Movies 2: Electric Boogaloo

It's the second films thread! And to start it off on a classy note, today I and a bunch of like-minded friends watched Pride & Prejudice & Zombies. Rubbish, but entertaining rubbish.

Personal hope: Movies II: Judgment Day.

I'd quite like to see PPZ - I enjoyed the book and it's got Matt Smith in it, so, fun.

Yesterday Jo and I saw Allegiant, the third film in the Divergent series. The gap between it and the Hunger Games films got wider with this one: the effects were naff and the story drawn out. In any case, the Batman Vs. Superman trailer we saw has convinced Jo to see it with me!

Matt Smith is possibly the only unironically good part of the film.

ZeroJones wrote:

Personal hope: Movies II: Judgment Day.

I was planning to sneak in and start the thread with that exact name! But the Balls Man beat me to it.

PPZ I'm not desperate to see, but I'm sure I will eventually. I'm not overly fond of Austen or Zombies, but the combination sounds amusing.

I got given PPZ in paperback form because I like Zombie stuff, but I never read beyond the first couple of chapters. Not really having any Jane Austen knowledge probably doesn't help. Sounds like a possibly fun Netflix film to me.

Speaking of Zombie films, World War Z is an absolute stinker of a film. I wasn't expecting much since I knew it completely butchered the original, excellent, book by Max Brooks but, well, when an Action film sends me to sleep then it's a baaaad film.

I also watched the final Hobbit film yesterday, which I can only describe as how I would have directed Lord of the Rings when I was age 12.

Muss wrote:

I also watched the final Hobbit film yesterday, which I can only describe as how I would have directed Lord of the Rings when I was age 12.

That description is perfect.

I'm still convinced someone will bring out an edited-down-to-one-film Hobbit one day and it'll be phenomenal. As for what we got... I did enjoy it. More Tolkien at the cinema was lovely, and the dragon stuff was exquisite, and Martin Freeman as Bilbo was a revelation. But the overuse of dodgy CGI (where LOTR had so masterfully blended practical and visual effects), the unnecessary padding and that drawn-out-battle between armies I didn't care about for stakes that were never really explained was kind of dull. Much like what Muss said, it felt like a fan film by warhammer fans. Visuals and spectacle, no matter how good they are, are nothing without a reason to care. That's why wrestling has faces and heels.

Didn't someone do that Drunka and cut the films together down to one?

They might well have done! I'll keep my eye out.

Drunkalilly wrote:

Visuals and spectacle, no matter how good they are, are nothing without a reason to care. That's why wrestling has faces and heels.

There are aspects of the trilogy that I like, but if I were ever given the chance to watch films made in a parallel universe then Del Torro's take on the Hobbit would be up there. I think we were robbed of something that could have been timeless...

Then again, if I did have that power, I'd love to see Edward Wood's Shawshank Redemption or Uwe Boll's E.T.

Seen 2 films recently, Kung Fu Panda 3, which was a fun if unsurprising way to kill an evening, and Zootropolis/topia, which was another Disney classic that had me smiling throughout. Definitely check out Zootropolis everyone!

I know Andy will Crump about this, but before bed last night I watched the Hunger Games. What a film; it didn't have the bite of the book, or explain things as well, but as a satire on our times and an exciting actioner/ love story, it only gets better with time. I'm gonna watch one every night, leading up to finally buying the last one this week (I missed it at the cinema).

Muss wrote:

if I were ever given the chance to watch films made in a parallel universe then Del Torro's take on the Hobbit would be up there. I think we were robbed of something that could have been timeless...

Don't remind me. They would have been amazing! Especially with the more fairy-tale feel of Hobbit; talking animals and all that.

Booooooo! Naa, I've always taken that it's a film series for people who've read the books, as someone who hasn't I found the plot to be incomprehensible and rushed.

As someone who read the books, I had no idea how anyone who didn't was expected to follow it. People say they do, but I'm dubious.

Having seen the first hunger games film twice, I think it's ok but highly overrated. The fist half was decent but I don't care for the direction one bit once the games began. I loathe how every trap seems to be immediately forshadowed by the fellow in the computer room telling us that there will be bees or fire or whatever.

I wish the survival part of the film never left the protagonist, and respected viewers enough to work out sponsor traps were happening. That would have made the film more tense and made it easier for me to care about the lead character.

I just can't bring myself to watch any of the Hunger Games films as it will always seem like a lame westernised version of Battle Royale.

Muss wrote:

I wish the survival part of the film never left the protagonist, and respected viewers enough to work out sponsor traps were happening. That would have made the film more tense and made it easier for me to care about the lead character.

You should read the book. This is exactly what it's like, and of course it can be much more visceral than a 12A film can. Having read the book, though, seeing the goings on outside the arena was satisfying.

The_Jaster wrote:

I just can't bring myself to watch any of the Hunger Games films as it will always seem like a lame westernised version of Battle Royale.

I thought something similar, though with The Running Man rather than Battle Royale. In reality, Hunger Games is a natural story for someone in this day and age to write: the rich minority live opulent lives while the masses starve and everyone is kept in check by a corrupt-as-anything media that uses schlocky entertainment to distract us. Plus: J-Law.

Drunka wrote:

I thought something similar, though with The Running Man rather than Battle Royale. In reality, Hunger Games is a natural story for someone in this day and age to write: the rich minority live opulent lives while the masses starve and everyone is kept in check by a corrupt-as-anything media that uses schlocky entertainment to distract us. Plus: J-Law.

Oh absolutely it makes sense for a writer to do that and stories are always repurposed so they can fit with the times, now I'm only going off trailers here and how popular it seems to be with a mainstream audience but it doesn't seem like it's gritty enough for the story it's trying to tell.

The typical Hollywood love story puts me off quite a bit too.

Oh, the love story is anything but typical! But yeah, the films don't quite have the grit of the books. Again, the problem is telling such a horrible story in a 12A.

You've reminded me I need to see the newest Hunger Games, I've never read the books but have found them all enjoyable but just that.

Drunkalilly wrote:

Oh, the love story is anything but typical! But yeah, the films don't quite have the grit of the books. Again, the problem is telling such a horrible story in a 12A.

You see that really is a shame though there is always sacrifices when adapting a book into a film.

Hunger Games is certainly comparable to battle royale in terms of their "competitions" - I also think BR is a much better film - but the premise of their lore is pretty different. Socioeconomic inequality vs Youth Repression/censorship of expression in the name of discipline.
Have not read either of the books these films are based on though - just the BR comic - so i dont know about them.

For the love of God avoid Batte Royale 2 however!

Muss wrote:

For the love of God avoid Batte Royale 2 however!

Yeah I think I stopped watching that after about 10 - 15 minutes.

Battle Royale is more visceral, for sure, but I actually prefer The Hunger Games. The first film, anyway, where I always feel how genuinely bleak life is for the people in Katniss's district. Seeing them line up in front of Effie's mad finery and the subsequent excesses of the Capitol contrasts better, it seems to me, than any of the sequels.

The first film really nailed the class warfare thing, which I always love. You know how much I hate the rich
I suppose the others, being sequels, didn't feel the need to establish the atmosphere the way the first film did and instead we get a lot of plot without as much heart. Like most film series that succeed these days, it does so almost entirely on the back of great leads.