Sorry Paul, but I can not take your advice seriously anymore after you recommended the horrid abortion that was John Carter.

Got taken by someone with two free tickets, still not worth the two hours of my life.

You don't so much read it as smash it directly into your brain through your face; even people who hate to read manage to swallow The Hunger Games whole in less than 24 hours.

Exactly. I can't wait to see it come alive on screen.

Fuck yea

We have tickets for Friday night at Cinerama. CANT wait.

@1 This is exactly what I came to say. Against all better instinct I went to see Carter. Fuck that was awful! In literally every way. So Yeah. I'm not trusting Constants advice on this. He has proven... untrustworthy.

@1/5 - I enjoyed John Carter and the only reason I went to see it was because of Paul. It was silly, but my expectations for films of "blockbuster" pedigree are usually pretty low. As they should be.

Squee! Really, really looking forward to Hunger Games.

@1 You can tell your taste is shit because you use the words "horrid abortion."

After the utter and complete failure to adapt The Golden Compass to the screen - which has the same cinematic quality when reading it - I'm quite happy to hear that Hollywood hasn't sucked balls on this one.

Damn you @12...I can't stop looking at it!

What @7 & @12 have stated. Paul must be on drugs to write "...and Lawrence looks as comfortable in the lush green woods as a native."

Even if that arrow was originally resting on her outstretched finger, it definitely suggests Lawrence was not taught how to shoot a bow (good way to mess up your finger and disturb the trajectory of the arrow). We should also note that: she is holding the knocked arrow at chin level; her string is not dampened (which it probably would be on a hunting bow); the arrow is probably half a foot too long; the arrow is knocked off of the typical served portion of the string; her "expert archer" character apparently needs to wear finger protection for what amounts to a 25# bow.

I guess you can make a weak case about "instinctive shooting", but it looks to me like Jane Austen meets Survivorman.

@12, 14: Yeah, ok, if you look too close at the promo still you get the willies. But watching a movie is not like deconstructing a promo stills. In a movie, it's about motion, and Jennifer Lawrence manages to move about in a forest likes she owns it -- she doesn't conjure up images of Paris Hilton standing, appalled, in barnyard.

"You don't so much read it as smash it directly into your brain through your face; even people who hate to read manage to swallow The Hunger Games whole in less than 24 hours."

I agree that this is true, but don't agree that it is a positive recommendation. I read the first two of the books in about six hours each, as excellent reading for on an airplane or something. I got them for free, and I still won't pay for the third, although I might read it eventually.

Books that you can read that fast are not great books. They are extremely silly books, without complexity of grammar, of story, or of character. Nothing surprising happened in the books at all, and there was no real depth of description of anything.

There are also some pretty gigantic narrative holes. I think people may not notice them because they are papered over with violence porn. But hey, we can feel good about reading about graphic violence, because the message of the book is anti-authoritarian!

Also, Katniss Everdeen has got to be the stupidest heroine-who-outsmarts-people ever.

What love "triangle"?

There is the boy peeta, the girl katniss, aaaaannnnddd?

And Gail, the hunter boy she left behind, who gets to watch Peeta and Katnis on live tv.

It was a great adaption of a the book I swallowed whole.

It was a great adaption of the book I swallowed whole.

@16 I read Camus' "The Stranger" in a few hours, but I wouldn't call it "silly."

The movie was a horrible disappointment. I found it to be an extremely shallow version of the book. It lacked development and the layers that make the series so satisfying to read.

@14: Exactly! She's also drawing way too deep (usually with her second knuckle) in every promo poster I've seen her in so far. In the picture above, she's only got two fingers on the string.

Some of the archery passages in the book were a little off (I enjoyed reading it nevertheless), but would it have been so difficult to spare an hour on set to teach an actress how to at least hold a bow correctly?

Call me whatever you'd like, but for some reason I feel a bit distressed whenever I hear about this film and about all hoards of people that have gone to see it.

I want to put it out there that I haven't read the book (I did however read The Most Dangerous Game), but after watching the trailer and reading a few reviews, I've gotten the impression that this is quite a morbid and unwholesome film. I can't exactly say why I get that feeling, but I mean c'mon, isn't it taboo in our society to kill kids? Plus don't we already have enough of a problem in this country of kids shooting, maiming and killing each other in school?

This movie seems, eek I don't know, just plain negative... Good movie directing and a love story or two can make any disturbing plot or ideology agreeable to the audience in cinema, but the underlying story still comes across loud and clear.

To somebody who's seen the film: What was the underlying story/moral of this film? Was it something negative like I'm assuming? Or am I totally off-base and making a fool of myself in my first comment on the Stranger.. -Chris