User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1541 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 29, 2012
    5
    The premise is excellent. An Orwellian future where children are offered to the state as entertainment. There was so much promise. Not having read the books, it's like being invited to a party but not knowing anyone. There was very little character development. Further, the casting of Peta seemed poorly done. Lenny Kravitz does an excellent job in the background. The "Rue" racial thing, IThe premise is excellent. An Orwellian future where children are offered to the state as entertainment. There was so much promise. Not having read the books, it's like being invited to a party but not knowing anyone. There was very little character development. Further, the casting of Peta seemed poorly done. Lenny Kravitz does an excellent job in the background. The "Rue" racial thing, I don't get and can't imagine it makes a difference. But my real question is, in a dystopian future, why are all the children so beautiful? Shouldn't there be some level of emaciation if the outer sectors struggle just to be fed? Despite these problems, the first half of the movie is well pace and knitted together. Something happens in the first "combat" sequence. The combat fog falls and the pacing changes. The whole experience is uninspired. The action sequences themselves are far too close. Take your dramamine if you're in the theater and be prepare to have no idea what's happening. The movie is interesting. But a good premise and interesting plot don't necessarily make a quality movie. Expand
  2. Mar 30, 2012
    0
    I don't blame the books. I haven't read them but just looking at wikipedia the overarching story as a lot of rich material to draw from. This movie just will have none of it. It was poorly written. Poorly acted (the lead girl was good but that was pretty much it). None of the backstory was explored. Just a bad movie plane and simple. The movie is really about a 3/10 but I'm giving it a 0I don't blame the books. I haven't read them but just looking at wikipedia the overarching story as a lot of rich material to draw from. This movie just will have none of it. It was poorly written. Poorly acted (the lead girl was good but that was pretty much it). None of the backstory was explored. Just a bad movie plane and simple. The movie is really about a 3/10 but I'm giving it a 0 because of others voting it up. Basically the movie is totally overhyped. It really isn't good at all. Characters have no back story besides the 2 leads and they expect us to connect to other characters when something happens to them? Literally characters are introduced for 5 minutes and we are supposed to feel sad when they die? Ha. If the point of the games is to kill everyone else then why would these people form teams? Why would they sleep all at the same time? Why did one not wake up to betray the others silently. Just far far too many plot holes. Expand
  3. Mar 23, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Having read the books numerous times, the movie is lacking is so many ways. Scenes were redacted which I understand you have to keep the film lengthen under consideration but do not add scenes that have no mention or relevance into the movie. Also, the time lines are important in this film. You are building up to something. When you leave so much out how do you have that reference for later films. You do not get to connect with Katniss and Peeta in the film like you do in the books. I blame the SIGNIFICANT shortening of the cave scenes. The whole last 30 minutes of the film was horrible. Adding the extra fighting in the last scene did not add any value but took away from the film. Had the last Cornucopia scene been left as originally written, it would have made for a much more dramatic conclusion and wrap of the film. Expand
  4. Mar 23, 2012
    3
    The movie left a lot to be desired and did not do the book justice. Character development in the movie was weak and if a viewer has not read the book, the characters and their relationships with each other is shallow and confusing. This confusion is clear when reading reviews by people who admit to not reading the books. In particular the relationship between Catniss and her familyThe movie left a lot to be desired and did not do the book justice. Character development in the movie was weak and if a viewer has not read the book, the characters and their relationships with each other is shallow and confusing. This confusion is clear when reading reviews by people who admit to not reading the books. In particular the relationship between Catniss and her family needs to be expanded upon and built upon so we can understand the relationship between Rue and Catniss and the tragedy of the circumstances they are put into. The relationship between Peeta and Catniss is also confusing and shallow, sanitizing the internal conflict felt by them. And finally we get to Haymitch, who is a shadow of the character he was in the book. Expand
  5. Mar 23, 2012
    10
    To me the Hunger Games was sort of like Lord of the Flies meets Mad Max. Has anyone read Lord of the Flies or seen Mad Max with Mel Gibson? There was also a Japanese movie called Battle Royale that came out a few years ago but was never released in the US.
  6. May 11, 2012
    10
    I think the goal was to translate the Hunger Games series into films that would still get it a PG-13 rating so that it's primary audience could actually go see the movies. It could have been much darker and more violent, but I think it was faithful to the book - and a thoughtful treatment of the various dystopian themes. There's so much more to the books than the violence of the games.I think the goal was to translate the Hunger Games series into films that would still get it a PG-13 rating so that it's primary audience could actually go see the movies. It could have been much darker and more violent, but I think it was faithful to the book - and a thoughtful treatment of the various dystopian themes. There's so much more to the books than the violence of the games. Had the movie focused only on that it would have shortchanged the story. Instead, this film reaches for higher-hanging fruit. Jennifer Lawrence is a terrific actress who brought depth to the role of Katniss, but I thought Amandla Stenberg's portrayal of Rue was wonderful. I look forward to the next installment! Expand
  7. Nov 21, 2013
    1
    A cliché, predictable, boring, eventless and poorly presented movie. It borrows age-old tricks from video games and does them poorly. Absolutely nothing to see here.
  8. Aug 9, 2012
    6
    A refreshingly grim and realistic premise for an American film meant for teens. Disney it ain't and that's a strength. The weakness? Way, way too much fidelity to the source material. The first hour and a half is ponderous and keeps repeating plot and character points that may have been useful in the novel, but really drag the movie down at least when it pertains to the villainousA refreshingly grim and realistic premise for an American film meant for teens. Disney it ain't and that's a strength. The weakness? Way, way too much fidelity to the source material. The first hour and a half is ponderous and keeps repeating plot and character points that may have been useful in the novel, but really drag the movie down at least when it pertains to the villainous characters. They are portrayed without an ounce of balance or empathy! As an artistic choice, it's fine, but then someone should have taken some liberties with the script to assure that we weren't treated to endless scenes of Tucci and company being wretched and evil. It got old very quickly. Casting was mostly well done. Rue worked for me and I believe was a true artistic choice especially in Katniss' final acts for her. Lawrence was much, much better in this role than in anything she has done before. It's the first time I've seen her reveal herself in her acting. She worked for me and the nuances of the premise made me feel like I was not watching something put out there to make the kids "feel empowered" which is 90% of teen film. To be commended. Expand
  9. Mar 19, 2013
    3
    Not worth it. Please, I read the book for school and decided to check out the movie. My God that was terrible almost as terrible as Avatar. I fell asleep 3 times. The book was filled with action but this movie wasn't. Acting was good that's why I gave it a three. If you want to be entertained you would have a better chance watching the book cover then this. The book cover was moreNot worth it. Please, I read the book for school and decided to check out the movie. My God that was terrible almost as terrible as Avatar. I fell asleep 3 times. The book was filled with action but this movie wasn't. Acting was good that's why I gave it a three. If you want to be entertained you would have a better chance watching the book cover then this. The book cover was more interesting then the movie. Avoid movies like this and you will be happy. You want my advice, watch Spring Breakers. Expand
  10. May 21, 2013
    5
    The Hunger Games, based on a novel of the same title by Suzanne Collins, fails to deliver as much suspense as the novel does and even though it tries to deliver some action it delivers no action. The Hunger Games is also extremely complicated for those who have not read the book. There are countless things that the viewer won't know if they haven't read the book. The scenes also went byThe Hunger Games, based on a novel of the same title by Suzanne Collins, fails to deliver as much suspense as the novel does and even though it tries to deliver some action it delivers no action. The Hunger Games is also extremely complicated for those who have not read the book. There are countless things that the viewer won't know if they haven't read the book. The scenes also went by way to fast in my opinion. For a movie that is two hours and twenty-two minutes (about two hours and ten minutes with out the ending credits), this movie should have been made way better. The special effects, though, were extraordinary. Expand
  11. Jun 12, 2013
    4
    Very little character development, weak storyline. This movie did have the potential to be great, but with weak character development, mediocre action scenes, and what felt like a weak storyline it was utterly dissappointing. If more time was spent on getting the viewers to know and identify with the characters it might have been a great movie.
  12. Nov 29, 2013
    8
    A solid start to a promising franchise, The Hunger Games thrills with good action sequences and a brilliant performance by Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen.
  13. Feb 19, 2013
    6
    The Hunger Games is a half-decent albeit illogical science-fiction action movie. The plot revolves around 24 teenagers being forced into taking part in a fight to the death. The movie is 2 hours and 21 minutes long and yet they still manage to not properly introduce all of the contestants to us which makes their inevitable deaths meaningless and although this detracts from the seriousThe Hunger Games is a half-decent albeit illogical science-fiction action movie. The plot revolves around 24 teenagers being forced into taking part in a fight to the death. The movie is 2 hours and 21 minutes long and yet they still manage to not properly introduce all of the contestants to us which makes their inevitable deaths meaningless and although this detracts from the serious atmosphere they're trying to create, it does make for an entertaining action movie. The story seems puzzled together from several other movies/books and put together as a mostly coherent and entertaining whole despite some logical fallacies. The writers must be highly conformist creatures for them to believe people would sit idly by when you force their children to fight to the death year after year. The Hunger Games has a happy ending but it leaves much to be desired. Like his holiness Snake Plissken said "The more things change, the more they stay the same" and I couldn't find think of a more fitting vote to describe the ending of this movie. However, f you manage to look beyond these flaws, you'll have quite an entertaining film if you watch it in two or three parts. The beautiful Jennifer Lawrence, as usual, manages to put on a show and if it wasn't for her, this movie probably wouldn't be rated as high as it currently is. Expand
  14. Apr 28, 2012
    9
    It's not flawless , but it manages to keep the viewer engrossed from start to finish thanks to some very thrilling action and a superb emotional emphasis that will stay with you for a very long time to come .
  15. Apr 4, 2014
    0
    Seriously, **** this film. It is awful. I'm not going into detail because it would take hours for me to go over everything that makes this thing unwatchable. Suffice to say it's just a senseless story driven by insufferably irritating characters and a string of convenient plot devices that sporadically fade in and out of relevance. If you want a film about a brutal death match, watchSeriously, **** this film. It is awful. I'm not going into detail because it would take hours for me to go over everything that makes this thing unwatchable. Suffice to say it's just a senseless story driven by insufferably irritating characters and a string of convenient plot devices that sporadically fade in and out of relevance. If you want a film about a brutal death match, watch battle royale. If you want a film about ridiculous angst ridden teenage romance, watch twilight. If you want a film that tries to include a death match and a convoluted teenage romance and fails at both, watch the hunger games. Expand
  16. Nov 26, 2012
    3
    Admittedly, I was already tired to begin with when I started watching this movie (which resulted in me falling asleep halfway and missing around 60% of the awful movie). Either way, I don't understand the hype about this movie. It wasn't good at all, it was terrible. Terrible actors, terrible everything. I don't recommend this for anyone to watch. The only reason I'm rating it 3, is to beAdmittedly, I was already tired to begin with when I started watching this movie (which resulted in me falling asleep halfway and missing around 60% of the awful movie). Either way, I don't understand the hype about this movie. It wasn't good at all, it was terrible. Terrible actors, terrible everything. I don't recommend this for anyone to watch. The only reason I'm rating it 3, is to be fair. But seriously though, it was awful. Expand
  17. Feb 22, 2013
    9
    The Hunger Games was everything I expected, but not more than that. I am a huge fan of the series, having read all the books months ago, but I've avoided the movie until all the hype died down, so that I could give an honest opinion, and here it is. The film was terrific, one of the best adaptation of a book I've read. Jennifer Lawrence was absolutely perfect as Katniss and if she doesn'tThe Hunger Games was everything I expected, but not more than that. I am a huge fan of the series, having read all the books months ago, but I've avoided the movie until all the hype died down, so that I could give an honest opinion, and here it is. The film was terrific, one of the best adaptation of a book I've read. Jennifer Lawrence was absolutely perfect as Katniss and if she doesn't get a ton of awards for the role, there is no justice in Hollywood. That's the good news, however the movie was far from perfect. Friends who went with me and had never read the books, found it to be slow, and didn't understand certain things. At times, I could see their point. Several major things were rushed or just left out of the film. This led to some confusion, and then there's Peeta. I love Josh Hutcherson and thought he was terrific, but the portrayal of Peeta wasn't accurate. He was nowhere near as likeable as he is in the books and he comes off looking like kind of a The end of the games was also problematic, as they changed a key point that I thought was pivotal going into Catching Fire. It will be interesting to see what they do to fix that before the next film. Overall I loved the movie and thought it was awesome, but if you didn't read the books, you might be a little confused by parts of it and see it as slow. Parts of the film that dragged on were explained through thoughts in Katniss's head during the book. Without knowing what was going on at those points, I could see how some audience members may have been bored with it. The movie and especially the books live up to all the hype and are well worth your time, The Hunger Games is something you are not going to want to miss. Expand
  18. Mar 24, 2012
    8
    Oh sinnerman where u gone run to? where u gone run 2? Its She-Robinhood of Sherwood Forest. Read it. Breakthrough film introduce younger audiences hunger for blood and gore instead of family friendly Disney. Made Twilight look like a cartoon but its a bit cold and dry. Direction+Art is SUPERB! Not borrowed. Original!
  19. Apr 5, 2012
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Angels: I have not read the book. Also, I am an old dude who likes all kinds of movies-including movies with well constructed scenes of realistic violence...So, I went to this movie with high expectations. Unfortunately, for me, and I should have realized this from the ratings, the violence was sanitized so as to be suitable for high schoolers, with a low tolerance for violence. It is a great story, and the young actors did a fine job. Katniss was appealing, and believable as a 'tough enough" heroine (though not an ass-kicking one.) However, I found that the pace of the movie flagged in places, and there was an implausibility factor at a detail level. (I know it is basically implausible to imagine a society sacrificing children, but I got over that hurdle easily enough.) What I did not understand is why there were not any(?) desperate nihilistic young characters. (I grew up in a big city, and I came across quite a few. And judging from the crime in rural areas there are quite a few there too.) But why did the young tributes cooperate so meekly with the murderous theatre. I know some of the kids I grew up with would have tried to kill/assault their tormentors at the capitol. Does this happen in the next book/movie? Anyway, the movie was entertaining enough. And to put this movie in perspective, my son, who is college age, and sophisticated about movies, really enjoyed this one.
    Glow brightly Angels.
    Expand
  20. Jun 14, 2012
    7
    I enjoyed The Hunger Games a lot, but there are definitely some problems with the movie that prevented it from being truly amazing in my opinion. For starters the movie has some very interesting themes and ideas (like using terror to subdue the masses, etc...) but sadly they're very underused, which is understandable as you don't have as much time in a film. But if the movie is going toI enjoyed The Hunger Games a lot, but there are definitely some problems with the movie that prevented it from being truly amazing in my opinion. For starters the movie has some very interesting themes and ideas (like using terror to subdue the masses, etc...) but sadly they're very underused, which is understandable as you don't have as much time in a film. But if the movie is going to lose in depth I expected it to make up in pacing and action, and unfortunately the pacing was very slow at times and I found myself very bored in the middle of the movie because of the heavy exposition that wasn't very well done, so it was a lose-lose situation. The next problem I had were the action sequences, it's simple you couldn't see a damn thing. Now, this has some upsides, for example the violence wasn't shown in a epic fashion and at the same time they would spend a great amount of time showing you the consequences of it, which makes it very real and poignant, but the big downside like I said is that you can't see a damn thing and have no idea what just happened. Overall though I enjoyed the characters and performances a lot, the actors did a great job I think. So yeah all in all The Hunger Games is the perfect example of a good movie that has the potential to be amazing with its sequels, if they manage to fix the small issues, and turn it into a great trilogy, which I'm hopeful they will. Expand
  21. Apr 30, 2012
    10
    To me, the Hunger Games was like watching something in the future. I know that it leaves out lots of parts, but if they took it right from the book, It would probably be rated R.
  22. Jan 22, 2014
    0
    This film is just a copy of Battle Royale, it's plagiarism. There's nothing new here, there's nothing stunning or amazing it's just a film to take your money and is a big hollywood fail.
  23. Apr 22, 2012
    10
    Beautiful. The adaptation for the book was beautiful. True, the camera style was shaky and the relationship between Peeta and Katniss was shallow, and also true, some of the important parts of the movie were left out, but there were only 20 DIFFERENCES--you can count them on wikipedia if you don't believe me, they have a list--BETWEEN THE BOOK AND THE MOVIE. You see, pretty much almost allBeautiful. The adaptation for the book was beautiful. True, the camera style was shaky and the relationship between Peeta and Katniss was shallow, and also true, some of the important parts of the movie were left out, but there were only 20 DIFFERENCES--you can count them on wikipedia if you don't believe me, they have a list--BETWEEN THE BOOK AND THE MOVIE. You see, pretty much almost all of the movies made nowadays bases off of books are AWFUL. They have too many differences to distinguish from the book it turns into a completely different plot, and soon enough, the movie turns into something different than what it was based off of. WHY THE NEGATIVE REVIEWS??? THE ADAPTATION WAS BEAUTIFUL!!! The acting was purely wonderful to watch; I have never seen a movie with such great acting. For all of those who say the acting was terrible, you should Google what the other possible choices are, and you'll probably be out of school for weeks due to nausea. Suzanne Collins was strictly GENIUS for choosing Liongate to to the remake. The criticism for the adaptation is unnecessary, the racial views are completely out of line, and the movie is lower on the user score than it should be. People, have a heart and have good taste to know when a movie that comes out is actually GOOD! Expand
  24. Jul 17, 2012
    6
    The Hunger Games, the film adaptation of the hugely popular first book of the trilogy by Suzanne Collins (of which I have read none) may feel a bit underwhelming to fans of the books (I have personally heard such griping), but it still has amazing visuals, great set pieces, and engaging performances from Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson in particular. The film contains many scenes ofThe Hunger Games, the film adaptation of the hugely popular first book of the trilogy by Suzanne Collins (of which I have read none) may feel a bit underwhelming to fans of the books (I have personally heard such griping), but it still has amazing visuals, great set pieces, and engaging performances from Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson in particular. The film contains many scenes of violence that seem somewhat restrained (even the moment when the kids are to begin the game, many dizzying quick cuts are made to keep a teen-friendly PG-13 rated massacre). But the interplay between the well drawn, interesting characters is directed with precision from Gary Ross and the ambition of the source material seems to remain intact. It might even feel a bit short at nearly two-and-a-half hours due to the prolonged quick pace, so The Hunger Games should aptly thrill and entertain. Expand
  25. Aug 19, 2012
    6
    The movie itself isn't that bad but the story wasn't in my opinion told good.
    I did not read the book but during the movie I felt constantly like something is missing and that lasted through entire movie. The end confirmed that something is missing because the ending gave the vibe of something unfinished. Overall I would also like to add that movie could've lasted for 30-40 minutes
    The movie itself isn't that bad but the story wasn't in my opinion told good.
    I did not read the book but during the movie I felt constantly like something is missing and that lasted through entire movie. The end confirmed that something is missing because the ending gave the vibe of something unfinished. Overall I would also like to add that movie could've lasted for 30-40 minutes shorter and with better storytelling.
    Expand
  26. Nov 9, 2012
    6
    It has good acting and a great atmosphere, but after an interesting first half it becomes ultimately too tame and predictable to be considered great.
  27. Oct 22, 2012
    7
    The Hunger Games stomps the Twilight saga flat, and though I found those films somewhat amusing, this one is the real deal... http://www.facebook.com/ElvisPresleySonElvisAaronPresleyJr
  28. Oct 9, 2013
    0
    I really do not get all of the appeal behind The Hunger Games. This is similar to The Twilight Saga, not that both franchises are the exact same, but they're both highly overrated franchises that are geared mostly towards teenagers. The only difference is that The Hunger Games tries to appeal to all demographics, but just ends up being REALLY obnoxious--- once you see the poster for thisI really do not get all of the appeal behind The Hunger Games. This is similar to The Twilight Saga, not that both franchises are the exact same, but they're both highly overrated franchises that are geared mostly towards teenagers. The only difference is that The Hunger Games tries to appeal to all demographics, but just ends up being REALLY obnoxious--- once you see the poster for this movie 1000 times. The one with Katniss on it. This is one of the most ANNOYING movie posters, if not THE most annoying movie poster I have ever seen. It's everywhere, even when the second movie is about to be released. Sorry, but The Hunger Games will not be as memorable as Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. It's just another adult-novel-turned-to-movie-aimed-for-teenagers. Expand
  29. Feb 15, 2013
    9
    This was an engaging movie. The world building was fabulous, and the characters were very well done. The score was amazing too. The book's mythology was very well captured. The feel and tone was consistently dark and brooding. I had read the book first, and I recognize that in a movie it's all show and no tell, so it was refreshing that they tried to capture the story from differentThis was an engaging movie. The world building was fabulous, and the characters were very well done. The score was amazing too. The book's mythology was very well captured. The feel and tone was consistently dark and brooding. I had read the book first, and I recognize that in a movie it's all show and no tell, so it was refreshing that they tried to capture the story from different viewpoints. But I was still disappointed that they didn't include the moments where Katniss comes across as very human and flawed. I was hoping they would include a voice-over for the heroine. I'm not saying they should have narrated everything, but Katniss's thoughts at key moments would have made the situations more entertaining, like her feelings about Peeta as they change when the story moves forward. All in all, I was very satisfied. If anyone who read the book isn't happy with the adaptation, I suggest you consider The Golden Compass, which was based on an awesome book but turned into a pile of rubbish upon adaptation; as it included far less character development, had lesser running time and toned down violence. Expand
  30. Feb 26, 2013
    8
    The movie was definitely good. I liked the action, suspense, and the emotions of the characters throughout the film. The book and the film has some differences but they're okay. I Recommended you watch it.
  31. Nov 28, 2013
    6
    Despite not really enjoying this film, I am still going to give it a slightly positive rating. My reasoning for this is that it is actually a decent film, however my opinion on it has been altered as I read the books first. The books has in depth politics and lots of violence and excitement. The film left a lot of the politics and violence out to make it watchable for the younger ages,Despite not really enjoying this film, I am still going to give it a slightly positive rating. My reasoning for this is that it is actually a decent film, however my opinion on it has been altered as I read the books first. The books has in depth politics and lots of violence and excitement. The film left a lot of the politics and violence out to make it watchable for the younger ages, which subsequently created a cheesy, not brilliantly written film. If they had 'juiced it up' a bit and made it a 15, I'm sure I would have enjoyed it a lot more.
    I would recommend this film if you have not read the book, if you have steer clear of it.
    Expand
  32. Nov 18, 2013
    8
    There are scenes that left me feeling confused because of its jumpiness, but for a book adaptation, this first installment of Suzanne Collins' great series is more than one could've asked for. Lawrence is the best choice for Katniss, and she does it excellently. Even for someone who hasn't read the book, I don't think there will be too many confusions because the movie manages to keep theThere are scenes that left me feeling confused because of its jumpiness, but for a book adaptation, this first installment of Suzanne Collins' great series is more than one could've asked for. Lawrence is the best choice for Katniss, and she does it excellently. Even for someone who hasn't read the book, I don't think there will be too many confusions because the movie manages to keep the story both complex and simple at the same time. It's been a long time since I enjoy a movie with female heroine and seems like Jennifer Lawrence is truly destined to be the actress of her generation. Expand
  33. Nov 19, 2013
    2
    Poor movie. It should have been more than one part per book. There was no character development at all and bad casting. There were numerous mistakes in the movie aswell as taking one idea from the book and basing the entire population of the capitol on it. Not only that, but it's being completely marketed for the 8-12 crowd, with action figures and card games. The cast was horrible. ThePoor movie. It should have been more than one part per book. There was no character development at all and bad casting. There were numerous mistakes in the movie aswell as taking one idea from the book and basing the entire population of the capitol on it. Not only that, but it's being completely marketed for the 8-12 crowd, with action figures and card games. The cast was horrible. The 17 year old gale was played by 22 year old Liam Hemsworth, and 16 year old Katniss by 22 year old Jennifer Lawrence. You know a high hyped movie was bad when it's already on netflix. Hopefully they don't screw up Catching fire, and the casting looks not that bad. Expand
  34. Mar 8, 2014
    0
    This was an unwatchable, tedious, ass-numbing, bore of a movie; not worthy of even “made for TV” status. The acting was stilted and wooden; Jennifer Lawrence is creepy looking and unattractive. Honestly the whole thing was a mess from start to finish. Save your money and opt out of the remaining movies now; doubtful they will get any better.
  35. Apr 16, 2012
    3
    This is a movie about a brutal gladator like event for people who don't like violence and like sparkly vampires. This is book i simply a short story called "the lottery" merged with a far supiorior Movie called battle royale. The lead actor "whos a hunter" does inane things like sit in a sunny clearing and run around in a blue blazer in the forest while shes supposed to be in a life andThis is a movie about a brutal gladator like event for people who don't like violence and like sparkly vampires. This is book i simply a short story called "the lottery" merged with a far supiorior Movie called battle royale. The lead actor "whos a hunter" does inane things like sit in a sunny clearing and run around in a blue blazer in the forest while shes supposed to be in a life and death game. Totally unrealistic and the combat was poor. Expand
  36. Feb 15, 2013
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. "It all makes sense if you read the book". Well, I guess it's time to put a warning label on the DVD cover about that, because this movie makes no sense. At all. I really hope the books are better thought and better written than this movie, that can be described only as garbage on garbage on garbage that the viewer is forced to swallow. Plot holes, unanswered questions, non-sense, "The Hunger Games" has them all. During the movie you'll find yourself simply asking two kind of questions: "Are they really that stupid?" and "What the hell?". Some examples? Here we go, but I doubt I'll have enough typing space. --The participants make teams. Yes, you read that correctly: they make TEAMS. For like an hour you're told only one of them can survive but, yeah, they make teams. You could understand that behaviour from the kind-hearted Katniss, but, wait, it gets better: the BAD GUYS make teams. And they sleep together. Of course, no one of them thinks about slaughtering all of his teammates during the night to win the games, because, yes, they are that stupid. --You managed to get all the food supplies? It would be a good idea to surround them with two dozens land mines, just in case the good girl wants to blow them and starve you to death. Yes, they are that stupid. --The good girl climbs a tree while chased by a bunch of bad guys? No problem, since no one of that uber-skilled teen assassins is able to climb a tree aswell. Again, it gets better: she kills one by throwing an hive full of killer bees on them while they're sleeping (somehow the bees can tell the good guys from the bad ones). --At one point she's about to be killed, but the bad guy is kind enough to wait, go close and confess all of his murders, so the not-so-good-but-not-that-bad girl can get revenge. Oh, it gets even better: she kills only the bad guy and spares Katniss, since she somehow forgot (again) only one of them can win.--On the "What the hell?" category: when short on participants, they "summon" two giant rabid dogs through a computer. No explanation whatsoever, they just click a couple of times, make a 3D drawing and...here we go, giant dogs. Also, these dogs are like 6 feet high, but can't jump over a 4 1/2 feet high roof, otherwise the good girl would've died. --The baker-guy manages to disguise himself as a rock. And he's damn good at it, but...wait. What tools did he use? And when? No explanation. --The end would have been a great comedy moment if I hadn't payed real money to see it. It goes like this: "We changed the rules of the game, you both win. No, wait, it was a joke, the rules stay the same, one of you have to die. Wait... What? Are you killing yourselves? For real? Nononono! Wait! Wait! We change the rules, ok, we change the rules. You both win, long life to the Hunger Games!". I mean, are you serious? Are you f***ing serious? These games go on for like a century and no one, never ever thought you can simply cheat by threatening to kill yourselves as the last survivors? Again: are they really *that stupid*? And these overpowered, totalitarian organizers never ever thought about this *little flaw*? They have to be tricked by a couple of teenagers to realize their idiocy? --These are just some of the pearls you'll find in this movie, let alone the poor acting of everyone, including Woody Harrelson that was probably *really* drunk during all the shoots. If "The Hunger Games" was a movie from Mel Brooks, it would've been a round 10 in comedy. Don't waste your money on this rubbish. Expand
  37. Apr 1, 2012
    7
    They missed a few few key points of the book, but otherwise did O.K. in adapting it. Other than that, The Hunger Games was well acted (especially by Jennifer Lawrence) and just helps create the atmosphere of The Hunger Games universe well.
  38. Aug 7, 2012
    7
    Based on the book by Suzanne Collins, the hunger games movie is a good tribute that will probably leave fans delighted. Though not as exciting as the book, it is still worth seeing.
  39. Apr 28, 2013
    2
    Shameful ripoff of "Battle Royale," and much lower in quality. It's Battle Royale for "the Twilight crowd." The acting was stale, the action was bland, and there wasn't any reason given to me to really care about anything going on. The author of the books claims to have never heard of Battle Royale, and that's a laugh!
  40. Mar 24, 2012
    8
    Being a huge fan of the book, I had high expectations for such a big-budget adaptation. Collins did an excellent job adapting her novel to a different media, and with exception of a few changes, held true to the original source material. The few changes that were made in foresight will enhance future film adaptations by removing confusing details or adding new plot devices that, whileBeing a huge fan of the book, I had high expectations for such a big-budget adaptation. Collins did an excellent job adapting her novel to a different media, and with exception of a few changes, held true to the original source material. The few changes that were made in foresight will enhance future film adaptations by removing confusing details or adding new plot devices that, while exceptional in the original novel, do not translate as well to the film.

    The characters, with a few exceptions, were superbly acted and well developed. I applaud the director for limiting the amount of romance in the film (which becomes almost sickeningly annoying in the sequel novels), which allowed for good character development but did not leave me feeling like I was watching characters from twilight in a different movie.

    Plot wise the film follows the novel fairly consistently; a few plot holes exist which take away slightly from the overall feel. Otherwise, it is an excellent movie and an enjoyable experience.
    Expand
  41. Apr 1, 2012
    5
    Sure, blurring the violence with shaky-cam helps to obtain the PG13 but I can't go along with the blatant choice to make a purported $78M production look like amateur hour by using handheld cameras throughout. I don't care if it was an "artistic" choice or not. This is a science fiction movie and no one is fooled that it is a documentary or an attempt at realism a la Blair Witch Project. ASure, blurring the violence with shaky-cam helps to obtain the PG13 but I can't go along with the blatant choice to make a purported $78M production look like amateur hour by using handheld cameras throughout. I don't care if it was an "artistic" choice or not. This is a science fiction movie and no one is fooled that it is a documentary or an attempt at realism a la Blair Witch Project. A simple conversation between two people in a room involves snap pans, quick cuts, even a few focus deficient zooms. I would say it looks like the kids from Super 8 made it but JJ Abrams knew that even seventies kids were smart enough to use a tripod. Expand
  42. Apr 10, 2012
    1
    I'm wondering: how original is the premise? An post-apocalyptic world where live televised fights-to-the-death keep the populous' blood lust satisfied? Eh. Series 7: The Contenders did it way before, but not with Hunger Games' budget. Plus there's Running Man, the Road Warrior, and earlier, 1984. If the world ever becomes a world like the Hunger Games, I'd protest in the streets andI'm wondering: how original is the premise? An post-apocalyptic world where live televised fights-to-the-death keep the populous' blood lust satisfied? Eh. Series 7: The Contenders did it way before, but not with Hunger Games' budget. Plus there's Running Man, the Road Warrior, and earlier, 1984. If the world ever becomes a world like the Hunger Games, I'd protest in the streets and risk dying in a Tiananmen square movement. Orwell wrote a better satire on society's need for bloodlust and authoritarianism, because he details a lot of what happened in the world before it got fragmented into superstates. There's no such luck with Suzanne Collins. I don't think Suzanne Collins or the film-makers have enough imagination or storytelling skills to give us the big picture of Panem or the characters should have. They're just waving their fingers at us tsk-tsking us for watching too much reality TV, that one day will lead to televised murder. Does Collins give her characters enough depth that they rebel against an insane society that has degraded to televised murder? Why do they go along with it? Like I said, I'd stand my ground and risk my life for freedom and autonomy before I'd let what happened in Pan Em happen to us. Expand
  43. Apr 9, 2012
    0
    I expected a ripoff of Battle Royale to at least be almost slightly 1% as interesting as Battle Royale, but instead I got into the theater and watched this boring piece of crap garbage for two hours. What a waste of time. People who liked this movie are either stupid or lying. Transformers 2 was a better movie because, in spite of horrible writing (which The Hunger Games is 100% full of),I expected a ripoff of Battle Royale to at least be almost slightly 1% as interesting as Battle Royale, but instead I got into the theater and watched this boring piece of crap garbage for two hours. What a waste of time. People who liked this movie are either stupid or lying. Transformers 2 was a better movie because, in spite of horrible writing (which The Hunger Games is 100% full of), there was still a lot of action (which The Hunger Games has 0% of). With a bad plot and bad dialogue and bad everything story-wise and then two hours of boring non-action on top of that, what is even the point of this movie? Do not watch this. Obviously you will anyway and you will pretend you liked it because everyone told you to. Expand
  44. Mar 23, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Based on Suzanne Collins' Hunger Games trilogy, in a futuristic time where a nation had fallen apart after a horrific war two tributes from each district are chosen to fight to the death until one victor remains in what you would call a reality television show that is broad cast live to audiences. To those who are familiar with The Hunger Games trilogy, prepared to be impressed with this sensational adaptation and to those who aren't, prepare to witness an incredible journey filled with suspense and originality.



    Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), a citizen of District 12 volunteers to tribute for The Hunger Games to save her little sister Prim from being tribute. Against a fellow citizen Peeta (Josh Hitcherson) who she develops a relationship with, has to fight to the death and although we don't see much of Gale (Liam Hemsworth), there is a clear understanding of their relationship and how he feels for her. Katniss must fight for her life on this suspenseful and emotional must see journey.



    Filled with convincing performances by all the cast, The Hunger Games is a winner! Staying true to the book, director Gary Ross does a flawless job of introducing the first of the trilogy. It's an emotional fight to the victory that instantly captures you. A fearless adaptation where every minute keeps you enthralled. With its inventive story and strong cast, The Hunger Games works on screen and ends on top .
    Expand
  45. Mar 25, 2012
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie is just awful. There are many terrible aspects and you SHOULD NOT waste your time if you have or have not read the books.

    1. Camera work is awful. Everything is shaking so bad in every action scene and every partially moving scene (anything that is not a static conversation) you see random blurs of faces and quickly and poorly cut sections of the movie. 2. Music: Very often, there is no music when there really should be and it just ruins the whole atmosphere. The music at the beginning of the Cornucopia scene is nill and the atmosphere is wrong. You would expect fast paced drumbeats with screams and punches and such... Instead, you get a stupid buzzing noise as the camera shakes to death as you hear no screams and this goes for like 2 minutes... -_-

    3. Story: Extremely shallow character development and tons of things completely uncomprehendable by non-book readers.
    Expand
  46. Apr 15, 2012
    2
    Not worth seeing at all. I only saw it because while planning to see 21 Jump Street (which is rated R) and having already been standing at the ticket booth, I found out my friend was still 16, and The Hunger Games was the only other interesting looking movie playing. I was with 2 friends, and none of us enjoyed it, mostly because it was painfully long, the plot was dull and slow-paced, andNot worth seeing at all. I only saw it because while planning to see 21 Jump Street (which is rated R) and having already been standing at the ticket booth, I found out my friend was still 16, and The Hunger Games was the only other interesting looking movie playing. I was with 2 friends, and none of us enjoyed it, mostly because it was painfully long, the plot was dull and slow-paced, and the character development was horrible, with useless characters and unnatural character relationships, that would have only made sense if you've read the book. On top of that, the cinematography was awful. The camera was constantly shaking, which made it look very unprofessional as a film. And the fight scenes were painful to watch because they were so poorly done. Bad camera work + bad fight scene choreography = severe motion sickness. And to add to that, the music never fit, especially during the fight scenes. In fact, the music was lazily written, with more focus on ridiculous audio effects rather than the actual musical aspect of it. And one more thing: Editors have no reason to tone the color down throughout the entire movie just to give it a slightly darker feeling. Be more creative. In conclusion, we would have had a much better experience had we seen 21 Jump Street instead of this over-hyped, lazily put together piece of crap. Expand
  47. Mar 29, 2012
    0
    In the least surprising cash-in in the history of anything ever, The Hunger Games took its already film-ready premise which had already borrowed from Battle Royale, glossed it up pretty, removed any and all significance from the original novels to satisfy the teen crowd, deconstructed every single character and made new ones to fit a film that was supposed to be horrifying more thanIn the least surprising cash-in in the history of anything ever, The Hunger Games took its already film-ready premise which had already borrowed from Battle Royale, glossed it up pretty, removed any and all significance from the original novels to satisfy the teen crowd, deconstructed every single character and made new ones to fit a film that was supposed to be horrifying more than anything else, naturally made Katniss attractive instead of being the poverty-stricken malnourished slum-girl she was in the novel, made all the guys beefcakes, gave everyone unspeakable combat skills when they should have next-to-none, when the entire point was to throw random kids into an arena and told to kill each other, and basically turned it into exactly what it was supposed to be: A cash-in, without exception. All significance is gone, and respecting the origins of the novel isn't even considered here. Disappointing beyond words? Definitely. But an obvious way to market it as an arena battle to the death involving children? Checkmate. Anyone who read the first novel knew quickly that this was going to be turned into a film, and it was going to be a sure-fire cashflow frenzy with the right style and marketing. Done and done. For anyone who doesn't care for anything the book stood for or even knows to begin with, here you go: A generic action flick with a few twists that are comically predictable, all done in perfect PG-13 format--ironically still being about desperate kids picked out of a raffle murdering each other with sharp objects. But if you've read the novels, you knew exactly what they were doing the instant you saw the official movie poster, and you can at least avoid some of the despair because you knew it had been coming all along. Expand
  48. Aug 16, 2012
    0
    Lets mix "the running man" with the tv show "Survivor" target the audience for "teenagers" but lets make it as violent as possible. Thats the end result for this movie. The movie is not orginal, boring, NOT real, the characters act as if they were on a tv show and their lives werent not in danger. They formed "Alliances" when the whole idea was the strongest person survives? give me aLets mix "the running man" with the tv show "Survivor" target the audience for "teenagers" but lets make it as violent as possible. Thats the end result for this movie. The movie is not orginal, boring, NOT real, the characters act as if they were on a tv show and their lives werent not in danger. They formed "Alliances" when the whole idea was the strongest person survives? give me a break! AVOID this movie at all costs! Expand
  49. Mar 31, 2012
    7
    The movie was overall fairly good but when you read the books, you always heard what she was thinking and in the movie you could just see the look on her face but never understand what she was thinking off. The movie left out a lot of important details and was definitely not as good as the book, but it was still good and I'll probably buy the DVD version when it comes out.
  50. Apr 28, 2012
    5
    This was a very average movie. Too much drawn out story and not enough action. I also kept comparing it in my head to battle royale which made it seem even worse despite the age of battle royale. I was also left in no state of worry for the main character who i didn't care about and i never felt she was in any danger.
  51. Apr 4, 2012
    0
    Severely over rated. Acting was horrible, the heart of the book was not there, emotional aspects were not emotional because they were rushed and forced, and full of really bad acting. They emphasized the people fighting against the government part of the story, but they gave us a sappy ending that had nothing to do with the people or the oppressive government. This film simply had no soul,Severely over rated. Acting was horrible, the heart of the book was not there, emotional aspects were not emotional because they were rushed and forced, and full of really bad acting. They emphasized the people fighting against the government part of the story, but they gave us a sappy ending that had nothing to do with the people or the oppressive government. This film simply had no soul, despite having more than enough inspiration from the book they some how destroyed it for the typical short attention span of American viewers. And for people saying the lead actress did a good job of acting, just ask your self how many facial expressions she actually used. She did them well, but she only had like 4. Just like that actress in the twilight series, once you watch another movie from the series you will see how incredible low her range is. The same 4 expressions over and over again will get pretty boring. Expand
  52. Apr 10, 2012
    3
    i was so looking forward to watching this movie. I seen all of the amazing reviews and i hoped for the best... but i was so wrong... the book was soo much better the movie its scary.... i really dont know how people think the movie was so good.... i sat there wathing and thinking, wheres the part where haymitch fell of the stage... or where haymitch sent katniss the sleeping medicine soi was so looking forward to watching this movie. I seen all of the amazing reviews and i hoped for the best... but i was so wrong... the book was soo much better the movie its scary.... i really dont know how people think the movie was so good.... i sat there wathing and thinking, wheres the part where haymitch fell of the stage... or where haymitch sent katniss the sleeping medicine so she could go to the cornucopia... and the red head avox girl and thats just a few parts they were missing... the book has soo much detail... in the book... you get to read how katniss is feeling about everything and how the events that just happened... decide her next decision.... im not a personal lover of romance in films... but in the book the "romance" between katniss and petta makes the plot soo much better... but in the film its all broken up and i cant make sence of what has happened.... i hate the fact that the directors have made this into a movie for kids... the book is for adults...there is a lot of viloence and scenes that are for older viewers but the DIRECTOR wants everyone to love this movie... but in my opinion he got it soo wrong... i just hope they dont make the same mistakes if they are ALLOWED to make the second book... which is also a great read
    i recommened to everyone who thinks that this movie is the best thing since slice bread... to read the book and you will instantly see the flaws and how bad the the movie truely is
    Expand
  53. Mar 23, 2012
    9
    I do not get the negative reviews? The movie followed the book quite closely which I had hoped for and was not disappointed! Yes some of the richness of the book was left out but still for 2.5 hr long as is. I forgive some trimming. The acting was excellent loved Jennifer in Winters Bone and she did Katniss perfectly! I will rave and recommend friends see it!
  54. Mar 23, 2012
    8
    I waited eagerly for this movie to come out for months, bought tickets in advance, and showed up to the midnight premier trembling with excitement, and I was not disappointed. The cinematography at the very beginning was stunning. I was reminded of footage from the Great Depression, with the ragged children and old people, the downtrodden workers. The poverty in the districts was apparent.I waited eagerly for this movie to come out for months, bought tickets in advance, and showed up to the midnight premier trembling with excitement, and I was not disappointed. The cinematography at the very beginning was stunning. I was reminded of footage from the Great Depression, with the ragged children and old people, the downtrodden workers. The poverty in the districts was apparent. The movie was very tensely shot, the audience felt physically nervous when the characters did, and several of the key moments were heart-wrenching. (When Gale carries Prim away and Katniss is marched to the stage was just terrible to watch.) Cinna was absolutely masterfully done- he was a quiet, graceful, honest presence. Rue was PERFECT. They way Rue and Katniss' alliance was formed was quite masterful as well, though a bit truncated. Rue was such a lovable character though, that her death was 'toned down', probably because people don't want to see a sweet little curly headed girl be rent in half with a spear. It seemed almost too quick and they cut out most of the song. I enjoyed how they showed the uprising of district 11 ( I like to think the man who started it was Rue's father) but was disappointed that they didn't include District 11's gift. The violence over all was toned down considerably, which I expected since they wanted to keep it PG13. Mostly you saw a lot of scuffling a la "cloverfield" and then a body fell. There were a few exceptions, but mostly we just saw brief ( and I mean, a second) shots of the aftermath.

    The Capitol was fairly well done- attention to detail was excellent. It appeared very ominous, with all the bright colors seeming off, the people looking frightening in their candy-colored costumes. Seneca Crane easily makes himself hated, and President Snow is like an evil Santa Claus. There is a foolish blood lust in the capitol, accentuated by Effie Trinket and her horrible comments like "You're only here for a short time but you get to enjoy yourself!" (Read: we feed you well before we kill you) Effie lacked some dimension in my opinion, though. She seemed to be soley comedic relief. Haymitch did a great job. His drunkenness was minimized, and he displayed genuine caring that wasn't seen originally in the books, but it played out well. This movie inserted lots of excellent sensory techniques to suck in the viewer. There was a high pitched buzzing after an explosion, and the familiar sound of "far away" that most people are familiar with when they are nervous. There was flashes of light and sudden swoops to indicate pain and dizziness. These little additions made the film more believable. You felt like you were there. Overall, the movie met my expectations, though, honestly, they should have just made it rated R and served into the violence like it should have been. This story isn't about violence for violence's sake, its about corruption and moral latitude. You have to see the horror to understand. It is definitely worth seeing, in fact, I saw it twice.
    Expand
  55. Mar 29, 2012
    1
    The movie was not as expected.Too Long Too Boring Too Predictable.The character or Peeta is not clear as for the feeling of Gale and Katniss.It's far too long and much inferior to the ferocious Japanese Battle Royale.The books were aimed at young women, I think the filmmakers have been terrified at making anything too violent.
  56. Mar 23, 2012
    8
    The Hunger Games was really better than what I'd expect. Awesome fast-paced action entertainment laced with moral dilemmas and a satire on the entertainment industry of our generation all wrapped up in a compelling story with a strong emotional core. Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen is convincing and is pitch-perfect as a strong independent protagonist with an air of vulnerability.The Hunger Games was really better than what I'd expect. Awesome fast-paced action entertainment laced with moral dilemmas and a satire on the entertainment industry of our generation all wrapped up in a compelling story with a strong emotional core. Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen is convincing and is pitch-perfect as a strong independent protagonist with an air of vulnerability. And unlike a certain Ms Swan, she doesn't need a guy to sweep her off her feet. The ensemble cast is perfectly casted, from Woody Harrelson to Stanley Tucci. Don't worry about whether this'll turn out like Twilight because it's not. There's no sappy love story here. When the games begin, her only concern is to stay alive and even when she does show affection it's all part of the game.

    Can't speak for the readers who'd want every single detail from the book done right but keep in mind that the screenplay was co-written by Suzanne Collins. If The Hunger Games is just a little taste or preview for what's to come in the cinemas this year than it'll be a good 2012. It's definitely worth the money to watch and will watch it again in another preferred format.
    Expand
  57. Mar 25, 2012
    1
    This movie sucked. Most overrated film of the year. it is du;; and boring, there is no back story. The games it self its repetitive and dull and the shaky hand filming made me vomit. What a waste of 2.3 hours. I only gave it a one because Stanley Tucci was good in it.
  58. Mar 23, 2012
    10
    I haven't read the books yet but I certainly will now that I have had the pleasure of seeing one of the best films in recent memory. The screenplay is tight and fast paced but the story keeps its integrity throughout the film. The acting is first class and Jennifer Lawrence will have a long and prosperous career unless she does something really stupid. (see Lohan, Lindsay). The onlyI haven't read the books yet but I certainly will now that I have had the pleasure of seeing one of the best films in recent memory. The screenplay is tight and fast paced but the story keeps its integrity throughout the film. The acting is first class and Jennifer Lawrence will have a long and prosperous career unless she does something really stupid. (see Lohan, Lindsay). The only criticism I have is that they "dumbed down" the graphic violence to get a PG13 rating. The killings are done so quickly and cleanly that the camera barely gives you time to realize what has happened. The "anti- CSI effect" sanitizes the brutality of the contest and in a way it hides the evil of the adults who have orchestrated these "games." I look forward to the sequels with same anticipation of the Harry Potter movies. Expand
  59. Mar 27, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I saw the movie as two distinct parts - the introduction and every thing leading up to the actual hunger game, and the game itself with the resolution. The first part is very interesting, and the the tension leading up to Katniss's "insertion" into the game is palpable. I was almost jumping out of my seat with anticipation. However, the second part of the film is a complete let-down. Perhaps we've seen too many Survivor & Challenge seasons, but the action is flat and borderline boring. Even though everything is at stake, it doesn't feel that way. The PG-13 rating takes much of the grittiness away from the story. I would have liked to have seen Katniss take part in more than a single killing. She essentially backs into the win.â Expand
  60. Mar 28, 2012
    3
    As a stand alone movie it's fine, as a copy of the book it's terrible- as a loosely based off the book video it's... decent at best. Take the wonderful story from the book, shred it down to the barest parts and turn it into a copy of Twilight- you now have 'The hunger games' "movie"

    There's nothing, no survival in the woods, no horrible mental wrestling of survival vs. humanity no
    As a stand alone movie it's fine, as a copy of the book it's terrible- as a loosely based off the book video it's... decent at best. Take the wonderful story from the book, shred it down to the barest parts and turn it into a copy of Twilight- you now have 'The hunger games' "movie"

    There's nothing, no survival in the woods, no horrible mental wrestling of survival vs. humanity no insight, the barest of character development, a incredibly shortened timeline and complete disregard for the book's story about half way through the movie.

    I'm glad to see The Hunger Games put into a visual medium, I'm dissapointed to see it so gutted, I consider this a failure for the first movie.
    Expand
  61. Mar 26, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The movie is a very hasty and premature summary of the book. It lags a lot of the memorable highlights of the book, and adding to it, is the stupid re-writing of the scene where Katniss gets the Mockinjay-pendant. The acting was very sleazy too, and amateurish. As a movie on it's own, it was shot beautifully. But as a interpretation of the book, it just doesn't cut it. Expand
  62. Apr 2, 2012
    8
    Thiis is a fab film, the performances are great, Stanley Tucci in particular is excellent (but when is he not?) Jennifre Lawrence showed again that she is going to be the actress to watch from now on, it's just really good, very un-hollywood, no cheesy background music when its not called for like a lot of films, visually brilliant without being over the top. Go and see it!
  63. Apr 21, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A lot of hype for a very lazy Hollywood movie. It falls especially flat once the Hunger Games begin. It seems that the director and all the actors didn't take the premise very seriously: that these are young children being forced to fight to the death with only one victor allowed. At times it felt more like revenge of the nerds where the dumb jocks band together to pick on the weaker kids. The stronger, Aryan-looking kids, go around seeking out Katniss with a joyous, kind of partying attitude. Have these teenagers somehow forgotten that only one person can survive? That at any moment the people they are next to have every reason to murder them in order to save themselves? One of them has no problems taking a nap while the others wait for Katniss to come down off the tree. And they laugh and flirt and play like school just got let out. And time after time the kids let others escape, sometimes for no reason at all. One large Black teen kills a young girl, as she is fighting with Katniss, then looks at Katniss and says something to the effect of "I'll let you go this time", for no reason. Has he forgotten that one way or another he will have to kill her to survive? Why wait to kill her too? Especially in the midst of bloodlust after killing someone else? This is his own life which is at stake, but you'd never guess from how he behaves. They just didn't take the premise seriously enough for me to take it seriously as an audience member. For a movie with this kind of budget and marketing machine, there is no excuse for such laziness. This made me want to watch Blade Runner, a Sci-Fi movie in which the director took care of the details. Expand
  64. Mar 27, 2012
    8
    The Hunger Games is off to a much better start than the Twilight films. The action was exciting, the story was engaging, and all the actors know what they are doing.
  65. Aug 24, 2012
    0
    So my previous review was about why this movie was bad as a film, like poor/very bad(characterization, setting or general surreal atmosphere was just not serious/believable at all and this was put forth with no explanation, costumes of people especially soldiers, storyline and I want to say game play but this isn't a video game; I guess the closest thing would be the way the story workedSo my previous review was about why this movie was bad as a film, like poor/very bad(characterization, setting or general surreal atmosphere was just not serious/believable at all and this was put forth with no explanation, costumes of people especially soldiers, storyline and I want to say game play but this isn't a video game; I guess the closest thing would be the way the story worked itself out was pathetic).
    However this was based on the idea that this was a genuine story, which it is not. This book and film are both completely based on Battle Royal and this film brings absolutely nothing new to this type of storyline. Also, Battle Royal actually had gore while simultaneously making a good film in every way this movie failed it succeeded. If Battle Royal was in English, I bet he could sue on copy right in this day and age but that's another story....
    Expand
  66. Mar 29, 2012
    8
    The Hunger Games is highly successful at delivering a substantial emotional investment. The premise of a Most Dangerous Game alternate society has been done before, but the story has a far greater humanity and depth than the genre has ever delivered. It has the neon of the The Running Man, and some similar B-movie characteristics. However, the lack of slickness and advanced technologyThe Hunger Games is highly successful at delivering a substantial emotional investment. The premise of a Most Dangerous Game alternate society has been done before, but the story has a far greater humanity and depth than the genre has ever delivered. It has the neon of the The Running Man, and some similar B-movie characteristics. However, the lack of slickness and advanced technology filmmaking allows for some young actors to do some very good work. It's an emotionally engaging movie. Jennifer Lawrence is a real movie star. She is a very good actress and has electricity on screen. The action sequences and final act aren't spectacular, but these are characters I want to follow for their next adventure. Expand
  67. Mar 25, 2012
    8
    First of all, you people comparing the movie to the book is stupid! The movie isn't suppose to be just like the book, that's how almost all of the movies are, they leave out some detail and change it up a bit to the director's desire. If you read the book, be prepared for that.

    Also, the movie is very clear on some aspects to someone who didn't read the book. This movie was very stunning
    First of all, you people comparing the movie to the book is stupid! The movie isn't suppose to be just like the book, that's how almost all of the movies are, they leave out some detail and change it up a bit to the director's desire. If you read the book, be prepared for that.

    Also, the movie is very clear on some aspects to someone who didn't read the book. This movie was very stunning and impressive; some part of you would want to go on the adventure of the hunger games but you know you'd die for a fact, ahaha! But some flaws are that the details move to fast, and some questions go unanswered. Otherwise, this movie was well put together.
    Expand
  68. Apr 15, 2012
    10
    Best Movie I've Ever See. If you've read the book you will absolutely love this movie.
    Jennifer Lawrence is a sexy beast and the movie is just sooooooooo good you have to see this movie i swear.
  69. Mar 28, 2012
    9
    The only reason I'm not giving this movie a 10 (even though I was totally planning on voting a 10) is because I watched the movie before I read the book. Overall, The Hunger Games is a unique and refreshing film. However, towards the last few minutes of the movie I started experiencing confusion between Katniss and Peeta's relationship. Keep in mind I did not know there was a HungerThe only reason I'm not giving this movie a 10 (even though I was totally planning on voting a 10) is because I watched the movie before I read the book. Overall, The Hunger Games is a unique and refreshing film. However, towards the last few minutes of the movie I started experiencing confusion between Katniss and Peeta's relationship. Keep in mind I did not know there was a Hunger Games book series at all before stepping into the theater. It was obvious towards the last few minutes a cliffhanger was coming and left me hoping for a sequel. I had many unanswered questions though about the characters relationships with each other and a few even on the technical aspects of the Games. The questions were not answered in the book Catching Fire. They were answered in the book Hunger Games. Because of my unanswered questions being answered within the book the movie was written about and the lack of details that I considered to be important in the book that were not shown in the movie I cannot give a 10. Expand
  70. Mar 30, 2012
    8
    I did NOT read the books. With that being said, I liked this film! The performances are all great and the story, as you can imagine, is strong. It drags here and there but nothing that sucks the life out of what's going on on-screen. Harrelson does a fine job and he provides a likeable character here. Of course, the gorgeous pitch-perfect Lawrence is stunning as ever. There is some strongI did NOT read the books. With that being said, I liked this film! The performances are all great and the story, as you can imagine, is strong. It drags here and there but nothing that sucks the life out of what's going on on-screen. Harrelson does a fine job and he provides a likeable character here. Of course, the gorgeous pitch-perfect Lawrence is stunning as ever. There is some strong potential here and I believe with time and a couple sequels that are equally as good, this will be another franchise powerhouse. Expand
  71. Mar 24, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Overall, it felt like those late afternoon teen shows (Spellbinder etc). They're okay, but not really meaty enough for the seriousness of the idea, and a little too bland. I was reminded a lot of "Tomorrow When the War Began". I also haven't read the books.

    The cons:
    TERRIBLE cinematography, like really bad. Shaky, handheld camera only works if a) it's done very sparingly and b) the camera focuses on the same thing (allowing the eye to compensate). Luckily it seemed to disappear about 15mins into the film. Oddly, the shakiest camera work was when nothing much was happening, rather than using it for dramatic effect.

    Shallow story. The characters didn't really seem to feel the emotion of what was happening to them. Jennifer Lawrence, despite being somewhat of a cutie, has very limited facial expressions. The other guy was no better. There's no examination of what's coming up (ie: a kill-or-be-killed death match). Sure, the story presents this as happening for the last 73 years, but surely there was some space for the leads to at least object to the idea.
    It's also worth pointing out that during the arena scenes, there was a *complete* lack of tension. There is an initial bloodbath, where half the "tributes" die, and then nothing. None of the other teen killer/victims get any significant screentime, which means that there's no care when they die. Without any emotional connection, it's just empty. The author claims to have come up with the idea while "channel-surfing the TV where she saw people competing for some prize and then saw footage of the Iraq war. She describes how the two combined in an unsettling way". Unfortunately, all that the author has done is create a story where we watch brutality for enjoyment. Maybe the rest of the series will discover some form of theme that contradicts this idea, but at the moment its a continuation of what it thinks it's parodying.

    Overall, it's okay, and I assume the excitement is because the books were better. It's very bland, shallow, and leaves me wanting more. Not more violence and blood, but more depth and feeling. I'll have forgotten most of it in a day or so.
    Expand
  72. Apr 24, 2012
    8
    I thoroughly enjoyed the film, although the story line of a battle-to-the-death sounds bizarre to me (NOT familiar with the book; don't read fiction). I thought the lead actors were very well chosen. Loved it that the characters' personalities were developed throughout the film. Definitely looking forward to the sequels.
  73. May 2, 2012
    3
    I should talk about other series prior to talking about "The Hunger Game". I kept thinking about "Battle Royal", manga (Japanese comic book). "Battle Royal" came out as a manga first, then movie version of it came out. Manga version was the best, and the movie version sucked so bad. If you know both version of "Battle Royal", then you already got my point of this review.
    Honestly I did
    I should talk about other series prior to talking about "The Hunger Game". I kept thinking about "Battle Royal", manga (Japanese comic book). "Battle Royal" came out as a manga first, then movie version of it came out. Manga version was the best, and the movie version sucked so bad. If you know both version of "Battle Royal", then you already got my point of this review.
    Honestly I did not read novel version of "The Hunger Game", but it was easy to feel something is missing on the story plot. Design and background of the movie (or the story) is awesome, but what is the point of nice looking movie without a nice story plot? Every boy and girl in the survival is not really attractive except the girl in the movie poster because story does not support characters well individually. There are 24 kids in the survival, and I only remember 5 or 6 of them......
    Now back to "Battle Royal", the main goal of the base storyline is a copy of "Battle Royal". This sounds like the main reason of this review. I gave low user score because "Battle Royal" is still better by comparing just movie versions. Don't blame my review with comparison on both unless you watched or read "Battle Royal".
    Expand
  74. Mar 23, 2012
    8
    A great adaptation of the novel that Gary Ross does well with much help from Jennifer Lawrence's great performance. An immersible experience with Ross's directing, he carefully places The Hunger Games a movie for any audience, displaying the underlying emotion, violence, and steady storyline for the fans of the novel and newcomers alike. Lawrence really embodies herself as Katniss andA great adaptation of the novel that Gary Ross does well with much help from Jennifer Lawrence's great performance. An immersible experience with Ross's directing, he carefully places The Hunger Games a movie for any audience, displaying the underlying emotion, violence, and steady storyline for the fans of the novel and newcomers alike. Lawrence really embodies herself as Katniss and displays another award worthy consideration. While The Hunger Games is a great start, it seems as there is a large potential in the trilogy that Ross is not fully uncovering. Needless, Catching Fire hopefully is something that expands the initial story to more epic proportions like The Dark Knight did with Batman. Expand
  75. Apr 2, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Extraordinary film! But, I did feel it left out to much. The book gave way more information (like always) but, I felt it was a little peculiar that they left out Madge's character. Katniss's bestfriend and the girl that gave her the pin. I didn't picture the cornucopia like the movie's version. But, that doesn't matter. It was a great film. Brought me to tears at least 3 times and it was full of great acting. Expand
  76. Mar 23, 2012
    9
    As someone who was a fan of the books, I was a little nervous going in to this movie. Not just because I was worried that it would be good enough, but also because first person narratives are generally harder to adapt to the screen. I was worried that the main character would lose a lot of her complexity in the translation, just because of the limitations of the medium. I'm happy to sayAs someone who was a fan of the books, I was a little nervous going in to this movie. Not just because I was worried that it would be good enough, but also because first person narratives are generally harder to adapt to the screen. I was worried that the main character would lose a lot of her complexity in the translation, just because of the limitations of the medium. I'm happy to say that Jennifer Lawrence's performance absolutely proved me wrong. I think they made the character a little nicer for the movie (or, they left out some of her meaner stuff for the sake of pacing) and there were a few times where she had to have something explained to her rather than working it out herself (again, that has more to do with translating a first person narrative to screen without including a voice over), but the integrity of the character is still very much intact. Lawrence's performance was nicely understated while also selling the key emotional moments.

    If I had one complaint about this movie (which I do), it's that the story probably would have been better served if they were willing to let it have an R-rating. I understand why they wouldn't want that, considering the demographic they're aiming for, but a lot of the violence of the actual Hunger Games was a little too sanitized for my taste.
    Expand
  77. Mar 23, 2012
    9
    The move was GREAT! It was missing very little explanatory details that if you read the book, you would spot. But, two thumbs up! The casting was perfect and my questions about if Josh Hutcherson was a good pick for Peeta was answered with a Yes.
  78. Mar 25, 2012
    8
    HG is FAR better than it had to be, and not as good as it could have been. But, like the characters forced by the game to do things they otherwise wouldn't Ross and his team work within the PG-13 constraints to make a good action movie that still is about kids killing kids for sport. Lawrence is simply stunning in the lead role, and the orbiting characters are all top notch (Special kudosHG is FAR better than it had to be, and not as good as it could have been. But, like the characters forced by the game to do things they otherwise wouldn't Ross and his team work within the PG-13 constraints to make a good action movie that still is about kids killing kids for sport. Lawrence is simply stunning in the lead role, and the orbiting characters are all top notch (Special kudos to Lenny Kravitz are in order). Sadly, the boys of HG are almost pointless, and Peeta is completely clueless to boot. In the end it is riveting and enjoyable too, but I cannot help but think what this could be in a world where an R rated HG could get made by Chris Nolan. That would be something that would satisfy a real hunger. Expand
  79. Mar 31, 2012
    10
    Being a huge fan of the book ever since it came out in 2008, my expectations were extremely high for the film adaption, and I have to say I was not disappointed. Although I feel like some characters were very underdeveloped like Gale and Prim, they obviously can't include every little detail in the book, otherwise we would be in the theaters for hours and hours (which I would actually beBeing a huge fan of the book ever since it came out in 2008, my expectations were extremely high for the film adaption, and I have to say I was not disappointed. Although I feel like some characters were very underdeveloped like Gale and Prim, they obviously can't include every little detail in the book, otherwise we would be in the theaters for hours and hours (which I would actually be OK with, but probably not with others.) Living up to such a sensational book is not an easy task, and I thought Gary Ross did a great job with this adaption. Hopefully with the next couple of movies, they focus more on the characters themselves and more of their background story. But it was definitely the best movie I've seen in a REALLY long time. Expand
  80. Apr 21, 2012
    9
    This movie is fantastic, the action is not to childish, and Jennifer Lawrence's acting was impressive. My only complaint is that, in the novel, the story was more about the Hunger Games, in the movie, they try to make it more about teen romance, disappointing.
  81. Apr 25, 2012
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Outdated special effects, unwatchable shaky camera style in the action scenes, strange choice of actress for the lead role (an almost too pretty well... developed woman to play the role of a malnourished - more like starved to death in the book- sixteen year old slum-girl. Terrible dialogue and character development, unrealistic depiction of the future with people wearing outdated 18th century costumes while possessing incredible, almost magical technology that could create something out of nothing. One of the biggest rip offs I have ever seen in my life. They have taken the story of the Battle Royale and abused it in the worst possible manner, throwing all the violence out the window or with the above mentioned shaky camera technique toned down to an absolute blur. For many actual minutes I couldn't see anything on the big screen and many of my friends had made similar complaints. A colossal waste of my money but I suppose at the same time a great cash in for the clever people behind this whole charade. This is definitely not a kids movie and it barely qualifies as adult one also. Expand
  82. May 17, 2012
    4
    The Hunger Games is unoriginal and uninspiring, one of the strangest hyped movies I have seen in years. I was completely underwhelmed when I saw it. The story itself is cliche, the same futurist group of unfortunate souls forced to fight for the entertainment of the masses because of an oppressive regime. It wanted to be like the original Roller Ball, or Battle Royale, but ended upThe Hunger Games is unoriginal and uninspiring, one of the strangest hyped movies I have seen in years. I was completely underwhelmed when I saw it. The story itself is cliche, the same futurist group of unfortunate souls forced to fight for the entertainment of the masses because of an oppressive regime. It wanted to be like the original Roller Ball, or Battle Royale, but ended up being more like the remake of Roller Ball, or Gamer. Jennifer Lawrence is good enough, but she seemed like the main character in a video game. She appeared very wooden (maybe that was the written character in the book) and I struggled to have any emotional connection whatsoever to her. The Hunger Games themselves lack the intensity that the long buildup implied. Maybe the PG-13 rating doomed the movie from the start and they weren't able to go where they wanted. The ending was inexcusable and a complete cop out, I won't spoil it but it made me lose faith in the source material to begin with. Bottom line, this is bad Science Fiction, and makes me wonder how low our standards have gotten that this was so highly regarded. Expand
  83. Aug 21, 2012
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. After all the hype I finally saw it, and, well, don't beleive the hype. First of all it absolutely drags on, scene after scene, developing very slowly. To it's credit, it is spending time on character development, which can sometimes be rare in movies today. But, there's so many un-necessarry shots and long cuts that one can easily see how the films 2 and a half hour length could be shortened. All this build up finally leads to the actual "games" and then the film starts to pick up a bit. The main problem I had with the film though, is that it seems to always be hinting at a deeper, more devious plot-line, that simply never manifests. For example, there are 3 or 4 bizarrely out of place "flashbacks" to previous scenes. This devices suggests that "hey, that scene was important, remember it, because you will need to when we tie in the sub-plot." But, finally, in the end, you come to discover that there is no sub plot. It's all just meat and potatoes action move schlock, dumbed down and amped up for the American movie viewing masses. Those flashbacks? It's like the director is saying "Hey, stay with us, Stay awake! I know this film is long and boring, but try to remember what's happening!" It's a slap in the face and an insult to intelligence. Finally, in the end, you succumb to the fact that the film is mostly a love story, but, you may be holding out hope for a big "stick it to the man" moment where the tyrants of the film get their come-uppance, (And also delivering a sub-text on the American government and politics), but nope, we are robbed of that as well. They just go home. This is a film engineered for the teenage Twilight crowd, not adults, and definitely not lovers of intellectual fiction or science fiction. The hype these days... Expand
  84. Aug 21, 2012
    10
    This is one of my favorite movies!! Jennifer Lawrence made the perfect Katniss and Josh Hutcherson the perfect Peeta!! If you want to see an AMAZING movie, i totally recomand this one!! It was almost as good as the book!!
  85. Sep 25, 2012
    8
    not exactly like the book, but still very good. Not if the beginning of the movie, the camera recorded badly on purpose or is he had Parkinson's....!!!
  86. Aug 16, 2013
    5
    When based on such amazing source materials as this, it should be hard messing it up. But this movie messes it up in almost every way possible. I kept facepalming because of all the errors that were made. Important characters and events are kept out of the movie. There is no character development at all. It's like the writer expect everyone to have read the books before seeing this, and IWhen based on such amazing source materials as this, it should be hard messing it up. But this movie messes it up in almost every way possible. I kept facepalming because of all the errors that were made. Important characters and events are kept out of the movie. There is no character development at all. It's like the writer expect everyone to have read the books before seeing this, and I bet over half of the people who saw this, didn't.

    So disappointed.
    Expand
  87. Apr 15, 2013
    3
    The Hunger Games tells a story that is either told too fast or too stretched. The actors do either a great job or a horrible one (like the actor playing Peeta who always looks like he shat his pants). It could have been good, but it's dragged down by flaws that could have easily been prevented.
  88. Dec 1, 2013
    3
    this movie was okay at most it was boring for really long and the hype was over a book and book fans will give it a good review that it will not deserve dont let your loyalism make people think a whack movie is good so they go buy it or something
  89. Apr 5, 2012
    1
    This movie was absolutely horrible. No story, plot, character depth or development. Most of the actors looked as though they already knew the movie was bad and just phoned in their performances. Gary Ross should never be allowed to direct anything ever again. The camera work was so horrible I suffered dizziness and nausea through the entire film. Barely anything was explained in theThis movie was absolutely horrible. No story, plot, character depth or development. Most of the actors looked as though they already knew the movie was bad and just phoned in their performances. Gary Ross should never be allowed to direct anything ever again. The camera work was so horrible I suffered dizziness and nausea through the entire film. Barely anything was explained in the movie, so if you never read the book, you were kept completely in the dark about what was supposed to be going on. Gary Ross only knows how to do 2 shots. Extreme unfocused closeup, and extreme focused closeup. All of the backdrops and costumes were completely wasted since you could never see a whole person. You were only allowed to see someone's eye here, or mouth there. The most baffling thing about this movie are all of the good reviews I see from the critics. But that just goes to show you that they are never right when it comes to judging a movie. This was the second movie I have ever walked out on (the first being Battlefield Earth) and demanded my money back. As long as teenage girls dominate the box office, we will be forced to see shallow, superficial, emotionless drivel. Expand
  90. Mar 24, 2012
    4
    I was quite disappointed by the Hunger games. There is nothing wrong with using such a heavily recycled idea, but the entire purpose of the idea of an inescapable death-match scenario is to have incredibly gripping psychological drama that leaves the viewer/reader (in the case of the better form of battle royale) anguished at the tragedy of the event. This did not occur in the slightest,I was quite disappointed by the Hunger games. There is nothing wrong with using such a heavily recycled idea, but the entire purpose of the idea of an inescapable death-match scenario is to have incredibly gripping psychological drama that leaves the viewer/reader (in the case of the better form of battle royale) anguished at the tragedy of the event. This did not occur in the slightest, and there are a few reasons why. The acting was bland, the main contenders felt more like human masks than the deep and complex beings that they need to be to make this idea actually work. Their individual deaths or suffering left absolutely no impact on the viewer. Linked to this is the fact that the actual character development was sorely lacking. The pacing of the movie was problematic, the idea seemed interesting at first but it wasn't until around 1hr 30mins that the goal it was building towards actually happened. On a different note, the action itself (an important component of the idea) was limited and confusing, with so much fancy camera work going on it was hard to tell what was actually happening. In saying that though the futuristic element, was a refreshing take and the cinematography re its futuristic nature was very impressive. For me the highlight of the film was Stanley Tucci, he was as fantastic as ever. Expand
  91. Mar 24, 2012
    10
    Not since the Harry Potter franchise has a book been brought to life as a movie as well as this. Just as I imagined. I can't wait for the rest of the franchise to come to the big screen!
  92. Mar 23, 2012
    3
    The movie was very superficial. Glossed over the backstory and pretty much all of the relationships in a rush to get to the games. Then much of the tension of the games was missing, too. Not sure I would have been able to follow if I hadn't read the book. Add the "Blair Witch" camera work, and the whole experience was disappointing.
  93. Mar 30, 2012
    1
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The story: brutal story about teens killing each other. This was not the problem I had with the movie. The problem I had with the movie was the cinematography, or lack of it. I could not stand the very poor camera work. The director was constantly zooming in, panning up, zooming out, it became annoying. The "fight" scenes were a blur. You could not tell who was fighting what. They even had to resort to a cannon sounding to make sense of who died and who lived. Then there is the whole problem with the arena itself. The way the movie ended involved a Deus Ex Machina that ruined the entire premise. I will not go into detail beyond saying that if the cities had this technology available to them, why are they resorting to killing kids to keep the peace. I would avoid this movie, the plot is predictable, and the cinemtography is terrible. While I sat watching the film, I wondered how the director, or maybe its the author, would handle "good" kids killing "bad" kids, and it ended up turning out how I thought it would. As far as racist viewers worried about casting, I do not know why people complain about that crap. The issue I had is that the author, or director, chose the black community to be the ones rioting. That seems very racist to me, but I guess people are somehow comforted over that. Expand
  94. Mar 24, 2012
    10
    Fantastic adaptation of the book. Jennifer Lawrence is again wonderful and the film made me laugh and cry. Dont worry about the 12A rating it is all implied and in most cases shows the deaths anyway. DIRECTORS cut will be FAB! a*****************
  95. Mar 23, 2012
    10
    It was just as I had imagined. There were details left out for time purposes, maybe they will be more detailed oriented in the next two movies. Fast paced, amazing adventure. Capitol was amazing.
  96. Mar 23, 2012
    8
    I saw this movie at midnight like the many others around the country and left the theater feeling pretty good. The movie presents itself as a great compliment to the first book of the trilogy. The movie used a good mix of fast paced action, emotions, moral dilemmas, and satire and the camera work was mildly creative giving the film a more edgy feel. Though the shaky camera style doesn'tI saw this movie at midnight like the many others around the country and left the theater feeling pretty good. The movie presents itself as a great compliment to the first book of the trilogy. The movie used a good mix of fast paced action, emotions, moral dilemmas, and satire and the camera work was mildly creative giving the film a more edgy feel. Though the shaky camera style doesn't sit well with others I felt it suited the atmosphere of the movie very well. The camera work deviates from mainstream films and gives us a different perspective.

    The movie does a good job following the book with minimal deviations. The deviations that did occur did seem to hamper the movie. It was some of the finer details the film passed by that hurt it.

    Unfortunately, because of the limits of length, the movie did not flesh out the characters as well as hoped nor was the back story laid out very well. I fear that those seeing the movie without reading the books will not appreciate everything the movie has to offer or understand it. I will say that one of the best aspects of this movie was the attention to detail in costumes, character design, and settings. The movie is great and is definitely a tribute to those who read the books first.
    Expand
  97. Mar 25, 2012
    0
    One of the worst movies I have ever seen.. The only reason I watched it was because we got to the movie theater late and it was the only thing playing.. Out-dated special effects, a story that left a lot to be desired and a weak ending.. Don't waste your money on this garbage
  98. Mar 24, 2012
    10
    Just as great as I expected. It was perfectly paced, the acting was incredible, and it actually stays (mostly) true to the book. There were some details from the book that were left out of the movie, but they would've been really hard to explain and the movie would've been way too long. But just like the book, the movie offers lots of action; emotion; tear-jerking moments; andJust as great as I expected. It was perfectly paced, the acting was incredible, and it actually stays (mostly) true to the book. There were some details from the book that were left out of the movie, but they would've been really hard to explain and the movie would've been way too long. But just like the book, the movie offers lots of action; emotion; tear-jerking moments; and well-developed, likable characters. I give this movie a fully enthusiastic 10/10. It definitely does the book justice and I highly recommend it. Expand
  99. Apr 1, 2012
    10
    Hands down the best movie in recent memory. Everything about it was exquisite. A wickedly horrid but interesting story told magnificently. Compelling on every level. The tone and aura of the film were perfection.
  100. Aug 14, 2012
    0
    Dumbest and senseless movie ever! Some people, dressed like a gay freak show, taking some lowlifes's children for a gladiator's fights to make them (lowlifes) calm?! Only a tiny example of stupidity.
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.