags, annoying as I'm only halfway through book two