Cardiff City Forum



A forum for all things Cardiff City

The Hunger Games.

Sun Mar 17, 2013 11:57 pm

Just watched it for the first time.

And after all the hype i must admit i feel a Little underwhelmed to be honest, was lead to believe it was graphic and hard hitting, when in my opinion is was very slow paced and not to graphic.

I found it a bit like an American tame version of Battle Royale.

What were your views on it?

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:00 am

Seen it several times and one of my favourites of all time.

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:05 am

Very tame version of Battle Royal. Plot holes aplenty, very weak on the ground. A classic "made to make money" film.

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:17 am

It just didn't do it for me...

Poor mans Running Man meets Battle Royale.

I said the above to my wife who's response was priceless;

"Running Man? It's nothing like Running Man.Wait, is that the one with Tom Cruise and his special needs brother?"


Honestly she's brilliant !!! :lol: :lol:

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:26 am

Thats where I went wrong. Going into it comparing it to Battle Royale. It had no chance of getting near it.

I thought it was poor apart from the occasional thrill. That Lawrence is hyped so much

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:34 am

Also judging by the way the district of the small black girl responded at her being laid to rest(rioting)
That she will become some icon of rebellion.
And seeing as there's another two movies I'm guessing they find a way to plunge em back in.

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:01 am

I loved the film. The books are 10 times better though.

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:59 am

JonCCFC wrote:I loved the film. The books are 10 times better though.

This ^ ^ ^

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:13 am

Not sure if I'm gonna read the books, the film itself was fairly easy to predict.

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:34 am

The books = good.
The film = terrible.

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:47 am

The frustrating thing was that it didn't focus enough on the best parts of the book such as the uprising in Rue's state when she dies. That bit could have easily taken the film to the next level but it just felt like it was flattering to deceive. Very disappointed and not overly keen to watch the second film. It's a really nice idea for a story, albeit slightly stolen from Running Man and Battle Royale but it's not been translated well to film at all in my opinion.

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:12 pm

film was good on blu ray, thought it could of been a lot better though, was hoping bit more action like battle royal and the condemned. hopefully the 2nd film will be much more graphic :ayatollah:

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:57 pm

All Black Everything. wrote:The books = good.
The film = terrible.


Books = Very good
Film = Ok

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:08 pm

Sorry to be a boper but i didnt find it thrilling to see kids killing each other. :dontknow:

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:11 pm

Read the books.....

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:12 pm

mikestrinati wrote:Sorry to be a boper but i didnt find it thrilling to see kids killing each other. :dontknow:


It's not real... :old: ;)

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:13 pm

First two books were not bad but for those suggesting anyone read the trilogy....warning....


The third book was horrible. An absolute train wreck.

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:49 pm

A good fil I'm you are 10 years old. Awful if older.

They had a great story to work with yet didnt convey any suspense, fear, edge of your seat feeling to the audience. Poorly acted and poorly directed.

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 9:46 pm

thought it was pretty decent tbf

Re: The Hunger Games.

Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:27 pm

Thought it was shite personally