The Town of Odyssey

I loved this movie. It was gritty, sad, compelling and very well executed. I love Peeta and Katniss; especially seeing Katniss comforting Prim and showing a maternal side to her and to Rue. Josh Hutcherson did a wonderful job playing Peeta and I couldn't ask for more. Leading up to the games it struck me to think how the Capital officials and people live with themselves, watching the Games and celebrating it. It was sad and twisted.
Anyway, I felt sorry for Gale (just like I did reading the book), because he had to watch Katniss, well, be with another guy; and just knowing that Gale loves Katniss makes me sad for him. (But I do like Katniss and Peeta, don't get me wrong )
When Peeta disguised himself as the rock and the moss, I was thoroughly convinced his head was detached from his body! that was well done.

Personally... the whole estranged-lover thing is almost as stupid as having Katniss going insane.

I'm not looking forward to that part and how they make Gale deal with it when I eventually see the movie (after it comes on DVD..)

^I did find it a bit melodramatic (in the books) having the whole Gale/Peeta/Katniss triangle.

I finally saw this movie.

LOL.

Silly movie.

I liked it when the kids were all like hacking up each other, though.

Otherwise I was confused by Lenny Kravitz being there and why its all run down looking but then random guards look like they are from a 70's sci-fi film and the makeup and hair is stupid. Would've been better if they had cast Conan O'Brien to play the one main host guy. It was kind of cool that the two hosts were both in Captain America, though.

Top. You are a sad, strange little man. And you have my pity. Farewell


Gais The DVD comes out in NINE DAYS.

And somehow, a blu-ray edition of the film got leaked online...all of the pirates are quite happy now

You didn't think I was going to PAY to see it, did you!?

We actually considered seeing it at the local cheap bum theater but saw the Lincoln movie instead.

I'm probably one of the only people who didn't like the books. I didn't see the movie, but the books, to me, didn't seem that good. I didn't think they were written very well, and they were also pretty shallow. The first book was okay, the second book was good, and the third book was terrible (although I found the ending kind of funny, in a sad, dark way). Do people like them because of the supposed 'realistic' aspect of them? around here teachers were taking their entire classes to go see the movie, and I just don't see what educational value could be seen in those books.

Marc. wrote:I'm probably one of the only people who didn't like the books. I didn't see the movie, but the books, to me, didn't seem that good. I didn't think they were written very well, and they were also pretty shallow. The first book was okay, the second book was good, and the third book was terrible (although I found the ending kind of funny, in a sad, dark way). Do people like them because of the supposed 'realistic' aspect of them? around here teachers were taking their entire classes to go see the movie, and I just don't see what educational value could be seen in those books.

I enjoyed all three of the books, though they were somewhat depressing. You probably shouldn't see the movie, Mark, because its nearly the same as the book. As for teachers taking kids to see the movie, I can see some value in it because it teaches kids what possibly could happen when a Communistic government takes over. I'm just curious, how old are the kids going to see the movie?

orangie wrote:I'm just curious, how old are the kids going to see the movie?

I believe mostly middle school age. Which, judging by the books, is too young. At least for the sixth/seventh graders.

I thought it was basically a book series for jr. high girls anyway. >_>

^no, that's Twilight

I went to see The Hunger Games a little over a week ago, and I thought it was good. The beginning (up until they got to the Capital) was the best part of the whole movie. I loved that part. The rest was good too but not great. The fighting could have been a whole lot better. I know they were trying not to show a lot of violence, but my brother and I thought of a lot of better ways to film the fights without showing violence that would have made it a lot more powerful. I mean, the way the fights were in the film were very confusing and annoying to watch. Also, the movie didn't really have a moral... I've been trying to figure it out and I can't think of anything. If you guys can help me out, please tell me what you think the moral was..?

Other than those things, I liked the movie and I probably wouldn't mind owning it. Though, I'm not sure I would have enjoyed as much if I haven't read the books (or vise versa). I think the second movie has great potential of being better than the first. And hopefully it will.

Oh, and my dad really liked the movie (he only knew the main gist of the story and wasn't expecting much) but he thought it was actually pretty good. Him, my sister, and I (maybe some other people) will probably go and see the second one when it premieres. I've never been to a premier so I thought it would be fun.

______________________
EDIT:

I also agree that they overdid the shaky camera. It just got dizzy making. And it just made things confusing as to what was going on (like in the fight scenes >_>).

Caswin wrote:Normally, I would call out a deadpan description of "alcohol use", but I do think they undersold just how much Haymitch has been wrecked by drink compared to the book. I've been told that as depicted here, he's an unusually handsome depiction of Haymitch, but downright slovenly for a character played by Woody Harrelson. Take that as you will.

I agree with this. I feel like they need to do more with Haymitch. I think the casting for him though, was good.

______________________
EDIT 2:

Marc. wrote:I'm probably one of the only people who didn't like the books. I didn't see the movie, but the books, to me, didn't seem that good. I didn't think they were written very well, and they were also pretty shallow. The first book was okay, the second book was good, and the third book was terrible (although I found the ending kind of funny, in a sad, dark way). Do people like them because of the supposed 'realistic' aspect of them? around here teachers were taking their entire classes to go see the movie, and I just don't see what educational value could be seen in those books.

I agree with this to some degree. The books were a bit shallow, and the third one was the worst...I didn't really like it all that much.

lol, I watched it two days ago. One of the worst movies I've ever seen.. >_>

Haters gonna hate

snubs wrote:I went to see The Hunger Games a little over a week ago, and I thought it was good. The beginning (up until they got to the Capital) was the best part of the whole movie. I loved that part. The rest was good too but not great. The fighting could have been a whole lot better. I know they were trying not to show a lot of violence, but my brother and I thought of a lot of better ways to film the fights without showing violence that would have made it a lot more powerful. I mean, the way the fights were in the film were very confusing and annoying to watch. Also, the movie didn't really have a moral... I've been trying to figure it out and I can't think of anything. If you guys can help me out, please tell me what you think the moral was..?

I guess the moral would be that human nature is corrupt and what would you do if you were put in the Hunger Games? Would you kill other people to save yourself from getting killed?

orangie wrote:As for teachers taking kids to see the movie, I can see some value in it because it teaches kids what possibly could happen when a Communistic government takes over.

Communistic?

The Capitol was totalitarian, greedy, oppressive, and corrupt, but I actually wouldn't have thought to call it Communist. (Panem was actually most closely inspired by the Roman Empire.) What would you say is "Communistic" about it?

EDIT: I don't know if I would call it a moral, but -- as my dad put it -- moral courage is certainly up there as a theme. In the end, Katniss refuses to go along with something evil, even when, in her case, it could cost her her life.

That's a good point. I've been thinking about governments and got mixed up. After watching the movie, my mom pointed out that the Hunger Games are similiar to what the Romans did in the Coloseum. Except the people that were eaten by lions wouldn't deny Jesus and worship the Romans gods.

I just thought the whole "Let us honor our noble heritage and victory by randomly selecting our dear citizens and make them fight to the death!" was really dumb, it was kind of hard to get past...

...I mean, it isn't a new concept in film or literature, but all the other stuff like that is usually where they make a bunch of death row convicts fight to the death and the winner is pardoned, or some random evil guy kidnaps people and puts them in the middle of nowhere or on an island... it isn't just the government forcing random people.

I was under the impression in the hunger games the kids were starved so they killed, and then ate each other. >_> My cousin, a HG fanboy, had to correct me.

Yeah, they only call it the Hunger Games because the victor's District gets showered with gifts (and food) if they win.