Comments on: Girl On Fire: 5 Things That Worked In ‘The Hunger Games’ & 5 That Didn’t

By: Lucy

Lucy — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:17:45 +0000

I loved the books and I thought the movie was great. I thought all the cast did a great job. I didn't like all the shaky camera movements but I hate that in all movies that use it and it annoys me to no end. Overall an enjoyable movie experience.

By: onlycuntsandblunts

onlycuntsandblunts — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:17:45 +0000

To be fair, the only thing that worked in this lame movie was the supporting cast.

By: thislalife

thislalife — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:17:45 +0000

It definitely did look cheap in some parts, but I think after this box office take we'll be seeing a much much bigger and grander spectacle (money on the screen!) for the next three movies, especially when shit starts getting real.

By: District 13

District 13 — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:17:45 +0000

you're a little mis guided in #5 didnt work.
the games rotate every year and do jump around. the games in "catching fire"–book and movie number 2–take place in a tropical environment. i would concede the argument, had it been made, that it is coincidental that her environment at home was very similar to that of this years games.

Also–a little bit of the effects–the Peeta makeup, was all real make up effects. they may have done a little blending in post, but that was all practical.

By: Nik Grape

Nik Grape — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:17:45 +0000

You can count me as one of the naysayers for this one. I believed too much in the hype after treading cautiously with the trailers and previews, haven't read the books so I was not a hungry fan with a predisposition to love the meal (even if tasted like crap). // That being said, like you guys I did find some things I liked. Namely, I agree with the positive #1, #3, #4 and #5. Even though I don't quiet find myself saying Lawrence is in the same calibre as Harrelson in terms of acting, she is terrific with what she has and is an impressive role model for teenage girls. I loved the realism of the future in The Hunger Games so much that I hated the campy Capitol and its epileptic-shock inducing colors. I can't agree with your #2. When the future is so cartoony, the filmmakers are playing a little too safe for my liking. I also can't agree with when you say that "Another reason these early scenes work so well is because Ross doesn't cut away to other districts, to see how the other tributes are taking the news of their inclusion in the Hunger Games. It would be easy to do this, a very cinematic conceit, but Ross wisely keeps things with Lawrence's Katniss Everdeen, continuing this laser-like focus for virtually the entire film" – – I would of peronsally listed this under one of the things that didn't work. Too much Katniss, not enough of anyone else. It would of been great to see more of the districts, to get a feel of the world, what it means for the participants etc. And Katniss, due to a very by-the-book basic script, is not nearly as interesting as the film's focus would merit her to be. Lisbeth Salander, for example, wins that battle fair and square. I need something more than her volunteering to save her little sister for a game that I don't even understand yet to "love her unreseverdly". Another thing you say is that you were impressed with Lenny Kravitz? Really? It's as if he was reading the lines from teleprompter. Zero emotions. It was terrible terrible acting and expected from someone who doesn't know how to act. I'm surprised that you actually liked him. // The things that didn't work: all your negative points are bang on. Especially #3 I would put in the number one slot. When the villains are this one-dimensional, the sense of tension and danger is lost for the heroine and immediately everything becomes a little less interesting. I was hoping that they make Clove be the last girl left on the opposing side and for Katniss and Clove to have an all-girl final battle with arrows and knives. It's such an epic battle sequences … in my mind. Sadly, the filmmakers played too safely. And that would be my #2. They played too safe. In every respect, from the shaky cam to the villains, to not showing the other districts, or more from the future, to the design of the games…everything. It was formulaic and predictable and not nearly as fun as it could of and should of been. #3 is the script and the lack of tension and danger for our heroine. Not once was she in actual danger, or at least that I felt. She gets help from all over the place. Your #4 and #5 should really be under one bullet point. I think you have overlooked some of the major flaws in this movie that much more important than production design. Overall though, great piece!! I enjoyed reading it very much.

By: niksterino

niksterino — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:17:45 +0000

Well, besides the awful cop out of an ending (you'd think that a game that's been a tradition for more than 75 years they'd come up with a better way to manipulate their candidates), I had a hard time with the fights: none of the teens that fight against Katniss ever feel like they match her (the sleeping around the tree-scene, seriously?), nor does it ever feel remotely believeable that a society would allow 12-year olds to fight against older teens, except as generic cannon fodder.

By: Zinjo

Zinjo — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:17:45 +0000

Wow talk about NAILING IT!
In my experience it is rare for me to totally agree with a Pro / Con piece entirely so this articles is somewhat remarkable to me. I recall after about 10 minutes of shaky cam in a serene establishing shot I was well nigh furious at Ross. I have come to the personal conclusion that shaky cam is a lazy director's answer to a lack of skill in choreographing action scenes. I have yet to be wrong, but Ross's use of the gimmick in the openning shots defied reason!
Lawrence certainly showed she has the skill to carry a film and unfortunately she did that in it's entirety. I am still wondering what the purpose of the dream sequence with her father was all about. The villans were 2 dimensional and flat (McGee is totally bang on when he exorts writers to spend as much time on the villan as they do on the hero) which is truly unfortunate when you pair them against the brilliantly portrayed Katniss.

If you are not easly affected by motion sickness the film is quite all right, but it is no where nere the level of Kinji Fukasaku's "Battle Royale". A film that took a group of characters and in 2 hours had the audience sympathizing with nearly all of the pathetically doomed cast by its end…

By: Cinematic_High

Cinematic_High — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:17:45 +0000

If it wasn't for Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrleson and that adorable girl who played Rue, I would of walked out as soon as she spun around in her little fire dress….I didn't see any positives in this film and I agree with all the negative viewpoints…..once again we have a case of a beloved book become a big budget adapted spectacle that clearly was 't thought out properly but goes on to make a ton of money….they better get it right with the next one cause that could make or break their chances to lens up MockingJay

By: gaston213

gaston213 — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:17:45 +0000

As a person that hasn't read the books, the thing i couldn't wrap my head around was why everyone looked like an extra from The Fifth Element? The wigs, the makeup, the costumes were all so insane that it kind of took me out of the moment… Did the people of Panem ALWAYS have bad taste, or was this a recent development after the uprising?

So out of curiosity, are the people that are saying they hated it fans of the books? Im not familiar with the source material (yet) and sure I had a few issues with it, but more than anything I left the theater thinking it was pretty good. I feel like it had a pretty successful balance of action and emotion that the Harry Potter films never delivered (at least not to me) When Katniss wails when Rue dies it was ACTUALLY moving to me… When a character died in Potter the only people that really cared, or knew to care, where the people that had a sentimental attachment to the character through the book.

By: jutame.com

jutame.com — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:17:45 +0000

Thank you for your good article.
To get daily new games and update at Jutame.com

By: Alessandra

Alessandra — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:17:45 +0000

I really liked the film and I think it was a very good adaptation. I have to agree with you with the excessive shakey-cam…it was really annoying, I even began to feel a little dizzy and I think that type of filming wasn't necessary at all. It would have been great if they had stopped worrying about the rating and made the movie a little bloodier and less abstract on the violence.

By: Alan

Alan — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:17:45 +0000

I didn't think that the "shaky-cam" was a problem, in and of itself. However, the incorporation of very still shots in the midst of a predominantly handheld sequence creates visual disorder. It is like being on a roller-coaster which stops every five seconds. This isn't 'Hanna', here, in which the visual style modulates over the course of a film. Ross, pick a style and stick to it.

Another key problem is that Ross will establish an interesting and evocative shot, and will – for reasons beyond me – cut away to a boring series of shots. A good example is when Lawrence is interviewed by Tucci for the first time, and you see the crowd from her perspective: the long shot is hazy, almost unfocused, but the image is effective because it suggests the facelessness of the crowd. What does Ross cut to? A series of closer shots of the crowd, in which you can more clearly register their faces. Why? I have no clue, but he does this several times, as he stumbles ass-backwards onto a compelling image, and will then try to undermine that image as best he can with the next edit.

I liked the film, but my beef with the film is the directing: I thought, why isn't Billy Ray (one of the credited screenwriters) directing this, if not a more accomplished visual filmmaker.

By: MightyMad

MightyMad — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:17:45 +0000

Pretty much agree with every one of the points made here… except for the very last one, which is spectacularly disingenuous. I know the average movie viewer probably didn't take the time to read the books, and therefore doesn't know that the Hunger Games have taken places in various environments over the years, but why would said viewer assume otherwise and end up thinking that they always take places in a forest? Yeah, Lionsgate obviously were cheap when it came for set design, but these games were set where they were suppose to be set for that particular year. What, where the film-makers suppose to change the whole story of the book just to make the whole thing more 'cinematic'? Seriously, that was a weak-ass point.

By: dude seriously

dude seriously — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:17:45 +0000

this a terrible movie. why do only terrible movies make tons of money?

By: Chip

Chip — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:17:45 +0000

I didn't think it was possible to have only a handful of establishing shots in a blockbuster film. I like shaky cam and in some ways the close-ups gave an air of mystery and claustrophobia that created some genuine anticipation, but the WHOLE FUCKING MOVIE was like that. Incredibly fast editing combined with these shaky close-ups made most of the action unbelievable and impossible to follow.

By: Willie

Willie — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:17:45 +0000

I've read the books at least three times. I researched each one to see how close to the book they kept the movie. I always wanted to be in set design since I was a little girl but money not being there kept me from it. I can say being from PA. as a little girl in a coal mining town could see how desolate Katniss's home was. Coal is dirty and makes the town dirty.
I like the actors and actresses they chose. You felt for Rue when she was killed and you as well felt for Katniss who took her under her wing. Unlike the others, Katniss was not a killer and did not grow up with that kind of feeling. She was like a young mother taking care of her sister. I know the feeling having taken care of my siblings as a youngster. 8 years old till I got married at 18.
I just wish I had been a part of this exccitment., Say what you must even with the bad parts it is a movie that will grow in anticipation of the next three. I'm ready for them. Want to see how close they come. Especially the final two. They have to get those movies right! I'm 71 and can relate to Wiress. Hope I live long enough to see them.

By: willie

willie — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:17:45 +0000

mightymad, you are correct. If you didn't read the books, you have no idea what was going on. The only thing (if it were me) I would have made the dogs more like the book. With the dead tributes faces and attitudes.
Yes other game were in different things, deserts, cold etc. One reason Haymitch was trying to prepare them when he wasn't drunk and saw these kids were serious. No wonder Haymitch ended that way. He went through the same hell as Katniss and Pitta.
Next time guys, read the books. The more you read them the more you get different feelings. I would have love to have been Cinna. I love design and all that awesome scenes.

By: Stephanie Lebo-Topper

Stephanie Lebo-Topper — Sun, 22 May 2016 04:17:45 +0000

as a book fan what bothered me the most was, as you mentioned, cheesy capitol. candy colored? hardly. rrrrr! dyed skin? nope. none of that. insufficient info to the story line- as you mentioned, what is The Hunger games all about… okay. my issues now with the movie film adaptation are the following: Katniss is STARVING. on the train and while training, she and Peeta can't seem to get enough to eat. they are HUNGRY! none of this sulking on the train, not even glancing at the ambrosia surrounding them! none of this, "i'm not very hungry"> "i'm done too". screen writer, have you actually read the book? absorbed it? also, the Petta feeds Katniss scene happened when she was twelve and near death/starvation. on film, they're both the same age and she appears well fed.she appears depressed and has a cold, but not starving to death. that bothered me.