November 28, 2023 • 41 mins
"Is 'The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes' more than just a fancy title?
we dive headfirst – or maybe just toe-dip – into the Hunger Games prequel. Will it soar like a songbird or hiss away like a snake? Let's find out!
We're going to investigate young Snow. Does he chill us to the bone, or is he more of a snowflake? We'll dig into Rachel Ziegler's performance too. Spoiler alert: There's singing involved – because what’s a Ballad without a few tunes?
Get ready for a rollercoaster of ‘why did they do that?’ as we compare this prequel to the beloved original trilogy. It's like déjà vu, but with less... well, everything. From casting choices that had us scratch our heads to plot twists that left us spinning in circles – we're covering it all!
Join us for laughs, rants, and maybe even a few revelations as we navigate the maze that is 'The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes.'
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey everyone, and welcome to another episode of
Movies Worth Seeing.
Welcome, fellow movie lovers,to our latest episode.
Today we're diving into thenewest addition to the Hunger
Games.
It's a sequel that no one askedfor, but they made it anyway,
yes.
So let's explore this with afresh perspective and dive into
(00:22):
the Hunger Games.
The ballad of songbirds andsnakes.
It just rolls off the tongue.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Beautifully lovely.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
So I am joined by Addy Asher yet again.
And the interesting thing withthis episode is that sorry, I'm
just checking to see if myparanoia was steeping in I'm
like, is it in recording?
Yes, it is.
Interestingly, I have neverseen a Hunger Games movie.
Addy has seen all the HungerGames movies, so we have
(00:51):
completely different viewpointson this.
I probably thought Hunger Gamesprequel was going to be
different.
I probably thought it was OK,it wasn't too bad, whereas Addy
probably has the perspectivethat it was a massive
disappointment when compared tothe original trilogy.
Is that a fair point?
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Oh, yeah, understand it, but yes, what did you think
it was?
Horrible.
It was Wow Play, just horrible.
I tried to be optimistic.
I thought it's the Hunger Games.
It's based on a novel that'swritten by the same novelist.
It can't be that bad.
We watched it and I was like,ok, let's focus on the good bits
.
I watched Catching Fire thesecond one of the trilogy
(01:30):
yesterday and I have to takethat back.
It was horrible.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
Wow.
So what is it that whencompared to the original trilogy
?
What are the main things thatjust don't work in this?
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Like about one third of the movie you asked me.
Am I supposed to know what'sgoing on?
If you ask that question, thenit's a horrible movie.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Good, ok, yeah, because I thought that I was
going in and I should have knownall this stuff.
But then I'm like it's aprequel, so it should be fine.
It should be set up as if Ihaven't seen the other movies,
because this could be the startof it, of the Hunger Games, but
they didn't go that route?
Speaker 2 (02:08):
No, they didn't.
It was confusing.
It was confusing Again watchingCatching Fire and the original
Hunger Games the first one, somany moments.
It was just critically.
You know exactly what's goingon.
There was no fat, there was nobullshit around it, it was
straight to the point.
You know exactly what is goingon.
There was nothing skimmed overand there was nothing that was
excess.
It was so clean.
This movie was just dragged onand on and on.
(02:30):
This was all fat.
It was all fat.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Yeah, I remember I said to you when we came out of
the cinemas I'm like thereshould be laws against movies
being three hours long.
Unless you, James Cameron,should never happen, If you
don't have a tattoo.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
It wasn't that great.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
But I felt like I could understand why I was going
for so long.
Like you had action sequences,it was interesting.
I didn't constantly say tomyself that could have been cut.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Yeah, I get what you mean, when you compare three
hour movies, I would have to byfar more superior than Hunger
Games.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Songbird and Sinks put a name for a movie yet again
.
Well, it's the novel you canSuzanne Collins, I think her
name is they should have likegave it acronyms or something
BOS yeah, they should have beenlike the Hunger Games, bos.
Both S, yeah, super bass.
Well, let's talk about so youngsnow.
So essentially, what they do isthey take the villain Of the
(03:25):
Hunger Games original trilogyand show his rise into becoming
that villain.
So they took the AnakinSkywalker route with this
prequel.
Yeah, did it pay off.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
No, it's not at a fault of Tom Blythe, the actor
who played.
I actually thought he wasreally good, he was brilliant,
he was really good he.
He did the best he could tosalvage what was written for him
, but it was just bad story arcfor him.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
At least they didn't do the whole thing like you know
.
In those movies they kind ofdid it.
You know, when a characterbecomes a bad guy, their haircut
has to drastically change.
Like, like they gave him thebuzz cut, but it made sense in
the story.
It wasn't just like I'm readingmyself of my hero ways.
I'm not good anymore.
(04:12):
Look at this visual metaphor ofmy hairstyle.
It wasn't like Spider-Man 3where he just like moves it to
the side a bit.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Yeah, no, I get what you mean.
It was circumstance justified,which is good.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
Yeah, Well, I felt his portrayal.
Unfortunately I don't knowanything about the character in
the original trilogy, but Ithought he did a pretty good job
of showing that gradual shiftfrom a somewhat sympathetic
character to this notorious kindof villain that you know is
going to run the whole game.
But you don't think it stackedup against the original
trilogy's snipe?
Speaker 2 (04:45):
So no, no, I don't think it does.
But apart from that, becausehe's way.
I don't know.
It's a different kind ofvillain, it's a different kind
of psychopath.
Of course he's way older.
He's like 80, 85, and I don'tknow how old he is.
In the, in the new, in theoriginals.
You need to have somethingsubstantial first, then break it
down and then create a villain.
(05:06):
The relationship he had withLucy Gray was just not real.
There was just nothing there.
It was just fake?
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Why does he always say Lucy Gray?
Why doesn't?
Speaker 2 (05:16):
he just say Lucy.
Why does every character sayLucy Gray and why not just Lucy?
Speaker 1 (05:18):
I love it, it's like oh my God, there she is, Lucy
Gray.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Lucy Gray.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Lucy Gray no one says that you know when someone's
like dying in your arms orwhatever.
You don't go like Lucy, butI'll follow you, gray, Whatever
her middle name was Lucy.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Gray bad, I think it was.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
By the way, that's not spoiling anything.
No, I'm just using it as ahypothetical.
That does bring up a good point.
Their relationship just felt sohollow and I just couldn't see
what they're seeing in eachother.
It was like I missed a scene,or something.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Again, I have to draw the comparison between the
originals, katniss Evadine andPeter Malak, the two main
characters in the originalHunger Games.
Okay, so how long was thatstare between Lucy Gray and
Coriolanus?
How long was that stare whenthe zoo scene?
How long was that stare tryingto show the love and the
affection that there's gonna bea romance there?
(06:15):
That stare was just so long andso hollow, whereas in the
originals, in the same timeframe, they told so much between
the characters it was just alook, boom, look at each other.
She does something, he sees it.
They can just see the spark inher eye and that's it.
It was two seconds and then therest of the minute.
They did so many other thingsto show more promise for their
relationship.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
So you felt like, similar to me, this was forcing
something that just wasn't there, so forced, like the movie's
dragon out scenes, betweentrying to force this
relationship upon us when it'sjust not working.
And I think Rachel Zeglerdoesn't help things either.
She's not, I mean, let's justcall her spade a spade.
She's not exactly the mostlikable celebrity right now,
(06:58):
nope and man.
She has a terrible track record.
She has a terrible track recordLike Shazam.
Two bombed fricking.
What was the other thing shewas in?
Snow White's gonna bomb forsure.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Pushed it back a year to hopefully the storm would
love her West Side.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Story bombed and Spielberg directed that West
Side Story bombed.
Yeah, that's what I heard thatbombed.
I haven't seen it yet.
I heard it's really good, butit's still bombed financially.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Don't hire Rachel Zegler.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Yeah, that seems to be the, and everyone's kind of
predicted that this would bombas a result?
And yeah, time will tell, timewill tell.
I mean, I don't think it'sdoing well, as we're recording
this right now.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
I haven't even looked at it.
I assume it's not.
I've heard a lot of mixedreviews.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
And like the relationship is at the forefront
of the whole freaking movie aswell, yeah, that's the reason
why he goes bad.
Yeah Well, there's a pivotalmoment in the story where he's
got to decide between like therelationship or what he wants.
His ultra goal, ultimate goal.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Yeah, exactly, he has to make that choice with
Leedsome Downer path, to becomethe villain that he is in an
original trilogy.
Right so, but the choice wasnot hard enough.
He acted as if it was hard, butthe stakes were, but we didn't
understand why.
We didn't understand it becausethe relationship between him
and Zegler was just we didn'thave the investment in their
relationship.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
There was no investment, so by the time where
these crucial decisions come up, we don't care Zero.
And also you can see it comingfrom a mile away.
Oh, yeah big time.
You know what's going to happenwith them.
Oh yeah, One thing I will say,though.
I feel like one of the issueswith movies these days
especially villain, like originstories they can never have the
(08:50):
balls to have the villain be thevillain at the end of the movie
, Whereas I felt like at the endof this snow is snow like the
snow that you expect him tobecome.
I felt like he was pretty closeto full bad guy by the end.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
I see what you mean yes and no, yes and no For
example, did you ever watchCruella?
Speaker 1 (09:10):
Yes, yes, so you know how Cruella Emma Stone yeah,
it's like the movie can't decideon whether she's a bad guy by
the end of it.
They want to make out likeshe's still a hero and they make
all these weird creativedecisions.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
How about the Joker?
Joker was perfect.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
The Joker was perfect Joker is like the gold standard
, I would think, for a villainorigin story.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Yeah, that's a well done story.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
That's a long movie too, wasn't it?
Speaker 1 (09:38):
I think two hours and a half.
I don't think it's as long asthis movie.
It definitely doesn't feel aslong as this movie.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
Yeah, and when I think about the relationship
between these two characters andthe love, the romance.
Having Rachel Ziggler singmillions of times did not help
me like her anymore.
She can sing, I would admit sheis a good singer, but all it
brought up to both of us, all ithighlighted, was, I think,
(10:05):
she's more singer than actress.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
Yeah, look my point of view on this.
I told you that the night afterwe watched the movie.
I wish the best for RachelZiggler in her singing career,
but please stop acting Likehonestly when you see her on
stage in District 12, not in theCapitol.
In the Capitol again, it wasjust whiny.
(10:29):
It was just attention seeking.
It was just horrible to look at.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
Well, that's just her personality.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Well, yeah, rachel's personality, not Lucy Gray's
personality, yeah Right, it wasjust Rachel's personality just
shines through it.
It was just horrible to look atbecause it's just not her, it's
just not her.
But when she was in District 12and she was on a stage there
and singing, that was beautifulto look at.
Oh, give her that.
She had a beautiful moment anda reaction there.
It was a beautiful actingmoment there, but that's the
(10:55):
only good moment she had, in myopinion, and it's when she was
singing on stage, bringing lifeto other people.
And you know, I believe forRachel Ziggler, that is what her
calling is Go sing on a stage,bring happiness to people
through music, through singing,through bringing the festivities
to it.
Don't act, stop acting, it'snot your thing.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
And she needs a new PR team as well.
Oh yeah, big time.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Look, her PR team is given a challenge.
Yes, she's making it hard forthem.
I think she's.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
She needs like someone to just be like look,
maybe you don't talk duringinterviews, maybe we just don't
do that.
All right, you do the movie,you act in the movie, that's all
good.
We'll have a team that takesover the interviews, though.
That would be good.
No, it's funny that you so.
Yeah, like West Side Story.
She was probably good in thatbecause it was accentuating the
(11:47):
positives of her as a performer,as a singer.
The funny thing is my favoritescene of hers in this movie.
She wasn't talking.
Is that ironic?
It was a really well doneperformance.
Which scene are you talkingabout?
Without spoiling?
There's kind of a scene whereher character's witnessing
something she can't really doanything about it and you see
(12:09):
her dealing with a range ofdifferent emotions.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
At the end.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
No, no, no, it was like at the midpoint, it was
like during the actual HungerGames.
Oh yes, remember, I told you.
I was like, wow, that wasreally well done.
And now I know why, as I thinkabout it, I'm like, oh, because
she's not talking.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Yeah, even that moment I didn't like.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
So obviously, this being my first kind of dive into
the Hunger Games, I love thewhole idea.
I love, you know, the way theHunger Games brings up themes of
corruption and moral ambiguity,especially in Snow's character.
But you really get a sense ofthis insidious nature between
characters and how it doesn'ttake much before people start to
(12:51):
crack in these circumstances.
Yeah, it's a compelling look athumanity's kind of primal
instincts in extremecircumstances and it makes me
want to see the other HungerGames movies to better
understand that.
I love movies where they reallyshine a light on, like the true
underbelly of human nature,like the ugly side of human
(13:13):
nature, like, you know, zombiemovies and apocalypse movies
where you know gangs start toform because the whole society's
collapsed.
Yep, yeah, those type of movies.
I dig that, yeah, I like it too.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Again, for everybody who has seen the original
trilogy will know what I'mtalking about.
And you who hasn't seen theoriginal trilogy, you might say
like yeah, I like how they didthat in this movie.
Fans who have seen theoriginals they will know you
can't compare it to.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
So pretty much everything I like about this
movie, you're saying is done 10times better in the trilogy my
million times better.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Okay, well, that's good to know.
Even the side characters in theoriginal movies were better than
Rachel Zegler.
I don't remember any Now.
The second is in the originaltrilogy.
In Catching Fire you have abeautiful little moment of
remembrance of a character thatdied in the first film, one of
the tributes Just a family juststanding there and you just see
the sorrow in her eyes, don'tsay anything, they just stand
(14:09):
there and they just wave.
It's better than a wholeRachel's egg.
There's, or 95% on the cast andI'm not blaming the cast for
this, this is more the directingside of it.
It's just way better and Idon't understand, because it's
the same director.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
Really it's the same director.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
So the original movie , the first one, the hunger
games, it's called Gary Ross, Ithink it was Gary.
His name was.
Gary was the director for thefirst movie, brilliantly done.
Then Francis Lawrence becamedirector of the second, the
third, the fourth and theprequel.
I don't know what the fuck theydid with the prequel.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
So you're saying the person who directed two, three,
four and five is the one thatdirected this one?
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Not just the director .
Most of the crew is the same.
Okay different screenwriters,different script writers?
Yeah, but I'm pretty surethere's a different script
writer from almost every movie.
Okay at least the first, thesecond, I think the third one,
mocking J, part one, part two,might have the same writers, but
I'm not sure they all havedifferent script writers.
But director Francis Lawrence,director number two, catching
fire, mocking J, part one, parttwo and the prequel, bellow
(15:10):
songbirds and okay it's next.
Same director, a samecinematographer as well.
Hmm and yet they same producers.
So what do you think happened?
I have no idea.
Like I said to you before, I'ma firm believer that the tense
2010 to 2016 17 were brilliantmovies.
After that it just wentdownhill.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
But waiting for the next way.
So when wokeness kind ofstarted to take over, they want
to say that because I don't wantto get canceled, but you wanted
to just imply it to theaudience, though, and be like
Something happened around theend of the 2010s, where movies
(15:49):
started to become shit.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
No, 2017, 2016, 2017, maybe a bit later 2020.
It just went downhill fromthere.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
Hmm.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Yeah, I can't wait.
When are you gonna watch themovies?
We're gonna have a good chatafterwards, but I'm gonna.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
I'm very pumped to watch it because, like there
were so many things I did likeconcepts that I liked in this
movie, but I can tell theyweren't done well.
I could tell that you, forexample, it's so hard to do this
without spoiling the actualhunger games itself.
I was like there were someweird choices made when I was
(16:26):
like I don't feel like this isdone Well.
I can definitely see ithappening much better in the
original trilogy.
But what about this wholeconcept of them having mentors?
Is that done in the originaltrilogy or was that purely?
No, that's your original.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
Oh, that was yeah it's done differently, I reckon,
way better.
It's the fake.
The victors from previous years, from your district, is gonna
become your mentor for this year.
So district 12 is a bit ofspoiling.
What of the original trilogy?
No, this one, I'll say to you,cut so because Lucy Gray, she
cheated, she's not considered aVictor.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
Okay, in the original trilogy.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Right, so there's only one, victor, which is Woody
Harrelson's character, who istheir mentor?
All right, we're back.
So, yeah, no.
So the Victor from previousyears is the mentor for the new
recruits, for the newly reaped.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
Mmm, right, okay, so this movie was presenting it as
like the first year that theydid this.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
No, no, this is the tenth year, I think it is.
Speaker 1 (17:26):
No, they said it was the tenth hunger games, but it
was the first year that theywere having mentors.
Yes, yeah, okay.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
I think again, it's so unclear you can ask me
whatever you want about theoriginal trilogy I remembered,
even though the Mokinja part oneon part two haven't seen for
ten years.
I will tell you exactly what'sgoing on, but this one you.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
I.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
And you can't remember.
And I have to tell you a secretI watched it twice.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
We may have the cinemas.
Yeah, you went to watch thismovie again.
Yep cinemas.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Yep, still acting like I watched it before I
watched it with you.
Oh, I watched it a second timewith you.
I had to watch it again becauseI want to make the notes and I
wanted to make sure everything Isaw, if it became better or
worse the second time I saw itand if I was still as confused.
Was it worse?
It was slightly better butstill bad, horrible.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
Wow, that's commitment man to watch it twice
six hours of my life.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
I'm not gonna get back Fucked bro.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
If I watched this Three-hour movie and I didn't
like it, like I gotta saythere's no way I'd watch this
movie again Like it was okay.
But three hours to watch amovie that's okay is a big
investment, massive investment.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
You have to have seen more in the originals, by the
way.
Yeah, I like see more, right I?
Speaker 1 (18:42):
love Philip Seymour, and you said really Woody
Harrelson, woody Harrelson is asupport lead.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
That's pretty good.
Yeah, who plays Peter Milak?
Speaker 1 (18:50):
Josh Hudson, it's a hard name to say Josh Hudson.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
Liam Hemsworth, jennifer Lawrence, elizabeth
Bank, woody Harrelson, stanleyTucci, donald Sutherland, as you
know, lenny Kravitz, philip JaySeymour does he sing Philip
Seymour Hoffman.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Does he just pull out a guitar and start wailing?
Speaker 2 (19:06):
No, he's an actor, he acts and he's brilliant.
That's what I'm talking about.
You have a singer who's abrilliant singer Lenny Kravitz.
I love his song, I love hismusic.
I'll always listen to it.
It's his cover of Ain't noSunshine brilliant.
He doesn't come in to sing, hecomes into tell a story.
Why can't Rachel Zegler do that?
Come in to tell stories, stopsinging.
Look, I get it.
I get it in the novel.
(19:27):
Sure, I haven't read the novel,but I assume she's a singer.
I assume that's how she bringshope to the people.
That's why she's loved by thepeople.
I don't know, it just became amusical, especially at the
reaping.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
It became a musical why that's what we were thinking
the first time she's saying,because I was like, why is this
character, who's meant to belike, enslaved and forced to go
into the Hunger Games?
She stands up on this podiumand it's in the trailer, so it's
not spoiling anything, but shedoes this massive song and dance
and I was like, wouldn'tsecurity Just hit her with a
(20:04):
baton, shut her up?
Speaker 2 (20:06):
And then she does that bow, right.
Yeah, that's a ripoff from theoriginal movies.
That's Katniss Everdeen's move.
That's Jennifer Lawrence move.
She does that and she does itbrilliantly.
Now Rachel doesn't like no,it's like just stand up like
nobody cares, nobody cares.
And while we're at the topic ofher singing right, I'm gonna go
on a rant right now on a topicof her singing.
(20:27):
It's supposed to be anemotional thing when you move
the audience.
I watched interstellar theother like a couple weeks ago,
right.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Bro, how do you have time to watch all these long
movies?
Speaker 2 (20:38):
You have seen interstellar?
Speaker 1 (20:39):
No, I haven't, you haven't no, it's the only Nolan
movie I have seen three times.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
It wasn't the IMAX, that's.
I had to go and see it.
I'm a god on the big screen,the new IMAX in Sydney.
Dude, I had me in tears likethree.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
I've heard it's good, I do want to watch it.
Brilliant Anyway.
You're saying you sawinterstellar.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
Sure, a few actors here and there, a few characters
, they cry, whatever, but youknow I cried.
I was in tears people behind meweren't tears.
People beside me, people infront of me everybody was in
tears.
In this movie, all thecharacters on the screen aren't
tears.
I look around.
You're like what is going on onthe other side?
It's like who is going onbehind me?
I see everybody's like nobodyisn't here.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Yeah, I saw someone just like next to me just
munching on popcorn, like I waslike that's an aggressive
popcorn either.
Yeah, it was quite aggressive,but it was entertaining to watch
.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
More entertaining than the movie itself.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
Well, yeah, it's weird when the characters are
really emotional and you don'tfeel something.
It's very awkward you distanceyourself in the movie it's like
the movie, telling you, you know, in sitcoms when they have that
giant like light that saysapplause, yeah after it's like
that.
But you're saying to yourself Idon't want to the entertainment
(21:54):
, the movie doesn't deserve it,it did not deserve it at all.
You can scream at me and sayyou're supposed to like this,
which is what most directorsthese days seem to say whenever
they're movie bombs on Twitter.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
You should have liked it and I know either shit movie
, the shit project.
Own it next time you can dobetter.
Yeah, learn from it.
Don't try to force it to workanyway.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
Square, it's not gonna fit in the circle a
stand-up comedian doesn't say Ikeep bombing on stage.
Nowadays they do.
They shouldn't Exactly, theyshouldn't, but like me doing
stand-up, if I keep bombing withthe same material, I'd be
saying to myself Okay, that'snot the audience, it's me.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
I need to change the material and now I'll give it to
Francis director.
It wasn't him, it was a blur.
Yeah, you can put the blamesomewhere else, but still, the
rest of the movie was justdidn't work.
It's didn't work actually.
Speaker 1 (22:47):
I just thought of the best Note to bring up right.
So this is my first timewatching a Hunger Games movie,
so I don't know what to expect.
When the sirens are going offand everyone's competing how
that usually flows right.
But in this Rachel Zigglerturns into John Wick and it does
(23:07):
not look right at all.
And I mean she's dodgingeverything.
Insight, she is playingblood-borne on the highest
difficulty and she is Perfect,dodging every attack, like.
I just did not understand it.
The movie did no Development orbuild up to make me believe
(23:28):
that this character is able tododge 10 million attacks at once
.
And yeah, it's Rachel Ziggler.
Like she doesn't have thatphysical presence of Like I
don't know, for example, lindaHamilton, who plays Sarah Connor
.
When you see her in Terminator2 you're like and she starts
beating the shit out of people.
It looks believable, she lookslike a bad ass.
(23:52):
But when I see this smallscrawny like singer all of a
sudden dodging rapidly everylittle attack, I'm like this
doesn't make sense.
It doesn't look believable,amen 100% agree they could have
easily fixed that.
(24:13):
but, like, put a trainingmontage or something I don't
know, just showed me somethingto show that this character is
capable of Fighting off everyone.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
Look, I feel like a character is not supposed to, so
just don't have them, just.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Well then, cover in a situation where she's exactly
constantly dodging shit.
Speaker 2 (24:32):
It's funny cuz like those fight sequences exactly.
That is very similar to theoriginal, where someone's trying
to hit it from behind and thatgets hit.
You know what I mean.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
So I'm guessing that Jennifer Lawrence is a lot more
believable way in that role.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
She's in shape, she has a skill, she can fight.
But even then she getsoverpowered every time.
Because she has a skill shecan't combat, fight very well.
So she gets overpowered in acombat situation every time and
then with luck and with a bit ofdodging as she gets out of it
and it's just believable, it wasclose.
Hey, don't feel that once.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
Yeah, there was no suspension of disbelief that
Lucy Gray would die at any point.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
Nah, there was no real suspense.
She was invincible.
Yeah, you know, like you alwayshave first, like now she's
gonna be okay.
The scene starts and thequestion is not set up Will she
survive this the scene now?
Speaker 1 (25:20):
not at all and the way that plays out.
It just always feels like day'sex Mark now, like there's
always something that manages topull her out at just the last
minute and it gets tiresomebecause it's not like she's
Developing skills or tactics orsomething, it's just the movie
(25:41):
wants her to live and you canfeel that with the writing
moving in a different direction.
Jason's Swartzman was very goodat as the kind of cynical host
I felt he has a very likedouchey.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
I love Jason's forceman.
I love the guy.
That shit on this movie again.
Speaker 1 (25:59):
Sure, I mean, it's the only thing I loved about the
movie.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
So I'm curious what you're gonna say who is the
original character that playedthe host?
Oh, it's Danny Touchy.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
Oh, okay, so you're gonna say that he's way better
as the host.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
He was way better.
I love Jason Swartzman.
I like I don't want to take anyaway from acting again.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
It's just poor character development so it's
not so much the performance, butthe film didn't do a good job
of Giving him no, because I'veseen Jason Swartzman and a lot
of this stuff and his stuff isjust he's a great actor.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
He can bring life to characters, he can play a bit of
comedy and they can play thedrama and he can play the
tension.
He can do it.
He does amazing character work.
He does some amazingstorytelling.
This character was just not notwritten for him.
It's just wasn't well writtenfull stop.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
So what's the big comparison between the original
trilogy's host?
Speaker 2 (26:51):
What do you like about it?
Speaker 1 (26:53):
What did I like about ?
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Jason Schwartzman.
The host, not Jesus, was likejust a host, the character I
liked that.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
He was just very what's the word?
Disconnected from the fact thatthese people were dying like
they're killing each other, andhe doesn't give a shit.
He just is so stuck in.
Oh, this is just a media job,like any other media job.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
You just wait until you see Stanley Tucci.
He does that a million timesbetter again.
He is completely disengagedfrom the actors, but he always
performs with the biggest milesand fakes the empathy and it's
just so clear that it's all fake.
To the camera off and then hejust walks off and I don't give
a fuck, but it's just so youbelieve that he cares about
these characters when the camerais rolling and then stops and
(27:38):
then he's off.
He's just so clean.
Where's with JasonSchwartzman's version of
flickerman?
There's no twist, there's noturn, there's no complexity to
the character.
It's just a media guy.
It's just an end command whodoes everything on TV.
Yeah, it is a very simple,simplistic character.
Speaker 1 (27:52):
So you felt like, by not seeing him Change from how
he is when the cameras are ontwo versus off, you felt like it
was just the same character.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
On off is the same regardless.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Interesting, very similar.
At least, again, there'snothing on Jason Schwartzman,
because he's an amazing actor.
It is the direction of it.
Yeah, and I suppose the reasonwhat I underdeveloped all of
those kind of things, it'sbecause it's only the 10th
Hunger Games or or 7th orwhatever it is.
It's the 10th, right turn, the10th Hunger Games.
So maybe everything isunderdeveloped.
(28:26):
The arena is way smaller.
Wait until you see the arena inthe original trilogy.
It's reality, it's in a woods,it's massive, it's super
high-tech, it's at the future,it's high-tech.
You know, they can summoncreatures and all the kind of
stuff.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
Oh, so this sounds like we got the boring shaft by
going back in time, thank you.
Like this actually was adisadvantage because the Hunger
Games itself was so limited.
But like I mean there was someinteresting things, like they
had the drones, but they wereshitty drones, yeah, because of
the technological limitations.
(28:58):
So that was funny, yeah, but Idid think to myself there's got
to be more to this than justthem being in this very small
area.
Oh, I'm sad because they wouldall die in like two seconds.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
Yeah, literally like the hunger games original in the
second one as well, likethere's the life outside of it,
how they get to the ring, how toget into the hunger games, but
Then two-thirds of the movie isin the ring.
It's in the battle and thensurviving it.
Speaker 1 (29:26):
This did not feel like that.
It felt like less than a, likea quarter of the movie.
Speaker 2 (29:31):
I mean you go see the Hunger Games, you don't go to
see snow, and it became worseagain.
It's the origin story of howcould they go real in a snow
became the villain.
He is in the original trilogy,right, so you got to see the
movie about him, but justeverything was just
underwhelming.
Speaker 1 (29:44):
But did you feel when you watch the Hunger Games,
there's dying need to know howhe rose to power and became nope
so it's like another.
Like dragging of a franchise.
We got to go back in time toshow you how this becomes this.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Yeah well, the novel is written for it.
That's the last novel that beenwritten.
I'm pretty sure there's onlythose four novels.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
There's no sequel to this prequel, but they're
considering making it anotherbook, another, what another book
they consider in making anotherbook?
Speaker 2 (30:14):
I'm not sure.
I'm not sure if Susan, soyou're gonna fly around your
face.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
I'm not sure.
I'll just dodge it, dodge it,just dodge come on, john week.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Lucy Gray, I should call you now.
I'm pretty sure this is the endof the book series.
I think there's no book writtenfor after this prequel, but
I've read somewhere that they'retrying to come up an idea to
make something.
Speaker 1 (30:35):
Well, we got to work out how Lucy Gray got that dress
that she's wearing.
Oh my god.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
Yes, oh hunger games.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
The ballad of finding the mysterious dress in the
city of coal miners.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
There's this one, lucy, who can walk with the
dress and oh, Maybe they shouldmake the hunger games.
Speaker 1 (30:53):
How did Rachel Zegler get this?
Speaker 2 (30:56):
role.
It's be just a mockumentary,just a satire.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
I'm trying to think is anything else we missed,
where we have?
Speaker 2 (31:05):
Viola Davis was brilliant.
She was by far the best actorin here.
She was unrecognizable, she wasjust brilliant.
Again, I think the characterwas horrible.
I think just the complexity ofthe character was just I
Non-existent.
But Viola Davis gave life to it.
She did brilliant.
She did everything in her powerto make this character pop and
(31:25):
she did.
But the character itself wasjust underdeveloped from the
writing perspective.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
She made it fun.
She made me like want to knowmore.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
Exactly about her character and the only problem
was there was nothing more.
Yeah, I feel like there justwas nothing more and it's not on
Viola Davis is on FrancisLawrence and the writers of the
script.
Again, I'm sure Suzanne Collinswrote a very complex story
behind it when she wrote thenovels.
I mean she's if she wrote theoriginal three, she's probably
really a very well writer, avery great novelist.
(31:54):
So I'm sure she wrote in greatdetail in the book.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Just, script writers, they just picked the wrong
points to focus on.
They were like need to have 40minutes of Rachel Zegler singing
in this damn movie.
Did I spit all over you?
No, oh.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Oh, just wiping your teeth.
The folks are complete wrongthing.
You mentioned the drones before, like how did they have facial
recognition on the drones, butthey can't have a normal TV?
Oh yeah it doesn't just make nosense.
I'm not sure if it's in a bookwritten like that or it's just a
terrible.
I don't know where it's comingfrom.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
Well, it's a weird kind of dynamic that the movies
got where it's like it's thefuture.
But it's a weird future whereit's like what if their
technology is like 1950s versionof the future?
Yeah, so everything still lookslike CRT TVs and got that weird
kind of overlay and filtersused and everything pops with
(32:51):
that 1950s kind of style ofPresenting and, yeah, tv
production.
But at the same time it's meantto be the future where there's
like drones with facialrecognition.
Speaker 2 (33:02):
Yes, but yeah.
So it just doesn't make senseto have technology of the future
but looks from the past.
It just looks weird.
It just looks weird.
The TV is such as, like this,old TVs would like the buttons,
kind of thing.
Speaker 1 (33:13):
I liked that though.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
Don't get me wrong, I like it.
It just doesn't make sense thatyou have a drone that can fly
that's what drones do they flywith facial recognition to the
person you buying to, can'tcontrol it, whatever but then
you also have TVs with onlyknobs and no stable connection
between two people communicating.
It just doesn't make any sense.
(33:35):
This makes no, it was justoff-putting, it's just.
Look, I don't mind if you canjustify it properly, it just
wasn't.
And I'd say one more thing.
I don't know if you want to goto conclusion, but that's it.
One more thing you mentioned abrutality, yes, which I was
expecting.
Speaker 1 (33:53):
It caught me off guard.
For some reason I had thisweird idea that like the hunger
games, is like PG, like morefamily friendly and doesn't go
that brutal.
It's more like a superheromovie.
Oh yeah level of violence.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
No, I quickly realized that is not the case In
this no, it's definitely notand again I would say it's just
completely underwhelmingcompared to the original trilogy
.
Speaker 1 (34:15):
So the brutality and the violence does not times a
hundred.
Hold out, okay times a hundred.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
and it's not that there's more violence, it's just
a lot more gruesome, it's a lotmore real.
Okay, there's one, withoutsaying who, what went and where.
There's one character who getsa bottleneck In the neck.
I didn't see a single splatterof blood.
Speaker 1 (34:33):
Hmm, yeah, that's a good point.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
There was no blood.
There's no blood.
I think there's a couplemoments where you see blood.
You see the cut on the shoulder.
It's a bit of blood there.
For the rest, there's no blood,there's no goal, it's just so.
I don't know, it's just a dumbfight and nullified.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
So I was like playing Mortal Kombat with the blood
turned off.
Yes, nice, okay, yes, prettymuch, you've pumped me up to
watch the first hunger games.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
That would be too excited, because you're always,
you're always, I'm pumped.
Speaker 1 (35:02):
You're always disappointed when you pumped if
it's anywhere near as good aswhat you're making it out to be.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
Well, look, I'm just saying if you love this prequel.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
I did not love it.
You liked it?
No, I didn't you liked it.
You said I said, there weresome moments I enjoyed.
I could see the appeal of theconcept.
Well, the concept worked out alot better in the original, but
I said earlier I would neverwatch this movie again, so would
you recommend this to fans ofthe original?
Speaker 2 (35:27):
hunger games.
I'm gonna give it a 1 out of 5.
You can't go lower, can I?
Speaker 1 (35:30):
Half, half a star 0.5 .
Speaker 2 (35:33):
I'll give it a 1.5 because 0.5 is the lowest.
I'm gonna give half a point toViola Davis Cranking up the
movie a little bit, and a half apoint to Tom Blythe as Cori
Lennon Snow.
They did good for the movie.
I would definitely recommendeverybody to watch it.
Come up with your own opinionof it.
T.
We already had more chemistryhere than they had on the screen
.
Speaker 1 (35:52):
Maybe we should just stare into each other's eyes for
10 minutes and then I'll justrandomly pop out singing.
As I look into your eyes, Istart to feel feelings of love.
Speaker 2 (36:06):
See.
Speaker 1 (36:07):
I'm starting to cry already and the tears forming in
your eyes.
That's essentially what shedoes.
She just sings like what she'sgoing through emotionally.
Speaker 2 (36:18):
Anyway.
So I'm gonna give it a 1.5 outof 5 just because of our David's
and Tom Blythe.
Otherwise, the rest of themovie, I thought it was just a
bit more.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
I will give it a 2 out of 5.
I know it's shocking, but Iactually have a more positive.
I just feel like for a 3-hourmovie, I'm like there's at least
enough for a 2.
But having said that, if I goback to the original trilogy and
it's like 10 million timesbetter, I'm probably gonna rate
this worse.
Speaker 2 (36:44):
What did you give to the killer?
I can't even remember.
Speaker 1 (36:47):
I think you gave it a 3.
Bro, I can't even remember likeour podcast you gave it a 3 to
the killer which he wasabsolutely shitting on.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
I know you're giving it a 2 for this one where you
were praising him in there alittle bit.
You're shitting on a lot too.
Speaker 1 (36:59):
No, a 3 seems too generous for the killer.
Are you sure I gave it a 3?
Maybe a 2.5?
I would have been more in thetwo range for the killer.
Speaker 2 (37:07):
Let's say 2.5.
It wasn't a 2.
How did you rate the killerhigher than this?
That?
Doesn't get me wrong, I would Irate it 4.
Speaker 1 (37:16):
Bro, you shit on it.
Okay, I don't know what I didbecause I don't remember.
All I know is I liked thismovie better than the killer, I
think.
Personally, if I was to likesum it up, I liked the whole
gradual transition fromsympathetic hero to villain.
It's not the best in this movie.
The Joker is still like my goldstandard for that.
(37:37):
So watching snow transition,that was a true highlight, and
there are some really nicescenes.
I caught me off guard where Iwas like whoa, and maybe that's
because I haven't seen otherHunger Games, whereas for you
those scenes might have beenlike.
Yeah copy, copy and paste.
I love the concept of theHunger Games and the good thing
(37:58):
about this movie is it makes mewant to explore the other movies
.
It's hooked me into wanting towatch the rest of the franchise
and Understand, because I feellike I missed the boat on the
Hunger Games when it first cameout.
Maybe I stupidly wasAssociating it with other movies
that were based on books at thetime, like Twilight, and was
(38:20):
thinking ours, this, just likethat, oh, that's based on a book
when it's just dragging on.
And it took me ages to get intoHarry Potter, like I only just
watched Harry Potter, the entirefranchise late last year.
I loved it.
There were some movies where Iwas like.
Speaker 2 (38:39):
The great thing about Harry Potter, I found, is that
they grew with their audience.
Yes you know, like first two,like kids movies, and then you
went to little bit young teensand then you went to adult
Versions.
In the last one, though, likeadolescence to like young adults
, I loved how they grew withyour audience.
They didn't stick to one genre,which is awesome.
If you grew up with it.
If you watched it originally,you would have grown up with it,
which would have been brilliant.
Speaker 1 (39:00):
I did watch the first three movies and then I don't
know what happened, but anyway,like whereas the Hunger Games, I
didn't connect for whateverreason.
Comparing to Harry Potter,though, you feel like every
movie has a very clear Direction, very clear set up and payoffs,
what they're doing with all thecharacters, everyone's kind of
building towards something.
You don't get that here.
(39:20):
You feel like only onecharacter is really being built
up and properly Used and focusedon, and everyone else is just
chilling.
None of the side characters,except for like vile and Davis,
really stood out to you.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
Yeah, peter Dinklage under performed.
In my opinion, he's always good, but he under performed in this
character.
Again, it's the writing anddirecting.
Speaker 1 (39:40):
I'm gonna give the movie like two out of five stars
.
It's intrigued me on thepremise the whole concept of the
Hunger Games but I don't thinkthere's really enough there to
keep someone's attention forthree hours.
Emotional moments just miss themark.
The relationship between Snowand Lucy Gray just isn't that
interesting, and when that's thewhole movie, pretty much it's
(40:04):
disappointing.
So, yeah, it'll be interestingto see where Rachel Ziggler's
career goes after this.
Okay, guys, it was really greatseeing yous.
If you enjoyed this review,please like, share and subscribe
.
If you're watching us onYouTube, if you're listening to
us on Spotify, please leave us areview.
And yeah, that's us guys.
(40:25):
We'll see you next time.
Awesome.
Speaker 2 (40:27):
You.
Hey everyone, and welcome to another episode of
Movies Worth Seeing.
Welcome, fellow movie lovers,to our latest episode.
Today we're diving into thenewest addition to the Hunger
Games.
It's a sequel that no one askedfor, but they made it anyway,
yes.
So let's explore this with afresh perspective and dive into
(00:22):
the Hunger Games.
The ballad of songbirds andsnakes.
It just rolls off the tongue.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Beautifully lovely.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
So I am joined by Addy Asher yet again.
And the interesting thing withthis episode is that sorry, I'm
just checking to see if myparanoia was steeping in I'm
like, is it in recording?
Yes, it is.
Interestingly, I have neverseen a Hunger Games movie.
Addy has seen all the HungerGames movies, so we have
(00:51):
completely different viewpointson this.
I probably thought Hunger Gamesprequel was going to be
different.
I probably thought it was OK,it wasn't too bad, whereas Addy
probably has the perspectivethat it was a massive
disappointment when compared tothe original trilogy.
Is that a fair point?
Speaker 2 (01:08):
Oh, yeah, understand it, but yes, what did you think
it was?
Horrible.
It was Wow Play, just horrible.
I tried to be optimistic.
I thought it's the Hunger Games.
It's based on a novel that'swritten by the same novelist.
It can't be that bad.
We watched it and I was like,ok, let's focus on the good bits
.
I watched Catching Fire thesecond one of the trilogy
(01:30):
yesterday and I have to takethat back.
It was horrible.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
Wow.
So what is it that whencompared to the original trilogy
?
What are the main things thatjust don't work in this?
Speaker 2 (01:42):
Like about one third of the movie you asked me.
Am I supposed to know what'sgoing on?
If you ask that question, thenit's a horrible movie.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
Good, ok, yeah, because I thought that I was
going in and I should have knownall this stuff.
But then I'm like it's aprequel, so it should be fine.
It should be set up as if Ihaven't seen the other movies,
because this could be the startof it, of the Hunger Games, but
they didn't go that route?
Speaker 2 (02:08):
No, they didn't.
It was confusing.
It was confusing Again watchingCatching Fire and the original
Hunger Games the first one, somany moments.
It was just critically.
You know exactly what's goingon.
There was no fat, there was nobullshit around it, it was
straight to the point.
You know exactly what is goingon.
There was nothing skimmed overand there was nothing that was
excess.
It was so clean.
This movie was just dragged onand on and on.
(02:30):
This was all fat.
It was all fat.
Speaker 1 (02:33):
Yeah, I remember I said to you when we came out of
the cinemas I'm like thereshould be laws against movies
being three hours long.
Unless you, James Cameron,should never happen, If you
don't have a tattoo.
Speaker 2 (02:43):
It wasn't that great.
Speaker 1 (02:44):
But I felt like I could understand why I was going
for so long.
Like you had action sequences,it was interesting.
I didn't constantly say tomyself that could have been cut.
Speaker 2 (02:55):
Yeah, I get what you mean, when you compare three
hour movies, I would have to byfar more superior than Hunger
Games.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Songbird and Sinks put a name for a movie yet again
.
Well, it's the novel you canSuzanne Collins, I think her
name is they should have likegave it acronyms or something
BOS yeah, they should have beenlike the Hunger Games, bos.
Both S, yeah, super bass.
Well, let's talk about so youngsnow.
So essentially, what they do isthey take the villain Of the
(03:25):
Hunger Games original trilogyand show his rise into becoming
that villain.
So they took the AnakinSkywalker route with this
prequel.
Yeah, did it pay off.
Speaker 2 (03:37):
No, it's not at a fault of Tom Blythe, the actor
who played.
I actually thought he wasreally good, he was brilliant,
he was really good he.
He did the best he could tosalvage what was written for him
, but it was just bad story arcfor him.
Speaker 1 (03:52):
At least they didn't do the whole thing like you know
.
In those movies they kind ofdid it.
You know, when a characterbecomes a bad guy, their haircut
has to drastically change.
Like, like they gave him thebuzz cut, but it made sense in
the story.
It wasn't just like I'm readingmyself of my hero ways.
I'm not good anymore.
(04:12):
Look at this visual metaphor ofmy hairstyle.
It wasn't like Spider-Man 3where he just like moves it to
the side a bit.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
Yeah, no, I get what you mean.
It was circumstance justified,which is good.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
Yeah, Well, I felt his portrayal.
Unfortunately I don't knowanything about the character in
the original trilogy, but Ithought he did a pretty good job
of showing that gradual shiftfrom a somewhat sympathetic
character to this notorious kindof villain that you know is
going to run the whole game.
But you don't think it stackedup against the original
trilogy's snipe?
Speaker 2 (04:45):
So no, no, I don't think it does.
But apart from that, becausehe's way.
I don't know.
It's a different kind ofvillain, it's a different kind
of psychopath.
Of course he's way older.
He's like 80, 85, and I don'tknow how old he is.
In the, in the new, in theoriginals.
You need to have somethingsubstantial first, then break it
down and then create a villain.
(05:06):
The relationship he had withLucy Gray was just not real.
There was just nothing there.
It was just fake?
Speaker 1 (05:14):
Why does he always say Lucy Gray?
Why doesn't?
Speaker 2 (05:16):
he just say Lucy.
Why does every character sayLucy Gray and why not just Lucy?
Speaker 1 (05:18):
I love it, it's like oh my God, there she is, Lucy
Gray.
Speaker 2 (05:23):
Lucy Gray.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Lucy Gray no one says that you know when someone's
like dying in your arms orwhatever.
You don't go like Lucy, butI'll follow you, gray, Whatever
her middle name was Lucy.
Speaker 2 (05:36):
Gray bad, I think it was.
Speaker 1 (05:38):
By the way, that's not spoiling anything.
No, I'm just using it as ahypothetical.
That does bring up a good point.
Their relationship just felt sohollow and I just couldn't see
what they're seeing in eachother.
It was like I missed a scene,or something.
Speaker 2 (05:54):
Again, I have to draw the comparison between the
originals, katniss Evadine andPeter Malak, the two main
characters in the originalHunger Games.
Okay, so how long was thatstare between Lucy Gray and
Coriolanus?
How long was that stare whenthe zoo scene?
How long was that stare tryingto show the love and the
affection that there's gonna bea romance there?
(06:15):
That stare was just so long andso hollow, whereas in the
originals, in the same timeframe, they told so much between
the characters it was just alook, boom, look at each other.
She does something, he sees it.
They can just see the spark inher eye and that's it.
It was two seconds and then therest of the minute.
They did so many other thingsto show more promise for their
relationship.
Speaker 1 (06:35):
So you felt like, similar to me, this was forcing
something that just wasn't there, so forced, like the movie's
dragon out scenes, betweentrying to force this
relationship upon us when it'sjust not working.
And I think Rachel Zeglerdoesn't help things either.
She's not, I mean, let's justcall her spade a spade.
She's not exactly the mostlikable celebrity right now,
(06:58):
nope and man.
She has a terrible track record.
She has a terrible track recordLike Shazam.
Two bombed fricking.
What was the other thing shewas in?
Snow White's gonna bomb forsure.
Speaker 2 (07:10):
Pushed it back a year to hopefully the storm would
love her West Side.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
Story bombed and Spielberg directed that West
Side Story bombed.
Yeah, that's what I heard thatbombed.
I haven't seen it yet.
I heard it's really good, butit's still bombed financially.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Don't hire Rachel Zegler.
Speaker 1 (07:27):
Yeah, that seems to be the, and everyone's kind of
predicted that this would bombas a result?
And yeah, time will tell, timewill tell.
I mean, I don't think it'sdoing well, as we're recording
this right now.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
I haven't even looked at it.
I assume it's not.
I've heard a lot of mixedreviews.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
And like the relationship is at the forefront
of the whole freaking movie aswell, yeah, that's the reason
why he goes bad.
Yeah Well, there's a pivotalmoment in the story where he's
got to decide between like therelationship or what he wants.
His ultra goal, ultimate goal.
Speaker 2 (08:08):
Yeah, exactly, he has to make that choice with
Leedsome Downer path, to becomethe villain that he is in an
original trilogy.
Right so, but the choice wasnot hard enough.
He acted as if it was hard, butthe stakes were, but we didn't
understand why.
We didn't understand it becausethe relationship between him
and Zegler was just we didn'thave the investment in their
relationship.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
There was no investment, so by the time where
these crucial decisions come up, we don't care Zero.
And also you can see it comingfrom a mile away.
Oh, yeah big time.
You know what's going to happenwith them.
Oh yeah, One thing I will say,though.
I feel like one of the issueswith movies these days
especially villain, like originstories they can never have the
(08:50):
balls to have the villain be thevillain at the end of the movie
, Whereas I felt like at the endof this snow is snow like the
snow that you expect him tobecome.
I felt like he was pretty closeto full bad guy by the end.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
I see what you mean yes and no, yes and no For
example, did you ever watchCruella?
Speaker 1 (09:10):
Yes, yes, so you know how Cruella Emma Stone yeah,
it's like the movie can't decideon whether she's a bad guy by
the end of it.
They want to make out likeshe's still a hero and they make
all these weird creativedecisions.
Speaker 2 (09:26):
How about the Joker?
Joker was perfect.
Speaker 1 (09:29):
The Joker was perfect Joker is like the gold standard
, I would think, for a villainorigin story.
Speaker 2 (09:34):
Yeah, that's a well done story.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
That's a long movie too, wasn't it?
Speaker 1 (09:38):
I think two hours and a half.
I don't think it's as long asthis movie.
It definitely doesn't feel aslong as this movie.
Speaker 2 (09:44):
Exactly.
Speaker 1 (09:44):
Yeah, and when I think about the relationship
between these two characters andthe love, the romance.
Having Rachel Ziggler singmillions of times did not help
me like her anymore.
She can sing, I would admit sheis a good singer, but all it
brought up to both of us, all ithighlighted, was, I think,
(10:05):
she's more singer than actress.
Speaker 2 (10:08):
Yeah, look my point of view on this.
I told you that the night afterwe watched the movie.
I wish the best for RachelZiggler in her singing career,
but please stop acting Likehonestly when you see her on
stage in District 12, not in theCapitol.
In the Capitol again, it wasjust whiny.
(10:29):
It was just attention seeking.
It was just horrible to look at.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
Well, that's just her personality.
Speaker 2 (10:34):
Well, yeah, rachel's personality, not Lucy Gray's
personality, yeah Right, it wasjust Rachel's personality just
shines through it.
It was just horrible to look atbecause it's just not her, it's
just not her.
But when she was in District 12and she was on a stage there
and singing, that was beautifulto look at.
Oh, give her that.
She had a beautiful moment anda reaction there.
It was a beautiful actingmoment there, but that's the
(10:55):
only good moment she had, in myopinion, and it's when she was
singing on stage, bringing lifeto other people.
And you know, I believe forRachel Ziggler, that is what her
calling is Go sing on a stage,bring happiness to people
through music, through singing,through bringing the festivities
to it.
Don't act, stop acting, it'snot your thing.
Speaker 1 (11:17):
And she needs a new PR team as well.
Oh yeah, big time.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
Look, her PR team is given a challenge.
Yes, she's making it hard forthem.
I think she's.
Speaker 1 (11:26):
She needs like someone to just be like look,
maybe you don't talk duringinterviews, maybe we just don't
do that.
All right, you do the movie,you act in the movie, that's all
good.
We'll have a team that takesover the interviews, though.
That would be good.
No, it's funny that you so.
Yeah, like West Side Story.
She was probably good in thatbecause it was accentuating the
(11:47):
positives of her as a performer,as a singer.
The funny thing is my favoritescene of hers in this movie.
She wasn't talking.
Is that ironic?
It was a really well doneperformance.
Which scene are you talkingabout?
Without spoiling?
There's kind of a scene whereher character's witnessing
something she can't really doanything about it and you see
(12:09):
her dealing with a range ofdifferent emotions.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
At the end.
Speaker 1 (12:13):
No, no, no, it was like at the midpoint, it was
like during the actual HungerGames.
Oh yes, remember, I told you.
I was like, wow, that wasreally well done.
And now I know why, as I thinkabout it, I'm like, oh, because
she's not talking.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
Yeah, even that moment I didn't like.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
So obviously, this being my first kind of dive into
the Hunger Games, I love thewhole idea.
I love, you know, the way theHunger Games brings up themes of
corruption and moral ambiguity,especially in Snow's character.
But you really get a sense ofthis insidious nature between
characters and how it doesn'ttake much before people start to
(12:51):
crack in these circumstances.
Yeah, it's a compelling look athumanity's kind of primal
instincts in extremecircumstances and it makes me
want to see the other HungerGames movies to better
understand that.
I love movies where they reallyshine a light on, like the true
underbelly of human nature,like the ugly side of human
(13:13):
nature, like, you know, zombiemovies and apocalypse movies
where you know gangs start toform because the whole society's
collapsed.
Yep, yeah, those type of movies.
I dig that, yeah, I like it too.
Speaker 2 (13:27):
Again, for everybody who has seen the original
trilogy will know what I'mtalking about.
And you who hasn't seen theoriginal trilogy, you might say
like yeah, I like how they didthat in this movie.
Fans who have seen theoriginals they will know you
can't compare it to.
Speaker 1 (13:40):
So pretty much everything I like about this
movie, you're saying is done 10times better in the trilogy my
million times better.
Speaker 2 (13:47):
Okay, well, that's good to know.
Even the side characters in theoriginal movies were better than
Rachel Zegler.
I don't remember any Now.
The second is in the originaltrilogy.
In Catching Fire you have abeautiful little moment of
remembrance of a character thatdied in the first film, one of
the tributes Just a family juststanding there and you just see
the sorrow in her eyes, don'tsay anything, they just stand
(14:09):
there and they just wave.
It's better than a wholeRachel's egg.
There's, or 95% on the cast andI'm not blaming the cast for
this, this is more the directingside of it.
It's just way better and Idon't understand, because it's
the same director.
Speaker 1 (14:22):
Really it's the same director.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
So the original movie , the first one, the hunger
games, it's called Gary Ross, Ithink it was Gary.
His name was.
Gary was the director for thefirst movie, brilliantly done.
Then Francis Lawrence becamedirector of the second, the
third, the fourth and theprequel.
I don't know what the fuck theydid with the prequel.
Speaker 1 (14:42):
So you're saying the person who directed two, three,
four and five is the one thatdirected this one?
Speaker 2 (14:47):
Not just the director .
Most of the crew is the same.
Okay different screenwriters,different script writers?
Yeah, but I'm pretty surethere's a different script
writer from almost every movie.
Okay at least the first, thesecond, I think the third one,
mocking J, part one, part two,might have the same writers, but
I'm not sure they all havedifferent script writers.
But director Francis Lawrence,director number two, catching
fire, mocking J, part one, parttwo and the prequel, bellow
(15:10):
songbirds and okay it's next.
Same director, a samecinematographer as well.
Hmm and yet they same producers.
So what do you think happened?
I have no idea.
Like I said to you before, I'ma firm believer that the tense
2010 to 2016 17 were brilliantmovies.
After that it just wentdownhill.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
But waiting for the next way.
So when wokeness kind ofstarted to take over, they want
to say that because I don't wantto get canceled, but you wanted
to just imply it to theaudience, though, and be like
Something happened around theend of the 2010s, where movies
(15:49):
started to become shit.
Speaker 2 (15:51):
No, 2017, 2016, 2017, maybe a bit later 2020.
It just went downhill fromthere.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
Hmm.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
Yeah, I can't wait.
When are you gonna watch themovies?
We're gonna have a good chatafterwards, but I'm gonna.
Speaker 1 (16:02):
I'm very pumped to watch it because, like there
were so many things I did likeconcepts that I liked in this
movie, but I can tell theyweren't done well.
I could tell that you, forexample, it's so hard to do this
without spoiling the actualhunger games itself.
I was like there were someweird choices made when I was
(16:26):
like I don't feel like this isdone Well.
I can definitely see ithappening much better in the
original trilogy.
But what about this wholeconcept of them having mentors?
Is that done in the originaltrilogy or was that purely?
No, that's your original.
Speaker 2 (16:43):
Oh, that was yeah it's done differently, I reckon,
way better.
It's the fake.
The victors from previous years, from your district, is gonna
become your mentor for this year.
So district 12 is a bit ofspoiling.
What of the original trilogy?
No, this one, I'll say to you,cut so because Lucy Gray, she
cheated, she's not considered aVictor.
Speaker 1 (17:03):
Okay, in the original trilogy.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Right, so there's only one, victor, which is Woody
Harrelson's character, who istheir mentor?
All right, we're back.
So, yeah, no.
So the Victor from previousyears is the mentor for the new
recruits, for the newly reaped.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
Mmm, right, okay, so this movie was presenting it as
like the first year that theydid this.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
No, no, this is the tenth year, I think it is.
Speaker 1 (17:26):
No, they said it was the tenth hunger games, but it
was the first year that theywere having mentors.
Yes, yeah, okay.
Speaker 2 (17:33):
I think again, it's so unclear you can ask me
whatever you want about theoriginal trilogy I remembered,
even though the Mokinja part oneon part two haven't seen for
ten years.
I will tell you exactly what'sgoing on, but this one you.
Speaker 1 (17:44):
I.
Speaker 2 (17:46):
And you can't remember.
And I have to tell you a secretI watched it twice.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
We may have the cinemas.
Yeah, you went to watch thismovie again.
Yep cinemas.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Yep, still acting like I watched it before I
watched it with you.
Oh, I watched it a second timewith you.
I had to watch it again becauseI want to make the notes and I
wanted to make sure everything Isaw, if it became better or
worse the second time I saw itand if I was still as confused.
Was it worse?
It was slightly better butstill bad, horrible.
Speaker 1 (18:16):
Wow, that's commitment man to watch it twice
six hours of my life.
Speaker 2 (18:20):
I'm not gonna get back Fucked bro.
Speaker 1 (18:22):
If I watched this Three-hour movie and I didn't
like it, like I gotta saythere's no way I'd watch this
movie again Like it was okay.
But three hours to watch amovie that's okay is a big
investment, massive investment.
Speaker 2 (18:38):
You have to have seen more in the originals, by the
way.
Yeah, I like see more, right I?
Speaker 1 (18:42):
love Philip Seymour, and you said really Woody
Harrelson, woody Harrelson is asupport lead.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
That's pretty good.
Yeah, who plays Peter Milak?
Speaker 1 (18:50):
Josh Hudson, it's a hard name to say Josh Hudson.
Speaker 2 (18:54):
Liam Hemsworth, jennifer Lawrence, elizabeth
Bank, woody Harrelson, stanleyTucci, donald Sutherland, as you
know, lenny Kravitz, philip JaySeymour does he sing Philip
Seymour Hoffman.
Speaker 1 (19:04):
Does he just pull out a guitar and start wailing?
Speaker 2 (19:06):
No, he's an actor, he acts and he's brilliant.
That's what I'm talking about.
You have a singer who's abrilliant singer Lenny Kravitz.
I love his song, I love hismusic.
I'll always listen to it.
It's his cover of Ain't noSunshine brilliant.
He doesn't come in to sing, hecomes into tell a story.
Why can't Rachel Zegler do that?
Come in to tell stories, stopsinging.
Look, I get it.
I get it in the novel.
(19:27):
Sure, I haven't read the novel,but I assume she's a singer.
I assume that's how she bringshope to the people.
That's why she's loved by thepeople.
I don't know, it just became amusical, especially at the
reaping.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
It became a musical why that's what we were thinking
the first time she's saying,because I was like, why is this
character, who's meant to belike, enslaved and forced to go
into the Hunger Games?
She stands up on this podiumand it's in the trailer, so it's
not spoiling anything, but shedoes this massive song and dance
and I was like, wouldn'tsecurity Just hit her with a
(20:04):
baton, shut her up?
Speaker 2 (20:06):
And then she does that bow, right.
Yeah, that's a ripoff from theoriginal movies.
That's Katniss Everdeen's move.
That's Jennifer Lawrence move.
She does that and she does itbrilliantly.
Now Rachel doesn't like no,it's like just stand up like
nobody cares, nobody cares.
And while we're at the topic ofher singing right, I'm gonna go
on a rant right now on a topicof her singing.
(20:27):
It's supposed to be anemotional thing when you move
the audience.
I watched interstellar theother like a couple weeks ago,
right.
Speaker 1 (20:34):
Bro, how do you have time to watch all these long
movies?
Speaker 2 (20:38):
You have seen interstellar?
Speaker 1 (20:39):
No, I haven't, you haven't no, it's the only Nolan
movie I have seen three times.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
It wasn't the IMAX, that's.
I had to go and see it.
I'm a god on the big screen,the new IMAX in Sydney.
Dude, I had me in tears likethree.
Speaker 1 (20:52):
I've heard it's good, I do want to watch it.
Brilliant Anyway.
You're saying you sawinterstellar.
Speaker 2 (20:58):
Sure, a few actors here and there, a few characters
, they cry, whatever, but youknow I cried.
I was in tears people behind meweren't tears.
People beside me, people infront of me everybody was in
tears.
In this movie, all thecharacters on the screen aren't
tears.
I look around.
You're like what is going on onthe other side?
It's like who is going onbehind me?
I see everybody's like nobodyisn't here.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Yeah, I saw someone just like next to me just
munching on popcorn, like I waslike that's an aggressive
popcorn either.
Yeah, it was quite aggressive,but it was entertaining to watch
.
Speaker 2 (21:31):
More entertaining than the movie itself.
Speaker 1 (21:33):
Well, yeah, it's weird when the characters are
really emotional and you don'tfeel something.
It's very awkward you distanceyourself in the movie it's like
the movie, telling you, you know, in sitcoms when they have that
giant like light that saysapplause, yeah after it's like
that.
But you're saying to yourself Idon't want to the entertainment
(21:54):
, the movie doesn't deserve it,it did not deserve it at all.
You can scream at me and sayyou're supposed to like this,
which is what most directorsthese days seem to say whenever
they're movie bombs on Twitter.
Speaker 2 (22:09):
You should have liked it and I know either shit movie
, the shit project.
Own it next time you can dobetter.
Yeah, learn from it.
Don't try to force it to workanyway.
Speaker 1 (22:17):
Square, it's not gonna fit in the circle a
stand-up comedian doesn't say Ikeep bombing on stage.
Nowadays they do.
They shouldn't Exactly, theyshouldn't, but like me doing
stand-up, if I keep bombing withthe same material, I'd be
saying to myself Okay, that'snot the audience, it's me.
Speaker 2 (22:34):
I need to change the material and now I'll give it to
Francis director.
It wasn't him, it was a blur.
Yeah, you can put the blamesomewhere else, but still, the
rest of the movie was justdidn't work.
It's didn't work actually.
Speaker 1 (22:47):
I just thought of the best Note to bring up right.
So this is my first timewatching a Hunger Games movie,
so I don't know what to expect.
When the sirens are going offand everyone's competing how
that usually flows right.
But in this Rachel Zigglerturns into John Wick and it does
(23:07):
not look right at all.
And I mean she's dodgingeverything.
Insight, she is playingblood-borne on the highest
difficulty and she is Perfect,dodging every attack, like.
I just did not understand it.
The movie did no Development orbuild up to make me believe
(23:28):
that this character is able tododge 10 million attacks at once
.
And yeah, it's Rachel Ziggler.
Like she doesn't have thatphysical presence of Like I
don't know, for example, lindaHamilton, who plays Sarah Connor
.
When you see her in Terminator2 you're like and she starts
beating the shit out of people.
It looks believable, she lookslike a bad ass.
(23:52):
But when I see this smallscrawny like singer all of a
sudden dodging rapidly everylittle attack, I'm like this
doesn't make sense.
It doesn't look believable,amen 100% agree they could have
easily fixed that.
(24:13):
but, like, put a trainingmontage or something I don't
know, just showed me somethingto show that this character is
capable of Fighting off everyone.
Speaker 2 (24:23):
Look, I feel like a character is not supposed to, so
just don't have them, just.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
Well then, cover in a situation where she's exactly
constantly dodging shit.
Speaker 2 (24:32):
It's funny cuz like those fight sequences exactly.
That is very similar to theoriginal, where someone's trying
to hit it from behind and thatgets hit.
You know what I mean.
Speaker 1 (24:40):
So I'm guessing that Jennifer Lawrence is a lot more
believable way in that role.
Speaker 2 (24:45):
She's in shape, she has a skill, she can fight.
But even then she getsoverpowered every time.
Because she has a skill shecan't combat, fight very well.
So she gets overpowered in acombat situation every time and
then with luck and with a bit ofdodging as she gets out of it
and it's just believable, it wasclose.
Hey, don't feel that once.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
Yeah, there was no suspension of disbelief that
Lucy Gray would die at any point.
Speaker 2 (25:10):
Nah, there was no real suspense.
She was invincible.
Yeah, you know, like you alwayshave first, like now she's
gonna be okay.
The scene starts and thequestion is not set up Will she
survive this the scene now?
Speaker 1 (25:20):
not at all and the way that plays out.
It just always feels like day'sex Mark now, like there's
always something that manages topull her out at just the last
minute and it gets tiresomebecause it's not like she's
Developing skills or tactics orsomething, it's just the movie
(25:41):
wants her to live and you canfeel that with the writing
moving in a different direction.
Jason's Swartzman was very goodat as the kind of cynical host
I felt he has a very likedouchey.
Speaker 2 (25:54):
I love Jason's forceman.
I love the guy.
That shit on this movie again.
Speaker 1 (25:59):
Sure, I mean, it's the only thing I loved about the
movie.
Speaker 2 (26:03):
So I'm curious what you're gonna say who is the
original character that playedthe host?
Oh, it's Danny Touchy.
Speaker 1 (26:09):
Oh, okay, so you're gonna say that he's way better
as the host.
Speaker 2 (26:12):
He was way better.
I love Jason Swartzman.
I like I don't want to take anyaway from acting again.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
It's just poor character development so it's
not so much the performance, butthe film didn't do a good job
of Giving him no, because I'veseen Jason Swartzman and a lot
of this stuff and his stuff isjust he's a great actor.
Speaker 2 (26:31):
He can bring life to characters, he can play a bit of
comedy and they can play thedrama and he can play the
tension.
He can do it.
He does amazing character work.
He does some amazingstorytelling.
This character was just not notwritten for him.
It's just wasn't well writtenfull stop.
Speaker 1 (26:47):
So what's the big comparison between the original
trilogy's host?
Speaker 2 (26:51):
What do you like about it?
Speaker 1 (26:53):
What did I like about ?
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Jason Schwartzman.
The host, not Jesus, was likejust a host, the character I
liked that.
Speaker 1 (27:00):
He was just very what's the word?
Disconnected from the fact thatthese people were dying like
they're killing each other, andhe doesn't give a shit.
He just is so stuck in.
Oh, this is just a media job,like any other media job.
Speaker 2 (27:17):
You just wait until you see Stanley Tucci.
He does that a million timesbetter again.
He is completely disengagedfrom the actors, but he always
performs with the biggest milesand fakes the empathy and it's
just so clear that it's all fake.
To the camera off and then hejust walks off and I don't give
a fuck, but it's just so youbelieve that he cares about
these characters when the camerais rolling and then stops and
(27:38):
then he's off.
He's just so clean.
Where's with JasonSchwartzman's version of
flickerman?
There's no twist, there's noturn, there's no complexity to
the character.
It's just a media guy.
It's just an end command whodoes everything on TV.
Yeah, it is a very simple,simplistic character.
Speaker 1 (27:52):
So you felt like, by not seeing him Change from how
he is when the cameras are ontwo versus off, you felt like it
was just the same character.
Speaker 2 (28:02):
On off is the same regardless.
Speaker 1 (28:04):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (28:05):
Interesting, very similar.
At least, again, there'snothing on Jason Schwartzman,
because he's an amazing actor.
It is the direction of it.
Yeah, and I suppose the reasonwhat I underdeveloped all of
those kind of things, it'sbecause it's only the 10th
Hunger Games or or 7th orwhatever it is.
It's the 10th, right turn, the10th Hunger Games.
So maybe everything isunderdeveloped.
(28:26):
The arena is way smaller.
Wait until you see the arena inthe original trilogy.
It's reality, it's in a woods,it's massive, it's super
high-tech, it's at the future,it's high-tech.
You know, they can summoncreatures and all the kind of
stuff.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
Oh, so this sounds like we got the boring shaft by
going back in time, thank you.
Like this actually was adisadvantage because the Hunger
Games itself was so limited.
But like I mean there was someinteresting things, like they
had the drones, but they wereshitty drones, yeah, because of
the technological limitations.
(28:58):
So that was funny, yeah, but Idid think to myself there's got
to be more to this than justthem being in this very small
area.
Oh, I'm sad because they wouldall die in like two seconds.
Speaker 2 (29:11):
Yeah, literally like the hunger games original in the
second one as well, likethere's the life outside of it,
how they get to the ring, how toget into the hunger games, but
Then two-thirds of the movie isin the ring.
It's in the battle and thensurviving it.
Speaker 1 (29:26):
This did not feel like that.
It felt like less than a, likea quarter of the movie.
Speaker 2 (29:31):
I mean you go see the Hunger Games, you don't go to
see snow, and it became worseagain.
It's the origin story of howcould they go real in a snow
became the villain.
He is in the original trilogy,right, so you got to see the
movie about him, but justeverything was just
underwhelming.
Speaker 1 (29:44):
But did you feel when you watch the Hunger Games,
there's dying need to know howhe rose to power and became nope
so it's like another.
Like dragging of a franchise.
We got to go back in time toshow you how this becomes this.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
Yeah well, the novel is written for it.
That's the last novel that beenwritten.
I'm pretty sure there's onlythose four novels.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
There's no sequel to this prequel, but they're
considering making it anotherbook, another, what another book
they consider in making anotherbook?
Speaker 2 (30:14):
I'm not sure.
I'm not sure if Susan, soyou're gonna fly around your
face.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
I'm not sure.
I'll just dodge it, dodge it,just dodge come on, john week.
Speaker 2 (30:24):
Lucy Gray, I should call you now.
I'm pretty sure this is the endof the book series.
I think there's no book writtenfor after this prequel, but
I've read somewhere that they'retrying to come up an idea to
make something.
Speaker 1 (30:35):
Well, we got to work out how Lucy Gray got that dress
that she's wearing.
Oh my god.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
Yes, oh hunger games.
Speaker 1 (30:42):
The ballad of finding the mysterious dress in the
city of coal miners.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
There's this one, lucy, who can walk with the
dress and oh, Maybe they shouldmake the hunger games.
Speaker 1 (30:53):
How did Rachel Zegler get this?
Speaker 2 (30:56):
role.
It's be just a mockumentary,just a satire.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
I'm trying to think is anything else we missed,
where we have?
Speaker 2 (31:05):
Viola Davis was brilliant.
She was by far the best actorin here.
She was unrecognizable, she wasjust brilliant.
Again, I think the characterwas horrible.
I think just the complexity ofthe character was just I
Non-existent.
But Viola Davis gave life to it.
She did brilliant.
She did everything in her powerto make this character pop and
(31:25):
she did.
But the character itself wasjust underdeveloped from the
writing perspective.
Speaker 1 (31:29):
She made it fun.
She made me like want to knowmore.
Speaker 2 (31:33):
Exactly about her character and the only problem
was there was nothing more.
Yeah, I feel like there justwas nothing more and it's not on
Viola Davis is on FrancisLawrence and the writers of the
script.
Again, I'm sure Suzanne Collinswrote a very complex story
behind it when she wrote thenovels.
I mean she's if she wrote theoriginal three, she's probably
really a very well writer, avery great novelist.
(31:54):
So I'm sure she wrote in greatdetail in the book.
Speaker 1 (31:57):
Just, script writers, they just picked the wrong
points to focus on.
They were like need to have 40minutes of Rachel Zegler singing
in this damn movie.
Did I spit all over you?
No, oh.
Speaker 2 (32:08):
Oh, just wiping your teeth.
The folks are complete wrongthing.
You mentioned the drones before, like how did they have facial
recognition on the drones, butthey can't have a normal TV?
Oh yeah it doesn't just make nosense.
I'm not sure if it's in a bookwritten like that or it's just a
terrible.
I don't know where it's comingfrom.
Speaker 1 (32:26):
Well, it's a weird kind of dynamic that the movies
got where it's like it's thefuture.
But it's a weird future whereit's like what if their
technology is like 1950s versionof the future?
Yeah, so everything still lookslike CRT TVs and got that weird
kind of overlay and filtersused and everything pops with
(32:51):
that 1950s kind of style ofPresenting and, yeah, tv
production.
But at the same time it's meantto be the future where there's
like drones with facialrecognition.
Speaker 2 (33:02):
Yes, but yeah.
So it just doesn't make senseto have technology of the future
but looks from the past.
It just looks weird.
It just looks weird.
The TV is such as, like this,old TVs would like the buttons,
kind of thing.
Speaker 1 (33:13):
I liked that though.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
Don't get me wrong, I like it.
It just doesn't make sense thatyou have a drone that can fly
that's what drones do they flywith facial recognition to the
person you buying to, can'tcontrol it, whatever but then
you also have TVs with onlyknobs and no stable connection
between two people communicating.
It just doesn't make any sense.
(33:35):
This makes no, it was justoff-putting, it's just.
Look, I don't mind if you canjustify it properly, it just
wasn't.
And I'd say one more thing.
I don't know if you want to goto conclusion, but that's it.
One more thing you mentioned abrutality, yes, which I was
expecting.
Speaker 1 (33:53):
It caught me off guard.
For some reason I had thisweird idea that like the hunger
games, is like PG, like morefamily friendly and doesn't go
that brutal.
It's more like a superheromovie.
Oh yeah level of violence.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
No, I quickly realized that is not the case In
this no, it's definitely notand again I would say it's just
completely underwhelmingcompared to the original trilogy
.
Speaker 1 (34:15):
So the brutality and the violence does not times a
hundred.
Hold out, okay times a hundred.
Speaker 2 (34:21):
and it's not that there's more violence, it's just
a lot more gruesome, it's a lotmore real.
Okay, there's one, withoutsaying who, what went and where.
There's one character who getsa bottleneck In the neck.
I didn't see a single splatterof blood.
Speaker 1 (34:33):
Hmm, yeah, that's a good point.
Speaker 2 (34:35):
There was no blood.
There's no blood.
I think there's a couplemoments where you see blood.
You see the cut on the shoulder.
It's a bit of blood there.
For the rest, there's no blood,there's no goal, it's just so.
I don't know, it's just a dumbfight and nullified.
Speaker 1 (34:48):
So I was like playing Mortal Kombat with the blood
turned off.
Yes, nice, okay, yes, prettymuch, you've pumped me up to
watch the first hunger games.
Speaker 2 (34:57):
That would be too excited, because you're always,
you're always, I'm pumped.
Speaker 1 (35:02):
You're always disappointed when you pumped if
it's anywhere near as good aswhat you're making it out to be.
Speaker 2 (35:06):
Well, look, I'm just saying if you love this prequel.
Speaker 1 (35:08):
I did not love it.
You liked it?
No, I didn't you liked it.
You said I said, there weresome moments I enjoyed.
I could see the appeal of theconcept.
Well, the concept worked out alot better in the original, but
I said earlier I would neverwatch this movie again, so would
you recommend this to fans ofthe original?
Speaker 2 (35:27):
hunger games.
I'm gonna give it a 1 out of 5.
You can't go lower, can I?
Speaker 1 (35:30):
Half, half a star 0.5 .
Speaker 2 (35:33):
I'll give it a 1.5 because 0.5 is the lowest.
I'm gonna give half a point toViola Davis Cranking up the
movie a little bit, and a half apoint to Tom Blythe as Cori
Lennon Snow.
They did good for the movie.
I would definitely recommendeverybody to watch it.
Come up with your own opinionof it.
T.
We already had more chemistryhere than they had on the screen
.
Speaker 1 (35:52):
Maybe we should just stare into each other's eyes for
10 minutes and then I'll justrandomly pop out singing.
As I look into your eyes, Istart to feel feelings of love.
Speaker 2 (36:06):
See.
Speaker 1 (36:07):
I'm starting to cry already and the tears forming in
your eyes.
That's essentially what shedoes.
She just sings like what she'sgoing through emotionally.
Speaker 2 (36:18):
Anyway.
So I'm gonna give it a 1.5 outof 5 just because of our David's
and Tom Blythe.
Otherwise, the rest of themovie, I thought it was just a
bit more.
Speaker 1 (36:26):
I will give it a 2 out of 5.
I know it's shocking, but Iactually have a more positive.
I just feel like for a 3-hourmovie, I'm like there's at least
enough for a 2.
But having said that, if I goback to the original trilogy and
it's like 10 million timesbetter, I'm probably gonna rate
this worse.
Speaker 2 (36:44):
What did you give to the killer?
I can't even remember.
Speaker 1 (36:47):
I think you gave it a 3.
Bro, I can't even remember likeour podcast you gave it a 3 to
the killer which he wasabsolutely shitting on.
Speaker 2 (36:54):
I know you're giving it a 2 for this one where you
were praising him in there alittle bit.
You're shitting on a lot too.
Speaker 1 (36:59):
No, a 3 seems too generous for the killer.
Are you sure I gave it a 3?
Maybe a 2.5?
I would have been more in thetwo range for the killer.
Speaker 2 (37:07):
Let's say 2.5.
It wasn't a 2.
How did you rate the killerhigher than this?
That?
Doesn't get me wrong, I would Irate it 4.
Speaker 1 (37:16):
Bro, you shit on it.
Okay, I don't know what I didbecause I don't remember.
All I know is I liked thismovie better than the killer, I
think.
Personally, if I was to likesum it up, I liked the whole
gradual transition fromsympathetic hero to villain.
It's not the best in this movie.
The Joker is still like my goldstandard for that.
(37:37):
So watching snow transition,that was a true highlight, and
there are some really nicescenes.
I caught me off guard where Iwas like whoa, and maybe that's
because I haven't seen otherHunger Games, whereas for you
those scenes might have beenlike.
Yeah copy, copy and paste.
I love the concept of theHunger Games and the good thing
(37:58):
about this movie is it makes mewant to explore the other movies
.
It's hooked me into wanting towatch the rest of the franchise
and Understand, because I feellike I missed the boat on the
Hunger Games when it first cameout.
Maybe I stupidly wasAssociating it with other movies
that were based on books at thetime, like Twilight, and was
(38:20):
thinking ours, this, just likethat, oh, that's based on a book
when it's just dragging on.
And it took me ages to get intoHarry Potter, like I only just
watched Harry Potter, the entirefranchise late last year.
I loved it.
There were some movies where Iwas like.
Speaker 2 (38:39):
The great thing about Harry Potter, I found, is that
they grew with their audience.
Yes you know, like first two,like kids movies, and then you
went to little bit young teensand then you went to adult
Versions.
In the last one, though, likeadolescence to like young adults
, I loved how they grew withyour audience.
They didn't stick to one genre,which is awesome.
If you grew up with it.
If you watched it originally,you would have grown up with it,
which would have been brilliant.
Speaker 1 (39:00):
I did watch the first three movies and then I don't
know what happened, but anyway,like whereas the Hunger Games, I
didn't connect for whateverreason.
Comparing to Harry Potter,though, you feel like every
movie has a very clear Direction, very clear set up and payoffs,
what they're doing with all thecharacters, everyone's kind of
building towards something.
You don't get that here.
(39:20):
You feel like only onecharacter is really being built
up and properly Used and focusedon, and everyone else is just
chilling.
None of the side characters,except for like vile and Davis,
really stood out to you.
Speaker 2 (39:33):
Yeah, peter Dinklage under performed.
In my opinion, he's always good, but he under performed in this
character.
Again, it's the writing anddirecting.
Speaker 1 (39:40):
I'm gonna give the movie like two out of five stars
.
It's intrigued me on thepremise the whole concept of the
Hunger Games but I don't thinkthere's really enough there to
keep someone's attention forthree hours.
Emotional moments just miss themark.
The relationship between Snowand Lucy Gray just isn't that
interesting, and when that's thewhole movie, pretty much it's
(40:04):
disappointing.
So, yeah, it'll be interestingto see where Rachel Ziggler's
career goes after this.
Okay, guys, it was really greatseeing yous.
If you enjoyed this review,please like, share and subscribe
.
If you're watching us onYouTube, if you're listening to
us on Spotify, please leave us areview.
And yeah, that's us guys.
(40:25):
We'll see you next time.
Awesome.
Speaker 2 (40:27):
You.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com