The hunger games on a scale 1-5?

  • 79 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by ModernMuhCow (423 posts) -

What would you give this movie. I'll start out by giving it a 5. I think the move was an absoulute experience.

#2 Posted by Ilovegames1992 (14221 posts) -

I'm not watching it.

#3 Posted by jimkabrhel (15420 posts) -

As a person who hadn't read the books first: 4/5

#4 Posted by AussieePet (11424 posts) -
Don't care
#5 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -

I'm not watching it.

Ilovegames1992
Don't care AussieePet
#6 Posted by xerxes5678 (4702 posts) -
I haven't read the books, but the movie was fairly good on it's own. I'd give it a 4/5.
#7 Posted by quebec946 (1348 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

I'm not watching it.

Fightingfan

Don't care AussieePet

#8 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

Haven't seen it and don't plan too.

#9 Posted by T_REX305 (11304 posts) -

I have read the first book. I give it a 4/5. They changed and left out a lot of stuff though.

#10 Posted by Netherscourge (16328 posts) -

4/5

Any movie that makes teenagers kill each other in a Free For All Deathmatch as part of a public spectacle is full of win.

#11 Posted by Vader993 (7533 posts) -

I don't what that is but when I hear Hunger Games I think of African Children.

#12 Posted by Horgen (110151 posts) -
I've only seen the movie... And it wasn't that good.
#13 Posted by MrPraline (21321 posts) -
Will watch eventually, probably not in the cinema.
#14 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (17504 posts) -

4/5

Any movie that makes teenagers kill each other in a Free For All Deathmatch as part of a public spectacle is full of win.

Netherscourge

Is this you by chance?

:P

Anyways, I give the movie a 4/5. Was a pretty cool watch but the shaky cam got freaking irritating...

#15 Posted by RandomWinner (3751 posts) -

Solid 4. It followed the book closely, which was a good thing, but since most of the book is her thoughts, its kinda a bad thing. The movie is well done, its exciting, and it really is a good visual of the book. They did a good job.

#16 Posted by Pikdum (2241 posts) -

It was pretty solid. I'd give it a 4. There were some parts in it where I really think the director had a chance to take it to the next level and didn't.

#17 Posted by Dark_Knight6 (16619 posts) -

If it's anything like the book, probably a two. It was fun, but not very good. I imagine the movie is more entertaining though.

Also I am reading the third book now and man is it bad.

#18 Posted by Ilovegames1992 (14221 posts) -

4/5

Any movie that makes teenagers kill each other in a Free For All Deathmatch as part of a public spectacle is full of win.

Netherscourge

So its pretty much just Battle Royale?

#19 Posted by EVOLV3 (12209 posts) -

I saw it last night, it was pretty good, but nothing spectacular. I'd probably give it a 3.8/5

#20 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (17504 posts) -

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

4/5

Any movie that makes teenagers kill each other in a Free For All Deathmatch as part of a public spectacle is full of win.

Ilovegames1992

So its pretty much just Battle Royale?

No and that comparison seriously needs to stop....

#21 Posted by Labavo (451 posts) -
I hated the smug tributes. They tried way too hard to make them seem intimidating. And some of the dialogue was cringe-worthy. Also, as much as I hated to judge an adaptation by the book, it would have been nice to hear a bit more about the world, as that was sorely missing. I don't think they even referenced the fact that hunting was illegal. It would certainly let the viewer know why there weren't more hunters. The camera didn't always give a good view of the action. I did like the cyberpunk feel of it. I would personally give it a 3/5. I was surprised by the amount of hype the movie got. The books weren't anything particularly special. If you saw the movie, you are missing out on quite a bit of the lore, but it's not worth the time, in my opinion.
#22 Posted by Ilovegames1992 (14221 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]

4/5

Any movie that makes teenagers kill each other in a Free For All Deathmatch as part of a public spectacle is full of win.

LostProphetFLCL

So its pretty much just Battle Royale?

No and that comparison seriously needs to stop....

You can forgive me for thinking it when thats the description i was going by...

#23 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (17504 posts) -

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

So its pretty much just Battle Royale?

Ilovegames1992

No and that comparison seriously needs to stop....

You can forgive me for thinking it when thats the description i was going by...

I don't mean to just be yelling at you. It is EVERYONE comparing the two movies when they only have one damn thing in common, that being teenagers forced to kill eachother (and I suppose main characters who don't want to get involved with the killing).

The Hunger Games doesn't use the violence for sport. The violence is really toned down, and in fact the actually games don't start until like over an hour in the movie. There is alot of lead-up and story.

Battle Royale on the other hand uses alot of the violence for amusement and goes over the top. It also has alot less backstory and is more just good fun then trying to tie along some loose message or something.

They are very different movies and personally I prefer Battle Royale because of how crazy and fun it is.

#24 Posted by Pikdum (2241 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

No and that comparison seriously needs to stop....

LostProphetFLCL

You can forgive me for thinking it when thats the description i was going by...

I don't mean to just be yelling at you. It is EVERYONE comparing the two movies when they only have one damn thing in common, that being teenagers forced to kill eachother (and I suppose main characters who don't want to get involved with the killing).

The Hunger Games doesn't use the violence for sport. The violence is really toned down, and in fact the actually games don't start until like over an hour in the movie. There is alot of lead-up and story.

Battle Royale on the other hand uses alot of the violence for amusement and goes over the top. It also has alot less backstory and is more just good fun then trying to tie along some loose message or something.

They are very different movies and personally I prefer Battle Royale because of how crazy and fun it is.

I find it funny that people refuse to watch it just because they think its a ripoff of Battle Royale.

#25 Posted by Big_Pecks (5350 posts) -

[QUOTE="LostProphetFLCL"]

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"]You can forgive me for thinking it when thats the description i was going by...

Pikdum

I don't mean to just be yelling at you. It is EVERYONE comparing the two movies when they only have one damn thing in common, that being teenagers forced to kill eachother (and I suppose main characters who don't want to get involved with the killing).

The Hunger Games doesn't use the violence for sport. The violence is really toned down, and in fact the actually games don't start until like over an hour in the movie. There is alot of lead-up and story.

Battle Royale on the other hand uses alot of the violence for amusement and goes over the top. It also has alot less backstory and is more just good fun then trying to tie along some loose message or something.

They are very different movies and personally I prefer Battle Royale because of how crazy and fun it is.

I find it funny that people refuse to watch it just because they think its a ripoff of Battle Royale.



High horses.

#26 Posted by dontshackzmii (6026 posts) -

Four. Loved it! What's with all the hate?

#27 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10839 posts) -

3.5. It has a very gritty atmosphere and good acting. However, its premise is too ridiculous for my taste (kids killing one another), and I don't like its retro-futuristic look (seems paradoxical). Regarding its retro-futuristic look, I think it's odd that they use things like old fashioned microphones and Victorian style clothing, but have things like futuristic looking aerial vehicles.

EDIT:

[spoiler] I also don't like the fact that Rue didn't play as big of a role as I expected. [/spoiler]

#28 Posted by Pikdum (2241 posts) -

I think it's odd that they use things like old fashioned microphones and Victorian style clothing, but have things like futuristic looking aerial vehicles.

BluRayHiDef

Maybe thats the style in the future. :P

#29 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10839 posts) -

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

I think it's odd that they use things like old fashioned microphones and Victorian style clothing, but have things like futuristic looking aerial vehicles.

Pikdum

Maybe thats the style in the future. :P

It could be, but I don't think it mixes well.

#30 Posted by Jolt_counter119 (4081 posts) -

It was an alright movie and way better than the book. I hate how the book trys to be more than an exciting adventure and some kind of moral story or allegory for where the future is heading when everything about the world makes about as much sense as Hogwarts.

#31 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10839 posts) -

It was an alright movie and way better than the book. I hate how the book trys to be more than an exciting adventure and some kind of moral story or allegory for where the future is heading when everything about the world makes about as much sense as Hogwarts.

Jolt_counter119

What's wrong with Hogwarts?

#32 Posted by Mario_Eater (344 posts) -
I would rather read the books before I see the movie, but I dont even have the books to read. Looks like it might be a while before I see the movie then...
#33 Posted by soulless4now (41378 posts) -

4/5

#34 Posted by metroidprime55 (17657 posts) -

I'm not watching it.

Ilovegames1992
#35 Posted by firefluff3 (2073 posts) -

pathetic shakey camera, cannot stand it in any movie. wasnt a terrible film though, 3/5.

#36 Posted by Banjo_Kongfooie (3838 posts) -
3/5 The acting was superb but the script was cheesy.
#37 Posted by major_silva (1206 posts) -
I felt that the movie lacked many elements that would have better explained the story, and also included elements that felt superfluous to the movie's plot. It's definitely a film for pre-existing fans of the series that have read the novels. On its own, some of the effects were nice, the soundtrack was fairly decent, and the acting was better than I expected it to be considering the cast was quite young. However, the plot wasn't solid enough, the dialogue was mediocre, and while it was moderately violent for a PG-13 rating, I felt that a lot of the brutality of kids killing kids was lost, which, for me, detracted from the experience.
#38 Posted by Wolf-Man2006 (4187 posts) -

I haven't seen the movie, but I'd give the book a 5 since I really enjoyed it a lot

#39 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

4, good movie and worth watching, but they did tone down some of the more viloent aspects of the book. Also they jump the gun on a few things, there are no riots on the first book, and it has nothing to do with Ruu.

Can't complain though, good movie and was pretty accurate to the book over all. I am looking forward to the next one, just hope they don't go overboard with the romance stuff and make it like some twilight crap because that's not what the books portray.

#40 Posted by magicalclick (22819 posts) -
3 because of the hype. It is a decent movie, but, way overhyped, which is a turn off for me. The world is not really believable IMO. Such dictatorship and such drastic gap between rich and the poor can't support a fancy economy. Rich only gets richer when they can cash in from the poor. It is not believable those people can be rich when there is no market to make money from the poor. Probably there is an explaination behind its economy, but, I am not seeing it in the movie.
#41 Posted by J-man45 (11043 posts) -

I have not seen the movie yet but I would give the book a 3.5 or 4.

#42 Posted by flipin_jackass (9726 posts) -
I haven't watched the movie, but I'd give the books 4/5
#43 Posted by Joedgabe (5115 posts) -

Haven't seen the movie but i'll rate the book a 2. Just my opinion though highly disappointing.

#44 Posted by Vuurk (6258 posts) -
4.5/5 imo
#45 Posted by almasdeathchild (9517 posts) -

[QUOTE="Ilovegames1992"] [QUOTE="AussieePet"]Don't care Fightingfan

Haven't seen it and don't plan too.

Pirate700

#46 Posted by muller39 (14944 posts) -

Haven't seen it and never plan to.

#47 Posted by chilly-chill (8902 posts) -
Overhyped to the max, yet still a decent movie. 3.5
#48 Posted by starfox15 (3966 posts) -

4/5

Any movie that makes teenagers kill each other in a Free For All Deathmatch as part of a public spectacle is full of win.

Netherscourge

I was drawn to this as well. I was expecting a mess of a film but the director and company behind the film really did a solid job. The movie wasn't earth shattering by any means, but it was a good movie nonetheless. Some of the logic was off, but overall I felt the film was a good effort.

#49 Posted by Klipsh (638 posts) -

I can't believe I've never heard anything about this series and it's already racked up over $200 million. I literally heard about it a day before it came out.

#50 Posted by ZumaJones07 (16458 posts) -
n/a