What films have you watched this week?

[rmoxon]

The Hunger Games was nowhere near that bad, just listing a load of negative comments like the "plot was nonsensical" is not fair on the film at all and not really true. It wasnt the greatest film ever unlike some would have you belive (it was quite lifeless in places and didn't seem to really go anywhere other than to show us the not very nice world it takes place in). It's probably a slightly overrated film but Jenniffer Lawrence is a great actress it has a great supporting cast and it's well made considering its relatively low budget for a blockbuster type film.

Its worth watching.

[Super Grover]

Watched The Thing (2011).

Thought it was it was ok. Obviously not as good as the '82 version (granted it's a prequel), tho' it did have its fair share of 'make you jump moments' and interesting monster designs. I would have prefered it if they had tried to make it more disimilar to the first, as it seemed to follow it fairly closer to the plot. The most enjoyable moment for me was funnily enough, right at the end, as they blended the end, into the start of Carpenter's classic.

[noobish hat]

The Hunger Games was nowhere near that bad, just listing a load of negative comments like the "plot was nonsensical" is not fair on the film at all and not really true. It wasnt the greatest film ever unlike some would have you belive (it was quite lifeless in places and didn't seem to really go anywhere other than to show us the not very nice world it takes place in). It's probably a slightly overrated film but Jenniffer Lawrence is a great actress it has a great supporting cast and it's well made considering its relatively low budget for a blockbuster type film.

Its worth watching.

Ok, HOW is it not true.

[BaronSqwelch]

I thought Hunger Games was OK in a 'Battle Royale for Kids' way...a bit too long perhaps but a good sunday afternoon type film.

[PaTaito]

I thought Hunger Games was OK in a 'Battle Royale for Kids' way...a bit too long perhaps but a good sunday afternoon type film.

This...i actually watched it on a sunday afternoon, and by the end was clock watching from it dragging a little.

The ending was perfect for the twilight generation.

It really is just battle royal for kids.

[noobish hat]

The ending was laughable. Literally nothing happened. Donald Sutherland looked at them... then he walked out of the room. Sorry, did you run out of budget? You know, to hint at the sinister things he has planned for them? Maybe if they'd bothered to characterise him as ruthless earlier in the film (perhaps ordering the deaths of some other people who'd crossed him or something?) then a look from him would be enough. NOT WHEN HE SPENT THE WHOLE OF THE REST OF THE FILM PRUNING ****ING FLOWERS! AND HE LOOKS LIKE ****ING SANTA CLAUSE! Completely ineffectual film, with a paper thin ruling class you can't take seriously because of the gob-smakingly stupid costume and makeup design, a plot completely ripped off from Battle Royale, right down to the 'oh god, there's a psycho who CHOSE to be in the game' element.

Can I also just say that this whole premise was copied from Lord of the Flies, but it worked in Lord of the Flies because the boys were left on an island WITHOUT being forced to turn on each other, but did so anyway. See? It said something about human nature. Having the same situation, but with people forced to fight each other, tells us NOTHING.

[rmoxon]

Ok, HOW is it not true.

Its not true to say the plot was nonsensical becuase it did make sense. There wasn't enough plot for it not to make sense. I also don't agree that the film is battle Royale for kids (despite being based on a novel that's suppose to be for teens), it's actually a slower paced and more subtle film than Battle Royale, which means kids would like it less than battle Royale you'd think.

I do agree that not much happened in the film though and ultimately, as I already said, the ending didn't really go anywhere. It simply set up some twilight esque love triangle involving teenagers for the sequel and that was about it. I haven't read the novels that the series is based on, but they do have a reputation for being quite dark and gutsy for what they are, so who knows?, maybe the story goes places we won't expect?

On the whole the film is technically quite accomplished, it's well made and acted, but its quite a cold experience and the story just doesn't really go anywhere.

[buster_broon]

It's a kids trilogy - scholastic are the publisher who are also the worlds biggest publlisher of children's books

I enjoyed it as it is but it's not accomplished or well acted at all - production values are high though and decent enough to pass a few hours

[noobish hat]

I don't know what you mean by 'the film was well made'. Lots of the effects looked like they're from a cheap tv show, like the airship arriving at the beginning. The editing and camerawork is extremely poor. Could they not afford a camera stand? Well, they could because I noticed at least one steady shot, inserted randomly into a sequence of shaky-cam shots. Even if the camera was steady, I would still have been given a migraine by the sheer number of cuts. The scene at the beginning where Katniss (that's not even a word) is hunting the deer is particularly jarring. There were about 40 cuts just while she was moving about and readying her bow. Too many.

Here are some things that didn't make sense:

The kids would not form into groups with other kids who want to kill them.

Katniss would not have climbed a tree to get away from five people who want to kill her, and are also armed with throwing weapons, unless she had a death wish.

Five people intent on killing someone up a tree would shoot her with the bow and arrow that they have, or throw knives at her, especially since one of the five is a demonstrated expert at throwing knives. They would not send up the tree with a knife. Let's not forget these aren't just typical kids, they've been trained since birth to be hunters and survivalists. They would also not choose 'the waiting game' as a strategy, and they certainly wouldn't all go to sleep at the bottom of the tree, all at the same time, like in a fairy tale. Especially since they all also want to kill each other (the same reason they would not be in a group in the first place).

The rules of the game are not explained to the audience like they are in Battle Royale. What happens if they all just refuse to kill each other? Do their neck braces blow their heads off? No. We don't know what happens because the film doesn't tell us. So there is no motivation FOR THE ENTIRE PLOT.

Technology has reached the level of magic, to the extent that they can genetically engineer any plant/animal they can imagine, and literally spawn them to any location they want like it's a god damn video game. They can start and stop forest fires at exact locations at will. They have magic cameras that are invisible, and follow the kids around so that their every move can be watched in the control room. But then they ALSO have unnecessary cameras in trees. I don't know why. Any type of wound of any severity can be healed literally overnight by applying magic cream. Despite all these technological and magical advances, society apparently still functions based on coal, dug manually from a coal face, by a human.

Working class soldiers/police would not function in a society with a bipolar class divide. Are we supposed to believe that these enforcers are actually members of the decadent turbo-upper classes, who spend half their time quashing peasant uprisings in full riot gear, and the rest of their time dressed like new-romantics, sipping fine wine and eating grapes from the stalk? Or are we supposed to believe that they are also downtrodden peasants, illogically subduing their own class, to protect the super decadent child killers. I don't see it.

There is no political point to the games, and whatever point the organisers think there is, is undermined by their random interventions and interferences in the game.

The writers don't know what 'star crossed' means.

[buster_broon]

Decided after a couple of hours of playing tony hawks HD to watch some old gems that I thought were good back in the day

king of the kickboxers aka no retreat no surrender 4
Out of the films I watched tonight definitely the best but by best in the grand scheme of things I mean pish - does not hold up well anymore

no retreat no surrender
Think this was van damme's first movie and I loved it back in the day - just terrible now I mean what the ghost of Bruce lee lol

no retreat no surrender 2
Better than the first with lower production values but ultimately pish - Cynthia rothrock is bloody terrible

no retreat no surrender 3
Didn't watch it because I remembered it being the weakest of the series so just came to the conclusion it's completely terrible

[rmoxon]

I don't know what you mean by 'the film was well made'. Lots of the effects looked like they're from a cheap tv show, like the airship arriving at the beginning. The editing and camerawork is extremely poor. Could they not afford a camera stand? Well, they could because I noticed at least one steady shot, inserted randomly into a sequence of shaky-cam shots. Even if the camera was steady, I would still have been given a migraine by the sheer number of cuts. The scene at the beginning where Katniss (that's not even a word) is hunting the deer is particularly jarring. There were about 40 cuts just while she was moving about and readying her bow. Too many.

Here are some things that didn't make sense:

The kids would not form into groups with other kids who want to kill them.

Katniss would not have climbed a tree to get away from five people who want to kill her, and are also armed with throwing weapons, unless she had a death wish.

Five people intent on killing someone up a tree would shoot her with the bow and arrow that they have, or throw knives at her, especially since one of the five is a demonstrated expert at throwing knives. They would not send up the tree with a knife. Let's not forget these aren't just typical kids, they've been trained since birth to be hunters and survivalists. They would also not choose 'the waiting game' as a strategy, and they certainly wouldn't all go to sleep at the bottom of the tree, all at the same time, like in a fairy tale. Especially since they all also want to kill each other (the same reason they would not be in a group in the first place).

The rules of the game are not explained to the audience like they are in Battle Royale. What happens if they all just refuse to kill each other? Do their neck braces blow their heads off? No. We don't know what happens because the film doesn't tell us. So there is no motivation FOR THE ENTIRE PLOT.

Technology has reached the level of magic, to the extent that they can genetically engineer any plant/animal they can imagine, and literally spawn them to any location they want like it's a god damn video game. They can start and stop forest fires at exact locations at will. They have magic cameras that are invisible, and follow the kids around so that their every move can be watched in the control room. But then they ALSO have unnecessary cameras in trees. I don't know why. Any type of wound of any severity can be healed literally overnight by applying magic cream. Despite all these technological and magical advances, society apparently still functions based on coal, dug manually from a coal face, by a human.

Working class soldiers/police would not function in a society with a bipolar class divide. Are we supposed to believe that these enforcers are actually members of the decadent turbo-upper classes, who spend half their time quashing peasant uprisings in full riot gear, and the rest of their time dressed like new-romantics, sipping fine wine and eating grapes from the stalk? Or are we supposed to believe that they are also downtrodden peasants, illogically subduing their own class, to protect the super decadent child killers. I don't see it.

There is no political point to the games, and whatever point the organisers think there is, is undermined by their random interventions and interferences in the game.

The writers don't know what 'star crossed' means.

I said the film was well made inspire of it's budget. Some of the effects were ropes, but as a trilogy it's an ambitious project, it's well filmed and tells what story there is in a sufficient manner. It has a strong cast who all do well, and considering the thin plot it still seems well paced at at nearly 2 and half hours. Shaky Cam is never a great idea for me, but it was utilised decently here and gave the film a grittier feel than you'd expect from this type of thing, it was not the typical contrived use of the effect, where it's done just becuase it's popular, it was a creative choice and worked a lot better than in most films.

As for you points that the film didn't make sense, you seem to want everything explained to you rather than a film what requires a little thought, but anyway: If you know anything about psychology, in that situation it's a very realistic idea that those kids would follow the most crazy sadistic, bully type character. A chain of command will always be developed in any walk of life and there will always be an alpha male or a leader that people will follow. This happens at home, In school, in groups of friends, at work places, or indeed if you were dumped on an island and asked to kill each other it would most certainly happen too.

You say they would shoot arrows at her when she was in a tree... Were you not watching the film? They did shoot at her, she wedged herself in between breaches, they couldn't hit her with arrows. Also, the laws of gravity make it a lot harder to throw things like knives stright up into a tree and actually stick in someone than you seem to think. What you wanted to happen would have made less sense.

The rules were explained to the audience, or well the fact that the games have no real rules was, and the people running the show can do whatever they want with the kids. It's true that the kids could probabaly just rebel and not kill each other, and try to live happily ever after together, but the adults would probabaly just send out attack dogs or burn down the place. The fact is that this probabaly never happened anyway, kids in the world of the film live in fear, they are too scared to rebel.

One would assume that the "magic" creations that take place in the games are not only kept under wraps as another way to control the people, but they are not real physical objects either and as such don't have real life properties, perhapse they can't even be sustained for long periods of time. To be honest this film is only the first act of the series and for it to explain every little detail about things like this would meant here is less to explain in later films about the world, but perhapse it does more so in the book. I know the director made a choice to focus very much on the human asspect of the story, becuase that's what he felt the most important part of this first part of the series was.

The film actually addressed what happened when people rebel against those in charge to a slight extent when there were riots that happened after the young black girl died. Again there wasn't really a focus on these events but I credit the director for including the scene as it does show that people are not as content with the world they are in as it first appears. Considering the main characters small rebellion at the end of this film, when she basically disobeyed the athority and won, I have a feeling that rebellion may be the focus of the next film (well that and the boring love triangle).

The film did have its bad points, but a nonsensical story wasn't one of them, a film doesn't need an hour and half of exposition to make sense really, which we may have got if someone like Micheal bay had made the film, would you have preferred that more in your face kind of approach to the storytelling. To me the film got the balance right between what it needed to tell now and what it saved for later, which is actually really good storytelling.

[noobish hat]

I'd prefer a film that made sense at any given point. I don't think I've ever even seen a film by Michael Bay, because I'm not into crap like that, so you can take your insinuations that if people don't like a film you consider thoughtful, they must only like explosions and car crashes and robots, and you can keep them in your pocket.

[rmoxon]

I was only asking, calm down.

It was the way you were talking, like you needed every detail explained to you for you to enjoy anything.

And I never said you only liked car chases and explosions (not that they aren't entertaining anyway, becuase they often are) I was simply asking if you'd rather the hunger games took the Micheal bay approach when it came to subtlety (or therefore lack of it).

Anyway it's probabaly silly of me spending so much time defending The Hunger games when it's not particularly a great film and I do believe it was overrated by many people upon release. But your Comments about the film seemed rather uneducated (although seeing as you've somehow avoided watching any film Micheal Bay has made so far I suppose it's understandable that you're not that knowledgable when it comes to popular cinema, as for better or worse he's clearly one of the biggest directors making effects driven blockbuster movies right now, and to be fair to him he does some things a lot better than many do, it's just a shame he creates such bloated works).

To be fair I wasn't really annoyed at you so much as many on this forum who when it comes to films often talk like they know more about the medium than they actually do. When it comes to cinema this forum is rife with the typical Internet backlash and band wagon jumping comments that lack intelligent thoughts on films and just make people look like sheep really. Again I'm not really accusing you of all that, I am just saying that's what made me comment in the First place, as I thought you were being unfair on the film by talking like it was complete garbage, when it simply isn't.

[noobish hat]

If a film has scenes that don't make sense, that doesn't automatically make them a subtle masterpiece, you know. Usually it means the people involved in it are idiots and/or think the audience are idiots and won't notice. Then there are the people in the audience who will make up an explanation for themselves and do the film maker's job for him. They probably love those people the most.

[rmoxon]

If a film has scenes that don't make sense, that doesn't automatically make them a subtle masterpiece, you know. Usually it means the people involved in it are idiots and/or think the audience are idiots and won't notice. Then there are the people in the audience who will make up an explanation for themselves and do the film maker's job for him. They probably love those people the most.

I never said that scenes not making sense make for a subtle masterpeice (and I certainy never said The Hunger Games was a masterpeice). The film does make sense though, most of the comments you made about the film not making sense were simply wrong, and while you had a few good points I'm sure that those will be addressed in the sequels. Yes it could be argued that the film should work as a stand alone work, but then I feel it does, I didn't have a problem with the ambiguity of the technological advances depicted in the film as I would rather that than the plot coming to a halt every ten minutes for exposition to take place (ala Micheal Bay movies).