Video Game Forums

Though this movie seems like it's being hotly anticipated by fans of the book, news on the film has been oddly quiet, as Lionsgate has been trying to keep everything about the film tightly under wraps. Fans of the book will probably be pleased to know that author Susan Collins has given the film a thumbs up.

I haven't read the book itself yet, but I'm curious about it, given all of the praise I've heard. Anyone looking forward to the movie?

My midnight tickets are already ordered and I am so epically pumped it's not even funny.

I can't wait. You should definitely get around to the books, Bomby, whether it's before or after you see the film. Just be aware that the first one is the best.

I'm taking my girlfriend to go see it. She's read all the books, I haven't. I wasn't really interested in it, the way it was described to me it doesn't sound like my type of book/movie....



...but then I saw this epic bit:
[video]L761Sro3vW0[/video]
Now I'm kind of excited for it.

Unfortunately I have to watch it about a month later because I'm in Korea, but I'm psyched! I'm glad there's not much out there about it so I can go in without expectations. Also, read the books. They're entertaining, to say the very least.

Saw it yesterday and I really, really liked it. It's extremely well-cast and the story is great. I'm not familiar with the books at all, but I still thought it was great.

My only real complaint is the fact that this is obviously an R-rated movie at heart which was morphed PG-13 so that the target audience of the books can be reached. It's got a lot of violence, but not all could be shown, so they add a lot of shaky camera shots on the violence so it's less prominent. This got annoying and started to hurt my eyes after a while. However, the strength of basically every other element of the film more than made up for it.

Also, I ****ing love Woody Harrelson.

Man, all the product placement was absurd...
[video]VV0cENRNzV0[/video]

[spoiler]I haven't seen it yet.[/spoiler]

And remember, "I'm-a Luigi, number one!"

So its plot involves a "reality show" scenario, eh?

I read the book long ago, it was great too. I'm indifferent towards all the movie hype, but I'd watch it if I can rent it much later or something.

I'm mad at myself for never finishing the book now, but I watched it yesterday, and loved it, regardless of all the hype and whatnot. Had some really great suspense, my heart was pounding at a few parts.

And like Panfan said, it was quite dark for a PG-13 film, it kind of annoyed me that some people brought their young kids to it.

The movie was incredible. I've seen it twice already. And I'm going again tomorrow. More details when I have more time, but I think it might be the best book-to-movie adaptation I've ever seen, and I've heard from people who haven't read the books that they followed the plot completely and loved it all the same.

Cosmonautical wrote:So its plot involves a "reality show" scenario, eh?

In a sense. It's a little more than that, because the entire country is mandated by the government to watch the games.

Um, okay, so I just read the synopsis. So this is basically Battle Royale? Bomby, what's your take on that?

I'd like to hear Bomby's take on that, too, but I said elsewhere

[quote="Me in a SUPER SECRET PLACE]It is a little like Battle Royale"]

I think the themes between Battle Royale and Hunger Games are very different. I've read both, but Hunger Games appealed to me more because the focus was more on the tyranny of the government and the effects of war. Hunger Games delves into that realm of the plot a lot more than Battle Royale does, mostly because Hunger Games has two sequels in which overthrowing the government is the focus entirely. Battle Royale ends as soon as The Program is done, and the rest is up to your imagination. I can see how that would appeal to people more, but I prefer having the trilogy tie up the overarching story.

Basically, while Battle Royale focuses more on the chaos and sadness of the Program itself, Hunger Games focuses more on the chaos and sadness of the situation of the entire world. Either way, neither concept is ground-breakingly original. There are tons of "Death Game" premises out there.

And I guess when it gets down to brass tacks, I just like the characters in Hunger Games a lot more.

I've got a free movie pass that I have to use by the end of the week, so I'm planning on seeing this sometime within he next few days. I will say right now that I'm actually not that big of a Battle Royale fan (though I did like the movie overall, just not enough that I would invest much energy defending it were it to come up in a debate). So I'm pretty open to he idea that this could be a better film.

Of course, that being said, I am a big fan of Aki Maeda, Chiaki Kuriyama, and Takeshi Kitano from BR, so Hunger Games has quite the cast to match up to. Of course, good actors really just means that a movie has good acting, so yeah...

So I did end up seeing this over the weekend, and I liked it. It was certainly better than I had expected, but not as super great as everyone hyped it up to be.

^A lot of those super-hype people were probably also fans of the book, too. :P

Well this thread reminds me that I really need to see Battle Royale.

Just got back from the cineplex. I liked it about as much as I expected to... which means I liked it well enough but I wasn't in love with it.

As far as how it compares to Battle Royale, I think I preferred Battle Royale overall, at least in terms of its technical aspects. I know that most people don't really watch films specifically for the techniques, but I maintain to this day that whether or not a film goer realizes it, certain things will affect how they feel. In this case, it was the scenes of violence. While I know that it's not intended to be an action film, I doubt I was the only one who was confused as to who was who when it got to the characters wrestling with each other.

But yeah, that gripe aside, I did like it overall. If there's a major advantage that The Hunger Games has over Battle Royale, it's that the former feels more universal, whereas the latter is very Japan-specific. In particular, the theme of a generational divide that has made parents either misunderstanding or outright frightened of their childrens' generation. This is especially apparent in several recent Japanese films like All About Lily Chou-Chou and Suicide Circle, the former which I would argue is better and the latter which I would argue is more intriguing than (but not as good overall as) BR.

But I digress. We're talking about The Hunger Games here. One major asset was that the filmmakers were able to get me to care about the characters and what happened to them. As far as the acting goes, Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson were great, in particular, and I was surprised to find that Lenny Kravitz could act pretty well.

[spoiler]I wanted Rue to win. Poor little girl. Her young actress was great, too. Her death scene was the most effective part of the movie.[/spoiler]

After that point in the spoiler, I found that the rest of the movie was a bit on the predictable side, but the ending was still satisfying.

^ I agree pretty much wholeheartedly about how the film was very successful in making you care about the characters and what was happening to them. That's what really made the movie stick out to me. Though I do also agree that the movie was a tad predictable.

BTW, did anyone else not notice that the pink lady thing was Elizabeth Banks until you saw her name in the credits? Because I couldn't recognize her at all throughout the movie.

In the future, the world will be a nightmare cross between Tim Burton and Dr. Suess, and teenagers will be forced to kill eachother for entertainment. Actually, I could not help but laugh at how funny the capital's citizen's looked. I guess it is to show how decadent they are or something.

Overall, I liked the movie. I have seen Battle Royale too, and the first thing I said when someone mentioned this was "That sounds like a Japanese movie called Battle Royale." But I now think they are as different as can be. Battle Royale came off as funny sometimes, and only a few characters are developed enough to care about. Still it was an entertaining movie. Hunger Games definitely has its strength in emotional torque. And, I think the scenes with violence, coming from a view as if it was first person, up to hearing and vision, actually makes it more effective. Instead of seeming at all cool, it comes off as scary, kind of like you are being hunted.

Also, it really, really helps that there is background for the characters in Hunger Games, and more time is spent before they kill eachother. It is given a context within the world in the movie/book. Battle Royale is like "You have been kidnapped because you have been chosen to kill eachother in the Program, so get to it." Not much reason or background is given beyond the fact that it is supposed to help develop the youth into good adults (or something) and that the government is just evil. Most character background is given through flashbacks in Battle Royale, and some just as people die off. Also, to further my point about emotional torque, Battle Royale gives us an unsympathetic sociopath, Kazuo Kiriyama, that can be labeled as a clear villain and one of the main obstacles to the main characters trying to live. In Hunger Games, you get a few people like this, but not nearly at that level, and their behavior is explained beyond "they just don't feel". In particular, one of the people (from District 1) is actually pitiful.

But, I am not saying Battle Royale is devoid of emotional torque. There is some there, just not as much.

^Cato's from District 2, but I'll let it slide. :P

And yeah, the Capitol citizens are basically caricatures of themselves. They kind of represent their own disgusting natures through their appearance. I mean, anything that makes Elizabeth Banks unattractive is seriously messed up.