User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1442 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Mar 30, 2012
    4
    Disappointed. I hope they do better in Catching Fire and Mockingjay. I love the books, i love the actors. I just can't imagine someone else playing the roles of Katniss, Peeta, Gale, Effie, Prim and Haymitch. But please, I beg whoever is concerned with this franchise. Do better with the next installment.
  2. Mar 30, 2012
    4
    Ok seriously this movie is a drama. It reminded me of twilight. Mostly talking and almost no fight scenes. At least on TV when they advertise they make it look more like an action moive , WRONG! This movie tries to make you sad and that's it.
  3. Mar 31, 2012
    8
    i am intrigued by the concept of the book that seems to mock our Reality Show era, which even though not as extreme as life vs death, but more like we're enjoying watching people destroy other people. I guess Gary Ross did gave the book justice. Not all of my favorite scene are there, I also have to say that the book is much more brutal, but as a PG-13 movie, it's quite entertaining. The cast also great and fit perfectly for their character. Expand
  4. Mar 31, 2012
    5
    Having never read the book/s, I went in to this movie with high hopes. It failed on several different levels. Like Stephan Kings "The Long Walk" the ending was predictable, and a let down. I might someday flip through the book, and will hope the director failed miserably at translation. Until that time comes, this movie will remain a failure! Although it was slightly watchable, I kept expecting something. But after 2 hours 22 mins, I was left only with expectation... Expand
  5. Mar 31, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. i'm not saying this was a bad movie, but the cinematography was absolutely horrible and the story line was average. The acting all round was very good, especially Jennifer Lawrence who was amazing as Katniss. The story line never really gripped me at any point in the film, normally you should feel engaged from beginning to end, yet I never did. Finally the worst part of the film, the camera work, the shaky cam is completely over used, making me feel disorientated throughout the entire film. I could understand if they used it just for fights, i would be fine, but they use it in the most inappropriate of places, like a man eating a piece of bread. It's not the worst film i have ever seen, but it's not the best and it's easily forgettable. Expand
  6. Mar 31, 2012
    8
    The Hunger Games is a pretty good film but I think if it took more risks and didn't stick to a safe script it could have been excellent. Jennifer Lawrence put on a really good performance and the movie seem to shine around her. I am looking forward to the next chapter of The Hunger Games
  7. Apr 1, 2012
    10
    When a movie can keep my husband (who works nights and usually dozes off during matinees) awake and inspire me to purchase and read the book (which at the time I had not) and leave us both wanting for more you know it's got to be good. This is the best movie I've seen in a long time. I'm about half way through the book now and can understand why some find the movie off putting...there is more character development in the book but as far as an onscreen adaptation goes I think they did an excellent job. You can't get everything in a book on screen in the just over a couple of hours. Kept me on the edge of my seat and had me bawling like a baby at parts...Can't believe Hollywood got one right for a change...seems like we've had a dry spell for a few years now...definitely worth the price of admission which these days is saying a lot. Expand
  8. Apr 1, 2012
    8
    Overrall great book to movie. It did a great job showing dramatizing the games and making the audience feel what a tribute would feel. I thought all of the actors(ress) were great picks for the movie, except Peeta. I pictured him to be tougher and stronger. My only complaint is the shaky camera (along with everyone else) covering up the violent action during the hunger games. I feel they cheaped out. They could have showed more. I mean look at Dark Knight. Spoiler: The only other complaint is the dogs at the end. I feel they could have kept it true to the book and added an even darker aspect to the games. But overrall a great book to movie adaptation. Expand
  9. Apr 1, 2012
    6
    Coming from the perspective of someone who hasn't read the books yet (although I really should get to doing that), The Hunger Games raises a lot of questions that end up unanswered by the end of the film. How did a dystopian society like Penam get founded and take hold in the first place? What world order would let a nation that forces children to fight and kill each other to exist? What were the justifications and causes of the war? Why are the citizens of Penam who live outside the districts so ostentatious? It would have been nice if this background history was clarified. Instead, the film treats you as if you already know why, which puts those who have read the books at a great advantage over those who haven't. The overall pacing of the film felt rushed and the transitions from scene to scene felt slightly abrupt. And then there is a complete lack of focus on practically all the characters except Katniss. I mean just look at Gale. For a character who I've read is supposed to be the third most important character after Katniss and Peeta, his role in this film was all but shafted to a few inconsequential chit-chats with Katniss and staring at the screen watching the games at various points in the film. This lack of development continues on to Haymitch, Effie, and Cinna, who are so underdeveloped that it leaves their characters ambiguous as to whether they are truly good or evil. Acting wise, Jennifer Lawrence clearly out-acts everyone else in the film. Her ability to convey a broad-spectrum of emotions is superb. Stanley Tucci is at the bottom of the acting list. I don't really know if he was having problems getting suited to his role, but his whole performance came off as forced and uncomfortable. Technically, the film was great at conveying psychological intensity, which is a major plus for an action film like this. Other pluses include great visual effects, great costume, set and makeup design, a great soundtrack made possible by the collaboration of various musicians, and most of all, not embellishing the violence of the kids killing each other (thank you). There is still room for development in the next two films, but overall, the movie is a whole heck of a lot better than most other action films (especially ones adapted from books). Expand
  10. Apr 4, 2012
    10
    Why are some people so negative about this movie? It seems very entertaining to me. I just don't get it? Haven't they all heard that if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all? I know a lot of people say it is very different from the book but, who cares? Some people didn't read the book yet and they saw the movie and they say it is good. Anyways that is just my opinion. I really am looking forward in the next movie Catching Fire next year! Expand
  11. Apr 1, 2012
    6
    While the background story and universe of this movie are compelling enough, the actual plot of the movie left me with a few unanswered questions. Action scenes and special effects were decent at best, and the ending felt too easy and rushed. The characters are thin as cardboard and their motivations never become clear. I also feel the creators could have done more with the psychological consequences of mortal kid combat than the occasional random outburst into tears. In the end, it's not a bad movie, it's decent enough to recommend it to anyone, but don't expect a top notch action film. Expand
  12. Apr 2, 2012
    4
    It's not a bad film.... It really isn't... Sure the beginning to me felt like a an average flick that you see on SciFi, just changing the channel when you're board and have nothing to watch. One thing I liked though was a really charismatic was Woody Harrelson playing the drunk. The only winner from district 12. The poor district. And the environment of the setting, 12 districts that separate the classes of rich and poor. How well the story could give to sympathize others and root for the underdog. The ever so awesome characters like Rue or how we could fall in love with Katniss's bad ass audition into the Hunger Games. Seems interesting, but not really realistic. Main characters look well groomed despite being poor, the plot had huge holes in order to create the story, a Twilight-esque romance, an one dimensional enemies, cliches here and there.

    You'd must be teenager in order to get you're mind blown for this bland-fest, otherwise it will leave you asking more questions or not fully satisfied. For those who would give this a perfect rating, would feel satisfied. But for serious film fans, it could leave you craving more better tasting grub.
    Expand
  13. Apr 2, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I read the books and was dying to see it the day it came out and I have to say, I was not disappointed. The CGI and acting were both a lot better than I thought they would be. The movie was not at all brought down a notch violence wise for kids. Many people who saw the movie actually think it should have been rated R. One of my favorite things with this movie is that it stayed almost exactly with the book. Many big blockbuster films based off of books are so drastically changed that it completely ruins the story for all of those who read the book originally. all in all, i would rate this a solid 9.5 out of 10. It doesn't deserve a 10 in my opinion because I feel like the beginning part when Katniss is in District 12 before the Reaping was way too short and you didn't really get to know Gale and how Katniss feels for him. Expand
  14. Apr 3, 2012
    9
    Fantastic movie. Very friendly towards all audiences above 10. Action packed, emotional and entertaining. One of the only criticisms I can say is that there was some sloppy scenes and direction. Im sure the next one will be much more professional looking.
  15. Apr 3, 2012
    6
    I saw the movie before reading the book, my main desire to read the book was a lack of satisfaction with the movie and having read and seen both I think I understand why. The main problem with the movie adaptation is a lack of emotional connection to the characters, I found it difficult to care about the characters because there simply was not much depth to them. In the book Katniss shows a certain vulnerability, particularly before the games, that is simply not conveyed in the film. She's confused, she's distrustful of Peeta, etcetera. She's essentially both scared and conflicted but putting on a brave face, and in the film the only sense I got was "brave face" with no depth behind it. This is a problem because the audience cannot relate to her to the level that is necessary. I think the movie could have used more close ups of her face, and maybe just more pantomime sort of acting, show us how she feels through her face, let us see her thinking, see the glimmer of fear and the grabbing hold of resolve. Instead she's stone-faced the whole time, and she does things without the audience seeing in her face the reason for her doing those things. The best part of the movie is the 5 minutes or so leading up to, and directly following the start of the game. Because we see her scared, and the start of the games has a very non-graphic but visceral feel to it but everything that follows is just not that interesting. The actor cast as peeta was also a poor choice. Myself and my company simply did not care for him as a character. The movie also shows a lot of behind the scenes footage, showing Seam when the games are being broadcast, showing the gamemakers, etcetera. None of this really adds to the movie. Sometimes it explains what's going on, or is a substitute for Katniss's own thoughts in the novel but the scenes are just not that compelling. Watching people manipulate computers is never that compelling. And while they give reason for things happening, they don't explain the mechanism for things happening and in that regard they do a disservice because my suspension of disbelief was torn a few times. Overall the movie had a lot of potential, but we as the audience simply don't care because we aren't given characters that we can care about. If the movie focused more on Katniss, showed the great depth of her emotion and her inner conflict, we would see her as more of a person and would relate to her struggle a lot more. Expand
  16. Apr 3, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The start of the film was very promising, setting up the film well. It showed the relationships between characters brilliantly for the short amount of time there was to do that in. The relationship between Catniss and her sister,Prim, was particularly well done, and you could at least see that there was some sort of history between Catniss and her mother. The only thing that could of been explained much better in the introduction was the absence of the father. The other thing that was done well was the history of the country Panem. Although many readers of the book might have felt disappointed with it, I felt that it showed us just enough so that we weren't clueless about it's history and it didn't drag on too much.

    After the start, the plot started to run around like a headless chicken. Haymitch, played by Woody Harrelson, drifted around cluelessly. Although he did make me laugh at points, his attitude towards the tributes changes so dramatically from careless to caring for no reason at all except from the fact that Catniss stabbed a butter knife between his fingers. This made it hard for me to think of him as a meaningful character for the rest of the film. Although Cinna wasn't badly played I struggled to find where his sudden "obssesion" (couldn't think of a better word) with Catniss comes from. And finally the relationship between Peeta and Catniss. I thought there would be a proper explanation from the director about there history because there were flashbacks throughout the film leading up to it but really all that it revealed is that once Peeta threw Catniss a bit of bread and now they are having a big love, hate relationship because of it. Couldn't they of just told us that at the start of the film and saved the big flashback thing for Catniss's dad dieing (which you only get a hint of once in Tracker Jacker scene. I think the training leading up to the games was the worst done bit of the film.

    However the bit of the film during the games wasn't much better. Although they made the best of what is probably the hardest bit to adapt of the film it still fell short on a number of things like character development but most of all the acting itself! Catniss and Peeta were both very good obviously. But the acting of some of Cato's gang like Glimmer is just appaling. Come on. This is a major Hollywood blockbuster. The scene when Catniss has climbed up a tree and they're chasing after her wanted to make me laugh, cry and puke at the same time. The way she squeals in delight and bagsies killing Catniss is laughable at how cheesy it is. It reminded me of a cackling witch in a crap local village pantomime. The other terribly acted scene is the on where a girl (can't remember who) is being stung by tracker jackers and is calling for help. It reminded me of the witch in the Wizard of Oz crying "I'm melting, MELTING!" It's cringable. The other terrible thing is the way that the love between Peeta and Catniss comes out of nowhere. It doesn't explain it like it does in the book that for Catniss it's a tactic to win and get sponsors but for Peeta it's real.

    But one thing that I do give The Hunger Games credit for is it's ability not to bore you. It could very easily be one of the most boring films of all time as although the book is very good it has parts where there is not so much action. The director managed to not cut these parts out put curve round them. Another thing I credit this film with is it's 50/50 chesiness. They've done it perfectly. While not making it to dark and unhollywoody they've also made it not too "Disney". The bit that really proved my point is the bit where there about to eat the berry (Yes it would of been better if they had eaten the berry but come on that's not going to happen) and instead of making it all dramatic and and making the gamemaker say in slow motion with crappy music, "Nooooooooo...wait. You win. We are the bad guys and we have lost", the gamemaker splutters as though really panicked and with no cheesy music, "Wait, wait, ur... both of you can win" which made the whole cinema laugh and really redeemed the film for me. All I can say about this film to sum it up is that it's better than Twilight, go and see it if you want and that I'm not eagerly awaiting the sequel at all.
    Expand
  17. Apr 3, 2012
    8
    The Hunger Games is not like Harry Potter or Twilight Saga, let's say we must trust the hype. It's thrilling and touching. Gary Ross put this movie-based-on-book more exciting with his hand. Thanks to solid acting from Lawrence.
  18. Apr 4, 2012
    10
    A cinema viewing of this soft Sci-Fi phenomenon, Jennifer Lawrence is the only impetus for me and the aftermath is unexpectedly satisfactory, with several inevitable grudges, among which is the shakily giddying cinematography, it may intend to be stylish, however one should not stay too much nearer the screen and it is not well-manipulated.

    The film is nerve-absorbing in its narrative
    particularly before the game time, the stunning sets and inhabitants tableaux of the rich capitol is better-than-expectedly glistening, but when the children-slaughtering begins, there is deficit in imagination and the SFX mainly falls flat.

    The film has already whisked away a TWILIGHT-sega triumph in the North American market, of which the worldwide popularity may fall short, but the sensational trend is irreversible, and as myself has completely sidelined TWILIGHT-sega, THE HUNGER GAMS is on a long run to be conquering an even wider demography (a more maturer one for sure). The performances are pleasantly orchestrated, an Oscar-nominated Jennifer Lawrence does strike a memorable and convincing embodiment of our heroin, imbues her a role-model paradigm for the young generation around her age, she is invincible in nearly all her scenes, grabbing all the attention and only a polychromatic talk-show host spoofer Stanley Tucci could steal some meager thunder from her. Among others, Josh Hutcherson is controversially add some juice to the flavor, I havenâ
    Expand
  19. Apr 4, 2012
    10
    At first, I thought the book was borrowing a lot from the "Battle Royale" massacre concept, but "The Hunger Games" is an apparent more structured "Battle Royale" and its content is carefully thought.

    I'd say the book is more detailed, but the movie did not miss the elements that made the story disturbingly satisfactory. Hollywood's tradition to produce the bestselling novel was a joke
    until Jennifer Lawrence got the lead. Expand
  20. Apr 4, 2012
    8
    I read the book before I saw the movie and I've got to say that it really does stay true to the book most of the time. The Hunger Games really had me on an emotional roller coaster for a while. I thought the casting was well done and Jennifer really stole the show. There were some scenes in the end that I thought should have been fleshed out more. Those scenes were really emotional in the book but in the movie they were a bit abbreviated. All in all, The Hunger Games is a very enjoyable movie that does not disappoint. Expand
  21. Apr 5, 2012
    9
    Now, this film isn't incredible, but it fulfilled everything I had hopes for when I went into the cinema. I think a lot of the scenes were done done very well, and it made me feel very tense, which is good. The only bad thing I could say about it was there were a few cliches that they used, but all in all it was a good film, at least, I enjoyed it, and that's why I gave it the score that I did.
  22. Apr 5, 2012
    6
    A lot of hype and little substance to back up what should be a very intelligent thriller. While hardly mindless fun, the film misses a number of opportunities to really build the world leaving non readers confused and uninterested. It's not really until the battles that you might become remotely engaged in what's going on but even that's a stretch. The first half of the movie flies by with little background about why the Hunger Games are done the way they are, why there was an uprising to begin with and who these people in the Capitol are and their motivations for watching children slaughter each other on live TV.

    The characters are strikingly bland and undeveloped and the relationship is just thrown in there to appeal to Twilight Fans. We don't know much about our main character other than she comes from a Coal Mining town and her father died somehow. (presumably in an accident or something). Her mother is a zoned out space cadet leaving Kat to care for her sister or something. The constant shaking of the camera is distracting and downright obnoxious, the first half of the movie I kept saying "hold the camera still." It's so tiring seeing shaking camera under the BS reason of "causing confusion" especially in a film that's supposed to be about the gravity of this sick and twisted game. I can't tell who's killed and I can't find my self caring. I don't know who anyone is or why they matter. The saving grass is an impressive score by James Newton Howard who actually managed to make an interesting music score this time. The film gives enough substance to make it interesting and worth checking out the future sequels but still leaves a lot to be desired. The characters are boring, the story is rushed, there's no exposition or reason for anyone to care. Bring a motion sickness bag if you are prone to an upset stomach.
    Expand
  23. Apr 5, 2012
    5
    Mediocre movie adaptation from a great book. I read the book and was looking forward to seeing it come to life. I really loved the capital scenes and the arena: just what I pictured. I also pictured the casting of Haymitch, Cinna and Katness but Josh cast as Peeta just wasnt as i pictured. The character development was the biggest flaw i felt from the movie. I got nothing from Katniss or Peeta. I didnt believe that Peeta had a deep love for Katniss. Nor did they go in any detail about Katniss' past. Haymitch isnt a drunk nor did they tell much about his back story or his role in the story. It really just seemed like they left out alot of detail from the books, assuming that the viewers already read the books. This created some plot holes, and really the movie should be separate from the book. Its not the best movie ever like some uber fans say. A good rent. Expand
  24. Apr 5, 2012
    10
    What an excellent film. Having read the books, i love the way Gary Ross brought the highly acclaimed book to the big screen. Yes it had its differences from the book, but wow he did an amazing job. The parts that were missing from the books were understandable because he had to appeal to the audience that didn't read the book and help them understand the development of the story and the plot. The character development was the biggest flaw i saw in the film. It seemed very weak. I read the books yet i didn't feel anything for Gale and his relationship with Katniss in the movie, and the actor for Peeta was very weak, but you can't expect picture perfect acting from a newcomer like him. Same with Katniss and Rue's relationship, it wasn't built up nearly as much as it was in the book, yet the movie was already 2 and a half hours so its understandable. Overall though this film was just beautiful. The development to the games was perfect, the games themself were perfect and the way they brought the capitol and district 12 to life was perfect, exactly as i pictured it in the book. The action was very well done as well. This movie was almost perfect with just a few minor flaws. I'd give it a 9.5/10 but ill round it up to 10/10. Whether you have or have not read the books, you will love this movie for sure. Thank you Gary Ross (director) for bringing one of our favorite books to life in a beautiful way. Expand
  25. Apr 6, 2012
    5
    It had a few interesting ideas, unfortunately it was let down by a confused, forced love-story seemingly aimed at the Twilight audience. The action scenes had potential yet because the film was a 12a it was barely allowed to explore them, resorting to jumpy cuts from certain fights to give the impression of brutality. Before the Hunger Games themselves, the film was heading in the right direction, however once we arrive at the big event, what takes place is at times nonsensical.
    At the end of the day, the film falls prey to the same issue that most book to film adaptations face, there's simply not enough screen time to explore the story in-depth.
    Expand
  26. Apr 6, 2012
    5
    Yes, I have read the books. Maybe I'm a little biased, but this movie was disappointing. Yes, it was entertaining. Yes, most of the acting is done well. But, that doesn't excuse all the stuff they cut out. It wasn't even that they cut out important stuff, they just SHORTENED important stuff. There was not enough time spent developing the relationships between the characters. There was especially not enough time spent developing Katniss and Rue. Same thing with Katniss and Peeta. Another problem is that this movie assumes that you read the book, so it doesn't bother to explain a lot of stuff. Overall, it was entertaining, but I will NOT be buying this when it comes out on DVD. Expand
  27. Apr 6, 2012
    5
    I was expecting more. Also kids killing kids did not sit well with me. I guess I'm okay with that. The day I am okay with that I need to see a psychiatrist.
  28. Apr 6, 2012
    5
    NOTE: IF YOU HAVE READ THE BOOK: MAKE THIS A 7/10. TL;DR THE MOVIE WOULD'VE BEEN POTENTIAL FOR BEST PICTURE BUT IT IS RUINED BY ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE PACING AND CHARACTER/WORLD DEVELOPMENT. The acting is superb (Especially Woody Harrelson as Haymitch) the visuals/audio stunning, and it follows rather well with the book. It paints an excellent image from the book. So why does it have a 5/10? Two reasons: Pacing and Character/World Development. The pacing was absolute crap. So crap it brings the score down by 2 points. With the 2 1/2 hours of the film, some scenes were uselessly prolonged (ESPECIALLY THE BEGINNING. The book had a long beginning, but it used it to explain the story), and could've been used to develop and explain the story. Character/World Development? For those who haven't read the book, this movie will be very confusing. It doesn't explain the purpose of the Districts, who most of the people are, the reasons behind the actions done, and generally what's going on. Who was that old guy with the big white beard? President Snow. Who was that guy with the strange stubble beard? Seneca Crane, the Head Gamemaker. Who was that cat at the beginning? Buttercup, one of Prim's pets, who only tolerates Katniss. Why is it called the "Hunger" games? Because most of the districts are in poverty, and many people starve to death. The winner of the Hunger Games get out of that poverty, and the district gets some extra food. What happened to District 13? It was destroyed by the Capitol during the Dark Days of the rebellion (No, this isn't a spoiler. This is backstory known by all the characters), as a demonstration of the Capitol's power and because it's possible to live without graphite. If you just watched the film without reading the book, you wouldn't know any of that stuff. So much potential ruined. sigh Expand
  29. Apr 7, 2012
    9
    Very close to the book, don't know what people are whining about. Only bad thing was shaky camera in first 15 minutes, then later in "distress" scenes. Totally unnecessary and annoying. Yes book is better, but what can you do in 2 hours and 13 min? Pretty much what they did. I do hope to see extended scenes of Peeta's injury and reaction by Katniss as they have to operate on him in the DVD. Other than that, everything was great. Expand
  30. Apr 8, 2012
    5
    This movie was a good but lacking adaptation of a great book. There are significant shortenings and unnecessary switches to make this movie PG 13. I understand the fact that in order to achieve significant revenue this movie had to be adaptable to a larger audience but it ripped the core of the story. i sutil recomendar watching it, but You WILL need to fill the gaps by reading the book.
  31. Apr 8, 2012
    10
    I haven't read the book but it made perfect sense to me. As far as blockbusters go it was pretty darn good. It's a difficult thing to do a film like this well but they managed it, and in the process created something of a classic for our times.
  32. Apr 8, 2012
    5
    The movie is just as shallow as the book. There's little depth, zero character development, and the technology that The Capitol exudes is entirely unbelievable. 1. Shaking-camera approach was the wrong choice. The director was going for that voyeuristic, narrow-perspective, suspenseful feeling but it just ends up giving the viewer a headache. I found myself squinting at the screen for the first half of the movie (shakiness seems to absolve once the tributes arrive in the arena), and I found myself rubbing my eyes more than paying attention.

    2. If The Capitol has the technology to spawn biological entities out of thin air (the dogs), then why would they need coal mining production, which was the entire purpose of District 12? The flamboyance of The Capitol suggests that technology has evolved far beyond coal burning. Nanotechnology, anti-gravity propulsion systems? Whew man, that's a big hole.

    3. Just to have a third item... all of those tributes sure are GOOD LOOKING for being so poor. And why weren't there any fat tributes? One last thing: If these Hunger Games have been going on for close to 75 years, wouldn't every district by now train their tributes?
    Expand
  33. Apr 8, 2012
    5
    I have never read the books but I can tell you the movie is so flawed that I could write a book about it. At first, it seems like they could not decide on whether they wanted to make a serious film or a campy film to show to people really stoned for midnight weekend films. The futuristic utopia image was a joke as the film projected a country that was half Star Trek and half the Dark Ages. I thought the sets looked cheap and Woody Harrellson looked liked Tom Petty. Once they got around to the games, the film really lost any sense of reality as the one focused on 4 or 5 of the participants and we never saw anything about the others. The film has zero character development, plot development, and the history behind the games was never really explained. Lawrence spent most of her time sleeping in a tree while my film going partner spent her time looking at her watch. Hunger Games is close to being a movie you would see on Mystery Science Fiction Theather. It made Avatar look a classic . You can see the sequels coming but I will not go. Expand
  34. Apr 8, 2012
    7
    Movie, great. Actors, great. Plot, special effects, sounds, great, great, great.

    SUPER SHAKY CAMERA: I got a headache about half of the way through this movie and had to close my eyes so I didn't throw up. The camera ruined the whole movie for me, which is unfortunate because after reading the book, I was incredibly psyched.
  35. Apr 9, 2012
    9
    I actually really liked this movie. The acting was amazing, the movie was similar to the book, and I felt a lot of real emotions during this. This movie was just what I imagined in the book. Jennifer Lawrence did a particularly good job as Katniss, and the special effects were mostly good. Two things I didn't like were the fire coming from the tributes from District 12, and how the camera shook unnecessarily. I enjoyed this as I had read the book, but I reckon if you didn't read the book you would be quite confused as there was not a huge explanation and background. I am complimenting the book here, but I loved the plot and idea it. Overall, amazing! Full review here on my blog: http://seungsviews.blogspot.com/2012/04/movie-review-hunger-games.html Expand
  36. Apr 9, 2012
    4
    Its a bit **** just some girl crying for about 6 hours. I would say its a cross between Battle Royale and Twilight. It bigs these two people up like there these amazing people with awesome powers, and they hardly get used. The main guy in it supposed to have this amazing throw and he doesnt even throw anything throughout the film.
  37. Apr 9, 2012
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Youâ Expand
  38. Apr 10, 2012
    4
    Honestly, the movie was just averagely good in terms of story line. It was really strange how subtle they touch on the story of the girl's family & friends back home. For example the role of the guy back at her hometown who likes her was not told much. Personally, there were many incomplete and insignificant scenes in the movie which makes it too long. However, the survival part was a bit interesting. The graphic was a bit poor, not up to my expectation, especially when the 12 districts march across the stadium. It was too fake for me. A so-so movie. Expand
  39. Apr 10, 2012
    8
    The Hunger Games is a good movie. Not fanboy amazing, not hater terrible. It's good. As it is in most movies, there are a lot of little details that were taken out, but the details weren't necessary to the story. That said, the movie is definitely better if you've read the book. Is the book the difference between a 3 and an 8? No. It's the difference between an 8 and a 6. The movie has action, great acting, good looking actors and an actual plot. The movie stands well on it's own, but it is best enjoyed if you've read the book first. If you've read the book, you automatically fill in all the missing pieces, and that creates a wholesome, spectacular visual representation of the book. The movie shouldn't be criticized for leaving details out, the books should be criticized for having too much detail. That said, I definitely urge you to read the book and THEN go see the movie, but the movie is great on it's own, and worth seeing either way. (JENNIFER LAWRENCE!!! Expand
  40. Apr 11, 2012
    8
    My wife and I like science fiction, and I particularly like this kind, where a social phenomenon that we think could not happen serves to reveal humanity and challenge our perceptions. I think this movie does both. I do not know how it compares to the book, but I will read it eventually. The movie version of the story is very well made. It does not have any slow moments and the photography is very well done. I really found nothing to complain about. The story is very interesting. When I think back on it I ponder on her choices. She never initiates the attack on a human. Her sole attack is on the supplies. She is defensive and conserving. This contrasts with the gang, which is narcissistic, arrogant and a killing machine. You have to wonder what holds the group together. They all know that at some point the gang will turn on each member till only one is left. At some point it would have made sense if two members of the gang tried to take out the alpha. Wouldn't that, if successful, have increased their chances of winning? It would have illustrated the nature of that gang. That mused, I think the nature was amply illustrated. Definitely go see it. Expand
  41. Apr 11, 2012
    6
    The Hunger Games is, a decent movie, I could say. It starts with Katniss, you fanboys know her, right? Well she is a dull character that has no reason for the audience to want her to win. As that continues, the plot expands, and the plot is great. Should keep viewers interested in this clever, expanding plot; despite it's simularities to "Most Dangerous Game". Anyways, Peeta, is another dull character. In fact, all the characters are. I can name a list of films that had begter characters. But then, I feel how the film was overall. In the end, it's an okay film, perhaps for the better than for the worse. I recommend this film, overall. Expand
  42. Apr 12, 2012
    7
    The sci-fi elements, the characters, and situations were engaging and thought-provoking. But the story-telling was weak as there was very little tension,and the action scenes were difficult to follow and resolved too quickly. Worse, the movie had NO climax and then was abruptly over after a brief battle with a weak cliche antagonist and some poorly conceived CGI wolf creatures. Overall, I walked away satisfied but disappointed. Expand
  43. Apr 16, 2012
    8
    THE HUNGER GAMES is a raw and brutal vision of the future, where annually two tributes from each of the twelve districts in Panem (once the United States) fight to the death in the Hunger Games, a fight to the death that is televised for the world to see. The film has a brilliant premise, and remained perfectly true to the book.
  44. Apr 12, 2012
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. this film is an OK process of the book but deferentially needed to be worked on especially the explaining of her father. this film did well with the costumes and the acting but the scene between Katniss and Peeta is not something i would of put them together for. this made the atmosphere disrupting and course them both to not look in love but having more of a "i have to do this if i want money" so over all 7.5 is my rating and i'm hoping this film makes up for it the second time round. Expand
  45. Apr 13, 2012
    8
    Just the plot alone gets an A from me for originality. I get sick to my stomach when I see so many cliche movies that are just carbon copies of some other unoriginal idea. This movie is of course suspenseful which is one of my fav things about seeing a movie edge of your seat moments. I always say movies coulda been better but thats cuz its always true no matter what. It was like 2 n a half hours I woulda liked more dialogue to get a better feel of the times they live in and what not. I recommend it though definitely. I will probably be borrowing my girlfriends hunger games books now to compare to the film. Expand
  46. Apr 13, 2012
    10
    I thoroughly enjoyed both the book and film of "The Hunger Games". The cast was chosen correctly and the scenes were made both hooking and exciting. Despite a few changes to the film from the book, it was a great family film and i encourage you to see it!
  47. Apr 13, 2012
    5
    BORING! I'll say right off the bat that I didn't read any the "Books" (I am a 40-something female whose favorite genre is action sci-fi, i.e. Aliens, Terminator, Matrix, etc.) and was hoping for a good movie. Unfortunately, this movie was TOTALLY over-hyped and didn't deliver. If you like the kind of action that has lots of shots of the main character sleeping in a tree and her BIG strategic moves involving a hornet's nest and some berries, you will think this is great entertainment. I would have given it less than 5 stars, but because of the costumes/hair/makeup in the middle section of the movie (which were very well done), I bumped it up a couple. I think it is only for people who read the "Books" since they can fill in mentally what the movie lacked (which was A LOT). Expand
  48. Apr 13, 2012
    8
    this movie was very good i have not read the books yet but i love the storyline and the idea of the hunger games the whole setting is very unique and i will remember the characters for a while with there weird clothing and hair styles and colors and no this nothing like twilight this is actually good it takes place in the future and the was a war and people have to fight to the death, 20 of them from the 12 districts of the united states as punishment for the people of the districts rebelling for the poor conditions of the districts i would give this a 10 if they would have described the characters relationships with each other better Expand
  49. Apr 14, 2012
    6
    I didnt like this movie to much.
    It was boring to me.
    The concept behind it was retarded.
    Who has kids killing other kids?
    Straight from the start you just knew how it was going to turn out.
  50. Apr 14, 2012
    8
    Although it's runtime may seem a little too lengthy for some, The Hunger Games is an audacious drama/action with moments of pure, majestic thrill as Jennifer Lawrence gives an almost perfect portrayal as the outspoken Katniss Everdeen. Overall, it stands out from the action genre as a whole by providing solid acting, careful writing and intense fighting sequences that are certain to please the trilogy faithful. Expand
  51. Apr 14, 2012
    10
    The Hunger Games - 10/10 - The Hunger Games is inventive, inspirational and at times mind-blowing. It's not the greatest adaptation of the novel but this film stands alone. The shaky camera might be a little must but it's a brilliant way for this film that's about kids killing kids to bypass the MPAA and a R rating. Also a blockbuster of this nature made for under a hundred million and not being a total disaster is a feat within itself. Hunger Games is a must watch blockbuster in a randomly placed March! Expand
  52. Apr 15, 2012
    7
    The movie does not do justice to the book, nor to the characters. The character of Katmis is well portrayed by a talented actress. However the move seems more interested in the environment and techie tricks than in the depth of the characters that were developed in the book. ,How well one likes this movie may depend upon whether they have read the book first (thereby liking the movie more because they bring more to the movie than is in it), or having not not read the book , and being limited to what the movie actually portrays (which seems to be more Hollywood than Hunger Games). Unlike the excellent book, the movie seems to have chosen flash and style over substance. Expand
  53. Apr 15, 2012
    7
    As the early minutes of the movie unfolded, it seemed to me that its principal premise was assembled by prominent ideas that came before it. When the story reveals to us that young men and women would have to slaughter each other for survivalâ
  54. Apr 15, 2012
    8
    The hunger games is a riveting movie. It is amazingly in depth on fighting, but lacks actual story. Who are the people in the capitol? What do they mean by al the derogatory terms in the movie? What happened to the cat, buttercup. In my opinion, the movie itself is okay. They just need to express what is going on a little better. When the 12 districts were mentioned, would you wonder, which one has the edge or perhaps which one will lose? The political roles of each and every character, city, district, and action need to be present. What happened to the rebellious acts that were caused by the berries Peeta had. Were you able to understand what the heck was going on? In my opinion, you should at least read the book before watching the movie. Usually, all books have more detail than the movies, so most should just read the books before the movie!!!! Expand
  55. Apr 15, 2012
    5
    success does not imply quality. while you can't argue the fact that The Hunger Games is a box office success, the film itself is quite a let down. as with many teen novels that are adapted to film, the film displays a fundamentally poorly thought out execution. The plot is under developed, almost implying knowledge that can only be know from reading the book, an example of which is the relationship of the primary character (Katniss) with her Mother. The characters are underdeveloped and the plot lacks appeal. If you don't enjoy picking apart films, then you should enjoy it regardless of what anyone has to say. Expand
  56. Apr 16, 2012
    7
    even though the movie was 2 hours long, it failed to show all the important details in the book. maybe splitting it in 2 movies would have been a good idea? also, the movie was way less fun to watch if you haven't read the book. and i think an important job of a film that was based on a book is for it to be good on it's own right, as with lord of the rings. i haven't read the books and i still had a great time watching those.
    looking past these mistakes, i must admit that i liked the movie and was never bored watching it, but still, i had a feeling it could have been better.
    Expand
  57. Apr 16, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I never read the book. Many people consider that a negative. I consider it a benefit. I am able to judge the world not based on my expectations for the book's movie, but on my expectations for a movie in general. I am able to expect the movie to leave me without questions that could be answered by the novel.

    Overall, it was a solid movie - it had a unique story, a different atmosphere, and was produced beautifully with a competent balance of action and story. What it lacked it was character development and the occasional simply bad scripting and acting job (especially in the minor roles of newscasters and politicians).

    The setting is different - everything is big. The trains are big. The cities are big. The arenas are big. It combines the vastness of Star War's sci-fi with the bleak political corruption of 1984 to make an atmosphere that I haven't seen excessively much. Unfortunately, this setting really isn't emphasized. You see a massive train - for a few seconds before it goes straight inside. You notice that the government is merciless and corrupt, but this isn't a theme that is really developed at all. I feel like the entire political and physical landscape of the world of the Hunger Games goes to waste.

    Still, the story is one of competition, sacrifice, and, most importantly, survival. The characters must go to great physical and moral lengths - even abandoning their own attitude towards the world - to survive in an arena where survival isn't based on strength of arm, but on public view. In a plot contrary to many modern movies, the characters must actually try to get on society's "good side" to achieve their goals.

    Some scenes - such as a particular one where several youths are murdered almost pointlessly by each other - are downright grotesque, but open the viewer's mind to the idea that perhaps not every story has to follow set social standards and express traditional themes. Some scenes are intense - from fist-fights for survival, to desperate struggles to survive the wrath of nature (or "nature" as expressed by the overlords of the central competition), even to one or two cliche explosions (this is, after all, a modern sci-fi action movie).

    Very few scenes, however, are emotionally moving. The makers of the film definitely knew how to cast and write a great death scene, for example, but failed completely in giving us any emotional attachment to the dying character. Throughout the story, I really only felt attachment to the central character - all of the side characters were either evil or fodder for the evil ones. To top it off, only a handful of characters were well acted and scripted. Newscasters are given borderline cheesy scripts to introduce crucial plot elements. Villains behave and voice-act like 7-year olds stomping out an anthill. You have trouble being intimidated by a group of teens who giggles while they destroy their opponents.

    The ending left a little wanting. The setting, as I said, is a 1984-esque politically corrupt world that is not developed in the slightest. At the end, the setting is the same. Neither side has gained any ground. All that has happened is a competition. And while I applaud a self-contained story, this disturbing lack of closure can't go overlooked.

    Overall, it was a solid film. I wish I could have given it a 7.5, because honestly it doesn't deserve an 8. No movie should be judged by the book it is based on, but no movie based on a book should rely on the book it is based on. Overall, the Hunger Games doesn't rely on the novel - it explains most things well - but it lacks the character development and, well, non-cheesy introduction of plot elements that it needs.
    Expand
  58. Apr 17, 2012
    9
    What a fantastic, action-jammed film 'The Hunger Games' is! Perfect casting and fact-paced visuals make it one of the most exciting films of the 21st Century so far.
  59. Apr 18, 2012
    7
    Went to see this movie to see what all the teenaged fans were buzzing about, seeing as it has done very well at the box-office. I had only known the premise from a brief synopsis of the book series but had not had any interest. I did enjoy the movie, though as a dystopian future, its not that unusual. I'm sure the young readers to which this genre is new would be impressed by the premise of the story but for veteran consumers of speculative fiction, a lot of this will seem to be old hat. I liked the supporting cast, in particular Caitness' fashion stylist portrayed by Lenny Kravitz was a hoot. I also enjoyed the brief yet menacing presence of Donald Sutherland as the President. The young actors did a good job and played their roles in a nice restrained manner which didn't annoy me like actors in many movies aimed at teenaged audiences tend to do as I've gotten older. Jennifer Lawrence seems to have a bright future in front of her. Expand
  60. Apr 18, 2012
    7
    I liked the film but I nearly got up and walked out as soon as the shaky camera work began. Its a lazy filmmakers attempt to gin up anxiety. I was a little surprised to see a cautionary tale on authoritarian government in this age of nanny stateism and political correctness. Perhaps the next generations rebelliousness will be to return us to constitutional government and liberty. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I can hope. Expand
  61. Apr 19, 2012
    9
    I am no Hunger Games nerd. That is to say, I read the books, but I am not obsessed by them. I didn't even liked the second two that much. I did, however, like the first book in the series. Quite a bit actually. So, it came as a surprise to me when I enjoyed the movie even more than the book. In case you have, somehow, missed reading the book(s), The Hunger Games is an annual event that occurs in a not-so-future-future time, when one girl and boy from each district (24 children in all) is randomly selected to battle to the death in a glamorous and ferocious televised event. Katniss volunteers as a tribute when her younger sister, Prim, is selected to be in the Hunger Games. Now Katniss must somehow survive the treacheries of the Hunger Games, and show the Capitol she is no pawn in their game. The Hunger Games is, as one would expect, extremely intense. Children heartlessly killing each other to survive. And it's goes beyond shooting from afar. Combat occurs within tripping distance. Slashing of knives, snapping of necks, all these duels between children between the ages of 12 and 18. But The Hunger Games is PG-13 (as opposed to R), so the violence is portrayed in a way, in which you don't see much of the actual killing. You just know what is implied. The camera is placed at strategic angles so that you may see some blood and the attack, but not the knife or the ax digging into the child's flesh. Actually, it's all very tame, considering the subject. I'm not the kind of person that can watch a lot of gore, so this was perfectly fine with me. Now that I've got all that boring stuff regarding the violence out of the way, I can start sharing my opinion on the film: As of now, The Hunger Games is the best movie I've seen this year. There were two points in the movie in which I ALMOST cried. I held back tears, for certain. And it wasn't easy. The Hunger Games is very emotional. The camera is very shaky. The movie often feels like a found-footage film. At first, the shaky camera irritated me. But within 10 minutes, I had become so connected with the movie, that I didn't even notice the camera. In the first half (before the actual games begin), there is a decent amount of humor. This is not a comedy, so don't expect to be in stitches, but there are some mild laughs. Almost all of these come from the Capitol's lightheartedness towards the Hunger Games. They laugh and joke about it. It is important to them, but they don't give a second thought about the 23 people who will die as a result. The casting is marvelous. Everyone does a wonderful job portraying their characters. Before seeing the movie, I was a bit skeptical at some of the actor choices, but all the doubt washed away as each character appeared on screen. Also, the makeup and costumes are incredible. They're so ridiculously silly looking (intentionally), and it just feels perfect. Truly well done. The score is equally wonderful. The music is powerful, and during the games, adds invaluable amounts of tension. Hats off to the composers. The action is tense. Your pulse will most certainly quicken. In addition to other competitors, there are tracker jackers (genetically engineered wasps), dog-like wolves, and fire. Lots of fire. There are plenty of plot twists that will certainly shock those who haven't read the book. This movie is emotional, tense, and overall, wonderful. I do have a few minor nitpicks, specifically regarding character interaction. Cinna doesn't get enough screen time. We just don't feel the relationship between him and Katniss like we did in the book. President Snow doesn't seem quite as menacing as he is in the book, though he's evil enough. Also, the romance portion of the film is disappointingly cheesy. Teenage girls in the audience certainly fell for it, but I often rolled my eyes. Also, the ending isn't a true ending. We get a hook for a sequel. It's not so much a cliffhanger, it's just a "To be continued." I didn't mind too much, and fans of the book won't either, but I suspect there will be some who will be irritated by this. The Hunger Games has a few flaws, but in the end, it's the best film of the year so far. Fantastic story, lots of emotion, good action, believable acting, superb score, amazing makeup and costumes, need I go on? Simply put, The Hunger Games is a must see. I was originally uninterested in the sequels, but this movie was so good, I may rethink skipping them. May the odds be ever in your favor, and happy Hunger Games! Expand
  62. Apr 19, 2012
    5
    First of all, this is a 2-Dramamine movie - one of those films, like "The Hurt Locker" where the camera operator shakes it around on purpose, most likely to convince you that it's a dramatic scene. The result neither increases the tension nor settles the stomach. It does, however, draw attention to itself, reminding you that there's a guy/woman holding a camera and that we're watching a movie. Aside from that, and aside from the usual "Let's get to know the contestants before we kill them" format (in fairness, quite unavoidable if it's to remain true to the book), this isn't a bad action movie. We all know how much the book owes to Shirley Jackson ("The Lottery"), but then we all know how JK Rowlings borrowed liberally. I don't begrudge them that. I'm just hoping they hold the damn camera still in the next movie. Expand
  63. Apr 20, 2012
    9
    I'm writing this review as a person who has yet to read the books yet. Watching the movie without any knowledge of what you are going into is o.k, (The story is simple enough to follow), but when i watched it, i had know idea who was doing what and who's killing who. I only barely remembered 2 or 3 of the characters because of the lack character development. The movie itself is fast paced and if you've read the books, would probably leave you amazed. The story is solid, acting is solid and pretty everything is well done. I only wished that the character's could be more fleshed out in the movie. I would recommend this movie to pretty much anyone because its probably one of the best movies to be released this year. Expand
  64. Apr 21, 2012
    10
    I saw the film the same day as they released it. I was scared, cuz I didn't know if it was gonna be a **** like Harry Potter or Twilight...but finaly I can say is a really awesome film. In every aspect. Really great. Maybe it had some strange thing at the begginning, but at last, it was amazing. If you're thinking you're gonna watch some commercial **** like Twilight or something like that, youre very wrong.
    And if you like Battle Royale, you're going to like this one.
    Expand
  65. Apr 21, 2012
    6
    I expected more graphical violence - it plainly seems that they made the movie less violent, so kids could come to see it, and they would make more money. I really enjoyed the performance by the cast and the production value - you could feel the fear in the air for the first hour and a half of the movie.
  66. Apr 21, 2012
    10
    No entiendo porque tanto revuelo, una pelicula mas!!! Muy predecible, las escenas con efectos especiales eran dignas de cualquier pelicula de TV, esperaba mucho mas, no nos vendan espejitos por favor
  67. Apr 23, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. However,each time i look upon a pair of dream red bottom shoes,i will canâ Expand
  68. Apr 24, 2012
    8
    I think that the greatest thing about this movie is that you don't have to read the book to get it, its intelligent, immersive and very appropriate to the present day. The story is obviously great and elegantly adapted to the screen. Every part of this movie is filled with so much cruelty that its refreshing to have a PG 13 movie being so hard-core. Also Lawrence is a perfect Katniss and this is one of the casting feats of the year for sure. Surely you would think that all this cruelty and violence would get at least a glimpse of some guts, but this is not the case. It is so expertly made that you would think that you saw everything without really noting that all you got was a glimpse. This type of trick builds a lot of momentum, but unfortunately the commentary in the background does drag a bit and kills the tension. On the other hand a major point that the movie does occurs outside the arena when the game makers are pulling the strings, its so coldly executed that its chilling to say the least, but its memorable as well. Expand
  69. Apr 24, 2012
    7
    I'd give The Hunger Games a passing grade. Its worth seeing if you had read the books, but it's probably a tad bit confusing for those who haven't. The acting was mediocre, the plot seemed rushed yet the audience is still engaged, and it gets the job done as a book adaptation. If you're a fan of the series it wouldn't be a bad idea to check it out, but don't go in expecting every detail to be there. Expand
  70. Apr 25, 2012
    8
    Great blockbuster to fill the void that lotr and harry potter once held. The story is interesting and gripping and does not take too long to get going. I would defiantly watch again and buy on dvd lets hope they don't rush and **** up the next one.
  71. Apr 26, 2012
    7
    In my opinion, it felt like the movie was just about getting the attention from the female perspective, because this was more of a romantic - love - story then a worthy movie. But it wasnt so bad overall
  72. Apr 26, 2012
    9
    I must say, the book was far superior. The movie didn't cover the story as well as the novel did, so if you haven't read the book, you're going to be lost in some places. I loved the film, camera-work, dialogue, acting, and score, but it just didn't seem complete.
  73. May 2, 2012
    8
    They did a pretty effective job of taking a book based entirely on internal dialogue and make it a 3d person movie. The movie also was judicious in what it left out or minimized. Unfortunately though, that led to a number of undeveloped characters (except Katniss of course). I really enjoyed the movie and can't wait to see what they do with the next one. This movie blew Twilight away, but I understand that the intended audience is slightly different. A very good dystopian science fiction film, albeit for the masses. Expand
  74. May 3, 2012
    8
    as someone who has not read the books. i enjoyed this film quite a bit. it had a suprising dose of humor in it that i did not expect. the only major complaint i have is that they should have just went for broke and made this a Rated R film. its still violent enough in tone and in visuals that children still may not be ready to view this. Also, there is a lot of heavy dialogue that most children are not going to understand or be interested in. in short they should have made it for the 17 and up crowd but all in all a good film. Expand
  75. May 8, 2012
    7
    A pretty good movie overall. I haven't read the book, so I'll judge this film as original work. The setting, although interesting and thought-provoking, wasn't really explained, which is a shame because a dystopic government is usually a good author's/director's choice. The acting was mostly well done, especially Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, but some of the characters weren't fully fleshed out - Katniss' parents and sister, in particular. This wouldn't really be a problem but there are recurring flashbacks to these figures at some points in the film and all they end up doing is making you wonder why they were there in the first place. Overall, this film is definitely worth seeing but don't expect not to see some "filler" in such a long movie. Expand
  76. May 10, 2012
    10
    What a film this was. Every second, something was going on, the structure of how this film was made is incredible. I was gripping my chair in the cinema as you never know what was going to be flung at you at any second. The traps were especially good, like the tracker jackers and those wild beast things near the end of the movie ( including one jump scene that sent my popcorn flying!!!). 10 OUT A 10!! Expand
  77. May 10, 2012
    10
    Having never read the books, but still wanting too, I decided to watch the film first so that I would not be able to judge the film on its accuracy. Each moment of The Hunger Games was suspenseful magic, complemented by a fantastically acted cast and enjoyable characters. Each moment was genius, and I exited the cinema as I entered, wanting to see the film.
  78. May 11, 2012
    4
    Bad character development. Weak/unmemorable action sequences. Boring characters. Uninteresting world. Shaky cam that won't let you focus in on anything. Some of the worst dialogue I've ever seen. & it doesn't even follow the book all that well........so how is this a good movie?
  79. May 12, 2012
    10
    This was one awesome movie. Me and my wife went last weekend and we really enjoyed it. The cast was great and the costumes were out of this world. We left the movie theatre and were quiet in the car for a few minutes trying to rethink the movie and that what ifs...Definately a movie to go see.
  80. May 12, 2012
    7
    Definitely could have been better. It had a fake feel to it something about the camera angles was weird or something. i cant put my finger on. anyways rated it 7 cause it was entertaining above all.
  81. Sep 2, 2012
    8
    I think this movie is very good, but the book, gives much more detail then then the movie. Some people didn't like the movie because it didn't have enough action. I think it had enough action in it. The movie plot is good enough to keep you into the movie fro start to finish. The movie has a very good cast which could get this movie an oscar nom. This is not an oscar movie but the cast in the movie could bump it up and get it a nom. If it does get a nom it will be a just barely. Good movie and great book. Expand
  82. May 14, 2012
    3
    I didn't read the book, the trailer was quite promising anyway. But the movie turned out to be disappointing anyway.

    The universe is completely unbelievable. Maybe the point of the movie is not to be credible, I can live with it, maybe the universe is just deliberately filled with stupidity, incoherences, reflects an extremely naive and childish view of politics and such other things, and
    is overall poorly developed.

    Then maybe it is a movie about action? After all, having watched the trailer, action is what I hoped to see. The second half of the movie has a bit of action scenes, not that much however. A small part of less than half of the movie is dedicated to action (the other half of the movie being pointless because of the universe being uninteresting). All these action scenes are filmed in a shaky style, but an unmastered style (as opposed to a mastered shaky style, like in the Bourne trilogy, or Man on Fire). So the only part of the movie that could have been somehow entertaining fails as well.

    Uninteresting context and universe, amateurish action, not much is left to see in that movie.
    Expand
  83. May 15, 2012
    9
    The trailer didn't really appeal to me, but the reviews were good, both from professionals and the paying public alike so we gave it a go. Was it worth it? Absolutely! The Hunger Games is simply a grown up teen drama, playing around with ideas and inspiration from Greek mythology, namely Theseus And The Minotaur, as well as the Roman Games.

    But, quite correctly translating both into a
    more modern, Orwellian styled reality TV language, perfectly tailored for the time that we live in. Based on a series of novels only four years old themselves, by Suzanne Collins who also co-wrote the screenplay, The Hunger Games is everything to the genre of teen melodrama that Twilight isn't.

    The film is also held together by solid performances from the cast, led by Jennifer Lawrence, who as Katniss Everdeen, the only child ever to volunteer for the games, who does so to save her sister, delivers and low-key but intense turn. But so do her co-stars, whether it be Josh Hutcherson as her love interest or Woody Harellson who almost steals the show at times.

    The Hunger Games deals with mature subject matters, in a mature way all the way through, seeming not to shy away from the brutal and horrific topic of children murdering each other for the entertainment of the masses, without actually showing too much. But the intensity of the violence and the tone can a times be disturbing without be income distasteful. A fine line expertly walked by director Gary Ross.

    But it's not just the violent content that works here, so does the satire and political subtext, and boy is there subtext. The characters are well-rounded and their lives as well as their traumas are played out with a real sense of plausibility. And that is the key to a film like this. This is a fantasy film playing around with mythology and political satire. All of which can easily come crashing down but steering a steady ship and believing in your world goes along way to drawing in the audience to that world, which in many ways is filled with potholes, but who cares.

    The tone is more than engaging enough to hold us and that is in the end in the key to the film. Certainly a MUST for Twilight fans, to see what a real female role model looks like...
    Expand
  84. May 17, 2012
    8
    Before seeing this movie I had no knowledge of what The Hunger Games was about. This movie was very interesting and different from many films out there that I have personally seen. I enjoyed it, when the action started it didn't fail to keep me on the edge of my seat. But the first hour of the movie, which was before all of the action, wasn't very exciting and it failed to keep my attention at some points. I guess all movies need some sort of build up to the awesome parts. Overall, the movie was great. Expand
  85. May 17, 2012
    5
    To be completely honest The Hunger Games did nothing for me. Yes i've read the book, Yes I loved the book, Yes I watched the movie, In fact twice. Most scenes in the movie can't even be compared to the Book. Maybe it's because this is the first time where I've read the book before the movie, if thats the case I will be very disappointed in the hobbit. Anyway, I rate this movie a 5, merely for the greatness of the book, not the movie. Expand
  86. May 18, 2012
    8
    My children are big fans of the books and quite enjoyed the movie. For myself, I've not read the books, but found the movie fun and easy-to-follow. Some of the futuristic styling seemed overly cheesy to me, but in general I enjoyed myself and would happily watch it again.
  87. May 18, 2012
    2
    This movie is horrible compared to the book.
    This movie is so overrated and liked by all the teen-twilight fans.
    So stupid, but whatever....
    The movie is horrible
  88. May 19, 2012
    9
    A really good film. The Hunger Games is probably one of the best films I have seen this year. The atmosphere is intense, the premise and story is emotional and thought provoking and the acting is top notch. Jennifer Lawrence is amazing as Katniss and I consider her one of the best new actresses today and the rest of the cast is great too. The only complain that I have with the whole film is that the action scenes are riddled with shaky camera shots, which is very disorientating and it did get annoying at parts but it wasn't enough to ruin the film. I've read the first book of the Hunger Games trilogy and I have to say this is a very well made adaptation. It stayed with the main plot and kept the maturity and serious treatment of its demographic, which are mostly teenagers, that the book conveys. Expand
  89. May 20, 2012
    9
    I saw this film back on its first opening weekend and I had high expectations seeing how I have read and enjoyed the whole book series. For that, I absolutely enjoyed this movie and it is entertaining as all hell! The only problems are that some parts from the book were left out and you have to be patient to be satisfied with the actual Hunger Games tournament. Other than that, the acting, the visuals, the story are all great! Expand
  90. May 20, 2012
    5
    I found hunger games the book to be quite enjoyable but this movie does little to take the interesting universe and make it into a compelling film. Pacing is off with the movie being either too much action or too much silently looking off into the distance. The main character is supposed to be a great thinker and strategist, but there is no attempt to display her cleverness, she's just mute most of the time. The action which does occur suffers from lazy "shaky cam" shots. And the sets and characters are all far to clean and precise to feel real. It's like watching a stage drama put on at your local park. Still the saving grace is the source material which still manages to save the whole production to some degree by taking place in such a strange compelling world. Expand
  91. May 20, 2012
    9
    First off, I have read all of the Hunger Games trilogy books. Second, this movie was a pretty spot on representation of the books. The action was gritty thanks to the director. The close up face shots and jagged angles added to the intensity. That said, there were a few "shaky cam" moments that could have been avoided. The fighting was brutal, and the subject of kids killing eachother is always kind of dark. I think showing the graphic murder of these young people nails the point home. The Capital in this film is bad, and they are ruthless. I hope to see the next two be even better than this one. Expand
  92. May 21, 2012
    7
    The book had more charm and justice. Its an okay movie. I guess... but both the book and the movie suffer from a uniteresting and boring start. I don't really suggest spending too much money on this.
  93. May 23, 2012
    5
    I went to see this movie with my girlfriend and it seemed to me as if this is some sort of predictable cliche story. Don't get me wrong It's OK movie if you are not interesting in something that's brain challenging. It's like watching SF movie without science and fiction in it, you know that story is hollow and impossible to happen in real life, but who cares if you have couple of hours of spare time to waste. Expand
  94. May 23, 2012
    5
    I feel such a victim of advertising! Twighlight fans rejoice. Yet another superficial hollywood megaproduction polylogy. If the objective is to feel shocked by youngsters thrown into a survival of the fittest contest, then a much superior film is Battle Royale.
  95. May 25, 2012
    6
    I am like a lot of the movie goers and many of the "want to see this film" viewers who hasn't even read the book. I saw all of the Harry Potter films, and yet, I still didn't read those books either. My point here is that we should remember that a good amount of the viewers of this movie hasn't read the book and solely came to watch it for its entertainment purpose. I am one of those people. Prior to the movie, I knew the jest of what it was about. Pretty simple story, really: The movie is set in the future where a boy and a girl is chosen randomly from each district in the nation to fight to the death, all while the nation is watching it on television. The viewers of this movie follow Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) in district 12.
    The cast itself was well chosen. I have seen Josh Hutcherson in a couple of movies prior to this film and I find it interesting how he has grown into this more mature character. I have seen Katniss Everdeen before as well and I wasn't surprised to see her portray this tough and almost what seemed angry character in this film. The plot was kind of bland for me. It was well done, but for me the story seemed to repeat itself with challenges. The challenges were either nature related or it had to deal with betrayal. The climax of the film, now that I think of it, was hard to find. I knew there was a point to where the end of the movie had to soon be over, but I also remember wondering when the movie was. It was hard to pick out the climax
    The action sequences were good and they kept my attention. I have to point out that the movie set designs were really well done. You could tell that this movie was set on the future based off of the costuming and the set design. Overall, the problem that I had with this movie was that it just seemed that everything seemed too cliche. Many of the conflicts, the dialogue, the characters...they have all been used before in many other movies. I felt like I had read the book before and I knew what was going to happen. Was I disappointed with this film? No. This is kind of what I expected out of it. A lot of young readers created a lot of build up for a movie that based itself off of the book that they read. Media, previews, gossip...it all created build up for something that just turned out good in the end- not great. Luckily, I knew what the movie was about before I saw it, sot that I wouldn't have been too disappointed.
    This was a movie worth watching and I may watch it once or twice again when the time arrives randomly, but I feel as though this movie will be forgotten.
    Expand
  96. May 25, 2012
    8
    I was honestly expecting this to be a terrible movie, as I've read all the books, and they are all poorly written. Even though the premise is interesting, they create zero emotional connections with any of the characters, they have terrible dialogue, and the plots are often sporadic. But the movie amazingly fixed just about everything that is wrong with the books. Jennifer Lawrence is amazing as Katniss, and she proves that her Oscar Nominated role in Winter's Bone was not just a freak accident. This girl can act, and she's quickly becoming one of my favorites. The rest of the cast was pretty good, especially Woody Harrelson, as always, and the action scenes were spot on. More importantly, the scenes connecting the action were really good as well. But my personal favorite part of the movie was the music, with a score by James Newton Howard (plus the Panem Anthem that was written by Arcade Fire). Overall, this was a really good movie and it definitely lives up to the hype. Expand
  97. May 29, 2012
    3
    Having read the books, I was dissappointed by this one. Storyline was too bogged down by bad acting and souless characters. It seems unfair to compare the movie to the book. But the movie is just not good. The drama aspect was terribly done, but what do expect from the same director of a movie about a mentally retarded horse. Gary Ross, stop while you're ahead.
  98. Jun 3, 2012
    7
    The Hunger Games is more of an action-driven flick than it is a political allegory, but it presents itself in fine style. This new young-adult hit is right in between Twilight and Harry Potter as far as artistic quality, being far more sophisticated and superior to Twilight, but not quite as good or monumental as Harry Potter.
Metascore
67

Generally favorable reviews - based on 44 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 44
  2. Negative: 2 out of 44
  1. Reviewed by: David Denby
    Mar 26, 2012
    30
    The result is an evasive, baffling, unexciting production - anything but a classic.
  2. Reviewed by: Andy Klein
    Mar 23, 2012
    75
    Ross manages to keep the pacing remarkably swift, given that the games themselves don't start until halfway through the 144-minute running time.
  3. Reviewed by: Mike Scott
    Mar 23, 2012
    80
    Katniss is gritty, she's flinty, she's intimidating -- and she doesn't have to compromise one iota of her femininity for it. And Ross' movie tells her story wonderfully.