Last Film You Watched

[USABlue]

ähm...so was it any good then?


just sat through Hunger Games...very typical hollywood fare: full of cliche predictable moments, no real tension, amateurish shaky camera, Donald Sutherland looking bored, daft plot which has already been done by Rik Mayall, Schwarzenegger, Doctor Who and others. On the plus side i still sort of enjoyed most of it, not sure why exactly. 5/10 bang-average is probably fair.

I guess i have to watch the 2nd & 3rd part now, as fräulein wants to watch the finale at the cinema.

Based on a "Young adult" book series so the whole plotline is a cliché tbf. Futuristic distopia, seemingly normal kid ends up saving the world, etc. Still think Jennifer lawrence best acting was in winters bone

 

[ijjysmith]

Hate the 'typical Hollywood' film line. As if it's a bad thing.

 

[jaycee]

Hate the 'typical Hollywood' film line. As if it's a bad thing.

Is a bit of a silly statement,Hollywood has produced almost all great films,I think people are really having a go at the laziness there seems to be there lately,a lot of films are just remakes and not very good ones at that,then the attitude of "oh cast a big name and the script won't matter as much"

 

[coollino]

Is a bit of a silly statement,Hollywood has produced almost all great films,I think people are really having a go at the laziness there seems to be there lately,a lot of films are just remakes and not very good ones at that,then the attitude of "oh cast a big name and the script won't matter as much"

I'm not anti Hollywood, but that is simply not the case (imo).

 

[coollino]

ähm...so was it any good then?


just sat through Hunger Games...very typical hollywood fare: full of cliche predictable moments, no real tension, amateurish shaky camera, Donald Sutherland looking bored, daft plot which has already been done by Rik Mayall, Schwarzenegger, Doctor Who and others. On the plus side i still sort of enjoyed most of it, not sure why exactly. 5/10 bang-average is probably fair.

I guess i have to watch the 2nd & 3rd part now, as fräulein wants to watch the finale at the cinema.

Because it is actually quite good, especially for young adults.

 

[jaycee]

I'm not anti Hollywood, but that is simply not the case (imo).

Sorry I don't mean they are soley responsible,what I meant was they have made a lot of classic epic films so saying it's so Hollywood is not really a slight

 

[dholliday]

Based on a "Young adult" book series so the whole plotline is a cliché tbf. Futuristic distopia, seemingly normal kid ends up saving the world, etc. Still think Jennifer lawrence best acting was in winters bone

Hate the 'typical Hollywood' film line. As if it's a bad thing.

Is a bit of a silly statement,Hollywood has produced almost all great films,I think people are really having a go at the laziness there seems to be there lately,a lot of films are just remakes and not very good ones at that,then the attitude of "oh cast a big name and the script won't matter as much"

I'm not anti Hollywood, but that is simply not the case (imo).

Typical Hollywood is mostly very damaging to the art of film. Since about 15-20 years now there's been a much larger focus on money-making blockbuster fare which dumbs down its audience, slowly eroding the mighty (and back then justified) influence Hollywood had. Hunger Games is the latest in unoriginal franchise concepts which don't seek to further the art of film in any way, and arguably degrades culture.

I used the blanket-term 'typical Hollywood' for Hunger Games in the way they set up the story: the camera lingers on secondary characters that will inevitably get more airtime: the bad boy is signalled as being the last one to kill right at the start, the young girl ally gets to have her final words because the camera long announced her significance. Overlong overlingering camera, musical cues and 2-dimensional characterisation instructs the audience how to feel about characters and what to expect of their fates.

That is typical Hollywood and it's boring because once you've seen one you've seen them all: the well-made ones can still be enjoyable (Harry Potters, Lord of the Rings etc) but there's tons of dross which all follow the same formula: all those crappy superhero movies are especially guilty of ruining Hollywood's name.

As coollino implies, world cinema offers the more discerning viewer many different ways to tell a story.

If we stick to our current era (since year 2000) you could define a lot of the films critics & film buffs generally recognise as the best films of the 00's as atypical Hollywood: There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, Mulholland Drive etc.

For dystopic sci-fi of the 00's, we'll be talking about Children of Men long after culture has dismissed Hunger Games. Which one was typical Hollywood and which was one was atypical?

Is the typical factor the main reason why the product doesn't much rate as a work of art?

Yes, it is.

 

[dholliday]

still, 5/10's not all bad...it was ok, pretty average. I've seen raved-about European arthouse efforts which I rated lower, so it's all opinions innit.

Hunger Games 2 tonight...hoping it picks up the pace and adds some interesting mythology but not expecting much.

 

[ste d' indica]

Based on a "Young adult" book series so the whole plotline is a cliché tbf. Futuristic distopia, seemingly normal kid ends up saving the world, etc. Still think Jennifer lawrence best acting was in winters bone

 

[dholliday]

well, what a pleasant surprise! Hunger Games 2 fixed all the problems of the first one:

- no typical Hollywood characterisation: a blonde seemingly badboy is introduced and turns out to be a lot more interesting. Katy Perry's character is similarly shaded, and just when you think Felix from James Bond tops it, it looks like he survived after all.

- very good support cast: as well as the above you also had Honeybunny from Pulp Fiction and the late PS Hoffmann adding some serious gravitas to their roles. Even Donald Sutherland has woken up and is now showing more interest.

- much improved direction: none of this amateurish shaky-cam nonsense: the action was clearly directed. Some intense scenes and the quieter moments were decent. No overlong camera-lingering or cliche guff (ok, apart from the CPR scene, but it was well done). Just checked and it's the same director for the final two films, so should be good.

- adding to the mythology in the way that it did made me care about this world more. Some quite dark stuff here, less teeny feel about it all.


This might be the most-improved sequel I've ever seen, similar to the huge quality jump from the first two Harry Potters to the third one. 8/10 very good, and whets the appetite for part 3.

 

[Brendan Janus]

Very good indeed !!

 

[Sapie88]

Katy Perry's character

Eh?

 

[dholliday]

Eh?

 

[Sapie88]

Jena Malone mate lol

 

[PITA]

agree on Freeman being the star but all 3 (male) roles were expertly-acted (Paltrow was a bit bland). Film's a very good 8/10 for me, still just outside my top 100. Fight Club remains Fincher's best work, top 30 or so. Tho' haven't seen Gone Girl or Zodiac yet.

Zodiac very good. Gone girl OK. IMO of course.