The Hunger Games

[areaseven]

[areaseven]

I guess at this point, we're glad it's over.

Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 77% - " With the unflinchingly grim Mockingjay Part 2, The Hunger Games comes to an exciting, poignant, and overall satisfying conclusion."

Metacritic Score: 75 out of 100

Edited November 19, 2015 by areaseven

[areaseven]

Finished watching Mockingjay Part 2, even though I fell asleep somewhere between the first two acts. While Part 1 focused on the propaganda movements of both Snow and the Resistance, this one seems to have run out of ideas. You're left clueless as to what exactly Katniss is fighting for, as the rebellion gets significantly bloodier. And then the ending becomes anticlimactic, making you wonder why you bothered with this series at all.

So yeah, The Hunger Games ends on a rather flat note, but at least it's over.

Here's a quick explanation of Panem's geography.

[Mazinger]

I'll say this, I think it's important to deal with the fallout of all the action and adventure of war. Mockingjay, part 2 deals a lot with that, so yes the action may not crescendo at the end like in other instalments, and that may make it feel different, but I found that more "realistic".

I hadn't read the books to the end, since I felt that they really put 97.5% of the story on screen, so there were more than a couple of plot twists that I wasn't expecting.

[no3Ljm]

 

[no3Ljm]

 

[Thom]

Is this the Hunger Games or Game of Thrones?

Joke aside, I wasn't really interested in the first movies, more because Katniss seemed to be a character more inclined to be pushed wherever the 'wind' was blowing her rather than make her own choices or take her own path. For most of it, she was really was just a figurehead who made one major decision at the end to also kill the leader of the Resistance rather than let someone who appeared to be exactly like Snow take power. And to avenge her sister.  I haven't read the books obviously, so I don't know if things are significantly different there.

[Big s]

6 hours ago, Thom said:

Is this the Hunger Games or Game of Thrones?

Joke aside, I wasn't really interested in the first movies, more because Katniss seemed to be a character more inclined to be pushed wherever the 'wind' was blowing her rather than make her own choices or take her own path. For most of it, she was really was just a figurehead who made one major decision at the end to also kill the leader of the Resistance rather than let someone who appeared to be exactly like Snow take power. And to avenge her sister.  I haven't read the books obviously, so I don't know if things are significantly different there.

My daughter had read them back in high school, she said they were weirder and more brutal. Personally I didn’t really get into the idea of the series. I guess the idea of having kids fight to the death on tv seemed like something I don’t think a large majority of people could get into. Maybe adults. The movies kinda had a weird cheap made for tv kinda feel and I think that’s why it just wasn’t for me. I still took her to go see all of the films since her and her friends were all into it.

Battle Royale at least felt like a punishment for terrible kids or at least one that seemed like delinquents to the public and was just so ridiculous that it didn’t need a reason. It was kinda squid game before squid game and a bit of Hunger Games before Hunger Games. Not trying to say these ideas were brand new, there’ve been stories like that since Running Man or the prisoner or even the most dangerous game.

[sh9000]

Official Trailer.