The Pitters' Place

There was no reason, other than money, for the last book to be split into two movies. Everything that happened in this movie could have been shown in less than 20 minutes. I just hope the last one makes up for this. Also, why did Julianne Moore even get cast in the role of the leader of the rebellion? She's an average actress at best and was completely unbelievable in this role. I hope she turns out to be a traitor and gets an arrow in the skull. Or she turns out not to be a traitor and Katniss just kills her for practice, that would work too. Phillip Seymour Hoffman was a great actor but even he was boring as hell in this one. But at least Elizabeth Banks didn't look like a complete tool the way she did in the first two movies. Finally, drunk Haymitch > sober Haymitch. They need to let him have the booze back.

They only split it into two for money, but I'm glad they did. The principle complaint about the book was that too much happened too fast and not enough time was taken to cover what did happen. Everything felt rushed. Now the problem is mostly fixed. I say "mostly" because there are still quite a lot of monumental events and story points left to deal with and unless they make part 2 a pretty long movie, it will have the same problems the book did.

Brandon's correct here. They took twenty minutes of screenplay and stretched it out with bloated dialogue and scenes where nothing's happening, which the director tried to make appear important and dramatic. This was the first Hunger Games movie I really didn't like. The other two were entertaining.

This sums up how I feel about Mockingjay:



Most of it I could stand. The part that really annoyed me is the whole "You should have saved Peeta". I get her wanting to save him but she comes off as so fucking needy for all the wrong reasons.

I remember liking it, but two days later I was "that movie was kinda shit."

Then forgot about it a second later. I hope the sequels are better. And Julianne Moore is beautiful you ass. The one movie I didn't like with her was that horrible Silence of the Lamb sequel. Maybe because she was supposed to be Jodie Foster.

EDIT: Also, I saw it right after I gave up on Boyhood. So of couse I was going to like it!

I didn't say a thing about Julianne Moore not being beautiful.

I saw Still Alice, she is quite talented. (But she surrounded herself with shit actors like Stewart, Bosworth and Baldwin) So anyone could look better with that cast.

But I agree, nothing happened in this movie.

Kirsten Stewart is fucking talented! Shut up!

Derived Absurdity wrote:Kirsten Stewart is fucking talented! Shut up!

Just when I thought we could be friends.

She actually is talented though. Adventureland. Clouds Of Sils Maria. Panic Room. The Runaways. Into the Wild. Fucking Speak. She's awesome in all of those. And I also heard she was good in Still Alice, even though I haven't seen it. She was shit in Twilight, but she was playing a shit character in a shit series written by a shit writer. Most good actors are shit when given shit. When she's given a good script she almost always does well with it.

She plays Kristen Stewart in ALL of them. I saw a lot of her movies trying to find the so called good performances. The one where I believed her best was the Runaways. And I liked Speak, it's the only movie of hers I actually saw twice (not counting the Twilight movies with Rifftrax), but she played Bella Swan in a more realistic world, so not sure if that counts.

I think she has more range than you're giving her credit for, but even if she didn't she plays the narrow cast of characters she's given very well. And a lot of them are very different. I mean, the Runaways had her 180 degrees away from Bella Swan. And Clouds is in a class all by itself. And in Panic Room she plays a boy. That takes serious talent.

Just because she looked like a boy doesn't mean she was a boy!!!

Haven't seen Clouds, might watch it in the future. But I swear to baby Jesus if I see her playing Bella Swan one more time and see that I have wasted my time again, I'm gonna get over there and kick your ass!

I'm holding you to that.

Seriously, 'cause if you wanted to, you totally could. I'm a wimp.

Wait a minute you don't even know where I live! So I'm safe! See, this is why I never confide in anybody.

I'm a wimp too. So the worst thing I could do is go to your house and look sternly at you. So I might do that.

And this is the internet... I could find info about you if I want.

I liked Mockingjay. But I think I may have been blinded because I like both Jennifer Lawrence and Julianne Moore. Also, Natalie Dormer. What was the plot again?



On the Kristen Stewart front, I don't think she has much range, she's not terrible but I don't think she's great. Though my sample size is Panic Room, Twilight(I was made to watch it), Adventureland and The Runaways. The first didn't need much acting, she's dreadful in Twilight, and she was meh in the other two.

There was no reason, other than money, for the last book to be split into two movies. Everything that happened in this movie could have been shown in less than 20 minutes. I just hope the last one makes up for this. Also, why did Julianne Moore even get cast in the role of the leader of the rebellion? She's an average actress at best and was completely unbelievable in this role. I hope she turns out to be a traitor and gets an arrow in the skull.

Yeah - see I had the exact opposite reaction to Mockingjay than this. I've read all the books and didn't like the last one at all .. IMHO - the first book and the second movie were best in the series so far.

Having said that tho - I actually thought mockingjay was a better movie than it was a book so I actually walked out of the cinema feeling rather happy with the way it all came together. Not so much saying that the book couldn't have been done as one movie or that it wasn't done to milk the theatre paying dollar out of the system .. but, it was much better than I expected and I really had no issue with Julianne Moore at all given she was thinly painted in the books to the point where her character didn't even make a great deal of sense but - felt better fleshed out in the movie.

Added to that - I really like Julianne Moore a great deal - ever since her role in Boogey Nights - I'd pretty much watch anything with her in it.

I also think Stewart is a better actress than most people realize. I think I was about 15 or 16 when Panic Room came out, and I definitely thought she was a boy for some time at the start of the movie. And I remember being intrigued when I discovered she was a girl...confused by why this little girl has such sternness and "gravitas". I was impressed by her screen presence. That cool-girl sternness can become a bit "one-note" and tiresome when it's superficial, but I've seen enough depth from her to consider her a good actress. I think people hate her mostly for her interviews because she is deeply introverted and comes off neurotically. Don't want to feel too sorry for famous millionaires...but being an introverted celebrity must suck balls.

I still haven't seen this one of the trilogy - I was turned off by the part I and part II concept. Having read the books, I cannot fathom how they can make two movies out of it without it dragging like hell.

I like her due to those interviews (the few ones I've watched). I think she gets a lot of hate for starring in a widely detested and mocked series and playing a character who is very, very easy to hate, and many people don't really try to see past that. And she's also a conventionally attractive female Hollywood celebrity who doesn't seem to want to smile very often or do most of the other things they're expected to do.

Not to say there's no legit reasons to dislike her or that that's the reason anyone here dislikes her, but that's where I think most of the general hate comes from.

I excuse shit actors I find attractive too, so no worries.

...hey

I think that's a burn.

Whitey wrote:I think that's a burn.

Burning someone...that's a paddlin'.

Unvoiced_Apollo wrote:

Whitey wrote:I think that's a burn.

Burning someone...that's a paddlin'.

Not if you burn the paddle

Derived Absurdity wrote:I like her due to those interviews (the few ones I've watched). I think she gets a lot of hate for starring in a widely detested and mocked series and playing a character who is very, very easy to hate, and many people don't really try to see past that. And she's also a conventionally attractive female Hollywood celebrity who doesn't seem to want to smile very often or do most of the other things they're expected to do.

Not to say there's no legit reasons to dislike her or that that's the reason anyone here dislikes her, but that's where I think most of the general hate comes from.

But people don't hate Robert Pattinson or any of the other shitty roles/performances in the series nearly as much as they hate her. They hate her personality. Which I think is generally unfounded hate...a misunderstanding of some sort.

Like I said. She's introverted and socially awkward, which is more acceptable in males than females. Celebrity women are expected to be bubbly and outgoing. She's not. That's where the hate comes from and why Pattinson doesn't get most of it. It shouldn't really be news that people judge women more harshly for the same things as they judge men.

Well. She's one of my wives, so back off.

You're not good enough for her.

Pattinson said the same thing before I stole her from him.

He's not good enough for her either. No one is.

I'm just gonna go ahead and leave this here...

http://thedissolve.com/features/exposit ... n-stewart/