• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

The Hunger Games Trailer HD 2012

Are you going to watch Hunger Games in theatre?

  • Yes, I will definitely watch it in the theatre

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • No, i will download, buy dvd/blu-ray instead

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • No, not interest in teenage movie

    Votes: 1 33.3%

  • Total voters
    3
  • Poll closed .

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Hunger Games suffers from Deathly Hallows Syndrome, whereby small, seemingly insignificant plot-bits that are left out - or *shudder* changed - when condensing the story, spiral out of control, leaving other things to be left out later down the line. Or worse, altered entirely. Don't even get me started on the whole elder wand thing, again!

While I know that books are very different beasts to their cinematic counterparts, it's difficult to not feel hard done by when your weighty tome is changed in its transformation to the silver screen.

For those initiated, this particular story is such: at an unspecified time, the Capitol took power and what was previously North America was divided into 13 districts, run under an oppressive dictatorship. When rebellion failed, the 13th district was obliterated and the remaining twelve were punished. It was decreed that every year following, the 12 districts of Panem would offer up in tribute one young man and woman between the ages of twelve and 18 to be prepared to battle for their lives in the Hunger Games, an annual fight to the death aired on live TV.

Adapted from Suzanne Collins bestselling trilogy, Hunger Games Director Gary Ross offers something in his adaptation that Collins could not when writing in Katniss' voice, and that's the experience of watching the Hunger Games unfold, rather than simply being a contestant in them.

Ross doesn't use a voice-over, instead, much of the exposition takes place wordlessly, through the film's action. What's left out by doing this though, is a great deal of characterisation. Would it be so much harder to depict Haymitch Abernathy as the cantankerous, damaged alcoholic he is, or Katniss as the manipulative and ruthless survivor she is, or Peeta as the self-sacrificing emotional Lover Boy that he is? Can we not have our post-apocalyptic dystopian cake and eat it too?

The absence of characterisation means that the love triangle that's par for the young adult fiction course falls almost entirely flat. There's little reason to jump on board #TeamPeeta or #TeamGale because the introductory sequence lacks the strength of feeling that comes from Katniss' first person narration. The film does almost nothing to reveal the basis of her relationship with Gale, nor her reasons for being so fiercely independent, which stem from her family's plight in the Gulags of District 12. (And, for a film that's about star crossed lovers trying to outsmart an oppressive regime, only one kiss?!)

We meet our protagonists on reaping day of the 74th Hunger Games and we quickly see that Panem is a nation divided. The rich are excessively rich; all glass chandeliers, platinum door handles, zany clothes and lavish amounts of food and drink, while the poor are utterly impoverished. Tributes are plucked from a very bleak-looking Districts and made-over as TV stars, given training and an ex-victor-turned-mentor then dropped into an arena for a little game of mass child slaughter that is forcibly broadcast on every screen in the nation.

The setting of this not-too-distant future is a juxtaposition of Holocaust-style labour camps and Minority Report-esque technologies being utilised by the Hunger Games gamemakers.

The handheld camerawork used during moments of high-stress and violence is darting and blurred, always searching and trying to focus in, and it really works to develop Katniss' panic. It also helps Ross to smartly cut around the film's violence, making a story that is all about children killing children while adults watch on, a very M-rated affair indeed. Images around the action flash past, allowing you to feel the impact of something, without ever really showing on anything that might affect a more adult classification.

Scattered between these fight scenes are pieces of commentary delivered straight to camera by Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman (the Gretel Kileen of Panem TV) and Toby Jones as Hunger Games announcer Claudius Templesmith, and it allows for the more confusing aspects of the story to be flat-out explained.

The film's main problem is that it doesn't deliver on the book's greatest success, which is in making you think about what survival is really worth. Collins created an allegory for class-struggle, told of the perils of totalitarianism, and offered a snide take on reality TV with some female empowerment thrown in for good measure, but not all of this shines through, which makes it hard to reconcile.

Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen is however, the perfect anti-Bella. She's smart, brave, strong, a capable hunter, a survivor, and protector and she doesn't need a boyfriend to feel complete. Likewise, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) is selfless and loyal, but not in the psychopathic way that Edward is. Australia's Own Liam Hemsworth hasn't been given much to do yet, but his spot as Gale in the Hunger Games blossoming love triangle will surely be fleshed out in the series' second and third parts.

Having said all that, it is entertaining and Ross has successfully dissected and expanded the book and produced something that works as a film - so long as you're not too precious about its origins. It's undoubtedly a solid start to what is set to be a hugely popular franchise, and one that sets the stage for better things to come.

May the odds be ever in our favour.
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Never send a boy to do a man’s work or so the old saying does. But what about sending a man to a boy’s (or girl’s) movie? Such was the question I asked myself when Blast Magazine asked me to review the latest sensation in the young adult novel/movie genre: “The Hunger Games”.

I was not a fan of “Twilight” and checked out after the first film. It was a decent enough movie, but it didn’t hold my interest. Something about a rural, logging town in Washington State where everyone looks as if he or she walked out of an Old Navy ad did not sit right with me.
“Twilight” was pretty much my only frame of reference as I sat down for “The Hunger Games”. I hadn’t read the novel and only vaguely knew it was set in a bleak future. This post-apocalyptic future works to “The Hunger Games’” advantage, for I was not relating the action in the movie to any real life situation— whereas in “Twilight”, despite the vampire aspect, the story world was very much present day America. Thus, a detail about “The Hunger Games,” where our protagonists come from a starving community but seem too rosy in the face, bothered me less than the lapses of logic in “Twilight”.
A quick plot summary: “The Hunger Games” depicts a world where an autocratic central government holds twelve outlying districts under its sway. In return for protection, every year each district sends two of its children –a boy and a girl—as “tributes” to compete in a battle to the death, with only one winner emerging. The “Hunger Games” are a hugely popular television show, and the society seems to revolve around this mashup of American Idol and Survivor. But in this reality show competitors don’t vie for points, cash, or flattering comments. They want each other’s blood.
From District 12, we follow Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark as they are chosen (Katniss volunteers to go in place of her frail sister), trained, and set loose in the wilderness to fight for survival against an array of other children, some savage and some ill prepared for this deadliest of games.
“The Hunger Games” very much reminded me of “The Running Man,” the Arnold Schwarzenegger action vehicle where political criminals are stalked in a game zone by maniacal gladiators while rabid fans watch on television and bet how long competitors will survive. “The Running Man” seemed to succeed more than “The Hunger Games,” for not only does Arnold’s character survive, but he also manages to launch a rebellion against the oppressive state which sponsors the show. Perhaps this will occur in what appeared to be the set up for an inevitable trilogy at the “The Hunger Games” end, but since we don’t see that in this chapter of story, the latter half of the movie felt flat.
Indeed, there seems to be a moment in “The Hunger Games” when Katniss’s heroics put the game’s producers on edge. They scramble to change the rules to the game as a rebellion breaks out in one of the districts. There can be only one, (for you “Highlander” fans) becomes Well, there can be two. But then the rules change again…and again…and nothing seems to come of Katniss’s triumph (plot spoiler: she survives). In a movie where the stakes could not be higher — life and death — the story meanders about halfway in and loses the strength it had built up.
Furthermore, in The Running Man, the host of the television show –played obnoxiously and brilliantly—by real game show host Richard Dawson, is the focus of Schwarzenegger’s revenge and that eventual showdown feels natural and satisfying when it comes. In “The Hunger Games”, Stanley Tucci and Wes Bentley play an announcer and “The Hunger Games” organizer, respectively, but they are the two hats Dawson wore in his one role—and Dawson did both better—and having two characters dilutes any power either can muster. Tucci is more engaging as a smarmy and saccharine version of Ryan Seacrest, but the inclusion of all these characters (including a brooding Donald Sutherland as the President of the government) leaves too much on the table and none are really resolved in any more than cursory fashion.
But our real interest and attention is with the children on the field (it’s actually a forest) of battle, and one of the reasons I preferred this to “Twilight” was that our heroine, Katniss, is truly heroic. In “Twilight,” Bella was a weak and passive character, always requiring the protection of others. In “The Hunger Games,” Katniss is a warrior, as good as Robin Hood with a bow and arrow, who uses strength, intelligence, and cunning to outlast all others. I really was rooting for her to win.
In all honesty, I simply might not get this movie. It’s an adventure for younger people, though I think you can enjoy it even if you are 30 and up. It appears as if it will be a box office and pop culture hit, but I’m not sure I found anything meaningful to hold onto in “The Hunger Games,” It’s a fast two hours, and if you don’t go in expecting too much you’ll most likely emerge hungry for more.
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Already suffering from "The Hunger Games" overkill? Get over it.
In one of those rare, happy occurrences, a mega-blockbuster touted ad nauseam lives up to its hype. That's right -- the screen version of the phenomenally successful Suzanne Collins page-turner about a strong-willed teen fighting for her life during a televised death match hits the bull's-eye.
The futuristic film is just as gripping and moving as the bestseller on which it's based. Fans will be delighted that it remains faithful to its roots and unforgettable heroine, Katniss Everdeen, a complex 16-year-old (played fearlessly by Jennifer Lawrence) who is thrust into a kill-or-be-killed contest in what's perhaps one of the most withering commentaries
Special Section
The Hunger Games: Get the latest news, photos about upcoming movie
ever on reality TV. But even those who have never opened the book should find it an exhilarating action film with a heart.
Nearly all elements come together to make this one of the best book-to-screen adaptations to date: the compelling direction by Gary Ross, the perfect cast (especially Lawrence and a scene-stealing Woody Harrelson) and beautiful art direction. There's also a respectful script by screenwriter Billy Ray, who collaborated with Collins and Ross, that makes some minor changes that allow it to hit all the important points but keep a tight pace.
Those unfamiliar with Collins' story will likely be startled by the dark social commentary that accompanies its emotional heft and violence. Certainly, the movie keeps
Advertisement

intact the book's timely themes about haves vs. have-nots, governmental repression and how shoddily we treat our children.
Intensity is palpable
The Hunger Games, which take place in a North American country called Panem, start with the annual Reaping, a lottery in which a teenage boy and girl -- called tributes -- from each of the 12 districts are selected to engage in a battle to the death. The goal of the games -- televised throughout the nation -- is to show that the fascist government won't allow another uprising, while playing to the gladiator bloodthirst of the city crowds.
The tweaks here and there actually improve the film. The best move is ditching the first-person narration by Katniss, something always hard to pull off on film. Since Lawrence, so tremendous in "Winter's Bone," is such a powerhouse of an actress, we simply don't need it. We feel her fear at the Reaping and in the games, as well as her steely inner strength. The scene in which she says goodbye to the younger sister, Primrose (Willow Shields), whom she volunteers to stand in for, is wrenching.
Another change is to downplay the carnage. While director Ross doesn't shrink from the violence, he never glorifies it. Still, the action at parts is heart-racingly intense, there is blood, and it's all too tough for young children. The MPAA ratings board often misses the boat, but this time they're right on target and parents should respect the PG-13 rating.
One of the bloodiest scenes, for example, takes place as the games open. Knives fly, punches are thrown, young bodies fall. Nearly half the tributes die in the chaos, but it's over quickly, in contrast to cinematic battles in which every cruel thrust or punch is delivered in grisly slow motion.
The moments in which tributes are attacked by tracker-jackers -- killer wasps on steroids that deliver painful stings and hallucinations -- drag out long enough to be painful to watch.
And there's no getting around the darkness of the final fight scene where the remaining finalists, their faces bloodied, wrestle to stay alive.
That said, much of the brutal action in "Hunger Games" is off camera. And one key scene, in which a character in the book suffers a prolonged, agonizing death, is blessedly shortened.
Most important, as in the book, the human cost -- seen through the eyes of the tributes and those watching from back home in the districts -- is palpable.
But it wouldn't have worked nearly as well without the stellar cast. The two young guys in Katniss' life are well-played, with Josh Hutcherson as Peeta, the small-framed but strong baker's son who is her fellow tribute from District 12 and has long had a secret crush on her. Liam Hemsworth as Gale, a strapping lad who is Katniss' friend and hunting partner, doesn't have much to do except look hunky, and he does it well.
Standout cast
In secondary roles, Harrelson has a grand time as Katniss and Peeta's drunken mentor, Haymitch Abernathy, making the character more likable than the book does. Other standouts include Wes Bentley ("American Beauty") as the vain games-maker Seneca, a nearly unrecognizable Elizabeth Banks as the clueless PR loon Effie, Stanley Tucci as the vapid and toothy game show host Caesar, and Lenny Kravitz as Katniss and Peeta's soulful designer Cinna. Donald Sutherland makes a fine President Snow.
Top-notch production values also contribute in a vivid re-creation of Collins' vision. Early scenes of the downtrodden District 12 have a Dorothea Lange quality to them, with drab clothing and drawn, emaciated faces of common folk stuck in an Orwellian nightmare. They dramatically contrast with the Capitol where the games take place, a weird variation of Oz awash in vainglorious people wearing bold colors and gaudy costumes.
The only real missteps come in the special effects department. A firestorm in the forest during the games isn't as frightening as it should be; neither are the mutant beasts created later.
But that's such a minor complaint in a movie that's as smart, bold and fast as its heroine. In comparison, "Twilight" simply shrivels like a vampire in sunlight.
 

Microsoft

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Me go buy de sound track yesterday after reading so many good review...not bad...most likely get better after watching de show...:biggrin::biggrin:
 

singveld

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Me go buy de sound track yesterday after reading so many good review...not bad...most likely get better after watching de show...:biggrin::biggrin:

i am going to watch it tomorrow, hopefully with lots of screaming teenagers. do they have the bag pipe music from the trailer.
 
Last edited:

Alamaking

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
So this Jennifer Lawrence is Mystic? she look quite big size in Xmen, here she look quite petite leh...
 

Microsoft

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
i am going to watch it tomorrow, hopefully with lots of screaming teenagers. do they have the bag pipe music from the trailer.

Not sure which 1 u refering 2...16 track all songs...lastnite listern to first few track on pc...jus rip em into mp3...manzz...de sound quality abit cmi leh...:(
 
Top