Nolan Fans

Vader182 wrote:To those that liked or loved Hunger Games, would anybody mind explaining why?

-Vader

I read the books back in August, and for me it was very loyal and the overall design and look was great. No weak preformances that really broke the movie either IMO. Im fresh out of the theater so maybe Im a bit hyper but still, I fucking loved it. Except the camera work and CGI doggys. Ill probably find more stuff as I go along but thats it

And dont think there were any really "Twilight" bits, unless you mean the scene in the cave. But thst was pretty short so it wasnt too bad.

Vader182 wrote:To those that liked or loved Hunger Games, would anybody mind explaining why?

-Vader

I didn't read the books but the movie was like The Truman show meet Logan's Run.
All the common places were there, so predictable... and the CAVE was too long for the purpose of the story.
A darker story would be perfect.

But.. what did Woody Harrelson do nomination worthy? He played himself. Lawrence is intense, but it's not this revelation of a performance like Roeper, and most other critics, are classifying it as. The difficulty of understanding the geography in almost any location, especially during action, is almost impossible. There's ways to do shaky cam without it being this obtrusive. It takes more to make a great film than no weak performances (which I'd definitely argue) and loyalty to the text. The cgi is some of the worst I've ever seen in a big budget movie, and having just went through Game of Thrones on blu-ray, if they can make most of that stuff practically photo-real consistently episode after episode on that budget, there's no possible excuse to do so on a bigger scale and bigger budget. The action was in extremely brief bursts and only seen as the shaky cam bounced around it, often in "blink and you'll miss it" type moments. I realize it's PG-13 and it's kid, but it's a huge criticism none the less.

A lot of the romantic stuff totally and literally missed the point of the book, which is maddening.

The photography in general was pretty bland, the art direction was bland and uninspired (the city was kind of the typical cgi'd to hell "future" city, nothing remotely unique about any of the designs), and the use of the forest as a location evolved to "there are caves" and "you can climb up trees". Oh, you can totally hide behind them too. Meh.

I'm honestly pretty baffled so many are responding positively to the movie. I don't want to come off rude, I'm genuinely curious and want to discuss this.

-Vader

Well stating your opinion as a fact is rather rude. I am talking specifically about Woody and Lawrence's performances. Especially when you seem to be in the minority.

Then explain, or anybody explain, how I'm wrong.

-Vader

Vader182 wrote:Then explain, or anybody explain, how I'm wrong.

-Vader

I did not see the film but your opinions about Lawrence and Woody def go against the general consensus for sure, not saying your wrong I might agree you just diddnt seem to explain why they were not that great other than cheap comments like "he played himself".

3:10 to Yuma

9/10

Forgot how much I love that movie. My favorite performance by Christian Bale.

LOL @ Woody playing himself. Vader clearly missed the internal transformation.

IWatchFilmsNotMovies wrote:LOL @ Woody playing himself. Vader clearly missed the internal transformation.

I can't even tell when people are being sarcastic anymore.

Allstar wrote:

Vader182 wrote:Then explain, or anybody explain, how I'm wrong.

-Vader

I did not see the film but your opinions about Lawrence and Woody def go against the general consensus for sure not saying your wrong I might agree you just diddnt seem to explain why they were not that great other than cheap comments like "he played himself".

How is that a cheap comment? He did. He played the character in the film identically to how he's played most of his characters, drunken whilst angry, drunken for comedic effect, moments of kind of wisdom, funny, some moments of emotion, etc. He's awesome for it, but not a singular performance. Lawrence has little variety in her facial expressions, and just stays really determined/intense for most of it combined with apprehension and pain, and thats the spectrum of emotions she conveys for 95% of the movie.

@Solo, that's because people are so inflammatory and rude in a way you'd think they're being sarcastic and factitious, but more and more frequently that's not the case.

-Vader