The Hot Blog

Great film. Tough to watch. I think the ten minute (give or take a minute or so) conversation between Sands and the priest is something to behold. Not sure if I'll ever watch it again, but I am glad I saw it.

Excellent film. Didn't get as many viewers as it should have in its one week at the Nuart...but maybe now that it has all the acclaim behind it, it will.

I don't use the term "Kubrickian" lightly, but it approaches that...

Agreed that the that mid-film long take is excellent, but I generally didn't like it much at all. If I wanted to watch people wipe shit on the wall for an hour and a half I could watch a monkey do it on YouTube (veeery large generalisation as to why i don't like the movie so don't think that's the sole reason and that I'm only being childish or whatever.)

Lol. I have a film prof who offered to lend me her pirated copy of this movie for a paper I was working on. So much for piracy being for the youth.

This movie is brilliant; a real work of art. Everyone should see it.

Well, Kamikaze, that's the only example you're offering and, yeah, it's childish.

I believe I've mentioned previously why I don't like it. Alas, nobody had seen it at that stage so people probably didn't take much notice. http://stalepopcornau.blogspot.com/2008/12/hungry.html

Basically, no amount of great cinematography and harsh realism could distract me from the fact that I could've read Wikipedia and learned this all without seeing the movie. I didn't find it had anything particularly interesting to say outside of it's direct themes. The long take in the middle of the movie between Fassbender and Cunningham is like a stunning short movie that felt like it truly about something, but was surrounded by dreariness and I don't think the film compensates enough to make up for it. Plus, there's also the fact that I just didn't care about this man. Or anyone else in the movie for that matter.

"Hunger" is an outstanding film....with a capital O.

actually, i thought 'hunger' was a bit of a bore...with a lower case 'b'.....that said, why is this film even in play?... screeners went out back in november and the movie was in theaters in december....three months and a new release?...

Oscar qualifying run.

Gommorah did the same thing.

Now's the official release.

I'm with you on this one, Scooter.
Saw this at the tail end of a generally lackluster Toronto Film Festival last September, and it struck me as yet another example of "The Emperor's New Clothes" syndrome: an overpraised fest-crix darling that couldn't quite live up to all of its hype.
And not to get all Lex-y on everyone, but doesn't it seem wrong that a director with the uber-cool name of Steve McQueen isn't helming kickass action movies instead of Derek Jarman-esque objet d'art like "Hunger"?

Yeah, couldn't he at least call himself Steven, or throw a middle initial in there, or go by S. Poindexter McQueen (or whatever his middle name is)? Even assuming it's his given name (I'm not going to research this), it seems disrespectful somehow. Are we gonna get a new Cary Grant someday, or Marilyn Monroe or Rainer Werner Fassbinder or whoever?

~phew~ glad I'm not the only one who saw through this movies posing. I really didn't see anything radical in it at all, honestly. I still can't see what the big fuss is. As good as the single take scene is it's been done before and the scene is more a triumph because of the acting than anything McQueen is doing with the story (which I felt he told in a very useless manner).

Again, just my opinion though. Feel free to wax lyrical over it's gorgeous images of starvation or whatever.

"the scene is more a triumph because of the acting"

Yes -- the dude clearly actually starved himself for the later scenes, and memorized a shit-ton of dialogue for long uninterrupted takes in the middle.

Tough to do on both counts. I was once asked to lose 10 pounds for a role and that was hard enough.

i haven't seen 'hunger' yet, it played at a festival here a while back but i missed it, but is the starvation on par with christian bale's emaciation for his role in 'the machinist?'. that was pretty hard-core

See... this is the thinking that makes me a little crazy...

Why does it have to be argued to be "radical" to be seen as excellent?

McQueen did nothing that hasn't been done before. But what he did do was daring and human and a very rare kind of theatrical experience for the audience. The writing is strong. And the performances are strong. And McQueen surely has the courage to stick with his choices and to put his audiences in a place that will make most uncomfortable.

Why does it have to be The Emperor's New Clothes... or Old Clothes... or contextualized?

This is the same kind of thing I rail against when I suggest groupthink amongst critics. It's when they see something more than the movie and that somehow becomes more important than the film.

I admit, it happens to me occasionally. Hostel II. Speed Racer, a bit... though I do find the film very entertaining and still think it is a game changer in ways we can't yet fully imagine. But I really try to stay away from it.

"Why does it have to be...contextualized?"

I haven't seen the movie, but it seems like its context is important, no?

What I meant by the use of "radical" was that I can't quite fathom how so many people think it's an unmissable masterpiece when there really isn't much to it. Yes, the guy has a way with imagery and the lead actor lost a lot of weight... but what else is there? For such a simply story it's told so... simply. I'm just not quite as much of a sucker for hauntingly beautiful images of people living in squalor and emaciating away, I suppose.

It just didn't feel like McQueen did enough with the material to warrant that much attention. It's an interesting moment in British history and yet I didn't feel like it was when it was portrayed in front of me. Again, outside of the central one-take scene I just didn't feel it really went anywhere other than showing the crappy lives they lived and it wasn't exactly something I cared to watch, quite frankly. The poster is literally shit on a wall! That's how pretentious this film is. I can just see the upper class nodding their head and going "oh yes, it was all very horrific wasn't it? Really makes you think." But about what exactly?

You certainly can't critisise me for doing what the group think does, right? Why bring that up since i am CLEARLY in the minority with my opinion. Christ. I'm not seeing "more than the movie". I saw the movie and just didn't like it. No motives or hidden agendas. I just flat out didn't think it was anything special. Or anything at all. It just... was.

And, well, Fassbender is an actor. I would expect him to remember his lines, but my issues with the movie aren't to do with him so I'm not going to discuss him.

Leah, it is. The scenes of him wasting away are tough to watch, but - again - in service of what? They're "powerful" because of the act itself and what they represent and that the actor really did it. In the film it represents just another ugly thing that happens. It's just an event that happens. I'm sure there are images of him on the internet somewhere that would at least save you an hour an a half of watching miserable buggers paint their jail cells in feces.

Liam Cunningham was still the best thing about the entire movie. I haven't a bad word to say about him at all.

thanks for that, kam. to be honest i'm reluctant to see 'hunger'; i had a hard enough time watching bale in 'the machinist' - the tormented physicality of his perf haunts me to this day - so i'm not sure i want to go there again with 'bobby sands'. plus i'm a fan of 'some mother's son', which focuses on the hunger strike from the standpoint of two of the hunger striker's mums trying to save their sons, such a moving little gem of a film, i might just leave it at that

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: