Battle Royale was a surprisingly intense and uncomfortable film that delivered the brutality of the situation in an appropriately messy way.
I thought Hunger Games was fine for what it is and I'm certainly interested in where they seem to be taking the sequel but it had its own over the top concepts like mutant bear dog things or whatever those oddly explained creatures were at the end.
Comparing Hunger Games to Battle Royale is like comparing Battlefield Earth to all 5 of the Star Wars movies (Phantom Menace doesn't count.) Battle Royale had a logical reason for the brutal games, unlike Hunger Games which just gives us some BS about a revolution and an uprising, likeable characters that aren't just thrown in so we feel sorry for them, a creative ending that was satisfying yet bittersweet.
@thephantomstranger: But didn't you feel that some battle scenes in BR were far too over the top? Like the break dance to dodge bullets or the I am fine while there is an axe in my head-scene. @spideyivydaredevilfan26: What was the logical reason for the brutal games? I am honest I do not remember. @thegoldenone: I'm not saying everybody does this don't freak out it's not meant as an insult I just have seen cases in which people almost instantly like the old movie whitout giving the new one a change just because they feel like they ripped the movie off.
Again I am not doing to make people angry with me. I just think there is a lot of overhyping when it comes to BR. I'm not saying HG was supermega good it was decent and in my eyes BR was also just decent.
By the way imdb gave BR only a slight advantage of 0,6 points.
Can you read? I didn't say that, I said some people might do that. I might not have been that clear about what I said there but I clearly said that you can love it more for your own reasons. I just suspect some people do that. Some, not everyone. You know that there are people capable of doing that. I'am just saying some people are overhyping it and doesn't give HG a chance just because it is a "rip-off".
I can comprehend that you would like BR more but if you call the movie a masterpiece. I just think that's overhyping. There is no need to call names.
@loki9876: Maybe because you didn't get it?
Hunger Games is a generic movie about violence being used to satiate oppressed masses. It's been done a million times. Rollerball did it best in the 70s.
Battle Royale has multiple interpretations. One being that it is an allegorical story about the Eastern (and now Western) education system's increased pressure on young students and how ultimately they are pitted against each other until only the top remain, with the rest being "killed off" (as not getting into university is presented as being tantamount to dying). There is more cultural merit in a single frame of Battle Royale than in the entirety of Hunger Games.
First I want to say that you offended me calling me stupid. If having a different opinion than yours make me that, than we live in a sad world.
There was more than just fighting and violence in HG. There was a story about a dystopian future were there was even more difference between the rich and the poor. HG also ridiculed our fashionsense. (not really hardcore, I know but still funny.)
You can't call a movie good just because of interpretations. You're not watching an interpretation. You're watching a movie as it is presented to you and there are a lot of movies who have sub-text. BR is hardly special in that manner. And didn't you think some scenes in BR were hockey as h@ll?
And by all means explain me why it is in your opinion a masterpiece? And sub-text alone doesn't make a masterpiece.
@loki9876: I didn't call you stupid. I said that what you said was stupid. Different thing altogether.
No, having subtext doesn't make a masterpiece, but a film that is as deep as a teardrop won't win any awards either. Battle Royale has appropriate depth and allows for repeated viewings and provides more than enough stimulus for intelligent discourse. Even the parts you said were "hokey" served a purpose. These are teenagers thrown together and forced to kill each other. They're not psychologically adapted to this, they don't know it's coming like in HG. Their crush liking them is important on their deathbed because they're teenagers, and teenagers are idiots. The most competent amongst them are sociopaths. The violence is excessive and over the top because it illustrates the complete ludicrousness of the entire BR Act.
You said the comment was stupid even if you didn't really read what I was saying properly.
Okay, Call it my personal taste but I don't like over the top things. Violence, acting anything. That's why I don't really like anime or manga that much in general. You can say the ulta-violence (which was a bit ridiculous in my opinion) had purpose but that doesn't matter for me, it bothers me just as much. If the violence and deaths were a bit more realistic, I would have enjoyed it more. By the way I'm not saying HG should win awards. Like I said it was an OK film. By the way in HG they are not ready for these battles either. They know there is a small possibility they will have to face it but they will never be ready to kill another teenager. (Except the 4 or 5 pro's or whatever they are called who trained their lives for this.) The basic premise still doesn't make it a masterpiece in my opinion. This idea has been done even before BR. only 1 adaption that has a little bit the same premise is truly a masterpiece and it is Lord of the Flies (the book).
Hunger Games is decent for teen fiction these days but it really "borrows" all of its best parts from other classic sci fi. It's nothing new. Hollywood is now going through its sci-fi trend, too bad many of these films don't add much in the realm of thoughtful introspective material the way all great science fiction does.
My only hope right now is for Elysium. Neil Blomkamp is one of the few beacons of light in the now ocean-sized spectrum of directors in science fiction filmmaking. He made District 9. Nothing more needs said about him. And if you're scratching your head as to what that movie is, I have little respect for your taste in modern sci fi.
I didnt like the hunger games because it seemed too watered down. Also the mutant dogs, fire balls, and cake painting was stupid. in a movie about kids killing each other the battle royal movie showed the characters having a harder time and more struggles to over come. Except for a few scenes the Hunger Games Kids seemed to have a much easier time.
I would change this in the OP because it causes a lot of anger which was not my intention. A lot of people will like it more because it is better. I'm just saying that there is a possibility that some people like BR more is because it was first and they consider HG a rip-off.
cake painting was. the rest was fine by me.
People that say HG is a sh@t movie. I just want to point out that a lot of professional reviewers gave HG a positive review. (such as Dough Walker, Jeremy Jahns, imdb, rotten tomatoes (84%), etc.)
Gotta give it up for Battle Royale. HG has some beautiful visuals and set/costume design; plus, the whole electronically-controlled environment was a cool little twist. However, the storyline and raw moments in BR stuck in my mind for far longer after viewing.
In fact, I kept myself away from Hunger Games (the film and novels) for so long because I held BR in high esteem when I saw it years back. When I did get around to HG, I was content with it, but the plot and characters aren't even close to as memorable as the BR cast and execution.