7.8? Really? I don't even...
I'm struggling to think of anything about this that raises it above a 3 - 5 in any category. OK, ready to be flamed...
shareFlamed? Really? I'm struggling to think of any reason anyone could possibly care.
shareWhat a shame there isn't already an existing thread titled "Hated it" where it would make far more sense to hatewank about the movie instead of creating a whole new thread to bitch about it.
Though of course your opinion is so important that it needs its own thread anyway. Clearly.
---
May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory.
^ What's up your ass? People can start a new thread if they want. If this was a new thread about loving this movie you wouldn't mind that, would you? Don't get all pissy cause somebody has a different opinion about a movie.
shareActually it's basic board etiquette - and in the rules, too. Flooding is a reportable offence (though obviously one thread isn't flooding). Starting new threads to say exactly the same thing as existing ones...not cool.
I'm Addy. Just Addy. From God, to Kane, to Addy.
Exactly. This board has a long history of newcomers starting tons of threads on the same subject, and it gets cluttered pretty quickly. It's especially irritating when the subject in question is "I hated it, COME AT ME FANTARDS" without anything even resembling valid criticism.
So you'll forgive us for getting annoyed.
---
May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory.
I've been an IMDB member 1 yr longer than you, proby. And I don't start "tons of threads" re: any subjects at all.
I didn't say I hated it. I actually liked the kitchen scene, it was hilarious in its own twisted way. And I liked how the teacher praises the cookies over and over then dies half a second after the final one. There needed to be more tongue-in-cheek moments like that. At least I didn't say "WORST MOVIE EVAR!!!1!!" for the ten bajillionth time.
It's virtually impossible to say ANYTHING on IMDB without annoying somebody, some of them act like you kicked their puppy or something. It'd be interesting to have a world-renowned, highly respected movie critic write some board posts and see how long it took for someone to disrespectfully insult them. IMHO, that's what's wrong with this board, the packs of trolls who hungrily lie in ambush waiting for the chance to trash you for saying just about anything on just about any subject.
Fair enough, here's a few of my issues with it...
1) It's just a rehash of Hunger Games. Oh I should have said The Condemned. Uh wait I meant The Running Man. OK, seriously they're all variations on The Most Dangerous Game from 1932 based on a short story from 1924 (one of my Dads favorites). I suspect you can find similar themes in the Greek classics. I'd be afraid to guess how many times this movie has been made.
2) What's so "Royale" about the battle? A bunch of middle-school kids who don't have social skills, much less survival skills are told to kill each other or die themselves. It's about the least "Royale" battle I've ever seen.
3) The entire premise is too much to take, I can't buy it by any stretch of the imagination.
4) Except for a few scenes the script is straight out of anime.
Honestly, I'd be interested to know what it is about this movie that puts it in the same class as The Magnificent Seven and Deliverance.
1. Hunger Games came 10 years later, so that's irrelevant. That the film is not 100% original is also relevant to nothing - originality is all but non-existent these days, and relative to the other examples, it's far more original than most generic rom-coms or Die Hard clones.
2. That's just a name, the author probably picked it because it sounds cool, so this point is meaningless semantics.
3. The premise is not the point and should be ignored. The novel spent ages trying to justify it and completely failed. The film glosses over it in 30 seconds at the start of the film, and it's beyond me why so many people seem to focus on those few moments instead of the rest of the 2 hour film.
4. Actually, the script is based on a novel, not anime (there was a manga, but it was produced simultaneously, and all but 2 of the 15 volumes were released after the film, with the first two being released at the same time IIRC). The director chose as his influence his experiences working in a munitions factory as a teenager in wartime Japan. That's about as far from anime as you can get.
Also, since you love random meaningless crap, I've been an IMDb member 1 year longer than you, and a regular on this board for all of those 8 years.
I'm Addy. Just Addy. From God, to Kane, to Addy.
As far as I can see, dude, you wandered in here hoisted up your shirt and truffle-shuffled at the "fantards" begging for a backlash...
And no one cared. A bit rich now to talk about "packs of trolls" lying "hungrily in ambush"!
Only thing I see to respond to is:
Honestly, I'd be interested to know what it is about this movie that puts it in the same class as The Magnificent Seven and Deliverance.Same as any movie, the power is how it connects with you. BR clearly connects with many people in a powerful way - in a way it didn't for you. No big mystery.
Also, after all your talk of "just a rehash" it's interesting that you mention The Magnificent Seven: itself famously "just a rehash" of Seven Samurai.
share
"The Magnificent Seven: itself famously "just a rehash" of Seven Samurai. " Yeah I knew somebody would say that.
shareYeah I knew somebody would say that.Somebody HAD to, friend.
Your first criticism of BR was "it's just a rehash" - same post you ask "what it is about this movie that puts it in the same class as The Magnificent Seven"
As "dumb things to say on a movie message board" go...
share
When I said "newcomers" I was referring to the BR board alone, not IMDb overall. So no need to compare veteran dicks here. Yes, you only started ONE thread, but you're contributing to the problem of there being multiple threads on the same subject. You could have taken the time to actually read what's on the board before posting anything.
It'd be interesting to have a world-renowned, highly respected movie critic write some board posts and see how long it took for someone to disrespectfully insult them.A world-renowned, highly respected critic would most likely already have written a formal review and thus wouldn't have to go on a message board. But that's beside the point. Any critic worth their salt would take the time to write out exactly what they didn't like about it (which you didn't until this was pointed out to you), and acknowledge that their opinion is just that.
Nobody really cares that you didn't like BR (it's definitely not for everybody, and it's totally fine and understandable to dislike it), it's just that you voiced your opinion in a very disrespectful and just plain annoying way.
---
May those who accept their fate find happiness. May those who defy it find glory. share
"2) What's so "Royale" about the battle? A bunch of middle-school kids who don't have social skills, much less survival skills are told to kill each other or die themselves. It's about the least "Royale" battle I've ever seen"
'Battle royal (plural battles royal) traditionally refers to a fight involving three or more combatants that is fought until only one fighter remains standing. In recent times the term has been used in a more general sense to refer to any fight involving large numbers of people that are not organized into factions. Within combat sports, the term has a specific meaning, depending on the sports being discussed'
---------------------
"Another brilliant post Steinberg..."
True that, also, in the novel, I seem to remember the title being a reference to wrestling, there's a few paragraphs just before the official story starts that explain the author's choice of title.
share"1) It's just a rehash of Hunger Games. Oh I should have said The Condemned. Uh wait I meant The Running Man. OK, seriously they're all variations on The Most Dangerous Game..."
I have not seen Hunger Games or The Condemned, so I'll refrain from mentioning anything about these movies. I'll agree that Running Man did have certain elements of the Most Dangerous Game, but I really don't see that in Battle Royale. The Most Dangerous Game entered a different field of thought.
Perhaps Battle Royale could have more similarities with Lord of The Flies than with Most Dangerous Game. Regards.
1) It's just a rehash of Hunger Games. Oh I should have said The Condemned. Uh wait I meant The Running Man. OK, seriously they're all variations on The Most Dangerous Game from 1932 based on a short story from 1924 (one of my Dads favorites). I suspect you can find similar themes in the Greek classics. I'd be afraid to guess how many times this movie has been made.
You seem to have missed the fact it was the first time that that classic premise uses children in a battle of fight-to-death.
Until Battle Royale, it had always been adults. Even the Greek classics didn't use children. The nearest thing is Children's Crusades (look it up in history) where child soldiers engaged in various battles, but nothing that used children in the The Most Dangerous Game setting.
I can't believe you say it's a "rehash" of Hunger Games and The Condemned. Both weren't made for almost another ten years. Not only that, The Hunger Games, in spite of its author's dubious claims, was certainly inspired by Battle Royale. Writer-director Scott Wiper had said The Condemned was inspired by both Battle Royale and The Running Man.
2) What's so "Royale" about the battle? A bunch of middle-school kids who don't have social skills, much less survival skills are told to kill each other or die themselves. It's about the least "Royale" battle I've ever seen.
I don't think you know what 'Royale' means. In Japan (and some parts of Europe), the biggest hamburger or similar fast-food dish is usually called 'Royale'. As in 'ultimate', 'maximium', 'superior' or 'the burger that beats all burgers'. In short, 'Battle Royale' can be seen as something like 'Battle of All Battles', 'Fight-to-Death Battle' or 'The Ultimate Battle'. It has nothing to do with style, skill or elegance you seem to associate 'royale' with.
Why did the author associate Royale, usually associated with fast-food, with this program? School kids love going to McDonalds or similar after school. That's the whole point of the story: it's the ultimate battle that demands the best, but these school kids aren't skilled or experienced. They are forced to fight for their lives. That's what makes the program so brutal, cruel and ruthless.
And the title is making fun of that fact. "Oh, those spoiled kids. So used to enjoying fast food, video games, toys, clothes and being disrespectful to parents and teachers. Let's throw them in a program where they would fight for their lives. Let's see if they enjoy a taste of our brand of burger: Battle Royale." So the title carries two meanings.
Honestly, I'd be interested to know what it is about this movie that puts it in the same class as The Magnificent Seven and Deliverance.
Huh? The Magnificent Seven is a remake of Akira Kurosawa's 1954 film Seven Samurai. How could you condemn Battle Royale for being 'unoriginal' when you praise The Magnificent Seven, a remake? I don't get it.
In any case, it's subjective. Tell me, what is it about Deliverance that puts it in the same class as The Third Man? You can't. It's a matter of taste. You don't like Battle Royale? Then you don't like Battle Royale. No big deal. No one has to "explain" to you why you should like it. Either you do or you don't. I don't like Battle Royale myself, but even I wouldn't be that daft to ignore its impact on pop culture, in Japan and the rest of the world. share
Why did the author associate Royale, usually associated with fast-food, with this program? School kids love going to McDonalds or similar after school. That's the whole point of the story: it's the ultimate battle that demands the best, but these school kids aren't skilled or experienced. They are forced to fight for their lives. That's what makes the program so brutal, cruel and ruthless.
And the title is making fun of that fact. "Oh, those spoiled kids. So used to enjoying fast food, video games, toys, clothes and being disrespectful to parents and teachers. Let's throw them in a program where they would fight for their lives. Let's see if they enjoy a taste of our brand of burger: Battle Royale." So the title carries two meanings.
This is a really imaginative theory, but really, "Battle Royale" is just the name of a type of wrestling match where a large number of single contestants all fight at once. It's what we might call a "free-for-all". This is explained in the novel.
The reference to Greek myth no doubt derives from the insistence of the Hunger Games author that she was inspired by the story of Theseus and the Minotaur. In this story, seven youths and seven maidens are locked into the labyrinth underneath King Minos' palace to be devoured by the Minotaur. However, I personally don't see how this is anything like the other examples of death game plots mentioned here. It is a blood sacrifice, not a game; the youngsters do not fight each other but are set upon by a fantastic beast; there are no time limits, safeguards, issued weapons or spectators; there is no hope of survival. The only way in which it is anything like The Hunger Games is the fact that the main character is given a sword and a ball of string by a princess who has fallen for him, which I guess is kind of like having a sponsor, and which allows him to kill the Minotaur and escape. I don't see any way in which it is like Battle Royale.
________________
"I'm weak, and useless, but I'll stay by your side. I'll protect you." share
but really, "Battle Royale" is just the name of a type of wrestling match where a large number of single contestants all fight at once. It's what we might call a "free-for-all". This is explained in the novel.
Uh, that's what I said. But for some reason, you've totally ignored the cultural background of "Royale" itself. More importantly, it wasn't MY theory. It was taken from the author's own explanation on he came up with the title. Re-read what I wrote before you dismiss it as a "really imaginative theory", mutt. share
You seem to have missed the fact it was the first time that that classic premise uses children in a battle of fight-to-death. Until Battle Royale, it had always been adults.
Eh? I guess you mean that "it" was the first time in fiction that kids fought to death - apart from in Lord of the Flies, which had a solid premise and which tried to make a point about human nature.
If "it" was then I imagine the writer just took the idea from fairly recent European history. Ponder the word "Infantry."
____
"If you ain't a marine then you ain't *beep* share
The problem for such sassy remarks, sorry to butt in, is the lack of reasons as to why you didn't like the film.
I can totally understand why other people would rant about basically saying the same thing (be it either poles), because a) I, for example, clicked on your link to read your opinions on it. Total waste. It's like, just saying, I came out all the way to meet you somewhere hoping you would give me more explanation about, say, something (just an example, ok) and you told me exactly the same thing someone told me at my house. Like.... you know??? That's annoying.
I'd totally respect your opinion, be it negative about a film I actually liked. Why? Adds perspective. Unfortunately on these boards its hard not to get worked-up over things. It's like comparing it to, say for example, LoL players where there are just sooo many rage players hahaha!
I totally like the film, I gave it an 8. I liked it not because its a novelty because its from Japan. That's just stupid but then again I can understand why some people tend to say they like certain things from other countries; i.e. say, when my family fly back home for vacation and our relatives go crazy over stuff from the UK.
I liked it because it spoke to me, on different viewings I look at different things and I can find them in this movie; some social comments, adult-youngsters relationships, the film's technical aspects (I'm into film-and-arts, I do art stuff, so I like looking at people's work and wonder how and why they did that), I also really like the acting, also, the film also reminded me of other mediums I enjoy, etc. Also, about the acting, you have to have watched many Asian films to realize that kind of acting is used a lot; before you can finally accept it. Culture difference. Same way there is a certain preference of acting style in Western cinema.
Anyways, I just surmised why I liked the film overall.
Originally, I did not want to watch the Hunger Games though there was a time I did want to read the book. But heck, as I type this I am watching the first Hunger Games.
If I said I hated the Hunger Games and did not say why, I would be flamed too, particularly in the Hunger Games board.
(P.S. I like Jennifer Lawrence, but speaking of acting/ acting direction, just the whole scene when she says goodbye to her mother, it is the same thing I see in other Western films. Just an example. Totally different culture differences. Lately I have seen A LOT of East Asian movies.... hang on, just realized. My parents are typical East Asians, and for them, where we are from originally, excellent acting means you can draw out a tear. Brilliant if you can tear up more. For a long while, I think it's horrible acting. But that's what they are used to.
Anyways, I mention 'acting' because it's one of the reasons people say when they say they do not like Battle Royale. Come to think of it, it would be so cool to actually talk to someone, maybe an actor, about acting as a whole. BUT that would be a totally different thread. I was just generalizing and hopefully explained enough that you would understand).