PDA

View Full Version : The Hunger Games



Alf
November 15th, 2011, 6:11 AM
Yo!

I've just started reading the third book in the series, and they are decent enough.... it just so happens they're making the films and the official trailer was released today:

The Hunger Games Official Trailer 2012 - YouTube

First impressions? Awful. It all looks far too clean. District 12 should be grubby and dusty and dirty, and so should the people who live there. I don't like the casting for Gale, Katniss, or Peeta. Not one bit. Is that

VanillaJello
November 16th, 2011, 4:45 PM
I lost faith when they rated it PG-13.

The Hunger Games is an R rated movie if I ever saw one.

I know why they made it PG-13... but I don't agree with it.

Greed
November 16th, 2011, 5:24 PM
I pretty much wholeheartedly agree word for word VJ

Matty C
November 17th, 2011, 10:16 AM
It's based on a teen fiction novel. It was never going to be rated R.

I'm more let down by the casting, like Alf. No one is really how I pictured them, Peeta in particular is far too pretty.

VanillaJello
November 17th, 2011, 10:58 AM
It's based on a teen fiction novel. It was never going to be rated R.

I'm more let down by the casting, like Alf. No one is really how I pictured them, Peeta in particular is far too pretty.

I always pictured Peeta as pudgy, especially around the face/neck.

Not toned and model-ish looking.

Alf
November 17th, 2011, 11:13 AM
I thought he was described as being quite good looking? I always imagined him as very normal looking.

VanillaJello
November 17th, 2011, 11:36 AM
I thought he was described as being quite good looking? I always imagined him as very normal looking.

Is he?

I haven't read the books in a while.

Thought Gale had the good looks while Peeta was more of a childish/innocent look to him with a few extra pounds.

Matty C
November 17th, 2011, 11:53 AM
Is he?

I haven't read the books in a while.

Thought Gale had the good looks while Peeta was more of a childish/innocent look to him with a few extra pounds.

Yeah, that was what I got out of it. Peeta wasn't bad looking, just sort of safe and decent-to-good looking whereas Gail was more your typical brooding-good looking type.

When my wife pointed out who would be playing Katniss at the Oscars, I immediately thought she would be better for Johanna. I still feel that way. When I thought Katniss, I thought Natalie Portman (not that she would ever do this sort of movie).

The_Mike
April 3rd, 2012, 10:17 AM
Yeah, that was what I got out of it. Peeta wasn't bad looking, just sort of safe and decent-to-good looking whereas Gail was more your typical brooding-good looking type.

When my wife pointed out who would be playing Katniss at the Oscars, I immediately thought she would be better for Johanna. I still feel that way. When I thought Katniss, I thought Natalie Portman (not that she would ever do this sort of movie).

To me it seems exactly the sort of movie you'd see Natalie Portman in, if she weren't ten years too old for the part. Though she's so tiny she could probably still get away with it if she weren't so well known now.

Anyway, I finally got around to seeing it, and while I understand the reservations with it being PG13, they didn't pull a lot of punches. I liked it, except the camera work, which seriously undermined a lot of the action scenes by wobbling the camera to the point where everything was literally a blur. That sucked and made certain things really hard to follow, and I don't think it was just done to obscure some of the violence, since there are plenty of clear shots of brutality here and there. I know a wobbly hand-held camera is the in-thing right now, and the even more in-thing is to hate the bloody thing, but to me this was obscene in how much it wrecked scenes. It did not even make sense to use that kind of camera for most of the arena scenes since they went to pains to point out there were fixed cameras in every tree. Considering this was supposed to be a sporting event / reality show, I'd have thought they would at least try to present some of it to the real audience as if it were televised.

The performances were very good, the story, costumes, sets, everything else was all good, just the camera work was pretty wonky. Jennifer Lawrence was fantastic, though it is amusing and telling that there has been some controversy over the casting. Some critics think she's too fat to be playing a starving teenager (it seems 'fat' in Hollywood has become a parody of itself as a term), but no-one has made a peep about the actor playing Peeta being a buff machine despite the character's obviously inadequate protein intake. Similarly people were upset that Rue was cast to be played by a black girl because they failed to notice the character is black in the book. And naturally, Fox News has missed the point entirely, claiming that the film is a story about hope and sends a very conservative message, so anybody claiming it bears any resemblance to the Occupy movement and the 1% is an idiot.

grimshaw
April 3rd, 2012, 1:48 PM
Excellent movie. Conservatively made which is exactly the right move. Loved the gay feller from Easy A and elisabeth banks was surprisingly non-nauseating.

PS the mike stop hating on wobble camera it's more cliche at this point than hating on wobble bass. It's popular for a reason, especially in a fmaily movie.

The_Mike
April 3rd, 2012, 1:51 PM
I did say hating the wobble camera was even more in right now than using it. It's just this time it really got in the way, a lot of scenes became a mess to look at. Also, as I said, it's not as if it was done for obscuring the violence since there were still plenty of clear shots of children getting brutally killed. It was OTT, inappropriate for the situation and ineffective for what they might have been using it for.

Mikey_Jones
April 3rd, 2012, 2:18 PM
Not really a movie person, but I went to see this after reading the books. During the final scene, when Katniss/Peeta and Cato are fighting on top of the Cornucopia, I found the camera shake really off-putting, and near impossible to follow what was actually going on. Apart from that, I really enjoyed the movie, although certain parts could have been fleshed out more

Mik
April 3rd, 2012, 3:51 PM
It was a pretty low budget film as well to be fair.

Canuck
April 3rd, 2012, 5:27 PM
For those of you who haven't read the books. What was the attachment to Rue like in the film? I felt like they maybe should have focused a little more on the relationship there than they did compared to the books. It still had a well enough effect on me as I was welling up, but I'm not sure if that's because I had read the books or not. Just interested in another opinion.

MikeHunt
April 3rd, 2012, 5:37 PM
Saw this and thought it was utter shit.

Mik
April 3rd, 2012, 6:16 PM
For those of you who haven't read the books. What was the attachment to Rue like in the film? I felt like they maybe should have focused a little more on the relationship there than they did compared to the books. It still had a well enough effect on me as I was welling up, but I'm not sure if that's because I had read the books or not. Just interested in another opinion.

It moved everything along at a fairly brisk pace and there was a lot that it didnt develop as well as in the book, but thats par for the course when it comes to adaptations I guess. It got most of the book right.

The_Mike
April 3rd, 2012, 7:24 PM
It was a pretty low budget film as well to be fair.

Was not aware of that. They did very well with what resources they had, it never came off as cheap, and my only real problem with the production was the terribly blurry action sections. Yet some action sections worked out just fine, so I suppose they were running out of cash at some point or choosing their battles.

Vice
April 3rd, 2012, 7:31 PM
It's sad when $80 million is considered fairly low budget.

Anyway, I saw it last week and didn't think much of it. Thought it dragged a little here and there, but overall it was fairly well done I suppose. Though the theater I was in treated it like a comedy.

Mik
April 3rd, 2012, 7:36 PM
It's sad when $80 million is considered fairly low budget.

Anyway, I saw it last week and didn't think much of it. Thought it dragged a little here and there, but overall it was fairly well done I suppose. Though the theater I was in treated it like a comedy.

I agree, but sadly $80m doesn't get you much anymore.

Vice
April 3rd, 2012, 7:44 PM
Is it the CG and effects that cost so much, or are actors/directors/crew getting paid more and more in general? Where does the money go?

To this day I still think Aliens is one of the best looking films I've ever seen, minus a few scenes that look extremely silly in HD, and that was made with $20m back in 1986. Don't know how much money that'd be these days, but it's kind of embarrassing how much money goes into movies that look shitty these days.

Not trying to derail the thread or anything, but figured I'd ask since you are well-educated on the subject and budget has been mentioned.

The_Mike
April 3rd, 2012, 8:21 PM
Star Wars was pretty low budget in 1977 and their budget was 10 million (then Lucas had to beg the studio for another million to finish it). I imagine Alien was pretty low budget at that price ten years later. Would be interesting to hear Mik's answer but my bet would be it's the CG that costs the most - the Prequels cost over 100 million each and Lucas was not using union labour...

son_of_foley
April 4th, 2012, 4:32 AM
Is it the CG and effects that cost so much, or are actors/directors/crew getting paid more and more in general? Where does the money go?

To this day I still think Aliens is one of the best looking films I've ever seen, minus a few scenes that look extremely silly in HD, and that was made with $20m back in 1986. Don't know how much money that'd be these days, but it's kind of embarrassing how much money goes into movies that look shitty these days.

Not trying to derail the thread or anything, but figured I'd ask since you are well-educated on the subject and budget has been mentioned.

Doesn't the budget also count all the promotional stuff? CGI cost is ludicrous and in a lot of cases you have to wonder if it's worth it.

I quite enjoyed this film. Thought it was well done. Lot of people comparing it to Battle Royale and I can understand why but I feel like some want to favour Battle Royale simply to seem more intelligent or that they are some sort of J-Film buff

The_Mike
April 4th, 2012, 9:29 AM
I have read in a few places that the budget may or may not entail all the promotional stuff, depending how much the studio feels like screwing the cast out of residuals by making it harder for the film to technically post a profit, through accounting wizardry.

I did think of Battle Royale during it as well, but I'd definitely say I enjoyed this film more. A lot of the characters in Battle Royale were not that memorable, and it really hinged more on the spectacular deaths than a solid story underneath. Of course, you are right, saying a popular film based on a popular youth book was better than a bloody, brooding Japanese film is bound to cause a stir. Battle Royale was good, certainly, and iconic in some respects, but as a whole I think this surpassed it by a fair bit.

Mik
April 5th, 2012, 4:40 AM
The hunger games film was better than the battle royale film, but the latter had the infinitely superior book.

In terms of budget, it's very unlikely that promotion and marketing is included in that $80m, when you look at how high profile the film was a good rule of thumb is to double the production budget and then add about half again for distribution before you figure out how much it needs to take before the film is profitable. So around $200m in the case of the hunger games. Realistically they will have had a big cast and crew with some plenty of extras and lots of different locations which mounts up in terms of paying. Particularly when you have a few fairly well known actors in there too. transporting and feeding them all. The costumes and set designs were elaborate, which costs money and anything that features a good amount of cgi is going to be mounting your budget up. Add that the rate of inflation is high at the moment and that they were filming in America where it is expensive to film and you will get to the $80m mark pretty quickly.

For comparison...Moneyball had a production budget of $50m.

Simmo Fortyone
April 9th, 2012, 7:42 AM
I breezed through the book in about four hours on the weekend. Wasn't amazing by any stretch of the imagination but it definitely has piqued my interest in the movie. Will go see it this week.

Fro
April 11th, 2012, 4:02 PM
Just finished the book. It was okay, I enjoyed it, but obviously it's written for young adults and was thus very light and some of the tweeny romance stuff was really bland. It didn't grab me enough for me to read the sequels but I'll check out the film at some point.

Alf
April 19th, 2012, 10:06 AM
I saw the film... I thought it was great. Really, really good. The Rue stuff was very touching.

I think it a bit of an odd decision to have Whatsherface and her hunter mate as obviously well-fed, clean, and beautiful people in what is supposed to be an oppressed and starving town/district. It might have been a bit better if they'd worked on that a bit.

She was dull as dishwater too. Not really fiery or rebellious enough.

Other than that. Loved it.

The_Mike
April 19th, 2012, 10:34 AM
I don't think Katniss was ever meant to be fiery. She was determined to do what she had to, but she wasn't a firebrand leading a revolution or something. I thought Lawrence brought the right amount of solemnity to the character, and looked fine for the part. Plenty of people don't get emaciated even when they do not have a huge amount to eat, depending on genetics and what they actually do get their hands on, and it's not as if she was fat or particularly muscular. She also didn't seem clean to me until the Hunger Games folk got their hands on her, but that was within about 10 minutes of the start of the film, so it's not like we saw much of the squalour she was meant to be living in. Peeta looking like Brock Lesnar was pushing it, though - you just can't build that kind of body without a decent protein intake.

Looking back, I think I liked it even more than I said originally. The film's stuck with me to an extent and I'm trying to find time to get through the book. Definitely looking forward to a sequel.

Mik
April 19th, 2012, 5:00 PM
I assume you're kidding about Peeta. I agree with Alf, Peeta and Katniss clearly looked like Hollywood actors compared to the others from District 12. I disagree with his complaint about Katniss though, the books constantly point out how she is introverted and cold and that it's Peeta who is the charismatic one. Katniss is fiery through her actions alone.

The_Mike
November 30th, 2013, 1:17 AM
I assume you're kidding about Peeta. I agree with Alf, Peeta and Katniss clearly looked like Hollywood actors compared to the others from District 12. I disagree with his complaint about Katniss though, the books constantly point out how she is introverted and cold and that it's Peeta who is the charismatic one. Katniss is fiery through her actions alone.

I was exaggerating. His arms do look pretty big for a guy who is 'starving' but his strength is actually something touched on in the first book so it's not really outlandish or inaccurate.

Saw the second film recently. It's brilliant, honestly. Lawrence is just phenomenal and it's like she's rubbing her talent in you face on occasion, she's just so good. I still think of Winter's Bone and am so glad she made it after absolutely arresting my attention for the two hours of whatever the hell that was. The director fixes the shaky camera from the first film that was perhaps its greatest problem, though we still get a fair amount of cut-aways and ambiguous shots during the more violent scenes. It is PG13 after all, but it's pushing the rating, which is a good thing given the nature of the book. And the book does put the film in the awkward position of having to retrace much of the plot of the first one, but that is done pretty well and without feeling repetitive by having the whole thing have a distinctly more sinister and uncomfortable tone. Effie Trinket is a pretty interesting barometer of how things are going. The whole thing has a palpable feel of despair coupled with not giving much of a shit because fuck the Capitol.

Getting back to the stuff in the thread, I think Katniss in this one shows more how her understated, de facto defiance makes her who she is and drives the plot pretty much against her wishes. She's not a firebrand, she's not even in on the plan, but she constantly undermines the status quo in her own way. I'm looking forward to the conclusion, but I cannot for the life of me imagine how they'll spin it out into two installments. It's just gross, frankly, to see such a ham-fisted and obvious attempt at copying other literary franchises and, obviously, making more money. It worked for Harry Potter, after a fashion, because the Battle of Hogwarts worked out well as an entire film. Twilight was just, well, Twilight. Doing it for the Hunger Games seems incredibly unnecessary and even counter-productive. I really think they're going to have to shove in a fair amount of padding if they think they can get 4 hours + out of the last book, and the only place I can imagine they'll split it will basically make one of the last two films bleak as all hell. It's a dystopian fantasy, sure, but both previous films end on a hopeful note as Katniss survives and subverts the Capitol. Film 3 will likely end with everybody just being plain miserable.

Mik
November 30th, 2013, 7:56 AM
Seen it a couple of times. Think that it's significantly better than the first but I too am a little skeptical about the two final films.

Nitram
November 30th, 2013, 10:23 AM
Males are actually interested in these movies??

MikeHunt
November 30th, 2013, 10:33 AM
Males are actually interested in these movies??

Obvoiusly

The Rogerer
November 30th, 2013, 10:40 AM
I watched the first one last week and would probably watch the second one. For someone that is clearly a post-Twilight phenomenon, I think it is overwhelmingly much better, although still very clearly written for a young audience. Wife has read the three books and said that the third is the most boring and is quite annoyed that it's been split into two films in an obvious cash grab. Individual films are often too long themselves, never mind making them part of a series.

MikeHunt
November 30th, 2013, 10:42 AM
Jenifer Lawrence is a guffbag

The Rogerer
November 30th, 2013, 10:42 AM
I suppose

MikeHunt
November 30th, 2013, 10:45 AM
I'd fuck her if she'd let me

The Rogerer
November 30th, 2013, 10:51 AM
You'd fuck someone guilty of cultural appropriation? Uuuugggghhhh

http://yourfaveisproblematic.tumblr.com/post/45661326649/jennifer-lawrence

MikeHunt
November 30th, 2013, 10:55 AM
I think I fancy her more after reading that

#guffbag

The_Mike
November 30th, 2013, 11:33 AM
Is that site real or satire? It's so stupid I can't tell. She's a terrible person because she wore dreadlocks in a film and is surprised to hear Mystique is bisexual? For fuck sake... It's like if DVDA were making fun of liberal whinging.

The Rogerer
November 30th, 2013, 1:43 PM
Young internet liberals dig a very deep hole

The_Mike
November 30th, 2013, 1:51 PM
I know where some of those quotes are from as well, and they are either blatantly taken out of context or are densely missing that she's joking. They are utterly crippling any chance of genuine problematic language being taken seriously.

Oh shit I said crippling! That's ableism!

The Rogerer
November 30th, 2013, 2:05 PM
The overwhelming spirit is one of complete humourlessness. I don't meant that in a "Can't you take a joke?" way, but that they take every statement literally and never look at the bigger picture, which would take a bit more perspective or wisdom, it's essentially a Where's Wally game that everyone can play at that point. I believe Lily Allen did a new video that takes it to Robin Thicke and Miley Cyrus, and I saw a tumblr post that my eyes crossed as I read the 10th paragraph where basically by trying to show them up and satirise them, then Lily was just a racist ablist appropriator.

Anyway, they just don't engage their brains.

The_Mike
November 30th, 2013, 2:16 PM
That's pretty much it. They don't seem to think of the wider context of anything, which is a bitter irony when it is probably what they assume everybody else is doing. I'm far from someone who will dismiss nastiness or privilege as just kidding around, but we can't live in a world where people must feel compelled to walk on eggshells for fear of being perceived as offensive. Dreadlocks, for goodness sake!

And back to the Hunger Games, the idea that Katniss' casting is whitewashing is just unreal. Collins has said she's perfect for the role. Pick your battles, for goodness sake.

Mik
November 30th, 2013, 6:15 PM
Jennifer Lawrence is bloody lovely in every way.

StoneColdWWE316
December 2nd, 2013, 12:47 AM
I have not read any of the Books but I have enjoyed both Movies so far. Jennifer Lawrence is becoming one of my favorites and Woody Harrelson added some nice comic relief to Catching Fire. I am already looking forward to the 3rd Movie.

Kdestiny
December 2nd, 2013, 1:03 AM
Jennifer Lawrence is bloody lovely in every way.

The end.

loved this movie, plan to see it again soon.

StoneColdWWE316
December 2nd, 2013, 1:01 PM
Anybody else heard the 3rd one may be two parts? I heard someone mention that when I left after seeing Catching Fire.

Mik
December 2nd, 2013, 5:21 PM
Yes, it definitely is.

Beer-Belly
December 2nd, 2013, 5:35 PM
Is that site real or satire? It's so stupid I can't tell. She's a terrible person because she wore dreadlocks in a film and is surprised to hear Mystique is bisexual? For fuck sake... It's like if DVDA were making fun of liberal whinging.

I wish it were satire. Tumblr is a hotbed of self righteous keyboard warriors. They invent new concepts just to get pissy eyed about.

Pablo Diablo
December 8th, 2013, 10:18 PM
Anybody else heard the 3rd one may be two parts? I heard someone mention that when I left after seeing Catching Fire.


Yes, it definitely is.

I blame Harry Potter for this trend.

Just saw the second one today. Was an enjoyable movie, definitely true to the source material.

The_Mike
December 8th, 2013, 10:29 PM
Yeah, Deathly Hallows 1 and 2 was definitely where the trend began, and it irks me greatly to see how unashamed studios are in copying it and blatantly milking their audience. For that book it didn't seem necessary, though the final film did turn out well with having so much time to dedicate to the Battle of Hogwarts. Except we'd already seen a massive battle of Hogwarts in Half-Blood Prince, so it wasn't exactly essential. Extending Twilight was just stringing the fan girls along, and with Mockingjay I can't imagine how it's even going to work. That third book is not particularly dense and there are lengthy periods of pain and misery that are going to make at least one of the final two films joyless.

Eddie Brock
December 9th, 2013, 1:22 AM
I'm reading it, and so far it's alright, but not as exciting or thrilling as the first two.

Mills
December 9th, 2013, 2:52 AM
Mockingjay dragged for me a lot. I hated a lot of it, especially the ending, but it was alright overalk

Mik
December 9th, 2013, 5:25 AM
I'm hoping that in this instance they'll use the generally unnecessary two part finale to flesh the final book out a bit.

LOCONUT
January 22nd, 2014, 5:05 PM
I haven't read any of the books but after seeing the 2nd film I went out and bought the third book because I am a giant woman. when I went into the store I wore sunglasses and a hat real low in case someone spotted me. As soon as I got home I made a book cover out of a paper bag like a 3rd grader. I'm ready now.

The_Mike
January 22nd, 2014, 9:33 PM
I get that you're joking, but I hear this a lot from people regarding this series in particular, and I do not get it. What's effeminate about reading a book about teenagers murdering one another at the behest of the political elite and the worm starting to turn? Is it because the protagonist is a girl? Are we all gay girlies for playing Tomb Raider?

son_of_foley
January 23rd, 2014, 11:40 AM
I get that you're joking, but I hear this a lot from people regarding this series in particular, and I do not get it. What's effeminate about reading a book about teenagers murdering one another at the behest of the political elite and the worm starting to turn? Is it because the protagonist is a girl? Are we all gay girlies for playing Tomb Raider?

Depends how many times you tried the nude cheats

LOCONUT
January 23rd, 2014, 11:46 AM
I get that you're joking, but I hear this a lot from people regarding this series in particular, and I do not get it. What's effeminate about reading a book about teenagers murdering one another at the behest of the political elite and the worm starting to turn? Is it because the protagonist is a girl? Are we all gay girlies for playing Tomb Raider?


I think it is because the target audience is young female adults.

The_Mike
January 23rd, 2014, 1:04 PM
The target audience is young people in general, though. It's a young adult novel. Again, is it just the fact there's a girl as the protagonist?

Flashh
January 24th, 2014, 9:02 AM
This is the best 2 movies ive seen in my life nothing is better than this movie. Katniss is a beast Peeta is a beast and so is Gail. My only question is how are they going to play off Jenifer Lawrence's haircut. btw i hope they can get Ariana Grande in this somehow she is a fucking godess

The_Mike
January 24th, 2014, 1:55 PM
She'll just wear a wig, I'm sure. In fact I thought she was wearing one for at least some of Catching Fire. I have no idea who Ariana Grande is.

Flashh
January 24th, 2014, 1:57 PM
Google her

The_Mike
January 24th, 2014, 1:57 PM
Nah.

Flashh
January 24th, 2014, 1:58 PM
Do it i dare you

Donald
January 24th, 2014, 4:25 PM
Woah, that's the second time today I've seen the name Ariana Grande. Trippy.

Hero!
December 2nd, 2014, 2:00 PM
Mockingjay part 1 was really, really good. I hated the first 2, but man was this one damn good. Some real edge of my seat moments and the action itself was pretty top notch. Lots of greatness from the different characters on either side.

Mik
December 2nd, 2014, 4:44 PM
I didnt enjoy it as much as the first two, but cant imagine someone hating the first two and then really enjoying this one. What did you think was so much better than this one?

Bert
December 2nd, 2014, 6:03 PM
Mockingjay part 1 was really, really good. I hated the first 2, but man was this one damn good. Some real edge of my seat moments and the action itself was pretty top notch. Lots of greatness from the different characters on either side.

That's interesting because I really didn't like it as much as the other 2. I'm not sure if it was the lack of a Game or knowing that this was just going to be build up for the final movie but I came away from it feeling a bit meh about it.

The_Mike
December 4th, 2014, 8:39 PM
I didn't like it as much as the first two either. They found stuff to flesh out the story enough for the running time but it's pretty clearly just a longer film chopped in half. Some of the dialogue was weirdly self-conscious as well, all this talk about making the Mockingjay a symbol to inspire people (people who we almost never see) seems more like telling than showing. I get that this is thematic in the story, Coin's using her in essentially the same manner Snow did, complete with stage-managed appearances, but it seems like it was a bit forcefully spelled out.

It's not bad by any means, and part two will probably boost it once they tie together, but I still feel this was a wholly unnecessary way to go about it and was done purely for the money, which is a real shame since the first movie was made on a shoe-string budget and became a sleeper hit by just being good.

Mik
December 5th, 2014, 8:42 AM
I kind of agree and disagree. The problem is that a lot of people have a problem with the third book not being an engaging as the first two (personally I enjoyed it). I think what they've tried to do to resolve it is to add a bit more substance to it and flesh it out to create two films worth (a bit of foreshadowing, a bit more character development, a bit more set up). I suppose thinking about it, in theory it would seem like there is too much to do all that AND then to pay it all off in the second film. In practice I dont think that its worked that way, this feels more like a film waiting to catch fire and a lot of it seems like filler and padding while waiting for the events of the final film.

Pablo Diablo
December 5th, 2014, 8:46 AM
... this feels more like a film waiting to catch fire and a lot of it seems like filler and padding while waiting for the events of the final film.

Oh Mik

Chris
December 5th, 2014, 5:00 PM
I found it very repetitive. It went back and forth between Katniss sloping around on the base and visiting the other districts and various speeches delivered to a room of people that we don't really have a reason to care for. They didn't show enough of the ordinary citizens beginning to rise up against the regime - I'm worried that the final part will suffer the same problem as The Matrix: Revolutions. The battle(s) might look great, but it will be waged by nameless soldiers. The other films worked because there was a release from the bleakness when they got to the games. The action in this one was so sparse and so by-the-numbers. Just when a bit of shooting or bombing began, it was over in the blink of an eye. Other set-pieces amounted to nothing (the characters getting through a closing door with one second left, all to save a stupid cat, and the long search through the tribute building leading to a complete anti-climax, save for the shock of Peeta's attack). It's interesting that the main theme of the film is about selling a concept and the use of propaganda, when the film itself is just one huge, drawn-out advert for the next film.

StoneColdWWE316
December 5th, 2014, 8:56 PM
As someone who hasn't read any of the Books I didn't quite know what to expect with the Movies but I have been pleasantly surprised at how much I have enjoyed each of the Movies so far. Part 1 of Mocking-jay could have used a little more action but it seems they are saving it for Part 2 which is fine.

Bert
December 5th, 2014, 10:01 PM
I'm surprised you didn't read the wikipedia summary of the books instead of watching the movie.

StoneColdWWE316
December 6th, 2014, 12:41 AM
I'm surprised you didn't read the wikipedia summary of the books instead of watching the movie.

Am I suppose to be insulted by that?

Mik
July 24th, 2015, 8:19 AM
First proper trailer out for the last film. Looks good.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-7K_OjsDCQ

I've liked all of the films, sure the last one suffered from the penultimate extra film syndrome, but it was still decent.