Stand by Me(Rob Reiner, 1986) 3.5/4 Oh god. Why did I took so long to watch this masterpiece? Movies about teenagers and growing up kids always fascinate me, and withStand by Me it wasn't different. The friendship between Chris and Gordie is one of the most sincere and natural that a movie has ever portrait. It even makes me wish I had a friend like that during my childhood. Beautiful. I'm still kinda thoughtful. I'm sure that the movie will stay with me for days now.
Stand by Me(Rob Reiner, 1986) 3.5/4 Oh god. Why did I took so long to watch this masterpiece? Movies about teenagers and growing up kids always fascinate me, and withStand by Me it wasn't different. The friendship between Chris and Gordie is one of the most sincere and natural that a movie has ever portrait. It even makes me wish I had a friend like that during my childhood. Beautiful. I'm still kinda thoughtful. I'm sure that the movie will stay with me for days now.
You watched it finally! As you know, my favorite movie.
Some thoughts: To save time the film starts with texts describing the basic rules of the The Hunger Games, which furthermore gives an impression of realism, as if we were citizens of Panem about to turn on the TV and watch the games. The first scene with the leader of the games is a natural follow-up to the text intro, albeit not memorable enough for an opening scene. It's a decent intro, but it didn't evoke enthusiasm for the film and the transition into the next scene with Katniss and Prim was terribly abrupt. I would rather have opened the film with a forest scene to immediately establish Katniss as a hunter, which after all is important to the plot. But so far...not bad, not bad. The acting was good, the poverty of the district was conveyed well and the scenes with Katniss and Prim were believeable and quite moving.
However, the director did a big mistake in shooting the entire film with handheld cameras. It lessened the impact of the technique once the games started. As I see it, the beginning of the film did not call for shaky cam. It would have been better, I think, to start with static shots and use more dynamic camera moves as the film progresses. The editing was likewise at times too fast; shots should have lingered longer, especially in the beginning when giving an overview of the district and the Capital, but the rapid cuts never allowed you to take it all in. It's surely intentional, but it's a choice I disagree with. It was particularly ineffective during the first fight scene at the arena; you could hardly make out anything and in turn it made you more confused than nervous for the protagonist. In this case, however, I'm sure it was done for the purpose of keeping the rating down. And overall, it was tamer than expected, but that's not a critique; I think the director got away with what he could, and yet managed to make the violence come across as quite shocking when needed.
So far I have sounded very negative about it, but I did enjoy it. The Hunger Games is a focused and engrossing film that tells its story of survival well and presents interesting themes. The plot is good, but this I already knew from reading the novel. I was surprised at how closely it followed the book, which it benefitted from seeing as it's quite "cinematically" written, and the changes that were done were good; for instance it wisely changed perspective from Katniss to the leader of the game and the president. Quite a good way to convey some plot points that we learned through Katniss' thoughts in the book. As for the shaky cam, with the exception of mentioned scenes, it worked during the games and certainly put you into the shoes of Katniss. The scene with the deadly bees was in particular very effective at that.
Overall, while it's not a fantastic film, I really liked it. It's certainly a worthy pop culture phenomenon.
The Hunger Games(2012, Gary Ross) A great blockbuster movie is known to have a perfect balance between technical aspects and a well-developed narrative. It's actually something really challenging because you depend on a good script/story (original or from a source material) and a visionary director capable to translate what's on the paper to the screen, without neglecting the power of the plot or it's audiovisual aspects. By that, it's really common to find movies that prioritize its visual aspects, instead of the narrative, after all, it's much easier to distract an audience with visual effects and impressive art direction. But, with the The Hunger Games, while we have a good adaptation - even with some flaws - the movie has so many technical issues that they are basically impossible to ignore and they end up hurting the whole experience and even the narrative.
Apparently, the low budget and the rating messed the whole visual conception of the production and, unfortunately, Gary Ross wasn't creative enough to solve it with simple solutions. First of all, the shaky camera is obviously used as an option of cinematography because it helps distracting the viewer from the eminent violence. So the keep it as a style, the use in the whole movie is justified. The result? Scenes that should be shocking and impressive end up being bland, without reaching or causing the catharsis on the spectator. The deaths - except Rue's - are not remarkable and, while they should be seen as an event, they just happen on screen. Emotionally flat and bland, with a shaky camera that helps to hide everything that could mess with the PG-13 rating. The rating? I actually think that can't be used as an excuse. As I pointed before, Gary Ross could find so many creative solutions for it and he didn't. First of all, The Hunger Games is a reality show. I was very disappointed to see that in the arena they basically avoided the mix between the television language and the filmmaking language. As it is a reality show, we should expect cameras of all over the place and that cameras should be responsible for the capture and transmission of the images to the whole Panem! Why didn't they think of that? We just have a couple of bits and it's never clear enough if the camera is transmitting the games or just showing us the action inside of the movie. Instead of using a shaky camera, why not to use a camera correspondent to the narrative and kinda far from the action to show the violent scenes? It's just an example. Let's not forget that The Hunger Games is a television show, but apparently, the filmmakers forgot of that and decided to make the audience face it as just a movie instead of having the idea of putting us inside the movie.
Going on with the cinematography, I was surprised to see that we barely had any long shots or field shots. The viewer is left totally lost inside the arena for example, because of the absence of long shots to help situate. Also the few field shots from the capital are also not enough and not impressive. For me, it's something that is justified by the low budget. We can't forget that we are watching a movie about a unknown world. Long shots are needed and necessary. The introduction to this world just stays unimpressive. What lead us, of course, to the art direction. The art direction is filled with up and down scenarios. Helped by the poor visual effects, it just fails to impress. The tribute parade is ruined because of the set design and the terrible visual effects work, that totally bother. Maybe, if a bigger studio acquired the rights, the result could be totally different, as Lionsgate is not as powerful as some major companies. But, The Hunger Games is a story that asks for a visionary portrait and that, unfortunately, doesn't happen on the screen. Thankfully, while visually the movie is a disaster and a mess, I was glad to watch a really devoted cast. Praising Jennifer Lawrence even sound redundant, while to whole supporting cast does a great job.
Still, I was glad to see that the narrative was well adapted. The whole criticism is there and it's even supported by some great bits (like the scene where Haymitch see a kid from the Capitol playing with a sword and the rebellion from District 11). The beggining of the movie was also well-handled, turning the reaping scene the most remarkable - if not the only - scene of the movie. Of course, the flaws are there. I thought interesting the decision of putting scene from the outside of the games. Although, the sequences with Caesar Flickerman and Claudius Templesmith are there for the sake of didacticism, and while it could be used more times to enforce the idea of putting us inside the movie, it just serves to explain things that the regular audience could not understand without reading the book. Unnecessary.
While the movie has some great dramatic moments, like Rue's death, the bloodbath (although I just hated the idea of avoiding external sounds), the reaping, it's funny to notice that there isn't a proper dramatic curve and that culminate in a really anti-climatic ending. The relationship between Katniss and Peeta is developed in a rushed way and you are never convinced by them as a couple. Actually, I believe this is a flaw of the novel. The romance is the weakest sides of the story and the movie reflects that (by the way, terrible decision of showing Gale in district 12 during the romantic scenes between Peeta and Katniss). Curious enough, the editing try to fix most of the narrative issues, giving the audience a fast paced story that never fails to catch your attention.
Also, I'm still shocked to read people putting the Hunger Games as a sci-fi production. The mix of genres doesn't work well and you are never sure if you are watching an action, an adventure or a sci-fi movie. Maybe you are watching a little bit of everything, but in the end, it's actually nothing. I can't understand how some critics put it next to Matrix and even The Truman Show.
Although the movie had so many flaws, I can't avoid saying that it's actually an entertaining and fun experience. But, from a promising franchise that suffers from hype and overreacting fans, being just entertaining and fun is not enough.
I watched twice, Pat. I tried liking it. I tried my best to like it, but I wasn't able to ignore its many flaws. I wanted to love it, but it didn't happen
But...but... Fuck the technical flaws. I mean you saw it by other point of view than us, because you're studying that. And you know many techniques. Heheh it's ok but I recommend you to view the movie from other point of view.
Just enjoy it. I realised some technical issues but I enjoyed a lot the movie anyway.
Pako, as I wrote on the review, I did find the movie entertaining and fun. I had a good time watching it. But.. I mean... Yeah, I kinda watch movies from a different perspective than a regular audience, I guess. But like... I hated the cinematography so bad that almost ruined the whole experience for me. For example, during Rue's death.. I hated how we couldn't see her getting hit, I hated how distracting the camera was while capturing deaths. It almost ruined the experience and feeling of the games.
That's why I wrote: the technical flaws in the movie were so many that it messed the narrative approach. At least for me.
Guys. I didn't hate the movie. Not at all. I just had another expectations, and the movie failed to fulfill them.
Yes, I indeed dislike Mockingjay, but that has nothing to do with the fact that I wasn't impressed by The Hunger Games. Still, I love the first book, so, I would never "try to dislike" the movie just because I disconnected from the fandom. I wrote my opinion based in the movie, as a viewer. I tried to evaluate the movie as an independent piece of art, without comparing it with the book. I tried to review it like a movie by it's own. I don't know how this can be an "expected reaction" from myself as I really like the first book and care about it. I mean... Is it my reaction that it is expected or the fans (over)reaction? I've seen people comparing this movie to The Matrix, The Truman Show and even a Clockwork Orange. If you say that you were expecting this reaction from me just because I feel disconnected to the saga, I think I can say that you fans are overreacting about the movie just because you are addicted to it, right?
I didn't want to dislike the movie. Actually, I even gave a second chance to the movie and watched it again on the next day. And the flaws are there.
I see people complaining about those who complain about the shaky camera. People are saying that the "shaky" camera gives the sense of reality and urgency. And for me, that doesn't make sense at all. As I pointed in my review, the movie totally fails when it ignores the opportunity of merging two audiovisual languages: television and filmmaking. The sense of urgency and reality would be much clearer if they tried to turn the audience into spectators from Panem. The Hunger Games is a reality show, a television show. Have you ever seen a shaky camera like that on TV? Wouldn't be much more interesting trying to merge these languages? From a source material that is really creative and inventive, the movie just falls flat. There are no big moments. That's my main issue with the movie.
And just to point it out, I was blown away by the beginning of the movie. But when they arrive at the Capitol, the movie turns into a visual mess.
I agree that there weren't really any big moments; events just happen without any urgency or flow between them, and the camera never captures the enormous scale of it. I'd like some aerial shots of the arena. It should feel like an impressive and futuristic location and we ought to feel as if the tributes are trapped in the Capitol's maze rather than a random forest, but it was just uninspired.
Heheh it's ok but I recommend you to view the movie from other point of view.
That would not be a review, but an objective evaluation of the film. I fail to see why he should ignore his film knowledge when giving an opinion of a...that's right, a film.
I agree that there weren't really any big moments; events just happen without any urgency or flow between them, and the camera never captures the enormous scale of it. I'd like some aerial shots of the arena. It should feel like an impressive and futuristic location and we ought to feel as if the tributes are trapped in the Capitol's maze rather than a random forest, but it was just uninspired.
Exactly. The absence of long shots and field shots is basically unforgivable.
As I wrote, we are not able to situate ourselves inside of the arena.
I wouldn't say the fans are blinded to see the flaws. I mean.. It's a movie and everyone has a different interpretation and view of it. But if you are comparing The Hunger Games to sci-fi classics like I read in a review from a magazine, than I would say you are blinded and need to expand your knowledge about movies and filmmaking.
No, I meant that fans sometimes confuse nuanced criticism with hate because they love it so much. As a result, some may perceive negative objections from others as personal insults because they consider the movie in question as a part of their own identity. Thus, dismissing negative opinions as unjustified hate rather than appreciate the diversity in opinions is in a way a defence mechanism to protect one's own self-image from being wounded. However, I must say that an opinion so easily influenced by differing viewpoints, as evident by labelling others as "haters", is not a strong one in the first place.
Comments
Oh god. Why did I took so long to watch this masterpiece? Movies about teenagers and growing up kids always fascinate me, and withStand by Me it wasn't different. The friendship between Chris and Gordie is one of the most sincere and natural that a movie has ever portrait. It even makes me wish I had a friend like that during my childhood. Beautiful. I'm still kinda thoughtful. I'm sure that the movie will stay with me for days now.
Mysterious thing time.
Mysterious thing time.
Mysterious thing time.
And I was surprised to know that River Phoenix was already 16 in the movie :O
Mysterious thing time.
Watching over the weekend.
Mysterious thing time.
Mysterious thing time.
Mysterious thing time.
Some thoughts: To save time the film starts with texts describing the basic rules of the The Hunger Games, which furthermore gives an impression of realism, as if we were citizens of Panem about to turn on the TV and watch the games. The first scene with the leader of the games is a natural follow-up to the text intro, albeit not memorable enough for an opening scene. It's a decent intro, but it didn't evoke enthusiasm for the film and the transition into the next scene with Katniss and Prim was terribly abrupt. I would rather have opened the film with a forest scene to immediately establish Katniss as a hunter, which after all is important to the plot. But so far...not bad, not bad. The acting was good, the poverty of the district was conveyed well and the scenes with Katniss and Prim were believeable and quite moving.
However, the director did a big mistake in shooting the entire film with handheld cameras. It lessened the impact of the technique once the games started. As I see it, the beginning of the film did not call for shaky cam. It would have been better, I think, to start with static shots and use more dynamic camera moves as the film progresses. The editing was likewise at times too fast; shots should have lingered longer, especially in the beginning when giving an overview of the district and the Capital, but the rapid cuts never allowed you to take it all in. It's surely intentional, but it's a choice I disagree with. It was particularly ineffective during the first fight scene at the arena; you could hardly make out anything and in turn it made you more confused than nervous for the protagonist. In this case, however, I'm sure it was done for the purpose of keeping the rating down. And overall, it was tamer than expected, but that's not a critique; I think the director got away with what he could, and yet managed to make the violence come across as quite shocking when needed.
So far I have sounded very negative about it, but I did enjoy it. The Hunger Games is a focused and engrossing film that tells its story of survival well and presents interesting themes. The plot is good, but this I already knew from reading the novel. I was surprised at how closely it followed the book, which it benefitted from seeing as it's quite "cinematically" written, and the changes that were done were good; for instance it wisely changed perspective from Katniss to the leader of the game and the president. Quite a good way to convey some plot points that we learned through Katniss' thoughts in the book. As for the shaky cam, with the exception of mentioned scenes, it worked during the games and certainly put you into the shoes of Katniss. The scene with the deadly bees was in particular very effective at that.
Overall, while it's not a fantastic film, I really liked it. It's certainly a worthy pop culture phenomenon.
I am not willing to give it a higher score because of some ineffective directorial and editing choices.
The Hunger Games 8/10
21 Jump Street 7/10
TV Show:
The L.A. Complex 8/10
visit my blog!
www.mediahype101.blogspot.com (tv shows/reviews)
8.5/10
Ended up seeing this. We all enjoyed it extremely. It was hilarious, and actually quite smart.
Mysterious thing time.
A great blockbuster movie is known to have a perfect balance between technical aspects and a well-developed narrative. It's actually something really challenging because you depend on a good script/story (original or from a source material) and a visionary director capable to translate what's on the paper to the screen, without neglecting the power of the plot or it's audiovisual aspects. By that, it's really common to find movies that prioritize its visual aspects, instead of the narrative, after all, it's much easier to distract an audience with visual effects and impressive art direction. But, with the The Hunger Games, while we have a good adaptation - even with some flaws - the movie has so many technical issues that they are basically impossible to ignore and they end up hurting the whole experience and even the narrative.
Apparently, the low budget and the rating messed the whole visual conception of the production and, unfortunately, Gary Ross wasn't creative enough to solve it with simple solutions. First of all, the shaky camera is obviously used as an option of cinematography because it helps distracting the viewer from the eminent violence. So the keep it as a style, the use in the whole movie is justified. The result? Scenes that should be shocking and impressive end up being bland, without reaching or causing the catharsis on the spectator. The deaths - except Rue's - are not remarkable and, while they should be seen as an event, they just happen on screen. Emotionally flat and bland, with a shaky camera that helps to hide everything that could mess with the PG-13 rating. The rating? I actually think that can't be used as an excuse. As I pointed before, Gary Ross could find so many creative solutions for it and he didn't. First of all, The Hunger Games is a reality show. I was very disappointed to see that in the arena they basically avoided the mix between the television language and the filmmaking language. As it is a reality show, we should expect cameras of all over the place and that cameras should be responsible for the capture and transmission of the images to the whole Panem! Why didn't they think of that? We just have a couple of bits and it's never clear enough if the camera is transmitting the games or just showing us the action inside of the movie. Instead of using a shaky camera, why not to use a camera correspondent to the narrative and kinda far from the action to show the violent scenes? It's just an example. Let's not forget that The Hunger Games is a television show, but apparently, the filmmakers forgot of that and decided to make the audience face it as just a movie instead of having the idea of putting us inside the movie.
Going on with the cinematography, I was surprised to see that we barely had any long shots or field shots. The viewer is left totally lost inside the arena for example, because of the absence of long shots to help situate. Also the few field shots from the capital are also not enough and not impressive. For me, it's something that is justified by the low budget. We can't forget that we are watching a movie about a unknown world. Long shots are needed and necessary. The introduction to this world just stays unimpressive. What lead us, of course, to the art direction. The art direction is filled with up and down scenarios. Helped by the poor visual effects, it just fails to impress. The tribute parade is ruined because of the set design and the terrible visual effects work, that totally bother. Maybe, if a bigger studio acquired the rights, the result could be totally different, as Lionsgate is not as powerful as some major companies. But, The Hunger Games is a story that asks for a visionary portrait and that, unfortunately, doesn't happen on the screen. Thankfully, while visually the movie is a disaster and a mess, I was glad to watch a really devoted cast. Praising Jennifer Lawrence even sound redundant, while to whole supporting cast does a great job.
Still, I was glad to see that the narrative was well adapted. The whole criticism is there and it's even supported by some great bits (like the scene where Haymitch see a kid from the Capitol playing with a sword and the rebellion from District 11). The beggining of the movie was also well-handled, turning the reaping scene the most remarkable - if not the only - scene of the movie. Of course, the flaws are there. I thought interesting the decision of putting scene from the outside of the games. Although, the sequences with Caesar Flickerman and Claudius Templesmith are there for the sake of didacticism, and while it could be used more times to enforce the idea of putting us inside the movie, it just serves to explain things that the regular audience could not understand without reading the book. Unnecessary.
While the movie has some great dramatic moments, like Rue's death, the bloodbath (although I just hated the idea of avoiding external sounds), the reaping, it's funny to notice that there isn't a proper dramatic curve and that culminate in a really anti-climatic ending. The relationship between Katniss and Peeta is developed in a rushed way and you are never convinced by them as a couple. Actually, I believe this is a flaw of the novel. The romance is the weakest sides of the story and the movie reflects that (by the way, terrible decision of showing Gale in district 12 during the romantic scenes between Peeta and Katniss). Curious enough, the editing try to fix most of the narrative issues, giving the audience a fast paced story that never fails to catch your attention.
Also, I'm still shocked to read people putting the Hunger Games as a sci-fi production. The mix of genres doesn't work well and you are never sure if you are watching an action, an adventure or a sci-fi movie. Maybe you are watching a little bit of everything, but in the end, it's actually nothing. I can't understand how some critics put it next to Matrix and even The Truman Show.
Although the movie had so many flaws, I can't avoid saying that it's actually an entertaining and fun experience. But, from a promising franchise that suffers from hype and overreacting fans, being just entertaining and fun is not enough.
I wasn't impressed.
Rating: 2/4
Mysterious thing time.
But yes, morse , i see that he wrote one.....
Mysterious thing time.
For me, the movie had so many technical flaws for me to ignore it
I mean you saw it by other point of
view than us, because you're studying
that. And you know many techniques.
Heheh it's ok but I recommend you to
view the movie from other point of view.
Just enjoy it. I realised some technical
issues but I enjoyed a lot the movie anyway.
That's why I wrote: the technical flaws in the movie were so many that it messed the narrative approach. At least for me.
hope Catching Fire gets better
Shame you hated it.
It is the reaction I expected from you, though.
Although, I kind of expected
this type of reaction from you.
I feel like you sort of "disconnected"
from the whole Hunger Games fandom
when you started reading Mockingjay.
From what I saw, at first you were a
really big fan! And I really wanted you
to like the film.
G.G.
Yes, I indeed dislike Mockingjay, but that has nothing to do with the fact that I wasn't impressed by The Hunger Games. Still, I love the first book, so, I would never "try to dislike" the movie just because I disconnected from the fandom. I wrote my opinion based in the movie, as a viewer. I tried to evaluate the movie as an independent piece of art, without comparing it with the book. I tried to review it like a movie by it's own. I don't know how this can be an "expected reaction" from myself as I really like the first book and care about it. I mean... Is it my reaction that it is expected or the fans (over)reaction? I've seen people comparing this movie to The Matrix, The Truman Show and even a Clockwork Orange. If you say that you were expecting this reaction from me just because I feel disconnected to the saga, I think I can say that you fans are overreacting about the movie just because you are addicted to it, right?
I didn't want to dislike the movie. Actually, I even gave a second chance to the movie and watched it again on the next day. And the flaws are there.
I see people complaining about those who complain about the shaky camera. People are saying that the "shaky" camera gives the sense of reality and urgency. And for me, that doesn't make sense at all. As I pointed in my review, the movie totally fails when it ignores the opportunity of merging two audiovisual languages: television and filmmaking. The sense of urgency and reality would be much clearer if they tried to turn the audience into spectators from Panem. The Hunger Games is a reality show, a television show. Have you ever seen a shaky camera like that on TV? Wouldn't be much more interesting trying to merge these languages? From a source material that is really creative and inventive, the movie just falls flat. There are no big moments. That's my main issue with the movie.
And just to point it out, I was blown away by the beginning of the movie. But when they arrive at the Capitol, the movie turns into a visual mess.
As I wrote, we are not able to situate ourselves inside of the arena.