ADD auds won't mind that there's no time to get to know anybody, or watch a relationship unfold, or ride the dramatic rise and swell of a compelling narrative.
Pretty in-depth critique and a respectable one. It seems this particular critic - as a fan of the books - wanted the entire movie to feel the same pressure and tension as the book. I don't know if it's possible to turn a 3-6 hour read into a 2.5-hour movie and not lose that in-depth quality. I guess I'll find out in a few days!
Mar 20 - 03:10 PM
Is anyone here over 17? Kids killing kids is completely believable I can see that happening sometime soon. Wow...
Mar 21 - 09:13 AM
You see that 'Science Fiction' tag? Yeah, learn about it.
Mar 21 - 10:01 AM
What scientific knowledge is being used here? Extremely far fetched should have been the category for this movie.
Mar 27 - 02:22 PM
3 to 6 hour read? Not everyone is a speed reader.
Jun 2 - 06:15 PM
"Then this hero's journey -- starring a distaff warrior, for a change! -- might have taken fire and captured our imaginations, signifying something beyond an industry jackpot. What we've got instead is a glossy entertainment sufficiently bland and sanitized that it will offend no one."
What you got. There's no we, as it's your opinion. Doesn't reflect all of our thoughts.
Mar 20 - 03:12 PM
AMEN !! EXACTLY MY THOUGHTS !
Mar 21 - 09:01 AM
from this review at least, it sounds like this movie might have the same main problem as the later HP movies...
Mar 20 - 03:14 PM
The full review may be in-depth, but this snippet ironically reads like someone who has ADD.
Mar 20 - 03:28 PM
Mar 20 - 04:45 PM
Voldar the Martian
Kathleen, I could make a comment along the lines of "maybe you'd like the film if it wasn't your time of the month." But that would be rude, irrelevant, and uncalled for. It's a shame you don't apply the same level of basic moral reasoning to your own review. I have OCD, and I'm also an extremely good judge of movie quality. Also, I might add, you're in the small minority here. Are you saying that all of your fellow critics are wrong?
The thing you people sometimes forget is that taste in movies is PURELY SUBJECTIVE. Just because you didn't like something doesn't mean the rest of us won't like it. To bring in a group of people unrelated to what you're talking about and make a completely unfounded blanket statement is ridiculous.
Have a nice life, Katie.
Mar 20 - 03:56 PM
Mar 20 - 04:00 PM
Sorry but where did the critic mention OCD?
Mar 21 - 09:56 PM
As a person who also has OCD, I'm completely baffled how you brought that up. Is it an excuse to take offense at something? Bah...
Apr 5 - 12:14 AM
The oneliner posted is completely offensive. I don't have ADD but that's not even the point. Really?! From a top critic AND on MSN at that. This is no better than any other popular derogatory term, the way it's used above.
Mar 20 - 04:02 PM
Calling something ADD is offensive now?
Oh America, you have such thick skin.
Mar 20 - 04:55 PM
Calling someone ADD isnt the offensive part, its assuming that people with ADD can't follow a movie that is a little slow or takes time to develop characters and plot. Also there's plenty of people who do not have ADD and can't stand to watch anything but flashy movies with big explosions and lack of character development. A movie like the assassination of jesse james by the coward robert ford had me glued to my seat yet I can't stand transformers. Maybe I'm just breaking trends.
Mar 20 - 06:50 PM
You can't "call something ADD". "ADD" isn't an adjective. "ADD" is a behavioral disorder. This reviewer didn't "call something ADD". She didn't say "OMG DUDE, like, The Hunger Games is so ADD!" She said, "You must have to have ADD to like this movie," as in; you must have to have something wrong with you to enjoy this movie. It's extremely offensive to imply that an entire group of peoples' opinions don't matter, and something must be wrong with them for them to enjoy a movie that this review found to be subpar.
Mar 20 - 08:46 PM
Take the broom out of your puss.
Mar 25 - 03:25 PM
Take that brain out of your head. (It's not like it's doing you any good.)
Mar 26 - 06:03 AM
I agree with Murphy that a grittier, more violent interpretation on screen would serve The Hunger Games well but as I remember reading it, the book was very much like she how she is describing the film. As a pov novel, alot of the graphic details are more alluded to then seen. The way you are describing the adaptation's direction (the quick shots of panem, the forest as a counterpoint to the depravity, the blur of action, even deferred character development) are all traits I remember from the book (granted its been a long time since I read it). Other of her criticisms seem very fair (like Lawrence's appearance and moving too quickly through Peeta's revival) though I will say that others (Effie's shallowness, Haymitch's drunk to sober transformation) again seem in line with the book.
Mar 20 - 05:25 PM
Why did you have to abbreviate the word "audiences"?
Mar 20 - 06:18 PM
Unfortunately, I think the reviewer used the clinical term "ADD" to refer to the stereotype of young people with short attention spans, which she perceives as the target audience for this movie. That may have been insensitive, but I doubt she intended to make a blanket statement that all individuals who have been diagnosed with ADD have zero patience for character development in movies, like some of you are inferring.
Many symptoms of ADD are so common in children (and adults) that the diagnosis itself seems overly subjective (see Tony's reaction in The Sopranos episode where the doctor tries to diagnose A.J. as ADD). I have never had trouble in school, but after reading through the symptoms list, I think I exhibited at least 5 or 6 of the 9 possibities in my work meeting today. The ubiquitous nature of these symptoms and the inherently subjective diagnoses makes it seem almost acceptable to use the term "ADD" to refer to anyone exhibiting a short attention span, even temporarily.
Fans of the book had to expect the violence and gore to be toned down a bit to satisfy the PG-13 rating, but I'm still looking forward to it. Wouldn't it be great if they shot enough footage to re-edit the movie and release a grittier R-rated version on DVD/BluRay?
Patrick H - Are you really chastising this reviewer for disagreeing with most of her fellow critics, then in the next sentence reminding us that a person's taste in movies is "PURELY SUBJECTIVE"? I hope the first bit was sarcasm that did not translate well.
Then, you accuse Sam C of being contrarian in his response. Hilarious!
I also enjoyed your claim that you have extremely good taste in movies, which you admit is a subjective concept in the same posting. In spite of your optimistic self-assessment, you should know that I have better taste in movies than you. In fact, I am extremely good at everything, so you should not question my assessment of your hilarity.
Mar 20 - 06:49 PM
Excellent post but i'd just like to say that I would expect a less professional reviewer to make the ADD comments and not someone who writes for MSN. I think there's plenty of other ways to describe what she is trying to get across in her review without immediately alienating a large number of her readers with the first sentence.
Mar 20 - 06:57 PM
You didn't read my post. I didn't degrade Katie for being in the minority. I degraded her for sending the message that the rest of the critics were "wrong," and I brought up the fact that she was in the minority just to remind her that, obviously, not everyone agrees with her.
Also, saying that movie taste is subjective and saying that I have good taste in movies aren't mutually exclusive. I think my ability to know that "Bucky Larson: Born To Be A Star" is a shit movie, which most fellow moviegoers share, allows me to make that statement. And also, I never said my opinion was better than anyone elses; I was just expressing it.
Better luck next time.
Mar 20 - 07:01 PM
Patrick, I did read your post and Kathleen's review. Nothing in her review disparaged other critics for posting contrasting opinions, though I've seen at least one negative review for The Hunger Games that certainly does just that (saying something along the lines that any reviewer that gives this movie a perfect score is a hack), and Armond White habitually criticizes the reviews of his peers as part of his own movie reviews, so I can understand making that point in a different context. Perhaps your criticism is based on her use of pronouns like "we" and "our" to convey her opinions (is this called "second person" writing?), but I can't fault her for a stylistic choice like that.
My point is that applying terms like "right" and "wrong" to a subjective opinion is absurd. But the real reason I got motivated enough to actually respond to your comment was your claim of being an "extremely good judge of movie quality" on a site like this. I'm sure that nearly everyone that comments on Rotten Tomatoes would make that same claim (in much the same way as everyone thinks they're good in bed and that every mother thinks she has the best child). Making any claim like this on a message board, particularly without substantiating it in any way, is hilarious. I take that back - in your latest posting, you let us know that you thought Bucky Larson was bad. How insightful.
I'm going to have to borrow that effective trick of ending a post with "better luck next time" or "stop trying" or "have a nice life" to show that I have the final word.
Mar 20 - 07:49 PM
I liked the part of your post where you didn't even try to refute what I just said.
Mar 20 - 07:57 PM
Actually, if you read his post it literally goes like this:
-*insert tasteless joke about lady periods*
-I have OCD and I have a respectable opinion of movies
-Are you saying that something must be wrong with you (ADD?) in order to like this movie?
-Well the majority of the reviewers here like it, so are you saying they're all wrong? something's wrong with them?
-Remember we all have our own opinions on movies, and don't degrade other opinions by saying that something MUST be wrong with them in order for them to like it
Also, she was using ADD in the way that one would use ADD when they want to insult something. How is that not offensive? I have ADD. I am offended, because she implied that people with ADD have something wrong with them and they're only going to like this crappily shot movie if they have ADD. If she wanted to say that teenagers with no attention span or substance will like it; she would have, but she said ADD AUDS.
Mar 20 - 08:55 PM
Just read the book! That's what these movies are meant for! They are meant to be film depictions of the book made to please fans. Fans who know how to fill in the blanks
Mar 20 - 07:19 PM
That's totally not true. Adaptations are supposed to introduce new people, but definitely not alienate their original fan base.
Mar 20 - 10:48 PM
It's a movie, it should work as a movie. A movie is not successful if you need another source to appreciate it.
I want to see this film, but every single thing that fans of the books are spouting off makes me want to turn against it.
Mar 21 - 07:39 AM
You should see it, go in there expecting the worst.. maybe you'll get something from it that way! I bought into the hype, and came out really disappointed. Simple things that wouldn't have made the movie any longer were just SKIPPED! They introduce the Avox with the hovercraft, they SHOW the Avox.. but could Katniss send a recognizing glance her way so that maybe you at least realize she's a little more than an extra in a movie. NO.
Mar 23 - 09:33 AM
That's stupid. They make movies also to entice people who never read the books, it doesn't need to be exact but hopefully contain the same messages and overall theme of a book.
Apr 5 - 12:17 AM