The Hunger Games

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**DarkCorsair**

purplefood wrote:
DarkCorsair wrote:The series was great, gets even more interesting and darker in the later books. I honestly couldn't put them down. What I didn't like was

Spoiler:

The ending of the 3rd book where Katniss shoots Coin...I just didn't really like that. Not sure why. Then again, I read the books a year ago so my memory might be fuddled.

Spoiler:

That seemed fairly sensible to me... I mean the man had just murdered her sister horribly in an attempt to kill her and beforehand had tried to get her killed by using Peeta

Spoiler:

**purplefood**

DarkCorsair wrote:
purplefood wrote:
DarkCorsair wrote:The series was great, gets even more interesting and darker in the later books. I honestly couldn't put them down. What I didn't like was

Spoiler:

The ending of the 3rd book where Katniss shoots Coin...I just didn't really like that. Not sure why. Then again, I read the books a year ago so my memory might be fuddled.

Spoiler:

That seemed fairly sensible to me... I mean the man had just murdered her sister horribly in an attempt to kill her and beforehand had tried to get her killed by using Peeta

Spoiler:

Ah, ok, just remembered the part where she gets killed by the Capitol ship bombing her. But how does Coin use Peeta to try to kill her? I know Snow used the tracker jacker poison to make Peeta want to kill Katniss, but I don't remember what Coin did. And you can't really blame him, IIRC Katniss appeared to be insane to most of the people...could be horribly wrong though.

Spoiler:

**Great White**

DarkCorsair wrote:The series was great, gets even more interesting and darker in the later books. I honestly couldn't put them down. What I didn't like was

Spoiler:

The ending of the 3rd book where Katniss shoots Coin...I just didn't really like that. Not sure why. Then again, I read the books a year ago so my memory might be fuddled.

Spoiler:

**rubiksnoob**

The fact that they toned down the violence for the movie really diluted what the books were all about. But if they had made the movies as graphic as the books were, they would have cut out 3/4 of their potential audience.

**Great White**

rubiksnoob wrote:The fact that they toned down the violence for the movie really diluted what the books were all about. But if they had made the movies as graphic as the books were, they would have cut out 3/4 of their potential audience.

That was the big problem. The reason for the shaky camera, can't have much graphic violence in a PG-13 movie. It's the reason AVP sucked.

**rubiksnoob**

Great White wrote:
rubiksnoob wrote:The fact that they toned down the violence for the movie really diluted what the books were all about. But if they had made the movies as graphic as the books were, they would have cut out 3/4 of their potential audience.

That was the big problem. The reason for the shaky camera, can't have much graphic violence in a PG-13 movie. It's the reason AVP sucked.

Exactly. If they were to have really depicted how cruel and brutal the Games were, they would have excluded all the 12, 13, and 14 year olds that make up a large chunk of the audience. One of the main themes of the book was how desensitization to violence has insidiously seeped into our society, but Mommy doesn't want Suzy seeing kids her age starve and brutally eviscerate each other on screen, so they had to tone it down.

**Ledabot**

I thought the movie was good. It stayed very true to the plot of the books and I really didn't find the shaking that bad. Its designed to stop the audience from seeing all the crazy that happened in the violent scenes. You sickos that want to see people get killed reflect on yourself. Why do you want to see people die? Go watch saw if you want that. The point isn't that people get killed, its that people have died.

The only improvement that I can see is the role of the presedent could have been cast better I think.

**Hulksmash**

I think most people see it as a copout and have trouble even telling who is dying. I also think it's an excuse for poor cinematography when they go shaky cam. That said I understand it's due to the age group the film is targeting.

**Hazardous Harry**

DarkCorsair wrote:

These are questions for people who have seen the movie, put in a spoiler because, well it might be a spoiler for people reading the books.

Spoiler:

Do they have the scenes where Katniss gets stung by the tracker jackers and starts hallucinating? and the one with the wolves at the end?

Yes and yes.

purplefood wrote:

Spoiler:

That seemed fairly sensible to me... I mean the man had just murdered her sister horribly in an attempt to kill her and beforehand had tried to get her killed by using Peeta

Spoiler:

Great White wrote:

Spoiler:

It was understandable, but Prims death was the final straw for me. The story got too crazy in the last book. After Finnick(My favorite character) died, I started to not like the book. Then Prim died and I wanted to throw the book. Mockingjay was my least favorite.

Spoiler:

**GalacticDefender**

Medium of Death wrote:I was curious and read into the book. Apparently the author got her idea from 'channel hopping' and not from all the similar material out there. *sceptical face*

Star crossed lovers, marketed for teenage girls... I think I'll give this one a miss.

I just watched it tonight. It's good enough to rent, at least. It was actually surprisingly good, many times better than something like Twilight. I would recommend at least watching it at some point.

**Lint**

Necroshea wrote:The shaky camera scened killed it for me.
It was solid. Nothing earth shattering, but nothing truly bad.

This. I really enjoyed it, possibly because I had no expectations. Seemed like the world in which it's staged was probably a lot harsher in the books, but I get that there's constraints in place when making a movie like this.

Ledabot wrote:You sickos that want to see people get killed reflect on yourself. Why do you want to see people die? Go watch saw if you want that. The point isn't that people get killed, its that people have died.

Wow, there are so many idiotic things in this quote I'm actually speechless.

**mwnciboo**

Anyone else getting a bit sick of interesting Japanese films (or anyother country for that matter) getting re-made in the US and turned into absolute US orientated drivel?

Then having EMO adolescents telling you it's amazing and nothing has been made like this before....

I enjoyed Amelie, I didn't want it re-made for a British Audience, it's simple french charm was brilliant.

I enjoyed the HBO Series John Adams, I didn't want it made into the diary of Samuel Peppy's.

I enjoy the story for the story, it doesn't have to be something I am familiar with. Dr Zhivargo, All quiet on the Western front, The Artist. There is so much good World Cinema out there to discover, so many stories so many great performances. To say that everything must be made in America for an American audience is demeaning to them. It then gets pedalled around the world as the next big thing when American came to it after everyone else.

So coming to a Screen near you soon:-

The President's Speech (story about a President with stammer during a period of National crisis).

Hugo (story about a young American Lad who lives in Grand central station)

Downton Abbey (story about a Large Cotton Estate in a Southern State during the American Civil War).

**CuddlySquig**

The trailer makes it look like Battle Royale except everybody has a sword and a bow.

**Ozymandias**

mwnciboo wrote:Anyone else getting a bit sick of interesting Japanese films (or anyother country for that matter) getting re-made in the US and turned into absolute US orientated drivel?

Then having EMO adolescents telling you it's amazing and nothing has been made like this before....

I enjoyed Amelie, I didn't want it re-made for a British Audience, it's simple french charm was brilliant.

I enjoyed the HBO Series John Adams, I didn't want it made into the diary of Samuel Peppy's.

I enjoy the story for the story, it doesn't have to be something I am familiar with. Dr Zhivargo, All quiet on the Western front, The Artist. There is so much good World Cinema out there to discover, so many stories so many great performances. To say that everything must be made in America for an American audience is demeaning to them. It then gets pedalled around the world as the next big thing when American came to it after everyone else.

So coming to a Screen near you soon:-

The President's Speech (story about a President with stammer during a period of National crisis).

Hugo (story about a young American Lad who lives in Grand central station)

Downton Abbey (story about a Large Cotton Estate in a Southern State during the American Civil War).

I wasn't going to respond, but this BR/HG thing has gotten really old. Hunger Games isn't a remake of Battle Royale. It is a completely different movie that shares a similar premise, teenagers fighting to the death. Don't get me wrong, Hunger Games takes inspiration from a lot of things, but I'd start with the Theseus story, head to Lord of the Flies, and then Running Man before Battle Royal.

**Frazzled**

I am jazzed about downing some rum and taking GC to see this.

**mwnciboo**

@Ozymandias

Really?

Dystopian Future = Check.

Children put on island = Check

Each Child give a weapon = Check

Children required to kill each other = check

Yeah they are completely different concepts

Lord of the Flies, Running man have similar elements but do not copy in such a wholesale way.

Anyway, you've got hundreds of remakes... Avatar = Pocahontas (+ Aliens), West Side Story (Romeo & Juliet). The main thing is to do something different with it, take the story in a new direction, re-interpret it. Most of these films (Like the Italian Job, like The Grudge, the Ring, Battle Royal) are pretty awful when they get a Hollywood make over. There are very few good remakes (Oceans 11 springs to mind, Magnificent Seven I would say is a compliment to Kurasowa, as does HEAT which doesn't count as it was the same director re-doing his 1st version LA Take down).

Hunger Games isn't a Rip off of Battle Royal, as much as Chapterhouse isn't a Rip off Games Workshop.

The US has great Cultural offerings, it doesn't have to trample on everyone else's cultural films by cheapening them by remaking everything for what the studio's believe are dumbed down American audiences. I have quite a few friends in the US and they are intelligent articulate people who don't need things dumbing down to the lowest common denominator. Instead they get force fed crap like "John Carter" or EMO crap.

**Lint**

It's not "the US" so much as it's hollywood.
Take a movie thats successful overseas.
Hollywood isn't making any money off it.
But it made alot of money.
Hollywood decides it wants some of that money.
Re-does the film and maybe adds in some extras/dumbs it down so they can fully hit their target demographic.
Boom. You just got "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" "Let the Right One In" "Quarantine" et al...
Money is made, hands a shaken, jerks are circled, snobs whine about how they're so much better for having read the book/seen the original.

**Ozymandias**

mwnciboo wrote:@Ozymandias

Really?

Dystopian Future = Check.

So was Running Man, so are just about every story coming out today.

Children put on island = Check

They weren't on an island. They were in a specifically designed arena complete with cameras, traps, etc. to capture the action and broadcast it to the entire country.

Each Child give a weapon = Check

I'm beginning to think you have neither read the book nor watched the movie. They weren't given a weapon. There was a stockpile of weapons in the middle that they could fight over, but the main protagonist, Katniss doesn't run and grab a weapon. She has a knife, but only because that was thrown at her.

Children required to kill each other = check

Yep, that's the part that's like Battle Royale, glad we agree.

Yeah they are completely different concepts

Lord of the Flies, Running man have similar elements but do not copy in such a wholesale way.

Neither does HG.

Anyway, you've got hundreds of remakes... Avatar = Pocahontas (+ Aliens), West Side Story (Romeo & Juliet). The main thing is to do something different with it, take the story in a new direction, re-interpret it. Most of these films (Like the Italian Job, like The Grudge, the Ring, Battle Royal) are pretty awful when they get a Hollywood make over. There are very few good remakes (Oceans 11 springs to mind, Magnificent Seven I would say is a compliment to Kurasowa, as does HEAT which doesn't count as it was the same director re-doing his 1st version LA Take down).

Hunger Games isn't a Rip off of Battle Royal, as much as Chapterhouse isn't a Rip off Games Workshop.

Again, this isn't a Hollywood remake of a Japanese film. This is a Hollywood adaptation of a book written by an author who said she had never heard of Battle Royale until the comparisons came up. I too was someone who had never heard of Battle Royale until after I had read Hunger Games so I don't really see this as a stretch.

The US has great Cultural offerings, it doesn't have to trample on everyone else's cultural films by cheapening them by remaking everything for what the studio's believe are dumbed down American audiences. I have quite a few friends in the US and they are intelligent articulate people who don't need things dumbing down to the lowest common denominator. Instead they get force fed crap like "John Carter" or EMO crap.

Actually everyone I know (also smart people, like Russ Wakelin of D6G) who have seen it really liked John Carter (based off a book by an American btw) so I don't know if I'd use that as an example, but I understand what you are saying.

**LordofHats**

The idea that Hunger Games is based on Battle Royale is somewhat absurd. Its very plausible the author of the book series has never heard of Battle Royale (that the the origin of the storyline has long been known to be Thesus as stated by the author). Most people haven't heard of Battle Royale. EDIT: Battle Royale came out at a time when it existed in a very niche market. Most people outside Japan have never heard of it. The film is actually more well known than the book.

The idea that Battle Royale itself is in some way unique is equally absurd. Battle Royale's plot, characters, setting, and premise are typical of dystopic fiction. That no one else would ever incidentally come up with a similar idea is kind of silly.

**Frazzled**

You're all wussies. All of these are blatant copies of Most Dangerous Game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Dangerous_Game

Ha I claim snobby high horse!

**Grakmar**

LordofHats wrote:The idea that Battle Royale itself is in some way unique is equally absurd. Battle Royale's plot, characters, setting, and premise are typical of dystopic fiction. That no one else would ever incidentally come up with a similar idea is kind of silly.

Totally agreed. The idea of a dystopian future where the government funds some sort of death match to exert control and entertain the elite isn't exactly new.

Other movies with the same basic premise:
Rollerball, Death Race 2000, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, The Running Man, Gladiator (exchange "future" for "ancient Rome"), The Condemned, Gamer, Attack of the Clones, Arena,

And, video games: Mortal Kombat, Twisted Metal, Deathrow, Smash TV, F-Zero

And, it's YA literature, so it makes perfect sense for the protagonist to be a young adult.

**LordofHats**

There's a reason "Nothing is original anymore" pervades writing circles. Anyone who knows anything about the subject knows that nothing is really unique in fiction.

**Experiment 626**

Saw it yesterday, and while a goodly number of the teens were rather annoying, I found the film to be okay.

The wobbly camera work was just plain awful - actually going so far as to make we a bit ill. (though that's because I've been hit in the head too many times) The worst bit of it I found was the opening rush as the games began and the kids were all running for weapons/supplies. You couldn't follow a damn thing at that point or make-out in any way which characters were the willing combatents and which characters weren't.
I get that the Pg13 rating means you have to tone down the violence, (I wasn't expecting 'Game of Thrones' level of violence), but I think they really wussed out when making the film. I mean, are we seriously to the point where 10-12 year-olds can't discern the difference between fantasy/movie violence and real life violence & concequences?!!

I also found that parts of the film began to drag or just seemed needlessly drawn out.

Still enjoyed it overall, but it's not a movie I'd honestly go out and buy on dvd/download.

**Chemical Cutthroat**

I enjoyed it a lot. It stayed pretty true to the source material. Sure some things got a little rushed, but that's bound to happen.

Some of the CGI could have been a little better, I agree, but the real important thing - The Acting - was spot on! Woody played a great Haymitch, and Lenny Kravitz did a knockout job as Cinna.

For those who just think it's Running Man with kids... it's more complex than that. There's a specific reason why they use kids in the 'Games', so go look into it a bit deeper first. The games certainly are the focus of the first book... that changes later on.

I... didn't feel the romance angle was played up too hard. I certainly think they could have ham-fisted that whole mess pretty hard. Instead, you get to see bits from character to character, and though it's present on the screen it doesn't take center stage and scream at you.

Spoiler:

I say go see it. But be warned, it's definitely not the feel good movie of the summer.

**jetjetex**

op, i dont know how you can think that its aimed toward teenage girls? unless you havent read the books... i think you wold change your mind.
i knocked the three books out in a week, still not as good as lotr books, but still pretty freekin awesome.
i suggest you give them a try if you have any doubts.

**Necroshea**

Oh, I forgot a little snippet of memory.

Spoiler:

...a guy three seats away from me put up the three finger salute to the screen. Ugh. Just...ugh. At least he wasn't making noise like his child was while he was inhaling popcorn.

**Mannahnin**

Anyone who liked Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, and who enjoys dramas set in the real world, would be well served to check this one out:

Well-written user review from IMDB:

Spoiler:

"But I can't forever carry them kids and my mom, not without that house."

Winter's Bone is a stark, almost documentary-like movie about a poor teenage girl named Ree in the Ozarks who supports her near-catatonic mother and two younger siblings during her meth-cooking father's many brushes with the law. When he disappears before a court date and the family's home is at risk if he doesn't show up, Ree (Jennifer Lawrence) investigates amongst the locals to find out where he might be. But, some people don't like the questions she's asking, and her life may be at risk, along with her family home.

The plain, unobtrusive way that the camera observes events really helped draw me into the movie, to the point where I honestly forgot that I was watching a movie, at all. This effect was heightened by some excellent performances; especially from Jennifer Lawrence and John Hawkes (Teardrop). Lawrence had a star-making (and award worthy) performance, in my opinion. Ree is probably my favorite movie character of the year (well, perhaps next to Hit Girl), and Lawrence plays her with a realism and stubborn toughness that makes you believe that this seventeen year-old girl wouldn't wilt under the kind of circumstances that would overwhelm most adults. Her love for her family seems completely genuine, and there's never a word or a glance where she seems like she's "acting". It's all very natural, and I was beyond impressed.

The plot was quite tense and engrossing, as Ree pursues the mystery of where her father is with a dogged intensity, despite the fact that it leads her into some very dangerous (and violent) situations. The sparse, beautiful winter settings are a perfect backdrop for the story. It's been a while since I've seen a movie that does as good a job as this one in communicating a sense of place.

Winter's Bone may not be for everyone, though. There are no shoot-outs or florid romantic scenes. The moments of happiness are small, fleeting, and poignant; like a gift of generosity from a neighbor who knows you're in need, or the quiet assurances of an older sister to her younger siblings. In Winter's Bone, our world is never in danger...but one family's certainly is. I liked it the movie the first time around, liked it even more the second, and heartily recommend it, if you're interested.

**Hazardous Harry**

Chemical Cutthroat wrote:*snip*
-Gamemaker. Fantastic facial hair.-

Yes indeed.

**Chemical Cutthroat**

Hazardous Harry wrote:
Chemical Cutthroat wrote:*snip*
-Gamemaker. Fantastic facial hair.-

Yes indeed.

Its gotta be painted on or something, that **** was too perfect. TOO perfect. I'd have that every day if I could. Yeah, I'd be that guy.

I mean really, out of all the other ridiculous Capitol people, that dude had STYLE.

**KingCracker**

DarkCorsair wrote:
purplefood wrote:
DarkCorsair wrote:The series was great, gets even more interesting and darker in the later books. I honestly couldn't put them down. What I didn't like was

Spoiler:

The ending of the 3rd book where Katniss shoots Coin...I just didn't really like that. Not sure why. Then again, I read the books a year ago so my memory might be fuddled.

Spoiler:

That seemed fairly sensible to me... I mean the man had just murdered her sister horribly in an attempt to kill her and beforehand had tried to get her killed by using Peeta

Spoiler:

Ah, ok, just remembered the part where she gets killed by the Capitol ship bombing her. But how does Coin use Peeta to try to kill her? I know Snow used the tracker jacker poison to make Peeta want to kill Katniss, but I don't remember what Coin did. And you can't really blame him, IIRC Katniss appeared to be insane to most of the people...could be horribly wrong though.

purplefood wrote:
DarkCorsair wrote:
purplefood wrote:
DarkCorsair wrote:The series was great, gets even more interesting and darker in the later books. I honestly couldn't put them down. What I didn't like was

Spoiler:

The ending of the 3rd book where Katniss shoots Coin...I just didn't really like that. Not sure why. Then again, I read the books a year ago so my memory might be fuddled.

Spoiler:

That seemed fairly sensible to me... I mean the man had just murdered her sister horribly in an attempt to kill her and beforehand had tried to get her killed by using Peeta

Spoiler:

Ah, ok, just remembered the part where she gets killed by the Capitol ship bombing her. But how does Coin use Peeta to try to kill her? I know Snow used the tracker jacker poison to make Peeta want to kill Katniss, but I don't remember what Coin did. And you can't really blame him, IIRC Katniss appeared to be insane to most of the people...could be horribly wrong though.

Spoiler:

It's implied he put Peeta into their sharpshooter squad in order for him to go nuts and kill her because of the whole political thing. Almost worked... I'll admit, out of all of the charactersshe is probably the worst... I can deal with characters that don't like killing or are traumatised by it but she seems strangely incapable of keeping her sheep together to actually help in a fight

Great White wrote:
DarkCorsair wrote:The series was great, gets even more interesting and darker in the later books. I honestly couldn't put them down. What I didn't like was

Spoiler:

The ending of the 3rd book where Katniss shoots Coin...I just didn't really like that. Not sure why. Then again, I read the books a year ago so my memory might be fuddled.

Spoiler:

It was understandable, but Prims death was the final straw for me. The story got too crazy in the last book. After Finnick(My favorite character) died, I started to not like the book. Then Prim died and I wanted to throw the book. Mockingjay was my least favorite.

Hazardous Harry wrote:
DarkCorsair wrote:

These are questions for people who have seen the movie, put in a spoiler because, well it might be a spoiler for people reading the books.

Spoiler:

Do they have the scenes where Katniss gets stung by the tracker jackers and starts hallucinating? and the one with the wolves at the end?

Yes and yes.

purplefood wrote:

Spoiler:

That seemed fairly sensible to me... I mean the man had just murdered her sister horribly in an attempt to kill her and beforehand had tried to get her killed by using Peeta

Spoiler:

Coin was female.

Great White wrote:

Spoiler:

It was understandable, but Prims death was the final straw for me. The story got too crazy in the last book. After Finnick(My favorite character) died, I started to not like the book. Then Prim died and I wanted to throw the book. Mockingjay was my least favorite.

Spoiler:

It wasn't nice or glamorous, war never is. Especially a war with a government that had ritual killings of children. The ending was bittersweet for sure, but really anything else would have seemed cheap.

Chemical Cutthroat wrote:I enjoyed it a lot. It stayed pretty true to the source material. Sure some things got a little rushed, but that's bound to happen.

Some of the CGI could have been a little better, I agree, but the real important thing - The Acting - was spot on! Woody played a great Haymitch, and Lenny Kravitz did a knockout job as Cinna.

For those who just think it's Running Man with kids... it's more complex than that. There's a specific reason why they use kids in the 'Games', so go look into it a bit deeper first. The games certainly are the focus of the first book... that changes later on.

I... didn't feel the romance angle was played up too hard. I certainly think they could have ham-fisted that whole mess pretty hard. Instead, you get to see bits from character to character, and though it's present on the screen it doesn't take center stage and scream at you.

Spoiler:

The thing with the Gamemaster at the end was an eloquent show of President Snow's particular brand of irony. It was clever and I loved it. That guy also had amazing facial hair.

I say go see it. But be warned, it's definitely not the feel good movie of the summer.

Necroshea wrote:Oh, I forgot a little snippet of memory.

Spoiler:

When grue (sp?) died

...a guy three seats away from me put up the three finger salute to the screen. Ugh. Just...ugh. At least he wasn't making noise like his child was while he was inhaling popcorn.

Mannahnin wrote:Anyone who liked Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, and who enjoys dramas set in the real world, would be well served to check this one out:

Well-written user review from IMDB:

Spoiler:

"But I can't forever carry them kids and my mom, not without that house."

Winter's Bone is a stark, almost documentary-like movie about a poor teenage girl named Ree in the Ozarks who supports her near-catatonic mother and two younger siblings during her meth-cooking father's many brushes with the law. When he disappears before a court date and the family's home is at risk if he doesn't show up, Ree (Jennifer Lawrence) investigates amongst the locals to find out where he might be. But, some people don't like the questions she's asking, and her life may be at risk, along with her family home.

The plain, unobtrusive way that the camera observes events really helped draw me into the movie, to the point where I honestly forgot that I was watching a movie, at all. This effect was heightened by some excellent performances; especially from Jennifer Lawrence and John Hawkes (Teardrop). Lawrence had a star-making (and award worthy) performance, in my opinion. Ree is probably my favorite movie character of the year (well, perhaps next to Hit Girl), and Lawrence plays her with a realism and stubborn toughness that makes you believe that this seventeen year-old girl wouldn't wilt under the kind of circumstances that would overwhelm most adults. Her love for her family seems completely genuine, and there's never a word or a glance where she seems like she's "acting". It's all very natural, and I was beyond impressed.

The plot was quite tense and engrossing, as Ree pursues the mystery of where her father is with a dogged intensity, despite the fact that it leads her into some very dangerous (and violent) situations. The sparse, beautiful winter settings are a perfect backdrop for the story. It's been a while since I've seen a movie that does as good a job as this one in communicating a sense of place.

Winter's Bone may not be for everyone, though. There are no shoot-outs or florid romantic scenes. The moments of happiness are small, fleeting, and poignant; like a gift of generosity from a neighbor who knows you're in need, or the quiet assurances of an older sister to her younger siblings. In Winter's Bone, our world is never in danger...but one family's certainly is. I liked it the movie the first time around, liked it even more the second, and heartily recommend it, if you're interested.

SO MANY SPOILERS!!!!!!!! GAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!