you know the drill - The Washington Post does it, we does it too, better or worse or perhaps even worser. anywho, to 2013 and beyond, and be yawn
Before we dig not so deep into this ‘review’, here’s a recap of our tweets with our immediate ‘thoughts’ on seeing the ‘movie’ version of Suzanne Collins‘ The Hunger Games
- HUNGER GAMES???? more like BORING LAMES!!!!!!!! 999999real!!
- I love me some bad future movies above all other genres, but that was a not so good bad future movie. the future didn’t look bad enough. apparently director Gary Ross has never seen a dystopian movie from the 70s
- There’s more excitement contained in 5 minutes of an AMERICAN GLADIATORS episode than there was in 7 hours of HUNGER GAME movieage
- HUNGER GAMES the movie hinges on Jennifer Lawrence‘s ability to emote. she can’t and the movie is thus emotionless
- HUNGER GAMES really needed some vampire baseball action. [also] needed more boobs, fried chicken and ZODIAC
- I wish Katniss volunteered to watch THE BORING LAMES in my place
- I have a bad feeling that parents are going to start naming their kids Katniss and Peeta
- What happens in HUNGER GAMES sequel – Lenny Kravitz opens a salon? Kiefer Sutherland farms berries? Haymitch & Juliette Lewis go on a murder spree?
You are now exiting tweetville, and entering the ‘review’ of the ‘film’
As you can tell, we loved The Hunger Games!!!! NOT!!!! But we didn’t hate it (PROMISE!). We just don’t understand the appeal and big deal being made about this movie. Sure, the books are probably bettererand morerer entertaining, but books are for people who can read, and movies are for people who like their stories wrapped up in 2 hrs so they can see more movies than you can read books. Anywho, this is not a good movie. It’s not bad, but it’s not good
Battle Royale, Running Man, blah blah blagg, you’ve heard it before, and again and somethen, but it’s true, The Hunger Games are lesser versions of them. See those. Don’t bother with HUNGER TAMED. Why? Cause there’s nothing to The Hunger Games movie. There’s no danger (you know the heroine and her hero-ish friend Josh Hutcherson are gonna live), no drama (unless you’re concerned if bland-o Alexander Ludwig will ever act again), or any sense of anything (it’s like the future in one of them AT&T ‘You Will’ commercials with special FX that look like they were created on a Commodore 64. no offense to those AT&T commercials, but that was the future according to the early 90s and the last time we checked, the early 90s are over)… and yet, it’s still sorta kinda watchable, even though the Games don’t start until 80+ minutes into it, and about 90 minutes needed to be cut from the whole thing
So what is good? Tucci as that giddy Oompa Loompa looking TV announcer (it’s the only creepy cool thing about the entire movie, in a Richard Dawson Running Man awesome kinda way), Donald Sutherland‘s voice (duh), Elizabeth Banks‘ wardrobe (maybe?), the fact that Woody Harrelson is in it so young audiences will know of him for future movie going experiences (although he does better mentor work in Game Change, which also has morerer cutthroat gaming than anything in the con game that is The Hunger Sames), and Isabelle Fuhrman is in it too, although not nearly enuff. She’s adorable, and was so evil in that movie where she was evil. She’s not nearly evil enuff here, then again, nothing here is, and that is why we don’t HUNGER for these GAMES. A movie about kids killing each other should be tense and scary and sinister, not none of the above!!!!
Oh, you wanted to know the plot? It’s like a bad future America, although it doesn’t seem so bad. It makes 1984 look like our actual 1984. Every year there’s this big thing called The Hunger Games where a boy & a girl from each of the 12 districts are selected and compete in a water-downed Running Man Battle Royale so that people will like watch it on TV and not revolt or something. So our girl in this game is some girl with a really stoopid name – Katniss, and the boy from her district is VelPeeta or something. They aren’t exactly BFFs. In some flashback, she was hungry and he threw her some bread in the mud, while it was raining! OH MY!!! BREAD!!! MUD!!!! RAINING!!!! Anywho, the two get all like dolled up by make-up artists and get advice from drunk former winners and they be in the big city where trains are fast and it all looks like a shittier CGIier version of Coruscant, and all the people are kinda dressed like Clockwork Orange‘s singing sophisto lady from the TV station. But before the games begin, the kids get trained in a zero-energy filled training sequence. Then VelPeeta admits he has a crush on Katnipp, and then the games begin, and within like 2 minutes of the games, like 1/2 the kids are dead, and then the rest of the movie takes place in a forest, which isn’t very futuristic, and then they play cat and mouse games that aren’t amusing to anyone (involved or watching), and then Kattnappp whistles to birds, and then more kids die and then some don’t, then there’s a cave scene, and whatever, and then the games end. CAN YOU GUESS WHO SURVIVE(s)!?!?!?!?!?!?
moral of the story – this could have been an awesome movie, but the guy who made Pleasantville not as awesome as it could have been does or DON’Ts it again. this is the same guy who made Seabiscuit, and can’t remember much about it, cept there was a horse and Peter Parker rode it and they both overcame the odds to win the Hunger Games
even this shitty 80s movie about a bad future was more betterer and more evilier and more watchable than The Hunger Games, even though this movie is unwatchable
…But Seriously: this one still photograph has more bad future TV show deathgame beyond bestness than the entireness of the The Hunger Games movie
Verdictgo: Very Little Merit AND No Stinkin Badges
Games is currently running afoul at a theater near jews
and until next thyme the balcony is clothed…
nope, this photo aint from Hunger Games either. it’s from a real movie where kids gun down each other