Of all the things that had me worried about this movie, it was the fact that it was made in the mindset of a PG-13 release. Not saying that it's a bad move, but looking at a film that's got a pretty decent amount of stylized areas here and there, they sure went out of there way to make it hard to digest and enjoy.

I am of course talking about the bloody camera shaking technique. Normally that's used when the situations are getting rough and the action gets confusing, but here it's used so much that you can't help but feel like someone took lessons from watching JJ Abrams banging on the cameras for Star Trek and took that to mean success. For instance, one of the ways this film gets away with the violence is by having the camera shake so hard and so fast that all you see is a little splatter here and a bit of blood there, but no why to determine who got hit or where they got it. The shaking is so drastic and forced that you start to realize that they had to shoot even the non-action moments with shaky cam just so that the outrageous shaking shots don't look so out of place.

In short, The Hunger Games has turned "steady shots" into something film makers should avoid if they don't want an R-Rating.

For the record, Battle Royale is a horrible movie. No character development, so you don't care who dies. It may have been gruesome and gory, but that's about it. I'd rather add The Hunger Games to my collection than Royale.

This is why I love Lionsgate. They don't skimp out on the bonus features, unlike WB (which is why I barely buy their BDs anymore). I'm still curious if they'll double dip this, like a huge box set for the entire series in the future. It'll most likely happen.

stevepulaski, just stop. you're making yourself look more foolish with each post. TONS & TONS of people respect and love BATTLE ROYALE. tons. and they loved and respected it LONG before HUNGER GAMES. you sound like a tween who's so desperate to defend his TWILIGHT movie. just relax. it's possible for both movies to be revered.

It was NOT a good movie in any sense of the word. The acting was either flat and wooden with absolutely no depth to speak of, or it was totally cliched and unoriginal. There was nothing in the movie (and story) that was original. I hate when movies keep recycling the same story over and over. But I can tolerate it if the movie at least tries to include a few original story elements or character development. The editing of the movie is atrocious and just lazy and nonsensical. Go to thatguywiththeglasses and watch the videos that Marzgurl did talking about this mess of a film.

stevepulaski wrote: Great cover, lukewarm movie. After you watch "Battle Royale," this film is a petty snack. Good performances, solid dialog, but monotonous, indistinct action and no commentary. Also shocked at the apparent Saturday release.
Too bad nobody cares about Battle Royale.

I would really like a combo pack for this one, but I'm pleased that it seems to be getting a nice treatment on either format. I am disappointed there are no deleted scenes, but I'm not devastated. The movie was long enough.

Looks like the Surrogates cover.

this movie was decent, not great, but decent. i give this release MAJOR props for including most of the bonus features on both DVD & BR.

I'll wait in case they release a double dip down the road. I liked this one though.

wow, the dvd version actually has all of the same extras as the blu-ray aside from 1 featurette? color me shocked. lol

jp orestes wrote: Wait a sec, this is coming out on a Saturday?

Yep! From the press release:

Quote: Lionsgate’s The Hunger Games juggernaut will arrive on home entertainment at 12:01 A.M. on Saturday, August 18, as the first film in Lionsgate’s (NYSE: LGF) The Hunger Games franchise