kameryj
Lifetime Total
1+
IMDb Member
10 years
Reviews
The Hunger Games (2012)
If I didn't read the book, it may have been better
I read the Hunger Games book and to my surprise it was pretty good, I didn't have high hopes for it.
I won't get into a summary, you can read that on IMDb.
I wasn't the biggest fan of Katniss in the book, she is a huge debbie downer. But that's one big thing they changed in the movie is make Katniss a stronger person, which I think was a good move.
That's almost the only change they made that was good in my opinion.
They took out characters in the movie that aren't the most important, but they do help share more inside to the type of person Katniss is. They are reflections of herself in the book. In the movie, I think she only talks to three people outside of the Hunger Games. So you don't get a lot of depth on Katniss, or her past. The book goes into her past and explains why she is the way she is, the movie spends a few seconds on it really.
Also, they don't explain certain things. You are given a brief history lesson about the Hunger Games and then you're thrown a lot of stuff quickly.
In the book you are told the significance of the people holding up their middle three fingers, in the movie you have no real idea why they do it.
Book explains the significance of why it's hard for Katniss to trust Peeta, her fellow person from her district. Then, the significance of them working together and always being together. This was one of my biggest problems with the movie. The book stresses from the beginning that they must be buddy-buddy even though in the Hunger Games Katniss knows she must kill him eventually. It's a tough thing she goes through that shows her real character at points and really shows her growth as the movie progresses. The movie makes no attempt what so ever to explain or show this. It's just mentioned for a second and that's about it. To me that was one of the most important things in the book.
They changed the ending around, a lot too. The ending in the book is very climatic and builds up well. The movie just disregards parts that are important and says they never happen.
Like I said, if I never read the book, I probably would of liked this movie more. I wasn't a big fan of the shaky camera during a lot of the beginning scenes but they worked better later on.
The movie stands well on its own and it's not bad, nothing amazing. For me it's more frustrating to know what it could of/should of been after reading a great book like the Hunger Games.
I won't get into a summary, you can read that on IMDb.
I wasn't the biggest fan of Katniss in the book, she is a huge debbie downer. But that's one big thing they changed in the movie is make Katniss a stronger person, which I think was a good move.
That's almost the only change they made that was good in my opinion.
They took out characters in the movie that aren't the most important, but they do help share more inside to the type of person Katniss is. They are reflections of herself in the book. In the movie, I think she only talks to three people outside of the Hunger Games. So you don't get a lot of depth on Katniss, or her past. The book goes into her past and explains why she is the way she is, the movie spends a few seconds on it really.
Also, they don't explain certain things. You are given a brief history lesson about the Hunger Games and then you're thrown a lot of stuff quickly.
In the book you are told the significance of the people holding up their middle three fingers, in the movie you have no real idea why they do it.
Book explains the significance of why it's hard for Katniss to trust Peeta, her fellow person from her district. Then, the significance of them working together and always being together. This was one of my biggest problems with the movie. The book stresses from the beginning that they must be buddy-buddy even though in the Hunger Games Katniss knows she must kill him eventually. It's a tough thing she goes through that shows her real character at points and really shows her growth as the movie progresses. The movie makes no attempt what so ever to explain or show this. It's just mentioned for a second and that's about it. To me that was one of the most important things in the book.
They changed the ending around, a lot too. The ending in the book is very climatic and builds up well. The movie just disregards parts that are important and says they never happen.
Like I said, if I never read the book, I probably would of liked this movie more. I wasn't a big fan of the shaky camera during a lot of the beginning scenes but they worked better later on.
The movie stands well on its own and it's not bad, nothing amazing. For me it's more frustrating to know what it could of/should of been after reading a great book like the Hunger Games.
Man of Steel (2013)
Fantastic movie despite the critics hate
At first I was nervous to go see this movie. The critics hated it for the most part. Honestly, I can understand why. The story wasn't the focus of this movie. Zack Snyder's movies are all about visual interest. Nolan, I think, on the other hand is about story and realism.
I was interested in the beginning to see how they would balance it out. I think critics had this idea it would be like the batman movies mixed with the Avengers. It's not really. It's a visual masterpiece. Well, maybe masterpiece is a strong word to use, but the visual special effects are amazing. I personally think they are the best I have ever seen. If you are going to see this movie, realize that you are going to see a movie with a ton of special effects and they are the thing Snyder cares about the most.
The movie does a back and forth between the past and present day. Nolan really takes over the story when it shifts to the past. The past drives the current story and it does it well I believe. Without spoiling anything, the past shows why Clark Kent has become the man he is today and it doesn't hold much back. There is going to be a large battle scene at the end, the critics noted it was over 20 minutes long. It probably was, but I like to think it was well done. Critics, and a lot of people have an issue with the ending, once again not to spoil anything, it gets dark. I think people expected this to be a super kid friendly movie, it's not. I don't know what gave people this idea, but with Zack Snyder and Nolan working together, you had to expect it to be a darker, more realistic movie.
Could the story have been better? Maybe. But for what that movie was, it was the perfect story for it. Could the special effects been better? No way. That's really what you're going for.
It's a good story, nothing phenomenal, but a great looking movie. It's not a kids movie and you shouldn't expect it to be. It deals with how people have to make choices and the lines are never black and white and where that grey is, is what makes Man of Steel a great superhero movie.
I was interested in the beginning to see how they would balance it out. I think critics had this idea it would be like the batman movies mixed with the Avengers. It's not really. It's a visual masterpiece. Well, maybe masterpiece is a strong word to use, but the visual special effects are amazing. I personally think they are the best I have ever seen. If you are going to see this movie, realize that you are going to see a movie with a ton of special effects and they are the thing Snyder cares about the most.
The movie does a back and forth between the past and present day. Nolan really takes over the story when it shifts to the past. The past drives the current story and it does it well I believe. Without spoiling anything, the past shows why Clark Kent has become the man he is today and it doesn't hold much back. There is going to be a large battle scene at the end, the critics noted it was over 20 minutes long. It probably was, but I like to think it was well done. Critics, and a lot of people have an issue with the ending, once again not to spoil anything, it gets dark. I think people expected this to be a super kid friendly movie, it's not. I don't know what gave people this idea, but with Zack Snyder and Nolan working together, you had to expect it to be a darker, more realistic movie.
Could the story have been better? Maybe. But for what that movie was, it was the perfect story for it. Could the special effects been better? No way. That's really what you're going for.
It's a good story, nothing phenomenal, but a great looking movie. It's not a kids movie and you shouldn't expect it to be. It deals with how people have to make choices and the lines are never black and white and where that grey is, is what makes Man of Steel a great superhero movie.