Jogos Vorazes

Seeing the "Hunger Games" series gain so much recognition is difficult to fathom; especially when it's more or less a blatant copy of "Battle Royale", a Japanese novel (1996), movie (2000), and manga (2000-2005). I've read the entire series of "Hunger Games" (2008), and not only is the writing style bland, but the plot is exceedingly unoriginal and not 'unique' like many of you are claiming it to be. Like the "Battle Royale" manga, "Hunger Games" includes love triangles, a group of teenagers randomly chosen (BR: by class HG: by district), plans to overthrow authority, teens given weapons and forced into a death match, a pair working together to undermine the game with the help of an older mentor who had previously won the game, both female and male main leads, a corrupted government, signal fires and bird calls, a reality TV show program (which IS in the English adaption of the manga (2006) for the series unlike many of you have known), and the list goes on and on. Evidence of these unconcealed similarities can be found on various Internet articles (whose writers I sincerely thank). I urge you to go right now and read the manga or novel of Battle Royale online so that you can compare the two series. The author of "Hunger Games" blatantly claimed (*cough* lied *cough) that she supposedly never even knew of "Battle Royale", so you can't use 'inspiration' as an excuse anymore. Instead, she blurted out nonsense about Roman mythology and the Iraq war since she doesn't want to admit her source of inspiration is a contemporary. How convenient for her own success since "Battle Royale" is a Japanese series that isn't well known in North America. She basically made an American-version of the series that contains less gruesome content and involves districts in place of school classes. Even if she truly did not know about "Battle Royale" or mysteriously forgot about it in the back of her mind, it is still part of an author's job to confirm the originality of his or her own to-be published works through researching. I'm posting this all of over the web so that "Battle Royale" can at least receive some acknowledgment that the "Hunger Games" author denied. Sure enough, both series also share resemblances with "The Lord of the Flies" and "The Running Man". However, unlike the HR author, the BR author has not denied this inspiration. Moreover, the "Hunger Games" is more like a rip-off of "Battle Royale" than an inspiration since the majority of the plot elements are nearly identical. There's a fine line between the words 'inspiration' and 'copy', and "Hunger Games" has extended far past it. There are also many popular American series that were inspired by Japanese series such as "The Matrix" from "Ghost in the Shell", however they rightfully gave credit for the 'original' series… unlike a certain someone. I sincerely apologize if I seem rash with my word choice, but it's so aggravating that Suzanne Collins had dare stated that she wasn't inspired by "Battle Royale" when she clearly was. What's more contemptible is that she's getting not only famous from her rip-off, but she's also obtaining vast amounts of money from it. But hey, that's how reality works, right? Therefore, I don't care if this is marked as spam or hauled with negative comments from "Hunger Game" fanatics. As long as it reveals to some people the credit "Battle Royale" genuinely deserves, then I'm satisfied. Nonetheless, the movie's portrayal of "Hunger Games" is quite exceptional in comparison to other movies adapted from books, which is why I am rating this 2/10 instead of 1/10.

This is not so much a review, everything has already been said in the other postings, but rather my experience with this movie and book.

OK, look, I'm probably old enough to be the grandfather of most of the people submitting reviews to this movie. I am not into the teen age drivel that seems to be everywhere you look these days but .....

I first heard about the story when the book came out. It seemed you couldn't turn around without hearing it being discussed everywhere. The enormous hype made me mildly curious, but not so curious that I wanted to read the book. Fast forward several years: the book had been out, the movie hade been out, the DVD had been out and only then did I accidentally stumble across the DVD at the library. I could check it out for free and if I didn't like it I could turn it off after ten minutes ... so, why not?

I immediately found myself captivated by the beautiful cinematography and background theme and despite the over-the-top and ridiculous costumes and makeup of the people in The Capitol I decided to continue watching. I was drawn deeper and deeper into the story and the characters and after about a fourth of the way through I knew I was hooked. The acting, starting with Jennifer Lawrence, was exceptionally good. I have to go through about 25 movies before I find one that I can say I absolutely loved ... this was a 25er.

To finish my story: unbelievably, when I returned the DVD to the library, on a table in the lobby of the library where they sold used books cheaply, I found a mint condition copy of the book (the big paperback format) for fifty cents. I grabbed it. I began reading the book when I got home and couldn't put it down even though I already knew the story. Collins' writing style was as captivating as her story and the very few differences between the movie and the book were not worth mentioning. Actually, I thought the movie version of the ending was better (just couldn't imagine Rue as a werewolf).

I now own, and have seen and read, all of the books and movies of the franchise and consider them among some of the best entertainment of my life. SO it seems the old adage is wrong because you really CAN teach an old dog new tricks. Other young adult movies came out after 'The Hunger Games' which tried to capitalize on the same type of theme and they, by comparison, have failed miserably in my estimation.

There's almost nothing to say about a movie like The Hunger Games -- it's been so worked to death to be a successful blockbuster that all of its edges, the things that make a film good or bad, have disappeared. It just exists as a spectacle, a finished product that defies any critical lens.

I could go on about the particulars of the adaptation -- the ridiculousness of the entire Capital setting, or the sometimes disorienting shakycam work, or the great cast of adults patiently playing supporting characters -- or the source material -- the gestures at social commentary, the way that the story protects Katniss from ever having to morally sully herself -- but they all seem to be beside the point. Look. The movie has the things that happened in the book, but in a movie, competently shot and acted, with absolutely no risks taken. If you liked the book, or want to learn what this whole Hunger Games thing is about without having to read the book, you'll probably like this. It's a digestible film, even an enjoyable one, but in the end it's not really interesting or memorable. But to be fair, it wasn't meant to be.

An unfortunate catalyst that propelled the trend of teenage protagonist led book adaptations, of dystopian futures. Divergent and Maze Runner followed, both failing to complete their respective stories. Perhaps that has tainted the memory of a satisfactory film, undefinable by genre.

It's easy to forget that way back in 2012 this was fresh and new, tonally dark cinema, aiming for the teenage demographic. Perhaps that's a large reason for the success of the franchise, it was new and interesting, everything since has just been a rehash, located in a different world.

Refreshingly dark and mature, visually graphic, The Hunger Games has a lot going for it, as a visual spectacle, not so much as an immersive and compelling story. Narratively it meanders, without intent, there's a station to arrive at but not the train track to get there. Tonally gloomy at times, balance is hard to find. Switches in mood make the texture of the atmosphere uneven, because changes are jarring and misplaced. The edit failed to maximise the potential seeping throughout. Scenes are drawn out and end on odd notes, something that could've been tightened up in post-production. Additionally more cuts to and through between the Games and the world at present would've helped to increase tension while the story pondered, the scale and public reaction isn't documented anywhere near enough, if at all. Personally I feel the editing really trips this film up, it's quite easily 10-15 minutes too long, feeling even longer due to the fact of how much sitting around there is.

Stretched so far it's see through, the ending is blatant from the get go, meaning there's not much to keep you interested after the half hour mark.

Gary Ross shows wonderful craft and delicacy when concerning the dark themes of oppressed society, life without choice and just how bleak living in a dictatorship is. In the first act he manages to craft a tone and atmosphere that reeks of desperation, fear, the empty void of hopelessness and life without control. Yet he lifts the mood with the slightest and smallest of scenes between Kat and Gale, serving as a reminder of humanity's ability to dream and aspire for a better world. Each shot set in District 12 is delightful, sombre chills run through every vein as you are enraptured in fear and anxiety. The build up to and throughout the reaping is tense and nauseating, interactions with Kat and her sister are filmed so preciously. Sound is well utilised through the overdrawn run-time, music is allowed to overrun and dominate, drowning out the world perfectly and symbolically. An example that comes to mind concerning the sound is when Kat offers herself up, her screaming juxtaposed against the silence sets her out from the rest, nailing her on as the protagonist we will all route for. Selfless.

This was Jennifer Lawrence's big break in the public eye, she left a good impression. Portrayed with care, Katniss is delicately played when is necessary but can easily surge with passion when needed. Reminiscent of an indie film portrayal, Jennifer showcases her range and hits all the marks, and you, in all the right places.

Hunger Games starts off brilliantly, it's exhilarating and tense, filled with subtlety. Has a terrific lead performance that powers you through. It's weighed down by an underwhelming narrative, that's evened out with an enjoyable character arc. Sadly it gets wrapped up in it itself, losing its awareness of how sick a situation this is, and rather than point it out, chooses to accept the societal issues, it so cleverly addressed in the beginning. We then drift and chunder toward the inevitable ending.

Nevertheless I'd quite happily re-watch the first act, but would have no qualms with skipping the rest.

It's a solid piece of film-making.

Overall it is great to see the novel brought to life on the big-screen. First of all, kudos to the actors - each does a marvelous job with their roles. Harrelson, Lawrence, Hutchinson, Tucci, Banks and the rest of the cast - they all nail their characters and do them honor.

The heart of the story is intact, unfortunately there are many significant elements from the novel entirely missing, or changed to the point they lose the depth of meaning they were intended to have. Unlike some of the sub-plot and story elements left out of the Potter and LOTR series, these missing and adulterated items matter greatly, and lessen the quality of the movie. I will give the producers credit for building Seneca Crane's role in an effective way that answers many questions for those that have not read the books.

Finally - production values. You will suffer significant eyestrain after 2.5 hours of glaring close-ups. All of the action is shot so close and is so muddled it is almost impossible to determine what is happening. The chariot display is shown either to close or too far away, and in both cases so fast that the impact of the glorious entrance and introduction of the tributes is lost. The CG shots (thankfully there are few of them) look like leftovers from a Syfy channel production. This may be the worst big-budget production to hit the big screen in years. Although Ross worked well with the actors, he did not handle the action epic elements well at all. The cinematography is atrocious and the whole production looks cheap.

You will enjoy the movie, but you will also wish for the grand and respectful care-taking that was given the Potter and Lord of the Rings franchises.