In her book “Hunger Games,” Collins presents a dystopian society called “Panem” comprised of “haves” and “have nots,” where the majority are alienated and individualism is restricted by the government, drawing similarity to the arguments about the 99%ers to 1%ers of today. Collins says that she developed the idea from the myth of Theseus where kids were sent to die by a cruel dictator, from the Roman gladiators fighting to the death in the arena, and from being astonished at how people were willing to degrade themselves in TV reality shows. Panem and the “Games” are presented as a society repressed and controlled by the state, under the guise of being a utopian society.
Every year on Reaping Day, a boy and a girl (ages 12 to 18)
from each district are chosen by lottery to fight to the death in a televised
gladiator event devised by head Games-maker Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley, from
“American Beauty” ), sporting the coolest beard you have ever seen shaped like
a crown. "The Games" were
invented by the Capitol of Panem (formerly North America) for the 12 districts
whose rebellion against the Capitol rule was crushed more than 74 years
ago. The Capitol is filmed as a
“modern-day” city of high rises and cold-concrete buildings where the ruling
class live a pampered life of all the finest that is offered. Napoleonic (originally Greco-Roman) furniture
intermixed with contemporary crystal chandeliers add a sense of privilege
showing the images of the Capital (capitalist??) as a
people of “haves” that enjoy their daily lives, to be entertained once a year
by the Games. Adding to this sense of
entitlement, the residents of the Capital are dressed in modern-day
versions of the Court of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, with their blue
wig-coiffed hair and white blush. The
Capital reeks of decadence and wealth.
Juxtaposed with the opulence of the Capital are the 12
Districts, where poverty and subservience are the norm. We are introduced to District 12, a coal
mining District where the 16-year-old Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence),
hunts for scraps to feed her sister and her widowed mother. Residents of District 12 dress in drab greys
and do not have enough even to feed themselves.
They are “guarded” by “peacekeepers” dressed in all white much like that
in “Star Wars,” who seem in total modern/futuristic contrast to their
downtrodden subjects. It is also a
startling resemblance to the police who have put on “riot-gear” to arrest
members of OWS and, most recently, George Clooney during his protest over
Sudan.
In each of the Districts, watching the Gamers is not an
option as it is mandated by the Capital.
We are introduced to Katniss, the renegade hunter who kills with a bow
and arrow. Lawrence, 21, who plays
Katniss Everdeen, is an acting dynamo with the skills to let us into Katniss'
searching mind. Last year, Lawrence won an Oscar nomination for playing an
Ozark girl in "Winter's Bone”. She
dominates the screen and presents a performance that is again Oscar worthy.
During the introduction to the Games where the Tributes
(that's what contenders are called) are chosen, Katniss is presented with the
moral dilemma of her younger sister being picked as a Tribute for the
games. Rather than let her die, Katniss
stands up to take the place of her younger sister in the deadly Games. In just those first scenes, Lawrence reveals
a physical and emotional grace that is astonishing.
Katniss is first shown hunting in the wild forest with her
fellow illegal hunter Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth, "The Last Song," with girlfriend Miley Cyrus).
He is a handsome young boy from her District 12, a hunk, with whom she has
grown-up. Hemsworth quickly establishes
a strong and appealing Romeo to Lawrence’s Juliet.
She is then paired, for the Games, with, the baker's son,
Petta (Josh Hutcherson, "The Kids Are All Right"), a boy who must
quickly grow up to be a man. It is
revealed that he has secretly pinned for Katniss most of his life, thus setting
up a love triangle with Hemsworth’s Gale.
What sets Hunger Games apart from other movies of the genre
is the incredible acting. In addition to
Lawrence, Hutcherson and Hemsworth, the rest of the cast is brilliant.
Stanley Tucci (who needs no introduction), who is always
brilliant, is Caesar Flickerman, the reality-TV host, who represents the dark
side of Ryan Seacrest in the Game’s lethal version of "American Idol." He is a demented host of the
“Price is Right” takes on
Gladiator. In his blue-coiffed wig, he
is both circus master and salesman.
Elizabeth Banks (nearly unrecognizable, from Zack and Miri Make a Porno amongst many others), in a turn as High-School Principal turned
“Freddy” from “Halloween”, brings a malicious wit to the bewigged and powdered
PR guru Effie Trinket. "May the
odds be ever in your favor," announces Effie with total, and careless
sincerity (which, in such a god-less, atheist society, eerily reminds one of the phrase "may
God be with you").
In a stellar performance, Woody Harrelson (wearing the best
California Hippie wig ever and coming off a fantastic performance in "Game Change") is the drunkard, Haymitch Abernathy, a former victor in the Games
now acting as mentor to both Katniss and Peeta.
Haymitch is presented as the troubled victor who is the key to any
chance of survival by Kitness and Petta, when he's not falling-down drunk. In a perfect turn on the 99% vs. 1%, Haymitch
instructs his protégés that they must ingratiate themselves to rich sponsors in
the Capita, so that during the Games they may receive supplies and medicine as
a Tribute wins audience favor.
In a turn of “The Swan” meets “Mad Max’, each of the
Tributes is given a fashionista stylist to package and brand their warrior's
image and veneer. Katniss and Petta are
“remade” as a his and her “Mercury” by “Cinna (Lenny Kravitz in a great cameo)
with flames on fire riding into the Games of a chariot. For her “beauty-pageant” style question and
answer, Cinna , in order to have Katniss stand-out from the other Tributes,
creates a dress that bursts into flame at the hem, making Katniss a “favorite”
of the crowds. Mixing beauty with the
beast, Katniss is then shown in a test of skill, where, with her bow, she is a
modern day Joan of Arc, with her determination and skill.
Finally the stage is set with the “overlord”, the President
of Panem , President Snow (masterfully played by Donald Sutherland, who is
frightening in his cold-evil). His cry
of "You screwed us, so we'll screw you” sets the perfect anthem for this
dystopian society where good has been replaced by evil. It is truly a “bad place” as is derived from
the Greek origin of the word dystopian.
In the vein of today’s reality-celebrity, the Tributes must
also learn to play and pander to the cameras.
Formerly shy and somewhat introverted, Katniss is forced to become a
smiling Kim Kardashian plying for Sponsor’s attention. In this false reality one is left to question
whether Katniss’s and Petta’s actions are real or fake. Is Katniss really falling for Peeta as she
nurses his wounds, or is she faking it to save them both?
The movie is masterfully shot by Tom Stern ("Mystic River") with the scenes dramatically changing from the dark mining of
District 12, to the Marie Antoinette opulence of the Capitol; only to be
transported to the stark and brutal landscape of the battle zone.
At 142 minutes, "The Hunger Games" can go from
fast paced to dragging; however, director Gary Ross ("Pleasantville,"
"Seabiscuit") does a good job of keeping the movie true to the book.
“Hunger Games” the movie, which opened on March 23, 2012, is
already a huge financial success; yet, is fraught with controversy. Is the movie original or just a take-off on
other movies/books (Battle Royale, 1984, etc.)?
Is the subject matter (children killing other children) appropriate for
children? Do the premises glorify
violence and desensitize children to violence?
And, of course, does the movie live up to the book?
While one could debate these points ad nauseum, such debate
overlooks the merits of the story in and of itself and disregards the film
without commenting upon the cinematic quality of what is presented. Without belaboring such criticism I would
suggest that (acknowledging that I may never convince people who differ):
Is the movie original or just a take-off on other movies/books (Battle Royale, 1984, etc.)? Many authors borrow heavily from other works and it is fine. Imagine if Lerner and Lowe had tried to sell My Fair Lady as a wholly original work without acknowledging that it was an adaptation of G.B. Shaw's Pygmallion which itself is an adaptation of a Greekmyth. Julia Roberts’ Pretty Woman was another adaptation. Even Romeo and Juliet is just another version of Pyramus and Thisbe.
Is the subject matter (children killing other children) appropriate for children? Do the premises glorify violence and desensitize children to violence? The story involves violence, children killing children, so is not appropriate for everyone. Nevertheless, the overall theme of “good” versus “evil” is a strong lesson for today. It is a “1984” for 2012.
Does the movie live up to the book? It is always difficult to compare books with movies, as seldom do readers find a movie “better” than the book. When reading a book, we make our own visual interpretation of the written word, whereas in a movie, the film-makers present their interpretation of such book. The question should more properly be framed as “whether the movie lives up to book?” I will let you be the final judge.
Ok now that my initial gut reaction and ranting about Hunger Games is complete I can make a more rational point. If you create a work that is intended to be a social criticism of the absurdidty of humanity's obession with being entertained by violence and killing (as we are with war and reality TV) you better make damn sure you don't inadvertendtly embrace what you are trying to criticize, especially if your audience is as vulnerable and impressionable as teenagers. And when the topic of suicide plays into the picture, you better get it right! This movie fails both of those points with close to the last scene leaving the message that if you can't beat the system, suicide is an honorable option. And if the answer is that it takes two more blockbuster Hollywood hits to get the point across then it is too late and you are either horribly irresponsible or you have completely sold out - maybe both. I couldn't care less about whether or not this is a good movie. I'm disappointed because the intended message of this movie is a very valuable and necessary message. And I'm angry because this appears to be the product of both a horribly irresponsible failure to make a point AND the result of greedy film-makers drooling over the prospect of two more cash cows!
ReplyDeleteLibs hate this movie becauce the government in it does not pay welfare to its lazy citizens. Janice- Texas
ReplyDeleteJanice- That is absurd. This movie speak for all that is wrong with the greed of the 1%. How do you defend your stupid statement? Rick
ReplyDeletewise the fuck up Janice; So would you PREFER an impoverished, repressive dystopian society where children are forced to fight to the death for food?
ReplyDeleteHere are a few facts about welfare and its "lazy citizens" you should be aware of:
Welfare caseloads nationwide have declined by nearly 58% since the overhaul of the nation's welfare system in 1996.
The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program succeeded the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program (AFDC) program.
Welfare is not an entitlement, and adult recipients in most cases are REQUIRED to work. States set TANF benefit levels, and benefit levels vary widely from state to state.
Repeat: It is STATES who determine the requirements/benefits, not "the government".
Three out of four TANF recipients are CHILDREN.
(Source: http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/?q=node/222)
Charles
wow. you are rlly overreacting. have you read the book? probably not because if you had you would realize how dumb your comment truly was. I point this comment not the the reviewer but the comments above. Joyce
ReplyDeleteI took my 12 YEAR OLD daughter to see the film last night. I had not read the books. I'm shocked this film received a PG13. I found its violence and adults themes far too harsh for children under 17. My daughter has not stopped asking questions since last night. The film id seem to reward " goodness" , so at least i feel comfort that my child may have learned that.
ReplyDeleteShocking! Imagine, having to answer your children's questions and discuss serious issues with them! Treating them as if they're capable of learning and coping! You'll probably wind up paying for years of therapy because you failed to treat her as a moron.
DeleteThis is a movie that should have been Rated R. I can't believe kids killing other kids in not considered violent and dangerous. The movie plot was so barbaric..What are we teaching this generation....I do want to ask all the parents who are encouraging kids to watch and read these books one question "does that mean kids should beat or kill other kids to survive?" I want to challenge all these parents that these kids who are watching the movie wouldn't hurt any other kid during sport competitions or any other competitions? THIS IS A BAD EXAMPLE FOR THE KIDS. What are the Parent organizations or Children's organizations in this country doing? why are they not raising their voices? I hope someone is quickly going push this to make it rated R and control this movie from young kids..DOes anyone realize that is mind games that they are teaching these kids? The author of this book series should be in Psych ward!!! Pissed off MOM
ReplyDeleteAnybody with an IQ above room temperature would understand that the story isn't about killing, the story is about children forced to kill or be killed... kind of like 18-year-olds sent to the Middle East to kill THEIR children. It's about a girl whose moral code requires her to protect her family and her little sister, put in an impossible situation and trying to find her way out.
DeleteI will admit, though, that it is nuanced and therefore beyond the capacity of some to grasp.
Agree, agree, agree! My son asked me last night if it were down to he and his brother, what would be the right thing to do. I had no answer but to say it was only a movie. And by the way, how in the world have the movie critics become so unanimously smitten by this horrible blunder.
ReplyDeleteI think you should read ALL three books before you judge the first movie... But to spare you the ignorance these book are about citizens FORCED to submit they're children to these games by law and how those people over come the "Capitals" barbaric ways. This was the start of the rebel period to claim their freedoms back. UGH ppl these days.. so sensitive. Your kids can handle more than you think. I was on the edge of my seat for the whole film. Jacob
ReplyDeleteThis was nothing more than a wannabe Japanese novel/film called Battle Royale. Funny the lame butt author of The Hunger Lames decided to write this sham right after the Battle Royale author died. If a minority had written this book and film they would have been called a plagiarist. Hollywood is full of thieves!
ReplyDeletehe movie gives you a lot of from beyond Katniss' perspective that you don't get in the book, especially about how the games work as a TV show!
ReplyDeleteWow. I was barely able to put this book down for a second after the first few pages got me completely hooked. Suzanne Collins narrative here has an immediacy to it that, when combined with the very dramatic life-or-death plot, is incredibly compelling. It's entertaining, and incredibly disturbing all at once. If this was merely a good read, I would have given it 4 stars, but they say great art leaves you changed after you experience it... and this book definitely did that. Suzanne Collins has, with one amazing work, propelled herself onto my top shelf.
ReplyDeleteParents, caveat emptor! The storyline is brutal. Even though the writing is geared for young adults, the main characters are teenagers, there's very little physical romance, and the actual violence would probably count as PG-13 nowadays... it's probably one of the most terrifying books I've read in a very long time! Right up there with George R.R. Martin, if not more so. Remember what we learned from Jaws: you don't actually need to SEE the shark in order for it to be terrifying. Sometimes not seeing the shark is even worse.
The story is basically about a teenager who is forced to compete in a 24-man-enter-1-man-leaves event. I don't want to spoil it by saying any more, but if you liked The Running Man, you'll definitely like this. And if you're young enough that you don't remember The Running Man, nor did you get the Thunderdome reference, then I'm just way too old. But take an old fogey's advice and read this book.
It took me a while to get to this book because I never saw it out of my two daughters' hands. They devoured it! Once I read it, I understood. This is the second book I have reviewed this month that had a powerful female protagonist (other being 'Graceling').
ReplyDeleteI found the book to be well written with a fantastic pacing. Their is violence in there, but not so over the top as to be distracting. Intimate scenes are sparingly written so as not to be too embarassing (something I greatly appreciated as a dad!!) The rage against the system theme is prevalent enough to notice, but not as overbearing as say.... Ayn Rand or Terry Pratchett.
So this is what keeps troubling me about the book: as an adult reader, I cannot decide if this is merely a guilty pleasure, or a book with substance that, as the cover says, "explores the effects of war and violence on those coming of age." Professional reviewers and Amazon reviewers alike seem to agree that the book has a political angle, and the inside cover goes so far as to say that it combines "suspense and philosophy." To which I can only say.... if that is true, then it is certainly philosophy-lite, even for a YA novel. I will, however, grant that it does have "unsettling parallels to our present."
ReplyDeleteThe reason that I feel so ambivalent about it is that it is such a gripping and suspenseful read; it truly is difficult to put down. But it is so in a way that reminds me of a video game: different opponents, each with specific abilities; changing settings which present new obstacles and hazards; a limited life-line buttressed with revitalizing finds or gifts. Indeed, it's called "The Hunger Games"---duh, right? And yet something about all of this bothers me.
It's structured like your standard voyage and return narrative, with many elements of the hero's quest. But in this book there is no Grail, no Dragon. The reward is simply your life, and the villains are merely pawns like the protagonist. This lowers the stakes and even calls into doubt the idea of heroism. Is fighting for your life heroic? I tend to see self-defense as something very different from heroism.
The real evildoers are, of course, the game makers and the society which permits this atrocity to take place, but this aspect is never really developed (at least there is no climactic confrontation, and not much of a build up to one either).
True: the reader cannot help but to feel disgust for the game makers. True: one is appalled by the extent to which the media forces people to create a false persona and to live a lie. But that is really the extent of the social commentary, and I felt like some opportunities were lost. Ultimately, I found myself asking: Is this enough?
You want the characters to live (they are, after all, archetypes, and hence parts of us all---the courageous, the doomed, the saved). But saying that the Roman Games are wrong as you sit down to watch the gladiators as they are thrown to the lions is not a critique, and shouldn't make us feel any less guilty about watching. In the end, are we the readers just as bad as the spectators in the book? If so, then we've been duped. And I don't think this was Collins' intention.
You've got to hand it to Collins: No one can plot a fantasy novel like her. Nobody. She has you not from the first page or the first graf, but the first *word*. She creates believable, likable and riveting characters, ridiculously addictive survival scenarios and a rich world to boot. If you aren't up until 4 a.m. finishing this thing, you're a corpse.
ReplyDeleteMy only problem with this novel also happens to be a very big problem: the overall premise. I'm not spoiling anything by mentioning that the plot involves kids pitted against each other in a giant outdoor slugfest to the death. Again: Kids pitted against each other in a fight to the death. Oh, and it's all on TV. Everyone in this post-apocalyptic world either thinks that's neat, or throws up his or her hands and figures there's nothing that can be done about it.
The author explains this away by creating a world of poverty and hunger; the parents of the young gladiators are so beaten down and afraid of the totalitarian regime that they just hug their kids and shut up and pray, but -- and this is just my opinion -- that's not an effective enough mechanism. It simply doesn't jibe with human nature. Even the starving, terrorized parents of child soldiers in Africa have been known to drag themselves into the bush and track their kids down or die trying. As much as I loved everything else about this book, I can't get past the basic setup. Isn't there one parent out there, one crazy uncle or scrappy rebellious mom, who'd stand up and protest at this amazingly cruel custom? There's not a single voice among the privileged rich in Capital City who might kick up a fuss? I know we're talking about a cruel dictatorship -- and an all-powerful one, at that -- but parental bonds have been known to be very strong things, and I think the author could have done a better job selling us on why the barbarism continues.
No argument from me that Jennifer Lawrence is a strong actress. It gets rarer and rarer all the time to see new up-and-comers do good work, let alone handle a starring role. But she does. The thing is, I was never drawn to The Hunger Games. Too much hype? Certainly. As others have pointed out here, yes, it's like Battle Royale, which was good. As for my pick, while I did like Death Race 2000 and its remake, I'll have to go with The Running Man.
ReplyDeletei thought the movie did great for what it was trying to achieve. that being said, i think the pacing is too fast and nothing has any real weight behind it. i think the writer and/ or director bit off a little too much. if i was in their shoes i would have cut the first book in half a stopped right after Rue's scene. that way you get to see the games, end on an emotional/ action scene, and (most importantly) have more time to develop characters that you care about like Rue
ReplyDeleteAlso, the movie serves as a cautionary tale, not as a likely scenario. It uses this imaginary dystopia to show how a powerful central government can subvert personal liberities. That is, again, not a stretch. The particulars in the book&movie are just a literary tool. Jerry
ReplyDeleteJerry: "No political leadership would succeed by abducting children"
ReplyDeleteThe Khmer Rouge? Kids taken away from their families to become slaves to the party. Not only was there not a backlash, it made the people that much more afraid. Unless you're some kind of a lion heart, fear will keep you in your place. It's how dictatorships work. Why are you denying this?
Plus, there were many other authoritarian regimes who did far worse things than simply taking away 24 kids and killing them. Slim pickens. Brooke
I think the rating the studio set for the movie, PG 13, hurt the movie more than anything. In the book we see some pretty gruesome stuff and i may sound a little sadistic but that's what made the book so unique i guess. I am hoping in the upcoming movies they give it an R rating, but i doubt it as Studios go with money option most of the time. And is it just me or was Josh Hutcherson (Peeta) was a weak link in this movie? the dude imo really needs to pick it up in the upcoming movies.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the movie serves as a cautionary tale, not as a likely scenario. It uses this imaginary dystopia to show how a powerful central government can subvert personal liberities. That is, again, not a stretch. The particulars in the book&movie are just a literary tool.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, Battle Royale is only similar to The Hunger Games is that both have kids competing in a deathmatch. That's where the similarities end. Do you think Harry Potter was the first book about a boy wizard? No. The books have different characters, different plots, settings and there is actual character progression in The Hunger Games books. The Hunger Games is so much more than just the arena, and I think that most people who read the books would agree with me.
ReplyDeleteOther than kids killing each other.. Battle royal is nithing like HG. It has basically no character development or actual story. They just through a bunch of asians in an island to kill each other brutally. The hunger games is about so much more than that
ReplyDeleteI HATED THE FILM!
ReplyDeleteTo hate the movie only shows you have a very limited ability to watch fiction.
ReplyDeletenow i really want to see the movie - the story reminds me a lot of a one of my favourite Richard Bachman (aka Stephen King) novels - the long walk ... in any case ... looking forward to see it on the big screen asap :-)
ReplyDeleteHaving read the books i approached the film with some trepidation as I realy enjoyed them. However, the film was excellent, JL is superb as Katniss, she is a fanastic minimalist actor. The supporting roles were good as well, esp. Sranley Tucci. If Phipip French thinks this is not going to be as big as Twilight he is seriously mistaken - Katniss Everdeen is a much better character than the soppy Bella Swann and will make this series as big if not bigger. Tyler
ReplyDeleteYounger audiences may well be intrigued, but I'd be surprised if it proves as popular as the Twilight series, which is more openly necrophilic in a romantic "swoon to death" way.....................
ReplyDeleteThe movie's box office success dwarfs the opening for Twilight, the first of the hit vampire movies starring Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson.
The first Twilight movie took $69.6m in its opening weekend. The Hunger Games also looks certain to beat the biggest opening Twilight movie, New Moon, which debuted with $142.8 million.
Awkward…..
Let us never again compare Hunger Games and Twilight. Hunger Games is superior in every way. And just think, this will only jump all week. Tweeners went for Twilight for the first weekend and the movie trended down afterwards. The theme in HG's are for more sophisticated.
ReplyDeleteHow you can compare apples and oranges? Stupidity still runs rampant... Teenagers romance movie and action movie? Un-freaking-beliavable... THG is great movie and I'm happy they outperformed, but stop comparing. The only common denominator between TW and THG that they both franchises based on the books. THG us a far superior film that goes so much deeper into social and political issues very relevant and timely.
ReplyDeleteI read the book and "enjoy" doesn't seem the right word to use because I was so disturbed by the seriousness of the plot: a conquered people willing to give up their children to the conqueror each year to die in a sadistic ritual instead of fighting to the death to prevent it. There may be a lot of things to take away from this movie/book, but enjoyment is probably not one of them. Anyone who takes this film lightly or critiques it by simplifying it, they simply did not get its depth and subtext.
ReplyDeleteI understand what you are trying to say by criticizing the violence on TV and in movies. But I am not sure if you are fully aware of the premise of the Hunger Games. The main point/theme of the series (and the movie) is how disgusting it is that children are subjected to this type of violence and how wrong it is for people to watch it for their own amusement. The series does a great job showing that we shouldn't be glorifying this type of thing. There is definitely a great message behind the series * that is why it is now being assigned as school reading. It is a lot for a kid to comprehend and it does not feel like it was written for kids because of the harsh plot. I just think children are exposed to more now. I'm a 49 year old woman and i was in deep thought and thoroughly engaged.
ReplyDeleteYes, this is no original idea. In 1987 reality TV was almost unknown and yet there it was THE RUNNING MAN with Arnold Schwarzenegger, and yet the author of Hunger Games said the idea just came when flipping channels of the TV seeing reality shows and Iraq. What a load of crap, lost all respect for this author. Give credit where it is due. This is just a variation of Running Man. We all are affected by what we see in life and media. Everything is a regurgitation of something our minds have already been layered with.
ReplyDeleteViolence has been in books since Greek Mythology and Shakespeare. People can't say it's just the way people are today! Blame the invention of the television if you must. See how long you can go without your doctor phil. My wife and I enjoyed the film every bit as much as our twins sons who are 10.
ReplyDeleteWho gives a shit...it's a movie? You can like whatever movie you like no matter what someone elses opinion is! Does it matter if it beat Spiderman or Twilight? Who cares? Like what you like, its a movie...you certainly didn't make millions from liking it, so who cares? Liking one movie better than another doesn't make you any smarter or cooler than anyone else. Why do people even argue over this dumb crap! I liked the review of it. I think it was very accurate. I think people are so spoiled and bitter, i'm not sure what it takes to impress certain people this day. The film was amazing piece of art. To say you didn't like it just says you were in a shitty mood. or, that you didn't think of it yourself. What do you create in life? You sit behind a desk and sell car insurance? How would you like your daily performance sitting at a desk reviewed? It's so easy to tear things down. Do you have any concept of what it takes to make a movie like this?
ReplyDeleteI give a ***** Unlike most people that took profits on Lionsgate before the weekend release of Hunger Games, I had faith in the hype, maintained my stock position and will see a huge jump in the stock tommorow that will make me some nice money. God Bless America! Not that there is a god. But the money reward sure is sweet. Great job Hunger Games!
ReplyDelete63 yrs old and a big fan of THG. Great job of casting. Beautiful photography. I love the fact that it portrays a woman with strength, perserverence, as well as compassion. And remember that it is because of her actions that sparks the rebellion in the districts in the next 2 series. Freedom at any costs is priceless. Linda
ReplyDeletePerhaps people didn't realize this book is simply the start of a rebellion against the Capitol for making them fight like they do all these years. This is not just a fight to the death. It's not Gladiator. There is more going on behind this with the uprising coming. READ the books people. It will give you a lot more insight. All of them, not just the first one. Also, there should have been a comment how the district that wins gets food for their district for an entire year also.
ReplyDeleteSaw the movie on Friday. It was very good but not great. INCREDIBLE acting from Jennifer Lawrence. I don't know how people who didn't read the books are going to understand what's going on because some really important parts are left out or brought up in flashbacks. As others have mentioned, there is no feeling of hunger or desperation. It would have been much more effective to introduce the mother's breakdown and Peeta's bread gift in the very beginning before the reaping so the audience would understand why Katniss volunteered and was so determined to come back to her sister, and to create more tension between Peeta and Katniss. That was a big miss. BIG.
ReplyDelete-We could argue that the Hunger Games is a copy of Battle Royale. -We could argue that Battle Royale is a copy of Running Man. -We could argue that Running Man is a copy of 'The Lottery' by Shirley Jackson. -We could argue that The Lottery is a copy of the Greek legend of Theseus. Don't you see how hard it is to come up with an 'original' concept? I highly doubt Collins pulled ideas from (or was inspired by) Running Man. Even if she were to take those ideas, why would it be a bad thing for her to put her own perspective on it?
ReplyDeleteThis movie is getting trashed by Yahoo users that are fans of the books.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I loved the movie.
A movie with a heroine that has to murder other kids to save her family is sad. The other kids in Hunger Games had parents and sisters, etc and the idea that someone who had to murder other innocent kids is considered a heroine speaks volumes about how values and morales mean nothing.
ReplyDeleteThat is what is so brilliant about this script. It asks the question, " What would even a " good" person do when put in these circumstances." This film reflects so much of what is real in our society, now. Selling out at the cost of whom?
ReplyDeletesaw the movie yesterday and enjoyed it, I thought there was going to be a bit more to the 'games' but as with any movie you can never get the detail like the books. I've not read the books so I didn't know much about it before hand, I thought the lead did a great job, the other teammate not so much, he had the same expression in every scene, the woman with the wierd make up was ok, I thought she had more to do than what she did, woody harrelson's part I thought was weak, stanly tucci was great, liam hemsworth hardly did anything * I imagine his part expands as the story evolves. ms lawrence is definatly one to be watching in the futuer after she gets out of the 'katniss' staightjacket'........without many words she was able to convey her thoughts very well....... WHY DIDN"T LINDSAY LOHAN, (THE GREATIST ACTRESS OF HER GENERATION) (her own quote) GET THIS PART??? I THINK WE KNOW THE ANSWER: her best acting is done in a courtroom
ReplyDeleteJust watched the movie. Have to say that it was engrossing and sickening. Are we that society now?
ReplyDeleteIt does not suprise me that 66 percent of people who went to go see it were over 25! The movie was great for all ages. I am a little surprised 50 percent of the movie watchers were female though, just because I know more guys who went to see it then I do girls.
ReplyDeleteMy husband came home last week saying that he wanted to see this movie. He rarely asks to see any movie, so we saw it. We both really, really liked it. Jennifer Lawrence was amazingly good! We are now reading the Hunger Games books and looking forward to the sequel. I am surprised that so much of the audience was female because it was really about evenly divided in my theater. The audience was all a twitter after the Snow White trailer and there was an audible groan after the Twilight trailer. Cindy
ReplyDeletei read the books and loved the movie, the cast is amazing. i don't know why the twihards are so annoyed if HG is a sucess or not, if you don't like it don't watch the movie simple like that. Twilightis an IQ 0f 90 while Hunger Games is upwards of 160.
ReplyDeleteTo those saying Bella is more of a hero than Katniss because Katniss kills others. READ THE BOOK. Or see the movie. She is tough and provides for her family after her father dies. She is disgusted with what the Capitol does to keep its power, yet she knowingly volunteers her life for that of her sisters when the time comes. She manages to win and becomes the symbol for the revolution against the Capitol. Yes, she is reluctant at times, but she is 16. She is much more complex than Bella. She is unsure of her actions, of those around her. She has suffered more than any human should and constantly worries that she will cause others more suffering and pain. Everything she does is for others.
ReplyDeleteUmm...Kitness and Petta???
ReplyDeleteHere, a deep analysis of the word is made. may the odds be ever in your favor
ReplyDelete