It's a survival test - the kids get thrown into an outdoor "arena" where they have to survive until only one remains. The kids are encouraged to kill each other off to win more quickly. So it's as much about surviving the elements as it is killing each other - hence, "hunger".
From what I understand, its in the future, most of the people are starving and there are these brutal games, where the winner will win food for his or her town.
I saw the movie this past weekend and I'll tell you what my opinion about it in a moment:
On to your questions:
This is no spoiler since they tell you this right off the bat before the movie begins.
It involves 12 districts who revolted against a main government body. During this bloody civil war the 12 districts lost.
In some sadistic form of penanance, the 12 districts were forced to sacrifice a pair of children ranging from ages 12 - 18, as tribute to the Hunger games.
Apparently losing the civil war caused the 12 districts to have diminishing resources, as much had to be given to the main government body.
The pair of children, one male and one female, are groomed and trained to fight in a wild life preserve like arena with minium resources.
In order to gain an advantage one must acquire sponsors, who in turn would provide the contestants with much needed survival supplies.
In essence the Movie Hunger Games borrow the concept from a more popular movies like Running Man, but not an exact clone.
The movie opened up with great reviews, praising the film - BUT
The movie in truth is very mediorce, and in essence a love story but with a survival of the fittest twist. Its like Running Man but without the superstar Hunters like Subzero or Dynamo, and does not involved placing criminals into that realm.
This is one movie that I know is banned from Australian viewing since it involves killing children. So the Aussies might have problems seeing this movie in the theatres.
Its not super bloody, but you know kids are getting whacked.
I found the story very light and shallow and there was only one very emotional moment throughout the whole movie, which really touched me.
Its not horrible, but its not worth an IMAX experience or big screen rush. You're better off reading the book which possibly is better than the film. I liked the movie but did not love it. Many things were not believable and the main character was lacking in substance.
I believe the movie is based off some children book from scholastic.
The movie is very very long 2hrs 20min in length - with most of the movie being very slow in the beginning.
This is one movie that I know is banned from Australian viewing since it involves killing children. So the Aussies might have problems seeing this movie in the theatres.
Here in Sweden it got a lower age limit than Twilight.
I saw the movie this past weekend and I'll tell you what my opinion about it in a moment:
On to your questions:
Hurrah!
This is no spoiler since they tell you this right off the bat before the movie begins.
It involves 12 districts who revolted against a main government body. During this bloody civil war the 12 districts lost.
Er, yes, I knew that from Wikipedia, but are they hungry?
In some sadistic form of penanance, the 12 districts were forced to sacrifice a pair of children ranging from ages 12 - 18, as tribute to the Hunger games.
Yes, but are they hungry?
Apparently losing the civil war caused the 12 districts to have diminishing resources, as much had to be given to the main government body.
Is the central government hungry?
The pair of children, one male and one female, are groomed and trained to fight in a wild life preserve like arena with minium resources.
Are the children hungry?
In order to gain an advantage one must acquire sponsors, who in turn would provide the contestants with much needed survival supplies.
Are the sponsors hungry?
In essence the Movie Hunger Games borrow the concept from a more popular movies like Running Man, but not an exact clone.
I mean, it sounds like hunger is a minor part of this story.
It'd be like renaming Star Trek The Next Generation to "The Dr. Beverly Crusher and Pals show". Crusher is there, sure, but she's not THE main character.
The movie was all right, but the book was miles better in my opinion. It develops the characters more.
In regards to your 'hunger' inquiries: the kids have to survive in the wilderness long enough to kill all the others. If they win, they get rich and their district gets lots of food (this is good, as the districts are not exactly treated well). Alternatively, "Hunger" could be the name of the person who started the games.
Touche, sir... But thank you for underscoring my point. It's not exactly an original trope. (And I do love my tropes)
I fully expect the book/film/series (whatever it ultimately becomes) to end with the children overthrowing the establishment of evil, learning something about themselves and the morals of life, and somehow saving their villages from starvation.
Certainly, some will die in unquestionably tear-jerking* moments, and others will achieve greatness as they overcome impossible odds to kill bad guys with bows and arrows.
And the Tweenagers will lap it up while a vast bulk of original writers continue to go unacknowledged.
...And here we will still be, in ten years time, as the series lays forgotten in some 50 cent used-book store while a new generation fawns over the completely original and not-at-all-appropriated story of a girl sorceress who must unite three arcane artifacts to defy some ancient prophecy of her own doom at the hands of the greatest dark wizard who ever lived.
I fully expect the book/film/series (whatever it ultimately becomes) to end with the children overthrowing the establishment of evil, learning something about themselves and the morals of life, and somehow saving their villages from starvation.
It's already finished. The trilogy of books ended already. And the establishment of evil isn't so evil after all, and the good guys aren't all fluffy bunnies and rainbows.
I thought the books were good, don't particularly feel like watching the movie(s?).
Comments
I won't know more than that until I get a chance to read them.
And what the Ert wrote.
But mainly it's a love story. Glad I read the books... I don't have to suffer through it all again.
On to your questions:
This is no spoiler since they tell you this right off the bat before the movie begins.
It involves 12 districts who revolted against a main government body. During this bloody civil war the 12 districts lost.
In some sadistic form of penanance, the 12 districts were forced to sacrifice a pair of children ranging from ages 12 - 18, as tribute to the Hunger games.
Apparently losing the civil war caused the 12 districts to have diminishing resources, as much had to be given to the main government body.
The pair of children, one male and one female, are groomed and trained to fight in a wild life preserve like arena with minium resources.
In order to gain an advantage one must acquire sponsors, who in turn would provide the contestants with much needed survival supplies.
In essence the Movie Hunger Games borrow the concept from a more popular movies like Running Man, but not an exact clone.
The movie opened up with great reviews, praising the film - BUT
The movie in truth is very mediorce, and in essence a love story but with a survival of the fittest twist. Its like Running Man but without the superstar Hunters like Subzero or Dynamo, and does not involved placing criminals into that realm.
This is one movie that I know is banned from Australian viewing since it involves killing children. So the Aussies might have problems seeing this movie in the theatres.
Its not super bloody, but you know kids are getting whacked.
I found the story very light and shallow and there was only one very emotional moment throughout the whole movie, which really touched me.
Its not horrible, but its not worth an IMAX experience or big screen rush. You're better off reading the book which possibly is better than the film. I liked the movie but did not love it. Many things were not believable and the main character was lacking in substance.
I believe the movie is based off some children book from scholastic.
The movie is very very long 2hrs 20min in length - with most of the movie being very slow in the beginning.
overall I give it 2 1/2 stars out of 5
questions/commentary from me in yellow
yes
yes
no
yes
no
Everyone in the districts. The central government is not, neither are the sponsers.
You forgot:
D - it is overhyped
And say what you will about the book and the movie... both are hell of a lot better than their Twilight equivalents.
I mean, it sounds like hunger is a minor part of this story.
It'd be like renaming Star Trek The Next Generation to "The Dr. Beverly Crusher and Pals show". Crusher is there, sure, but she's not THE main character.
Yeah, not exactly buying in to the hype. Can you tell?
You mean this one right?
In regards to your 'hunger' inquiries: the kids have to survive in the wilderness long enough to kill all the others. If they win, they get rich and their district gets lots of food (this is good, as the districts are not exactly treated well). Alternatively, "Hunger" could be the name of the person who started the games.
Touche, sir... But thank you for underscoring my point. It's not exactly an original trope. (And I do love my tropes
I fully expect the book/film/series (whatever it ultimately becomes) to end with the children overthrowing the establishment of evil, learning something about themselves and the morals of life, and somehow saving their villages from starvation.
Certainly, some will die in unquestionably tear-jerking* moments, and others will achieve greatness as they overcome impossible odds to kill bad guys with bows and arrows.
And the Tweenagers will lap it up while a vast bulk of original writers continue to go unacknowledged.
...And here we will still be, in ten years time, as the series lays forgotten in some 50 cent used-book store while a new generation fawns over the completely original and not-at-all-appropriated story of a girl sorceress who must unite three arcane artifacts to defy some ancient prophecy of her own doom at the hands of the greatest dark wizard who ever lived.
* Definition: Awkward
It's already finished. The trilogy of books ended already. And the establishment of evil isn't so evil after all, and the good guys aren't all fluffy bunnies and rainbows.
I thought the books were good, don't particularly feel like watching the movie(s?).
You mean this one right?
I think you really mean this one, right?
You mean this one, right? Which was a VERY different book compared to the movie. I HIGHLY recommend reading the book.
You do realize that everyone who read the book says that about every movie, right? :rolleyes:
This one. Kids kiling each other off for the pleasure of a failing/failed state of government.