Movie Deathmatch: The Hunger Games vs. Battle Royale

Battle Royal doesn't try to dress up the fight as entertainment, it's merely a punishment and warning from those who are in power. Also the "contest" has a fix time limit. All the participants are from the same school class, thus at least knowing one another to various degrees. The class is chosen randomly from the entire republic.

The Hunger Games is also a punishment and warning from the existing government, the contestants learn of each others skills as well as endearing themselves to the viewers, who are encouraged to help their favorite through gifts. The game itself has no fixed time limit, it ends when only one remains (usually). Also most of the participants do not know each other before the event and can vary widely in age, 12-18. There is very much a class disparity theme between the ultra rich who run the games and everyone else who are forced to provide the participants.

I've read both Battle Royale and The Hunger Games as well as having seen thier film counterparts so I'll throw my two cents in about each.

I've been a big fan of the Battle Royale novel since it was released in the states back around 2001 or so. I've probably read it six or seven times. So, when I read The Hunger Games, I saw some similarities.

I'd say, personally, that I prefer Battle Royale over the first Hunger Games Novel, although if I had to pit Battle Royale against the entire series, I would choose the Hunger Games. I think that while The Hunger Games is over all better written than Battle Royale, (although to be fair, I'm not sure how much of the writer's style and technique was lost in the translation from Japanese to English) Battle Royale explores at least somewhat, the lives of each of the 48 teenagers. There is a focus on a particular few, but every character has a story in that book, where as in Hunger Games most of the contestants die without you ever really knowing anything about them.

However, the larger story of the Hunger Games trilogy is in my opinion much more interesting than either its' or Battle Royale's beginings. I won't go into any detail here though just to avoid spoiling it for anyone planning on reading the books.

As for the films...that's tough as I've only seen The Hunger Games once. As far as your personal preference...well, if you like alot of over the top violence, then Battle Royale is for you and if you want more drama and a bit of romance, then you should go with the Hunger Games.

I think that if I had to make a decision right now...The Hunger Games is probably the better film. Because it's more intimate, you get Jennifer Lawrence's wonderful dramatic performances, while in Battle Royale...well, there's mainly alot of screaming and fighting.

I'll have to see The Hunger Games again though to make a firm decision.

I just watched Hunger Games last night on IMAX, and though I'm not a teenager (way way past that) and definately not a girl, I liked it a lot. The negatives is the pacing is kind of slow at times (but to be fare in a realistic way), and the violence is toned down by shaky cams so you couldn't really follow what was happening until the aftermath.

The positives are it is extremely well acted, especially by its lead Jennifer Lawrence who plays Katniss Everdeen and Woody Harrelson who plays Haymitch Abernathy. Also, I liked its many subtle social commentaries. I liked how smart Katniss was, and due to Haymith and Cinna's (played by Lenny Kravitz) tutoring she made sure everything she did during the Hunger Games mattered in the real world even when she couldn't see its effects from within (though with help from the Haymitch spin doctor). It's like she was a born politician, and you could see why President Snow (played by Donald Sutherland) became truly frightened of her.

I could see how kids could love the book, but I loved the movie for it's mature undertone. My friend (also not a teenage girl) who came with me loved Battle Royal, but he also liked Hunger Games a lot for much the same reasons I did.

I should add that The Hunger Games is not the Twilight that many of my contemporaries think it is, there's a true message in this with people who do things that matter, and very little romance. It's a girl power film that I hope and want my nieces to see.

It was good, certainly in line with the Rottentomatoes score it received. Jennifer Lawrence is excellent again, showing her performance in Winter's Bone was not an aberration, but the norm. Lenny Kravitz and Woody Harrelson, as Innovator mentioned, are both great as well.

Definitely worth watching.

I call it the Hawking Hole.

Haven't seen nor read Battle Royale but I just finished reading and watching The Hunger Games this week. I rather enjoyed both the novel and the movie. Although, I think I would have enjoyed the movie less had I not read the book. The movie felt more like a companion piece to me and helped me where my imagination was fuzzy. And when the movie skipped a part in the book my memory helped fill in the blanks.

The look of the film, especially the capitol, was very well conceived. The costumes evoked a little Willie Wonka and Bio Shock. Loved Stanley Tucci's portrayal of Caesar. Elizabeth Banks as Effie stole the scenes with her one liners. All in all a conversion from page to screen well done.

Besides being anti big government, Hunger Games is supposed to be anti big media, especially the reality shows. At least that is what the news was joking it up about.

Was it?

I wouldn't say anti Big Government as much as anti Corrupt Government. The citizens of the Districts are little more than slaves to the Capitol.

It's definitely anti-media.

Minor note, the film made more money over the weekend than any other Lionsgate film made over their entire run.

And it wasn't even in 3D! Not that it won't matter for much longer.

Hollywood being what it is, I for one look forward to a rash of thinly veiled clone teen-on-teen deathmatch movies.

Preferably High School Musical 4: Lipsync For Your Life.
Or Death Camp Rock.

I saw it. I liked it.

However, whichever ********* thought that shakey cam is appropriate for major motion picture should never work in cinema again. Or at the very least, busted down to the PA's PA.

Good god, the shaky was bad in the beginning, for no apparent reason. I seriously wish that trend had never started.

Well saw it tonight. Shaky cam was a way to both hide the "teen on teen" murder as well as hide the likely lack of fighting skills among the actors. Probably actually cheaper to depend on shaky cam than put the principle tribute actors through stunt fighting boot camp.

I was more curious how they were going to take a novel that is entirely in first person with a lot of internal dialog and turn it into a movie. The additional scenes of District 12 and 11, of Gale, of the game's Truman Show like control room as well as President Snow was more about laying the groundwork for Catching Fire.

The one snarky comment that popped into my head was near the end of the movie when the gamemasters first accelerated "sunset" before releasing the mutts. Peeta asked Katniss why and nearly blurted out "so we can't see the CGI critter too clearly".

I was actually disappointed that they didn't show Peeta being crushed when Katniss tells him that it was all an act during the games. I found that the second most emotional scene in the novel, Rue's death being the first.

Obviously, in regards to shaky cam. Stargate: Universe used that combined with horribly darkened sets to pretty much hide everything. But still, the beginning with shaky had no point whatsoever. It was so off-putting in the beginning, I almost walked out.