Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Film Fanatics - Chat Thread II

Scroll to see replies

Hunger Games set out straight away what it was and why you should go see it in the trailer. So people went and saw it. Exactly the opposite of what John Carter did.

Reply 5901

Phalanges

The action and story unfold in 88 minutes and the film is meant to look like one continuous shot. Like other works that seem to be one long take, “Silent House” does have edits but they’re not visible to the average viewer. To pull that off, Mr. Kentis and Ms. Lau needed to do some extensive planning. They talked about the process during a recent interview in New York. First there was Ms. Lau’s script, which imagined a house before an actual location was chosen. When a house near the water in New Rochelle, N.Y., was found, Ms. Lau rewrote to match the setting. “Every moment was accounted for in the script, which was only 60 pages,” she said. “And then it was about constantly rehearsing.”

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/08/building-silent-house/?ref=movies

Sounds very interesting.

Sounds like Rope.

Going to see The Hunger Games with someone on Friday. I hear Wrath of the Titans actually has Titans in it though. In terms of other releases, another film which has been under the radar is 21 Jump Street. It's been getting some good reviews (85% on RT and 91% of the audience liked it). Never heard about the film before now.

Reply 5904

Delta Aitch

Man, I can't wait to watch 21 Jump Street :daydreaming:

Dave Franco is really annoying, though...

Reply 5905

ahq

Watched In Darkness yesterday, thought it was fantastic. :yep:

Reply 5906

mevidek

The Usual Suspects is one brilliant film :smile:

Reply 5907

Christien

Apparently Dieter Laser can no longer 'identify' with the mad scientist who creates ass-to-mouth abominations:

http://www.chud.com/88479/lol-dieter-laser-departs-human-centipede-3-tom-six-promises-to-sue/

Reply 5908

Ape Gone Insane

The Hunger Games was okay. I think it suffered a lot from the 12 rating, shaky camera work and constant switches to the Capitol to fill viewers in on what was going on.

Reply 5909

ahq

Just got back from watching Once Upon in Anatolia, and thought it was brilliant. Not sure how it didn't get nominated for a Best Foreign Film Oscar; I suppose I'll have to watch the other films that did get nominated to comment, though.

On that note, having watched In Darkness, I wondered: how is it that certain artsy and slow-moving foreign films do get Oscar nominations, while films eligible for Best Picture tend to be overlooked? Are there different sets of voters that decide the two categories?

Reply 5910

cambo211

Original post by Ape Gone Insane

The Hunger Games was okay. I think it suffered a lot from the 12 rating, shaky camera work and constant switches to the Capitol to fill viewers in on what was going on.

Apparently to get it to a 12 rating they only cut 7 seconds of footage out from the version that was rated 15.

IDK whether that's true or not though.

Reply 5911

Dalek1099

I must be one of the only people in the world,who hadn't heard of the hunger games books and had only seen the advert on at the cinemas,which looked quite good but i have seen a lot better movie trailer so nothing too special.

Reply 5912

sheep_go_baa

The Hunger Games could have been excellent, instead it was a bit meh. For me it didn't have a natural flow to it and felt rather disjointed at parts. Also I thought that the charater depth was limited and no where near enough to invoke the right amount of sympathy from the audience which is ridiculous since the film was over 2 hours long. Still fun to watch though.

On another note, this looks really interesting especially since it's written by Joss Whedon :biggrin:

Also: Hobbit forming - will Peter Jackson give Tolkien's story a new ending?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/jan/06/the-hobbit-peter-jackson-ending
:/

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 5913

Phalanges

Original post by sheep_go_baa

Also I thought that the charater depth was limited and no where near enough to invoke the right amount of sympathy from the audience which is ridiculous since the film was over 2 hours long.

I don't believe that good characterisation needs time or is necessarily improved (or to be expected of) by how long a film is. Carnage has some of the best characterisation I've ever seen, and that's only 80 minutes long.

Reply 5914

sheep_go_baa

Original post by Phalanges

Perhaps a bit of context will help explain what I meant:
When I talk about lack of character development in The Hunger Games, I usually get the response that there isn't sufficient time to have satisfactory character development whilst still retaining the action of the film. I don't agree with this and think that 2 hours is more than sufficient to include both.

Reply 5915

Colonel.

Tbh, everything that a film should have can be done in 90 minutes.

Reply 5916

Jace Falco

Original post by Ape Gone Insane

The Hunger Games was okay. I think it suffered a lot from the 12 rating, shaky camera work and constant switches to the Capitol to fill viewers in on what was going on.

It was a 12? That would explain why it was way less visceral than I was expecting (given that all I knew about it going in was that it's a 'rip off of Battle Royale').