This is PG-13? Really? A bunch of kids killing each other is PG-13?!

But pitching kids in an arena and forcing them to kill each other is a different ballpark altogether... don't you think?

It's like the MPAA goes

"Hey that movie of yours, the one with teens brutally murdering other teens, does it have any swearing? No? OK here's your PG-13. Next!"

This post has been edited by QuickFire: Mar 19 2012, 10:37 AM

I need to watch Battle Royale again... its been years and I cant remember much.

Guess what they call The Hunger Games in France?



This post has been edited by QuickFire: Mar 25 2012, 09:32 AM

SPOILERS

Finally watched this last night. I just about liked it but there are several issues that held me back from really liking it. I liked the scope of the film, much larger than what you see in Battle Royale, and the stuff in the beginning up till the commencement of the games was good. The autocratic, oppressive, dystopian-ness of a possible future... ahhh, always good.

Less good than the likes of Nineteen Eighty Four, Children of Men, Never Let Me Go though, because almost every facet of the movie looks like it was partly designed and packaged for teenagers. It's not BAD, but once senses an inkling of the dreaded the teeny bopper immaturity underneath it all. I can't really explain it, but it's there in the casting, the development of the characters, the setting up of scenes, the flow of the story. Like the attributes of the other tributes... the weakling, the jocks, the one-dimensional stereotypes. Pure teen stuff. And what's up with the mutated dogs? And soup-on-parachutes? Bonus medical supplies? Teen crap stuff, really.

Jennifer Lawrence has always been a cold actress to me. She's no different here. I rooted for her, but not as much as the studio honchos wanted me too. I liked the guy who played Peter more. I did feel that Katniss' entire romance with him was faked for the show, but I don't think it was explicitly mentioned in the movie. So which was it in the book?

Shakycam was annoying as heck. Hollywood should have a rulebook saying SHAKYCAM IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN UNLESS YOUR NAME IS PAUL GREENGRASS. Who was the director? Maybe he did a serviceable job of adapting the book to the big screen but the direction was very vanilla throughout. Not bad but nothing stood out either.

I re-watched Battle Royale a few weeks ago. That movie isn't without its problems either, chief among them the ever-changing tone. One minute it's serious dystopian shit, the next it's teenage soap opera, the next a fantasy revenge flick. No time for subtlety, folks. But there are a couple of dreamy anecdotes in the end, and though they do feel tacked-on and heavy-handed, they do lend a certain melancholic gravitas to the proceedings. There is none of that in THG, where in the end everything is coated in expensive Hollywood sheen.

I think someone mentioned Gattaca earlier in the thread. Gattaca is a far superior, far more mature movie than THG. Not worth comparing. I may have liked THG more if I didn't have Gattaca on my mind when going into it.

P/S: That scene with Peter as a rock, friggin' WTF hilarious.

This post has been edited by QuickFire: Apr 9 2012, 01:49 PM

They were just being the usual teen movie stereotypes.

Better than the first, which admittedly I can't remember much of now. But I still think the weakest aspect of both films is the actual Hunger Games. The other parts outside of the games are much more mature and rich. The games feel childish, despite the brutality of it.

The cliffhanger ending is really tantalizing.

This post has been edited by QuickFire: Nov 24 2013, 06:24 PM

That sounds right. Coming from someone who has never read the books, the actual 'games' were the weakest aspects of the films. The last film should be much better if there isn't any 'hunger game' involved.