New Movies Summer 2012: Seeking a Brave Friend for Seth Grahame-Smith's Desecration of Everything

Pages

There's a thread for each new television season, but there's nothing like that for movies, so why not have one?

I'll start.

I saw The Hunger Games yesterday and really, really enjoyed it. I haven't read any of the books, but the movie has been pretty nakedly pitched as a Twilight-style teen romance, so I didn't really have high hopes going in. But I was pleasantly surprised that not only is it not a Twilight movie, it's also a surprisingly good sci-fi movie.

The world-building here is really well done. It reminds me of the way Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) direct sci-fi and fantasy in that the fantastical elements of the setting are filmed naturally, without a lot of attention draw to them. They're allowed to slip in and out of the frame, quietly building a sense of a real place in the background while the direction remains resolutely character-focused.

I was also really impressed that despite the PG-13 rating, the movie doesn't really shy away from the horror and the brutality of its central premise. Some of the scenes are genuinely disturbing, and I was uncomfortably aware of the two elementary-aged children sitting behind me. (Things certainly could have been more brutal and more dark, which will disappoint someone, but I was satisfied by the story they told.)

Jennifer Lawrence does a great job as Katniss. She's one of my new favorite female leads for being strong, independent, and resourceful without being dopey or sentimental while also never feeling like a male character in drag. She's leagues away from the Bella Swan crap we've been seeing a lot of lately.

The climax is a bit abrupt and not as exciting as it could have been, but all-in-all, I thought it was a very successful movie.

(And no, I haven't seen Battle Royale, but I do intend to. However, having read a few summaries of that movie, I don't feel like the accusations of plagiarism have any teeth. There isn't much similarity between the two movies beyond the basic premise of teenagers being forced to fight to the death, and if anyone gets to claim that idea as their own, it's the Romans.)

ClockworkHouse wrote:

The climax is a bit abrupt and not as exciting as it could have been

We are talking about teenagers here, so ...

I'm interested in seeing the movie as I have read the book and liked it well enough. I'd suggest reading it if you liked the movie. It's a quick, easy read (duh). Anyway, I always felt the violence in the books was on one hand more graphic and real than I expected from a young adult book, but at the same time it was clearly subdued by the label. I struggled with my desire for it to be an adult book and let loose, but perhaps this sort of idea is best held back by the young adult label.

I was stoked when Jennifer Lawrence got the role as she was great in Winter's Bone. The only thing I don't like about her being in this film is that she'll be in the other films, which will keep her away from other roles. Then again, this is putting her more in the mainstream spotlight than anything before, so I'll take that as a win for her career.

Between this and Winter's Bone, I'll see Jennifer Lawrence in pretty much anything. She's really good.

Anyway, I always felt the violence in the books was on one hand more graphic and real than I expected from a young adult book, but at the same time it was clearly subdued by the label. I struggled with my desire for it to be an adult book and let loose, but perhaps this sort of idea is best held back by the young adult label.

The movie walks a really fine line with the violence.

Spoiler:

The blood bath at the Cornucopia right at the start of the Games is incredibly disturbing. It's not necessarily graphic, but it's filmed and scored in a way that's really intense and chilling. That it's children doing these things makes it even worse.

However, the subsequent violence is a lot more toned down, probably to get the PG-13 rating. If they had kept up that same level of intensity throughout the movie, it would have gotten an R without question.

But I also had the same reaction: the movie could have been deeper and more intense if it hadn't have been aimed at young adults, but I also think it would have been a lot more unpleasant. The movie strikes a good balance, I think, where it's still intense and brutal while still being more accessible. It didn't feel dumbed down.

I had the exact same experience with Hunger Games last night. I took my 14 year old sister to see it knowing only that the series had drawn Twilight comparisons. My expectations were very low, despite the fact that I'm a big Jennifer Lawrence fan, but I came away very impressed. Having taken my sister to the first 2 Twilight movies, I do not understand the comparison. Perhaps the books are more similar in scope and tone, but this movie was very well constructed, the acting was mostly strong, and that PG-13 rating was pushed to the edge. I am now very much looking forward to the rest of the trilogy.

Also, you should all go see 21 Jump Street.

Dyni wrote:

Also, you should all go see 21 Jump Street.

Really? I'm surprised. I haven't seen the movie, but the trailer looked awful.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Dyni wrote:

Also, you should all go see 21 Jump Street.

Really? I'm surprised. I haven't seen the movie, but the trailer looked awful.

I know, right? But there's this:

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/YByva.jpg)

ClockworkHouse wrote:
Dyni wrote:

Also, you should all go see 21 Jump Street.

Really? I'm surprised. I haven't seen the movie, but the trailer looked awful.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/1...

Not many impressions, but they're all positive. Do not be fooled by that awful trailer. There is good reason for the raving from casual movie fans and critics alike, and it's not Channing Tatum's pretty boy face

ClockworkHouse wrote:

There isn't much similarity between the two movies beyond the basic premise of teenagers being forced to fight to the death, and if anyone gets to claim that idea as their own, it's the Romans.)

But thats the primary point of the movies. I figured they just get away with it because one is a japanese story and the other american.

It definitely cant claim originality by any form. If they claim its not based or influenced by BR then they deserve any bad press they get.

ranalin wrote:

But thats the primary point of the movies. I figured they just get away with it because one is a japanese story and the other american.

It definitely cant claim originality by any form. If they claim its not based or influenced by BR then they deserve any bad press they get.

I don't really follow you here. You're saying that despite any number of dissimilarities between the two stories that The Hunger Games is clearly influenced by Battle Royale simply because they both revolve around children being forced to fight one another to the death? Does this extend to all other movies with similar premises, where there's some original work that must be credited? All stories of vengeful ghosts must credit The Grudge or The Changeling?

It's obvious from a number of references throughout that The Hunger Games was directly inspired by Roman gladiatorial combat far, far more than any possible connection to Battle Royale. The worlds are different, the scenarios are different, the way the characters are selected for and become involved in combat are different, the storylines evolve in different ways, and the situations resolve in different ways. Literally the only connection that I can see are the ages of the people involved and that the combatants are forced into their situation by authoritarian governments.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

It's obvious from a number of references throughout that The Hunger Games was directly inspired by Roman gladiatorial combat far, far more than any possible connection to Battle Royale.

Well i dont agree. Not at all in fact.

ranalin wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:

There isn't much similarity between the two movies beyond the basic premise of teenagers being forced to fight to the death, and if anyone gets to claim that idea as their own, it's the Romans.)

But thats the primary point of the movies. I figured they just get away with it because one is a japanese story and the other american.

It definitely cant claim originality by any form. If they claim its not based or influenced by BR then they deserve any bad press they get.

Actually, the author claims a prior influence, the story of Theseus and the Minotaur. There is a whole host of other influences named in this article from early history/mythology (including her other primary influence, reality TV).

The NY Times talked to her about Battle Royale, and she had this to say:

NY Times wrote:

When I asked Collins if she had drawn from “Battle Royale,” she was unperturbed. “I had never heard of that book or that author until my book was turned in. At that point, it was mentioned to me, and I asked my editor if I should read it. He said: ‘No, I don’t want that world in your head. Just continue with what you’re doing.’ ” She has yet to read the book or to see the movie.

I tend to believe her - Battle Royale just isn't that well known in the western audience. On top of that, Battle Royale doesn't have the same focus at all. BR is all about paranoia and cruelty - it starts immediately before the battle and ends just after. The Hunger Games doesn't focus on just the games, but uses them as a catalyst for the overall story of the change in a dystopian society.

I saw the Hunger Games tonight with some people from work. I wasn't sure I was going to like it based on what I saw in the trailers but, overall, I enjoyed it. Some of the things that they changed from the book really bothered me (particularly the pin) but, for the most part, I can understand why they made the changes. I thought the addition of the behind-the-scenes stuff actually detracted from a lot of the tension of the games (I'll spoiler the specifics).

Spoiler:

Telegraphing the fire and showing holograms of the mutts completely ruin the surprise in both of those situations (except for the jump scare). I really kind of hate that they made the two victors twist Haymitch's idea.

The addition of the District 11 riot was an odd choice I thought since that isn't supposed to happen yet.

I didn't like how Haymitch was portrayed. I thought Woody Harrelson did well but the characters role seemed like it was significantly cut down.

As for the violence being toned down. Really only two deaths seemed like they were different from how they were depicted in the book (again with the spoilers, both movie and book).

Spoiler:

In the book, Rue is impaled by the spear while she's still trapped in the net whereas in the movie, Katniss releases her before she sustains what appears to be just a flesh wound. In the same scene, in the movie, Katniss shoots Marvel in the chest in self-defense before noticing that Rue has been hit by the incredibly weakly thrown spear. In the book, she shoots him after she sees Rue get hit and, if I recall correctly, she shoots him in the neck.

Everything else is pretty much the same.

Finally, I think the people that constantly bring up Battle Royal are grossly overestimating how popular Japanese culture is in this country.

21 Jump Street is the best movie I've seen so far this year. Easily the most entertaining. You should definitely see it.

Hunger Games? Meh.

Spoiler:

I actually thought the "world building" was kind of lazy. I can buy a future where comfortable wealthy of the city are absurdly opulent and entertained by watching the poor compete in games. But what do they watch the rest of the year? What keeps them entertained when the Hunger Games aren't going on? How did we even get here?

iaintgotnopants wrote:

I saw the Hunger Games tonight...

I didn't like how Haymitch was portrayed. I thought Woody Harrelson did well but the characters role seemed like it was significantly cut down.

As for the violence being toned down. Really only two deaths seemed like they were different from how they were depicted in the book (again with the spoilers, both movie and book).

I agree with all your criticisms but yes overall it was well done. They did cut out a lot (to me) and still went over 2hrs (142min), it still felt a little rushed to me.

I particularly didn't care for the casting of Woody as Haymitch; they should have found someone older/more grizzled. Also I didn't care for the casting of the President (Snow?); they needed someone who was more sinister/sly, someone like Malcolm McDowell. The actress who plays Katniss is perfect for the role.

As for the violence/lack there of; they had a pretty fine line to walk to keep this a "family friendly" movie. The books are fairly dark but I don't think that came across in their portrayal.

As for the violence/lack there of; they had a pretty fine line to walk to keep this a "family friendly" movie. The books are fairly dark but I don't think that came across in their portrayal.

Yeah I am pretty sure any changes in the violence were to try and keep the movie rating down so that parents could bring their kids.

The movie was a bit rushed and there were certainly things left out or changed in order to help the movie along. I am hoping we get to see a directors cut when the video comes out that will help fill in some of those issues.

My advice to anyone who has yet to see the movie is to tell them to read the book first. I think it makes the movie better, as you already know all the information that they had to cut out of the movie to keep the run time down.

I said it earlier, but I haven't read The Hunger Games but had a perfectly satisfactory viewing experience. It didn't feel rushed, and it wasn't obvious where they'd cut out material. It most definitely didn't feel like a chopped up illustrated version of the book like the later Harry Potter movies.

Gaald wrote:

My advice to anyone who has yet to see the movie is to tell them to read the book first. I think it makes the movie better, as you already know all the information that they had to cut out of the movie to keep the run time down.

I would disagree on this. Out of our group of nine people only two had read the book. Having read the book beforehand clearly impacted my enjoyment of it. Whereas, all five of the non-book people that I talked to after really liked the movie.

I would say that if you know you're the kind of person who is going to be bothered by things that have been changed/added/subtracted, don't read the book before.

iaintgotnopants wrote:
Gaald wrote:

My advice to anyone who has yet to see the movie is to tell them to read the book first. I think it makes the movie better, as you already know all the information that they had to cut out of the movie to keep the run time down.

I would disagree on this. Out of our group of nine people only two had read the book. Having read the book beforehand clearly impacted my enjoyment of it. Whereas, all five of the non-book people that I talked to after really liked the movie.

I would say that if you know you're the kind of person who is going to be bothered by things that have been changed/added/subtracted, don't read the book before.

I'd have to agree with that. If I hadn't read the books then I would go see the movie, but now, knowing the changes, I refuse.

So is there anything coming this year that will actually entertain?

Batman might be good.

Can't think of anything else off hand.

EDIT: Ah, sorry, you said spring, which is pretty much over, so nevermind.

I read the books and I'd still say that if you enjoyed them, go see the movie. If you can't enjoy them both on their own merits, that's your problem.

ibdoomed wrote:

So is there anything coming this year that will actually entertain?

Batman might be good.

Can't think of anything else off hand.

EDIT: Ah, sorry, you said spring, which is pretty much over, so nevermind.

My list that was from a post around Oscar time of upcoming movies for 2012

Dark Knight Rises
Avengers
Lincoln
Prometheus
Spiderman (it’ll suck, but I enjoy a good trainwreck once in awhile)
Django Unchained (Tarantino!)
Hunger Games
Bourne Legacy
Hobbit
Skyfall (James Bond 007)
Total Recall (skeptic, but curious)
Great Gatsby
Brave (Pixar)
World War Z
Gangster Squad
Wettest County
Gravity

Kurrelgyre wrote:

I read the books and I'd still say that if you enjoyed them, go see the movie. If you can't enjoy them both on their own merits, that's your problem.

That is one interpretation. Another could be, it's the studio's problem since they are one of many losing money over this.

Lockout is the only Spring release I care about. (I preferred the MS One: Maximum Security title, but whatever.)

More serious trailer.

Less serious trailer. (NSFW for language at one part.)

I think the Escape From New York and Die Hard references seem apt. I'm okay with that.

ranalin wrote:

Total Recall (skeptic, but curious)

It's a Len Wiseman movie. Starring Colin Farrell. Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.

Saw Hunger Games and really enjoyed it!

I want to see Lockout as well.

I'm tempted to go see THG. However, I had a hard time getting into the book, so I'm wary.

Despite that, there are several movies I'm looking forward to this year:

Avengers
Spider-man
Brave
Bourne Legacy
Great Gatsby

Talking about reading comprehension...

I know I missed it at first too guys, but he said spring... which only has a few weeks left...

ibdoomed wrote:

Talking about reading comprehension...

I know I missed it at first too guys, but he said spring... which only has a few weeks left...

You're being too literal. He mentioned he wanted something like the TV threads but for movies. The TV catchall type threads tend to cover four or five month spans. I don't think we need separate movie catchall threads for spring, summer, fall, and winter. That's just forum clutter. Treat it like the TV thread and just edit the thread title occasionally and let's call it good.

Or at least that's my vote.

Brave is June, so not really spring, but I can't wait for that.

Also, released on the same day is Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.

And of course, my wife will be making me go see Mirror Mirror, though my skin will itch the whole time. I better get sex that night.

Nevin73 wrote:

And of course, my wife will be making me go see Mirror Mirror, though my skin will itch the whole time. I better get sex during because she got bored.

FTFY

Pages