8 reviews on RT so far... all fresh for a 100% approval !

Go Jennifer!





According to GSC, it's 22 March.

This post has been edited by defaultname365: Mar 17 2012, 02:43 AM

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hunger_games/



14 reviews already on RT for... 100% fresh, meaning yes, absolutely brilliant. It takes 25 reviews for me to make a rating verdict, but this is already a great indication.

This ain't nothing like sparkly vampires movies, but expect the same fan craziness.

Just bought the first book yesterday (there are three books, didn't know that!). Truth to be told never heard of this book until recently, and given how popular the books are, and the film being released this week, I think it will be worth a read.

It dropped to 93% thanks to 4 rotten, but astonishingly 52 fresh reviews. I am not even half-way reading the book. It remains one of the highest rated movies thus far this year.

Anyways, the movie is rated PG-13 much to my surprise. A premise like this obviously pushes the limits but I think they really want to pull in as many audience as possible, especially the source material fans of teens. But I truly believe when done with care, you don't even need to see any blood/gore.

Just read the book, and I'll be watching this Saturday night! The more I read the more I couldn't stop reading and just like that, I was done with the first book. Truth to be told I have never heard of "The Hunger Games", but now, I am itching to get my hands on the other two books.

I watched the trailer once, and it was a little fuzzy. After reading the book and then watching the trailer... omg... I just can't believe it. Movie magic.

Oh crap... not again. I am going to be super mad if there are one too many.

Just came back from the movie.

Let's just get down to the bits I liked and did not like :

Liked :
- The story is futuristic Gladiator
- The chemistry between the characters
- The whole uprising/rebelion plot, again set in the future
- The contrast between futuristic and rural elements
- The Hunger Games themselves being brutal
- Incredible intensity to the start of the Hunger Games (the countdown, the silence)
- Amazing acting performances from pretty much everyone (except perhaps Peeta played by Josh Hutcherson, quite rigid but still OK)

Disliked :
- Shaky camera aka handheld method - - why oh why do they use this. The film started off with this method and kept going on and on. I was like "Oh dear". The last time I hated this so much was "Battle LA", while that movie was crap, this had real emotions but even so, disliked it. As the movie progressed, it stopped. Thank goodness. But no, it still didn't let up and fortunately the use of this method during say, running sequences was not so noticeable. It still crept up but not as bad as the beginning of the film.

- The darkness - - again, reading the book, you do get a sense of night/dark sequences but here it is quite possibly like a sigh of relief when things get brighter. I didn't like it, but I was engrossed enough in the movie that it didn't matter too much.

- The real brutality - - completely lacking. The book had you going "Ouch" and "Wow, that's cruel." But here, not so much. Typical loss of a book to movie adaptation. If you didn't read the book, you would view it as brutal enough but those who knew the source material know it could have been so much more darker. Yup, PG-13 is the real reason here. Pushing the violence further would not have given it this rating. Rue's ending was emotional, and well done.

- Not enough screen time for characters - - I felt that much of the characters here, including the other District tributes, Cinna, Effie and Haymitch was did not have enough screen time. What happened to the whole Katniss hates Haymitch, Haymitch favors Peeta, Cinna being the likeable one to Katniss? Nope. None of this really happened in the movie. Too bad though, because yes indeed the movie could have gone on without this but again, fans of the book you know what you're missing. As for the tributes, something simple as the name Foxface was used in the movie without any explanation. Really lacked any connection with the other tributes, in fact as they showed up you probably think you're seeing them the first time.



It felt rushed towards the end. And you do get the sense of it not being concluded. Bring on "Catching Fire", due for a 2013 release.

8/10

Smartly filmed with a budget of $78 million, being set in the future and all, it could have been higher. The popularity of the books definitely propelled the film and in turn the books are now still selling really well.

I believe the film execution indeed could have been better. It is still a good watch. The book is still better than the film in my opinion. The film just didn't have the room to accommodate all the elements even when the run time is 2 hours and 30 minutes.

Ha ha... almost all the top rated comments on Youtube has either "overrated" or "overhyped" in it. I still believe it was a good but not great movie, and it did not really do the book justice. Most of the emotional aspect was left out. Have never seen "Battle Royale" so can't comment, but seeing some clips from it I got scared already... I am wondering what rating I would have given the movie if I hadn't read the book. I still want to read the other two books in the series. Oh, and no way is this in any way a "Twilight" - the fanfare yes, but not the film. "The Hunger Games" has genuine emotional moments and great acting performances compared to it. I'm fine with the fans being the way they are about "The Hunger Games".

Did you guys know about the ongoing "Hunger Games" racial controversy? Saw something on E! News, then I read it on CNN :

'Hunger Games' and Hollywood's racial casting issue

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/28/showbiz/...html?hpt=hp_bn5



Didn't realize until this. I think we all have our own interpretations as to how a character could look when reading a book. On film, it is set just as what the writers intend it to be so not everyone will agree.

One should never penalize the audience for not knowing the source material of a movie they are watching. Everyone goes into the cinema just the same, the ones who know the source material and those who do not. Heck, there are plenty of movies you would have probably watched that are based on comic books/books/stage/radio play but you might not even be aware of.

"The Hunger Games" adaptation onto film was good but never great. It did not capture all the emotions you would have wanted especially those who have read the book. And screen time for smaller characters are lacking. Those who know the books wanted more, but those who did not know the books would obviously be judging the film based only on what they saw - which is both a good and a bad thing.

As a film on its own, not comparing it to the books, it is a good watch. Jennifer Lawrence obviously is the driving force with her incredible performance but the rest of the film is just about OK. If you dwell into the smaller details (err... the whole 'why Peeta didn't kill them' thing) you will definitely not reach any satisfactory explanation... unless you read the book. I'm not saying you have to, but one wouldn't really reach a satisfactory answer to their burning questions.

I'm in favor towards it not being a very effective film adaptation, but it is never a bad film. I enjoyed it very much and am looking forward to "Catching Fire".


My pick - Alfonso Cuaron ("Children of Men", "Prisoner of Azkaban"). I love his realist film making style, and if you've got fair bit of violence then all the more effective. I didn't really like Gary Ross' direction.

This post has been edited by defaultname365: Apr 7 2012, 01:09 PM

It's true. I quite disagree with the score on RT (which is rare for me). Indeed if you read the book you would have watched a 'different' movie but for those who did not read the book it is like you said, linear from start to finish.

Anyways, the whole thing about the Careers, I agree... they are super lame if they indeed had trained their entire lives for the games.

'The Hunger Games': Mattel debuts Katniss Everdeen Barbie

http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/04/09/hunger-g...verdeen-barbie/





...to be included in Uber Special Collector's Edition BD? Surely not. But Mockingjay pin as a BD gift, definitely more feasible!

Gary Ross will not direct second 'Hunger Games' installment 'Catching Fire'



http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/04/10/gary...-catching-fire/



Michael Bay to do it then? Kidding...

Francis Lawrence to direct 'Hunger Games' sequel 'Catching Fire'

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/201...ching-fire.html

I got to read the book first. Been procrastinating for so long. Might catch the movie next week. Currently holds an impressive 93% on RT (55 fresh, 4 rotten), didn't expect that.

Saw it on Sunday. Managed to read the book finish on the same day..

Prior to watching the movie, I had not seen a single moving image of "Catching Fire" - - even the trailer that was posted. I didn't want any spoilers and wanted to know just how the heck is there a 'second' Hunger Games with Katniss in it

Well, after reading the book, I got all the answers. Then it was movie time.

To be honest, "Catching Fire" movie in some ways improves on the book. While this might be quite hard to believe, the book itself isn't that pleasing when compared to the first book. In other words - - tremendously effective adaptation of the book. Wise choices of the changes made and the one thing that really stood out is the emotional factor provided by brilliant acting performance especially J Law.

I was surprised actually, that the movie was this good. This is definitely one of the better movies I've seen this year, though not the best.

In the sequel, you get to see more of Panem. You get to see a lot more President Snow and his true nature. You will either embrace this (somewhat weird) world or reject it altogether.

The book was 60% victory tour, 30% hunger games, 10% rebellion, but almost on the whole was on the topic of rebellion. A chuck was spent on the first part and that made the book a little big draggy. Anyone watching the movie sequel expecting a lot more hunger games will be slightly disappointed - - but to me, that wasn't the case at all. Simply put, the movie sequel is better than the first movie.

This is how I can sum up the book/movie:

Book 1 better than Book 2
Movie 2 better than Movie 1

The movie gets a decent 8.5/10, additional 0.5 added for being better than I expected.

Bring on "Mockingjay Part 1 and 2!" (2014 and 2015!)

Now... when to read. Well, 2014 and 2015 of course.

No love for Katniss Everdeen, girl on fire?

Quote myself... currently reading the book. Hope to complete 'Part 1' before watching the movie.