I just saw this and really enjoyed it. Not having read the books (which I will soon), I can't really quibble about details that were missed or incorrect. The only problem I had was--

The Hunger Games in 11 minutes.

And done entirely with Beanie Babies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2lRxqWbTec

MunichMan, the District for Rue I believe has a large black population, I would have to re-read the books as I did not really think about it one way or another. Despite people's bitching at the race of Rue, I actually pictured her exactly as she was on the screen so not sure how I read different than them. The incident you mention does not happen in the first book, there is a different response to the situation, that incident happens in the second book and is the only thing I am puzzled as to why the moved to this story as it has importance in the second book.

I know that, but isn't it playing a bit too much into stereotypes? "They're black, let's make them riot!"

So in the first book there is a very different response from the district to Katniss and what she does for Rue in the games. It has absolutely nothing to do with rioting and it is a sweet moment of support for this girl. In the second book when it happens you would not feel the riot is used in that way because it is not limited. I believe in the movie they were trying to foreshadow elements of the second book so you understand a bit of what it means when Katniss makes the choices she makes and that was the only part they could deduce to incorporate it in the movie. I believe that to be a wrong choice by the filmakers because it was not needed and takes some of the punch out of the next book. This is one instance where they could have just used what happened in the book and it would have been good or had nothing at all. If you are interested I have put the books response to the situation on spoiler below

I think it's kind of a coincidence. They need something to plant the seed of the second movie's plot, the rebellion, and I agree with the movie that if they had to do so, the best point would be at that moment when two districts bonded over a common tragedy caused by the Capitol. It is not in the book and I think it is incorporated well. It just happened that one side is predominantly black.

I just feel that you should communicate why this film troubles you, irregardless if leads to intense arguments or not.

Nicely done film. Jennifer Lawrence is superb (when isn't she?). Josh Hutcherson is fine in support (as is Woody Harrelson), and it has an interesting plot and an interesting dystopia. The riot in District 11 is important, because it shows the fragility of the government's support. (The government is doomed, regardless of plot mechanisms.) It's obvious we'll get the two sequels, and in this case, I look forward to them.

I know the riot in District 11 is important, but did it have to be all black people that rioted. Really? Stereotype much?

I think it was the best movie that could have been made while trying to stay faithful to the book.

I was really concerned about the casting of Donald Sutherland, Stanley Tucci, and Woody Harrleson. Donald Sutherland is the stereotypical overbearing, self-centered but intelligent, aged leader. Likewise Stanley Tucci as the man with the crowd-pleasing smile and a twinkle in his eye that says he's always two steps ahead of his audience, etc. It just all seemed to line up too comically well, no acting would be required on any of their parts.

But it worked out. Part of Ross's burden, I think, is that there is a higher expectation of realism for American cinema than there is for young adult novels. Some of Collins' writing is just not realistic, not even in the context of a distant future. So Ross hammed up the capital to really telegraph that, OK, yes, we'll be stepping out of reality from time to time here. And in that context, Sutherland, Tucci, and Harrleson worked.

I cried through the books, and the movie managed to hit enough of the same notes to bring it all back.

It was interesting watching how Ross packed everything in so densely. In the books, the characters can have an entire conversation that only has a single purpose. In the movie, it seemed like every line was carefully chosen for its distinct role in advancing the plot. And even then he had to cut so much; what a different craft.

The only thing I'll fault Ross for is casting white male tributes who looked too much alike.



I think that there were two entirely separate decisions made by the director: show District 11 rioting, and portray District 11 as largely black:



It also makes sense to portray District 11 as largely black, for entirely unrelated reasons. Collins didn't portray any racial diversity in Panem in the books. That works out OK in a book, but in casting a movie you have to make explicit decisions about race. Collins says that District 11 was around Georgia and that's a largely black area. Ross's portrayal of the riot didn't suggest any racist underpinnings.

Sorry for the late post, never watched it in the cinemas.

Anyway, I thought this was a pretty terrible movie. The shaky cam was a pain, and I like shaky cam sometimes, but this was too much. And I didn't understand a lot of things that happened, like when that black guy rescued Katniss and said it was for Rue or something. Don't know what that was all about. And the people going insane after Katniss gives that salute thing. Okay, they we're rioting because of her?

I can't understand some of the high marks critics have been giving this.

JayBob,

I think the shaky cam was used to get the brutal violence of the book into the movie without earning a hard "R" for it. There is some pretty horrible stuff going on, especially around the cornucopia at the very beginning of the Games, and the shaky cam and quick cuts give us the impression of the horrible things that are happening without actually showing anything too graphic.

The black guy and Rue were from the same district, District 11. It was pretty apparent he felt like her big brother. So he saved Katniss as a demonstration of his appreciation for the respect and kindness she'd shown Rue.

The people in District 11 were rioting because Rue, a kid from their district, was killed, the way she was killed, and who she was. Rue was really an innocent, and watching her death had to be very tough for the people who knew her best. Katniss' kindness to Rue and her subsequent salute was both showing solidarity with District 11 and almost literally giving the finger to an oppressive government that was killing their children for sport. I don't think it would take much to get people to riot in that situation.

Did you watch this in a house full of rowdy kids or during a loud party or something? Lots of bathroom breaks? Were you drunk?

You actually found it difficult to follow?

Difficult to follow? No. A piece of shit movie, yes!

I'm a little late to the game because I missed the movie in cinema...

The shaky cam was most unpleasant for me in the beginning of the movie during the District 12 sequence, so it certainly wasn't used to cover up brutal imagery. I guess they wanted to emphasize the personal perspective, but to me it's always a bit unnerving when the camera doesn't hold the frame during an otherwise quite scene.

Either it got better later on or I got used to it, I'm not totally sure. But it certainly felt less severe later on.

Overall, to me the film felt better than I expected, especially after some people saying how shitty it is.