What do you think of Battle Royale (1999)?

Tools    





Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
I saw it, after so many people liked it, and I thought it was kind of good, kind of not, but felt it could have been better perhaps. For one thing, we see more of the teens side of the thing, more than the government's side, but that made me want to see more of the government's side, cause I found them more interesting.

The movie also has a lot of weird moments in, such as perhaps having one of the most over the top and awkward villain deaths in a movie that is suppose to be serious. There was also a lot of scenes of people pointing guns at each other but no one is shooting, which I found hard to swallow and just felt characters would pull the trigger sooner in those situations.

Also, the blood and gore is so over the top, to the point where it comes off as comically gratuitous and not sure if that was the right approach, since this movie wants to have deep things to say, but at the same time wants to cross over into grindhouse movie territory.

So not sure how I feel about the movie on a first viewing, and felt that it missed opportunities to go better places with the story perhaps, but what do you think?



Welcome to the human race...
I figure that, since most of the characters are ordinary teenagers who have never been in kill-or-be-killed situations, they are at least as likely to be reluctant to kill people (especially people they know) as to start firing straight away - the lighthouse shoot-out being an example of how the tension between characters has to reach a boiling point rather than start immediately (and how the characters who find it easiest to kill the others are either the "exchange students" or the class bully).

I never thought too much of the government's side of things - it's arguably a metaphor for sending the young off to war on flimsy pretenses (here the idea is that kids don't respect their elders anymore so the solution is...make them fight to the death?) so that's really all the definition the government's role in this film really needs. The adults' side comes through with the teacher who is himself a victim of teen violence, but does getting stabbed by one student give him the right to send thirty more to their deaths? That sense of unfair brutality extends to the violence, which is trying to evoke wartime horror (the director built on his own experiences as a teen in WWII Japan) and so most (if not all) of it is played for nastiness instead of coolness or humour.

That being said, if you do want more of an insight into the government's side of things, I might suggest the sequel (which is much more overt about that particular angle, even if it is in the service of some ham-fisted Bush-era political commentary).
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



a lot better than the seaqel



The movie also has a lot of weird moments in, such as perhaps having one of the most over the top and awkward villain deaths in a movie that is suppose to be serious. Also, the blood and gore is so over the top, to the point where it comes off as comically gratuitous and not sure if that was the right approach, since this movie wants to have deep things to say, but at the same time wants to cross over into grindhouse movie territory.
What's normal in Japan is really weird in the West.



I don't think that highly of it personally. It was hyped to death when i was a teen and finally seeing it a few years ago was a big disapointment. It's alright, some of the girls are awesome but i don't think it deserves the praise it gets.



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
One of my favourite films! I think that's largely because I had read the book before so I could fill in some of the plot holes. I vastly prefer it to The Hunger Games as well.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Perhaps the movie left some things out that the book did. I also prefer The Hunger Games, cause I feel the Hunger Games, even in the first movie, explained the government side more, but also, the violence and gore is not over the top comedic either. But even if the government side of things is just a metaphor, I though that it was interesting enough, that it should go beyond being just a metaphor, and actually give it some further insight.

As for the kids not wanting to kill or be killed, it would be killing in a self defense situation. Like for example, in the end the two kids point the gun at their teacher, but they don't shoot even though the teacher has a loaded gun, so I'm thinking c'mon shoot! He started all this, so there is no need to feel guilty about it, shooting in self defense.



Survivor 5s #2 Bitch
See, THG following one person's perspective ruined it I feel. I couldn't care less when a kid in that died because they were shown for a split second, and because the violence was so restrained it was like they just fell over. Whereas in BR every death is striking in some form or another because it follows a whole bunch of characters, instead of one. It's exaggerated because these are fifteen year olds murdering each other as a result of society gone wrong.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
One of my favourite films! I think that's largely because I had read the book before so I could fill in some of the plot holes. I vastly prefer it to The Hunger Games as well.
I really enjoyed it as well and no, I never bothered with Hunger Games either. Battle Royale didn't feel like a movie for teens to me.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Well even if the The Hunger Games is for teens, I felt that it perhaps took itself more seriously as a teen movie, than Battle Royale did as an adult movie, if that makes sense.



Welcome to the human race...
Perhaps the movie left some things out that the book did. I also prefer The Hunger Games, cause I feel the Hunger Games, even in the first movie, explained the government side more, but also, the violence and gore is not over the top comedic either. But even if the government side of things is just a metaphor, I though that it was interesting enough, that it should go beyond being just a metaphor, and actually give it some further insight.
Maybe so. A key difference is that The Hunger Games has to establish a whole new universe so it needs to develop its own history and politics, whereas Battle Royale is just set in a present-day Japan that's trying to address certain sociopolitical ills - at least the former's fantasy setting helps it avoid the implausibility that would come about if Japan actually set up a Battle Royale. As noted, the sequel gets more overt about its government's workings due to its military-themed plot, but most people consider it inferior to the original anyway so make of that what you will.

As for the kids not wanting to kill or be killed, it would be killing in a self defense situation. Like for example, in the end the two kids point the gun at their teacher, but they don't shoot even though the teacher has a loaded gun, so I'm thinking c'mon shoot! He started all this, so there is no need to feel guilty about it, shooting in self defense.
As I recall, by that point the main characters still hadn't killed anyone (the girl can't bring herself to do it given her earlier friendship with the teacher while the boy has to work up the nerve to do it) so the teacher has to straight-up threaten them then and there for them to do anything to him.



You can't win an argument just by being right!
Well even if the The Hunger Games is for teens, I felt that it perhaps took itself more seriously as a teen movie, than Battle Royale did as an adult movie, if that makes sense.
Yes that makes perfect sense, and if that's the way you feel about it that's perfectly fine. There is nothing wrong with teen genre so my comment wasnt a poke, and you dont have to feel the same about a movie as me or anyone else, Pony. Go with your POV. If you dont feel as great about a movie as mofos who really liked it, that's OK, matey.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Maybe so. A key difference is that The Hunger Games has to establish a whole new universe so it needs to develop its own history and politics, whereas Battle Royale is just set in a present-day Japan that's trying to address certain sociopolitical ills - at least the former's fantasy setting helps it avoid the implausibility that would come about if Japan actually set up a Battle Royale. As noted, the sequel gets more overt about its government's workings due to its military-themed plot, but most people consider it inferior to the original anyway so make of that what you will.



As I recall, by that point the main characters still hadn't killed anyone (the girl can't bring herself to do it given her earlier friendship with the teacher while the boy has to work up the nerve to do it) so the teacher has to straight-up threaten them then and there for them to do anything to him.
Oh okay. There is something I didn't get about the movie being set in present day Japan. I thought it was set in the future, cause kids are recruited to fight to death in a contest, so wouldn't that make the setting around 20 years from when the movie came out, to believe that laws would change for such a contest and all that?

Also, the movie shows Japan as having this sport, like it's a big national thing, with the media broadcasting a new winner in the opening. But yet when the school kids are on a bus and arrive their, they are taken totally by surprise, by the situation they are now in.

If this is a big national sport, shouldn't the kids have seen it coming that they were going there as a possibility?