[Movies] Talk about the last movie you saw 2: Electric Threadaloo

LittleKagsin

LittleKagsin

Far said:
There is no development of the characters, in the movie, that needed it. And it was plenty violent. Sometimes just off screen but others, particularly one scene, you see in full view of the camera.

Personally. and while I know it would be a hard sell, splitting it into two movies, one in which they preped for the games, one in which they actually took place, would have made for a much more fulfilling series. And speaking with a few others who have seen the movie and read the books, many of them mirror my thoughts.
Click to expand...
The idea is nice, but really...it's pretty spot on, the preperations part, to the books. There would be nothing for them to add. Since the books are told in 1st person/present tense, the charactization is set up through what she sees and she doesn't see a whole lot. The movie even told more and explained more of what you don't find out til later/see in the books.

For me, I think it's one of the greatest book to movie adaptations I've seen in quite a while. Sure there were things left out, but nothing I deemed damning to the movie. Honestly, I would highly recommend it. I thought it was well casted, well acted, beautiful music, accurate- but still explained enough that someone who hasn't read the books would still enjoy it. The hand-cam was a little shakey for me at times, though.
 
Yoshimickster

Yoshimickster

Who else when they heard of this series, thought it would be a hilarious comedy about pro-eating? Possibly starring Jack Black. This is just what I assume from the title.
 
Far

Far

LittleKagsin said:
The idea is nice, but really...it's pretty spot on, the preperations part, to the books. There would be nothing for them to add. Since the books are told in 1st person/present tense, the charactization is set up through what she sees and she doesn't see a whole lot. The movie even told more and explained more of what you don't find out til later/see in the books.

For me, I think it's one of the greatest book to movie adaptations I've seen in quite a while. Sure there were things left out, but nothing I deemed damning to the movie. Honestly, I would highly recommend it. I thought it was well casted, well acted, beautiful music, accurate- but still explained enough that someone who hasn't read the books would still enjoy it. The hand-cam was a little shakey for me at times, though.
Click to expand...
I think I was being harsh with my "review". I suppose it sounds like I hated it and that wasn't the case. I just felt I wanted more from it in that what was there was enjoyable but it just felt rushed for me. It was my fault I suppose as I was expecting something else and what was there was entertaining but I wanted to like it so much more.

It's made me want to read the book if nothing else.
 
LittleKagsin

LittleKagsin

Well, then I think thats good! I would highly recommend the books, if you have even the slightest inkling. They are YA books, so they're pretty easy reads, but the content is phenomenal, to me anyway. Pretty mature and interesting.
 
ThatNickGuy

ThatNickGuy

Just got back from seeing The Hunger Games, myself. Having breezed through all three books recently, I was pretty excited to see it.

And...it was pretty good. There were a few things that wasn't explained as well in the books (like what tributes get for putting their name in the draw more than once), but overall, I thought they captured the book rather well. One major complaint was the shoddy camera work. Not only could they not hold onto any shot for any longer than 5 seconds (at one point, I actually started timing it, just to see), but it was incredibly shaky at points. It gets better by the time the Games themselves start, but I was really hating the camera work at first. One minor complaint would be some of the so-so acting. We don't really get a chance to know Peeta as well as we did in the book, but Katniss was done really well. Her fear just before she was put into the games was probably the actress' best part.

So yeah, I dug it. Doubt I'll go see it again, but glad I did. Likely buy the Blu-Ray eventually. Probably just wait to buy the boxed set of the inevitable trilogy.

Oh, and something that really pissed me off just before the movie started. I was in a row with a bunch of teenage boys. One of their friends arrived a little late. I was at the end, near the aisle, with the half dozen teens on the other end. And this fucking punk, without saying a single word to me, just starts pushing his way through my legs. By the time he'd pushed past, I was swearing at him with things like "Really? Really? Not even an 'excuse me'? You fucking asshole. Show some goddamn respect next time." One of his friends leaned out and said sorry. My response? "No, you don't understand. You're not the one that needs to apologize." After some chattering amongst them, the disrespectful punk looks over at me and says sorry, which didn't sound very legit. Probably bent to peer pressure from his friends to apologize.

But seriously? I mean, I expect that sort of behaviour from maybe a four year old who hasn't been taught manners yet, but someone who's twelve or thirteen? That's just unacceptable. Next time someone tries that on me, I'm putting a leg up and demand they say excuse me before shoving by me without saying boo.
 
Shegokigo

Shegokigo

The Hunger Games - Short review:

Way too rushed. Which is a funny response considering it was 2 1/2hrs long. Zero character development past 2-3 flashed scenes for the main character. Major aspects of the film feeling changed to suit the "fast pace" of the film. Lot of time spent on the "prep" very little time spent on the actual drama.

Weak film. Hopefully we get an extended director's cut on Blu-Ray that really fixes those glaring issues.
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Bowielee said:
Are people really bitching about Harry Potter being split? I defy you to tell me how they could have wrapped everything up in one film.

If you're referring to Twilight, well, then... what the hell are you doing watching Twilight in the first place?
Click to expand...
Cut some of the horcrux gathering.
Long bouts of silence (which Rifftrax managed to fill; how can you not know about great things like Rifftrax? Do you live in Canada or something?)
Don't need to see Necromancer shit that happens parallel to Bilbo's journey, which is what I assume the padding of The Hobbit will come from.

And as for the Hunger Games trilogy, Mockingjay is probably the weakest of the novels and doesn't need to be stretched into two movies.
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

Everything that happened in the first movie would have had to have been condensed to about 12 minutes. There's FAR too much exposition going for that. Yes, the first one may have been padded out a bit, but the second movie is straight through action. There is no way they could have done it any other way without sacrificing great chunks of the story.
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Bowielee said:
Everything that happened in the first movie would have had to have been condensed to about 12 minutes. There's FAR too much exposition going for that. Yes, the first one may have been padded out a bit, but the second movie is straight through action. There is no way they could have done it any other way without sacrificing great chunks of the story.
Click to expand...
It worked for the other Harry Potter movies and I didn't feel I missed much for not having read the books. I know it's something Potter fans take issue with, but it's not a big deal to us who just watch the movies.
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Bowielee said:
Which is why Prisoner of Azkaban was the best book in the series, but the worst movie in the series.
Click to expand...
That's funny, because everyone I know who only watches the movies thinks Prisoner was the best movie in the series. What works in a book is not always right for a film.

I was so glad Peter Jackson chopped down big chunks of LOTR.
 
Hailey Knight

Hailey Knight

Shegokigo said:
I thought LOTR was a great theatre film.... but the extended director's cut was easily superior.
Click to expand...
I agree on Fellowship and ROTK; but I felt Two Towers added in scenes that explained the same thing as other scenes, except the Boromir flashback, which really should've been in the theatrical version.

But even then, the extended editions didn't really get across the pages and pages of slogging through the swamps and that seemed to cause a bitch-fest with some people who, for some reason, wanted to see all that walking.
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

Regarding the extended edition, I loved most of what was added back, but in Fellowship, I have yet to not fall asleep during the beginning hobbiton stuff. The movie definitely did not suffer from it's loss in the theatrical release.
 
Frank

Frank

Quotemander Prime said:
Cut some of the horcrux gathering.
Long bouts of silence (which Rifftrax managed to fill; how can you not know about great things like Rifftrax? Do you live in Canada or something?)
Don't need to see Necromancer shit that happens parallel to Bilbo's journey, which is what I assume the padding of The Hobbit will come from.

And as for the Hunger Games trilogy, Mockingjay is probably the weakest of the novels and doesn't need to be stretched into two movies.
Click to expand...
Oy! Fuck you! I've purchased damn near 40 Rifftrax tracks!

Read the first part like I'm Australian.
 
Frank

Frank

Shegokigo said:
I thought LOTR was a great theatre film.... but the extended director's cut was easily superior.
Click to expand...
I agree, except for the ending of ROTK. People in the theater I was in were beginning to get audibly antsy and were laughing during the movies constant ending fake outs.
 
Frank

Frank

I think the Hobbit has a shot at being superior films to the LOTR. The Hobbit book is so much better suited to being a straight up adventure film. Better suited to fit the pace of a movie.
 
Jay

Jay

Watched the Tree of Life last night. By the end of the movie I wanted to stab my eyes out with needles.

I want those hours wasted back in my life and now swear off any more "oscar noms".

I could have been looking for more useless Skyrim mods to install man.

Fucking terrible.
 
checkeredhat

checkeredhat

By "For What it was" I didn't mean as an adaptation (or apparently prequel), I meant as a "RAAARGH MONSTER CRASHBOOM BANG!" movie it was fun. Like I said, the best part was the intense witch hunt, which in this movie only lasted all of 6minutes, and I'm sure made up the better part of the original.
I saw the original when I was a kid, but I really don't remember it. I probably didn't even manage to stay awake through the whole thing. My dad and I used to stay up watching horror flicks after I got in from trick or treating on Halloween, and I remember watching it with him but nothing of what happened.
I watched two more movies yesterday and can't even remember what they were, so they must have not been very good.

***EDIT: I remember what they were: Return of the Living Dead and Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. I was right. Not very good.
 
Espy

Espy

Prisoner of Azkaban was probably the best "film" in the HP series. It shucked all the exposition that made up the book and focused on making a damn good movie.
 
Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

Jay said:
Watched the Tree of Life last night. By the end of the movie I wanted to stab my eyes out with needles.

I want those hours wasted back in my life and now swear off any more "oscar noms".

I could have been looking for more useless Skyrim mods to install man.

Fucking terrible.
Click to expand...
lol
 
Charlie Don't Surf

Charlie Don't Surf

I like Nightmare 2 a lot more now that I realize the entire film is a metaphor for homosexuality.

3 is also legitimately good. Let's uh.... not talk about any of the others until New Nightmare.

Also my favorite part of the uno is that picture of the cats riding a San Francisco cable car
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top