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. 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

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.

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 Outdated special effects, unwatchable shaky camera style in the action scenes, strange choice of actress for the lead role (an almost too pretty well...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 Terrible dialogue and character development, unrealistic depiction of the future with people wearing outdated 18th century costumes while possessing incredible, almost magical technology that could create something out of nothing.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

Hot garbage. Thought this movie was gonna be the PG-13 version of "Battle Royale". Instead it's just another dumb twilight esc movie. No thanks Hollywood, you can keep your tweenie movies to yourself.

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 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

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 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

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

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!!

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

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....!!!

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.

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 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

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.

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.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It's hard for me to understand why so many people thought this movie was well done. I read the first book (mainly because my girlfriend really wanted me to, especially before the movie) and I have to say I'm really glad I did. Although, even if I didn't read the book, the movie is horrible regardless. My favorite character Haymitch never did any of the things that I liked him for in the book. I never cared for Rue as I did in the book, quite frankly I did not care when she died in the movie. When the familiars (the name escapes me) came on screen of the dead tributes, they were awkward dog creatures that did not resemble their former selves. Thresh never did anything. The casting was off as certain characters did not look like how they were portrayed in the book (I know it cannot be perfect but you can make it close). The chariot scene with the fire dress was uninspired. Cinna had no emotion and seemed to really not care for Katniss. The shotty camera work that just shook every time an action scene happened. The fact that Pita didn't lose a leg. This movie is just wrong. It's just bad. Aside from completely ruining the book, the movie alone just is not good. Nothing about it was entertaining especially since I've read the book and know that everything was done so horribly wrong. My girlfriend who is a huge fan of the series (collects everything she can) also hated the movie. We were both sitting in the theater, dumbstruck as people clapped and cheered for a movie that destroyed what the books created. In retrospect I'm sure more than half the people in the movie hadn't read the books but the fact that the author stood behind this, I'll be sure to skip out on anything she does again. Not to mention the fact that I saw Battle Royale which came out before the Hunger Games books and movie and watching that you realize how much is ripped off. Right down to where they have two winners. I'm rambling now but geez, looking up at 831 positive reviews, really? Gah!… Expand

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 more interesting then the movie. Avoid movies like this and you will be happy. You want my advice, watch Spring Breakers.… Expand

The Hunger Games was a great movie that never left me bored or disappointed. The story makes sense without reading the book (which I can't say for most book-to-film adaptions). There was only one weak point in this film: Lousy camera work. There were far too many face closeups and a lot of camera jerking. But, it's still watchable. And I still recommend it.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Rae Dolly lives in the Ozarks with an incapacitated mother and two younger siblings, a boy and a girl. Since mom is a cipher, and dad, gone missing, going on three weeks, Rae becomes the de facto head of the household; the surrogate parent, who at 17, has no time for games. It's hillbilly against hillbilly. Nobody claims to know the whereabouts of Rae's father, quote unquote. Also on her plate, Rae fights foreclosure on the family abode. The bail bondsman has come to collect. Her neighbors, former moonshiners-turned-crystal meth producers, don't know who the real enemy is. They kill their own kind; they'll even kill Rae, if she gets too close. In the interim, the army dreamer is the family's sole provider, the only one man enough to put food on the table. Hardly the squeamish type, Rae takes dead aim on a squirrel, but only because it's too late in the day for deer. That's where a certain girl of the future acquires her way with the bow and arrow. The gravitas, the grit; it's in the blood. Rae skins the critter, and with the boy's help. removes its innards. Flinching isn't permitted. But Rae has her limits, though. She cracks, finally, when it's time to saw off her daddy's hands. Somebody else wields the chainsaw, while Rae holds the body over water, in the lake where his killers dumped him. By proving that her father is dead, she gets to keep the house. The family stays intact. As a result, Rae cancels her military plans, and never leaves the Ozarks. As a result, future generations are doomed. Since the Missouri outback, the setting for Winter's Bone, could double as Panem's District 12, a coal mining outpost, and because the same actress occupies the cross-generational diegeses of the present and the future, it's not hard to imagine that somewhere down the line, somewhere in the family tree, a Dolly got together with an Everdeen, thereby making Rae an ancestor of Katniss', and correspondingly, the Debra Granik film, a Hunger Games prequel, hypothetically speaking. Viewed in a vacuum, the harsh post-apocalyptical conditions that afflicts District 12, the most impoverished of the Capitol's outlying districts, plays like a travesty, this gross disparity between the haves and have-nots. But by using Winter's Bone as an extrapolative tool, a bigger picture emerges, the narrative alters, where the Panemians are partly to blame for the state they're in. It's no wonder that the insurrection against the Capitol failed. The districts don't respect each other. Class warfare persists still among the tributes, despite the grisly outcome inherent in the yearly televised spectacle, whose death toll, by sheer numbers alone, should unite and align the districts against the Capitol. But that's just not the case. During the testing period, the academy-trained tributes from District 1 give off an aura of superiority over their competition, especially Peeta, whose poor archery skills, Katniss warns, makes him look weak, and an easy target for the alpha kids. It's only when the boy throws a metal ball into an arrow rack does he gain a measure of respect from his opponents. Already emasculated by his mother, who back home, lets Peeta know that she's rooting for Katniss, perhaps, leads to the ultimate betrayal, when he forms a coalition on the playing field with the District 1 tributes against his partner, which nearly results in death by arrow, as the girl's combatants fire at will towards the tree which tenuously harbors her. Earlier in the film, in a pre-game interview, Peeta announces his love for Katniss to the entire Panemic world, but he sure has a strange way of showing it. Worse than a supposed suitor, Rae is left alone to face the small community's wrath due to the traitorous actions of her father, the snitch who tells the authorities about the meth labs that dot the Ozark landscape. By turning informant, the father should have known that he was putting not just himself, but his daughter in harm's way, also. The local women nearly beat Rae to death. In a sense, like Katniss, who outscores Peeta 11-8 on the assessment tests, Rae gets punished for being better a man, which in her case, is having the nerve of doing something better than cooking crank like the old man. In both films, wars are waged amonst people of the same social class against each other. Knowing that Rae has mouths to feed, the people next door play a little hunger games of their own, waiting until dark to share their carcass, a newly slaughtered deer. Both the hillbillies and the disenfranchised youths fail to realize that they're on the same side. The Japanese are smarter. In Battle Royale, there are real alliances; they work together in earnest, without intrigue. They understand who the real enemy is. In another precursing film, The Running Man, we can gauge audience reaction throughout the bloody spectacle. No doubt, viewers across the Capitol want Katniss and Peeta to fight. Alas, they're unseen. Just like us.… Expand

Wonderful movie that moves along more quickly than one thinks. The acting is first rate and the movie has a nervous edge throughout. It is very thought provoking as any parent would not know what to do considering the future of our planet. Still feeling queasy.

I thought this movie brought the book to life better than any Harry Potter ever did. There were some things taken out, edited, or added in from the book, and I found myself thinking "that's not right!" several times, but I understand that things have to be changed for a film audience to understand the movie and for it to not be 6 hours long. Considering, I thought it was pretty loyal to the book. The only thing I didn't like being cut down was Katniss's time with Rue. There were also a few things not explained thoroughly that my boyfriend, who has no read the books, was confused by. So, maybe a little much was cut out. I appreciated that there was an artistic vision apparent in the movie, evident in camera work, sound editing, costume design, etc, although I felt at times they didn't follow through sufficiently. For example, the movie starts out with very shaky camera work with lots of "too close" shots, which I liked because it gave it a very gritty real feel, but this was mostly dropped after the first 15 minutes or so. I suppose they thought it may have gotten annoying after a while, which is probably true. There was also some sound and film editing that indicated that we're seeing the movie through Katniss's eyes (as in the book), but then there were scenes added in that didn't exist in the book, like how it kept cutting back to Gale watching the games on TV and the commentators explaining things like the trackerjackers. Those scenes certainly aren't from Katniss's point of view. So, the artistic vision of the film seemed a little inconsistent. It just wasn't pushed quite far enough. It was like the director wanted to do something really artistic, but chickened out. That being said, I think it was a good movie. I enjoyed it as much as the book (although the cave scenes were extra cheesy with music added, and the 400+ person theatre audience was laughing hysterically...that wasn't really the idea...) and I'm glad I saw it. I saw it 2 days ago and am still thinking about it. I can only hope that with the next movie, the director really pushes it farther and creates a full artistic vision rather than getting caught up in simply recreating the book.… Expand

Having not read the books, I sat down to watch this film with an element of caution - would the film be any good? Would I feel like I knew the story by the end? Rather than compare the film to the book, I'll just look at the story of the film. It doesn't seem to introduce the brutality or the importance of the Hunger Games itself. However, when the "Hunger Games" do start the immediacy and harshness of just how violent this film is shocks to the core. The pace of the film changes like a stab to the side. However, I didn't feel a connection with Lawrence's character and I didn't feel like I was willing her to win the competition either. It wasn't a bad performance from Lawrence, but not much empathy was allowed to be developed as the pace of the film quickened towards an abrupt end.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The interesting film about reviewing film adaptations of books is that not only do I have to review the story itself but I also have to review the way the film retells the story. Fortunately unlike most film adaptations of books (cough cough Lightning Thief) Hunger Games stays true to the book. This is probably due to Suzan Collins, the author, writing the screenplay for the film. The film does a good job with all the scenes from the book. There are some changes, which was expected. There were some changes that I liked such as showing the government interacting with a holographic map of the arena and the uprising in District 11 after Rue… Expand

They did a pretty effective job of taking a book based entirely on internal dialogue and make it a 3d person movie. The movie also was judicious in what it left out or minimized. Unfortunately though, that led to a number of undeveloped characters (except Katniss of course). I really enjoyed the movie and can't wait to see what they do with the next one. This movie blew Twilight away, but I understand that the intended audience is slightly different. A very good dystopian science fiction film, albeit for the masses.… Expand

BORING! I'll say right off the bat that I didn't read any the "Books" (I am a 40-something female whose favorite genre is action sci-fi, i.e. Aliens, Terminator, Matrix, etc.) and was hoping for a good movie. Unfortunately, this movie was TOTALLY over-hyped and didn't deliver. If you like the kind of action that has lots of shots of the main character sleeping in a tree and her BIG strategic moves involving a hornet's nest and some berries, you will think this is great entertainment. I would have given it less than 5 stars, but because of the costumes/hair/makeup in the middle section of the movie (which were very well done), I bumped it up a couple. I think it is only for people who read the "Books" since they can fill in mentally what the movie lacked (which was A LOT).… Expand

I liked the film but I nearly got up and walked out as soon as the shaky camera work began. Its a lazy filmmakers attempt to gin up anxiety. I was a little surprised to see a cautionary tale on authoritarian government in this age of nanny stateism and political correctness. Perhaps the next generations rebelliousness will be to return us to constitutional government and liberty. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I can hope.… Expand

A really good film. The Hunger Games is probably one of the best films I have seen this year. The atmosphere is intense, the premise and story is emotional and thought provoking and the acting is top notch. Jennifer Lawrence is amazing as Katniss and I consider her one of the best new actresses today and the rest of the cast is great too. The only complain that I have with the whole film is that the action scenes are riddled with shaky camera shots, which is very disorientating and it did get annoying at parts but it wasn't enough to ruin the film. I've read the first book of the Hunger Games trilogy and I have to say this is a very well made adaptation. It stayed with the main plot and kept the maturity and serious treatment of its demographic, which are mostly teenagers, that the book conveys.… Expand

Here is the problem. This is a movie about 24 children trying to murder each other, but it's made for kids (PG). This prevents the movie from showing any drama involved in the act of fighting someone to death, as being PG not much violence or any bad language can be shown. The special effects and character development are both terrible. I didn't care who lived or died, this includes the lead character.

All this being said. The story is still good and the actors performances save this movie. The general concensus of people I saw this movie with was, "it was alright glad I saw it".… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The Hunger Games is surprisingly faithful to the book. The only minor change is that they left Madge out of the movie completely. No big deal. I will admit that I became a little bit paranoid when I found out Jennifer Lawrence would be playing Katniss, but she did surprisingly good in this. Josh Hucherson made a pretty good Peeta, but the main highlight for me was Woody Harrelson as Haymich. I'm sure like myself, many found Effie Trinket(Elizabeth Banks)a bit annoying at times. So overall, casting was good. For $100,000,000, the visuals in this movie weren't bad. I also think the movie did the book justice pretty well for the most part. The only minor problem was that it was rushed quite a bit in some parts the book focused on more. And since you don't know what Katniss is thinking like you knew in the book, scene development will be confusing for those who haven't read the book. Simply put, The Hunger Games was outstanding and kept viewers on the edge of their seat. The action may be a little bit fast-paced and the camera may get a bit shaky on those parts at times(which I found difficult), but this movie tied in well with the book nonetheless. I think everyone is going to love this movie(fans of the book more specifically.)Recommended to anyone who can handle bloodshed, because there is A LOOOOOOOT of it in this movie!!!… Expand

I feel such a victim of advertising! Twighlight fans rejoice. Yet another superficial hollywood megaproduction polylogy. If the objective is to feel shocked by youngsters thrown into a survival of the fittest contest, then a much superior film is Battle Royale.

I have never read the books but I can tell you the movie is so flawed that I could write a book about it. At first, it seems like they could not decide on whether they wanted to make a serious film or a campy film to show to people really stoned for midnight weekend films. The futuristic utopia image was a joke as the film projected a country that was half Star Trek and half the Dark Ages. I thought the sets looked cheap and Woody Harrellson looked liked Tom Petty. Once they got around to the games, the film really lost any sense of reality as the one focused on 4 or 5 of the participants and we never saw anything about the others. The film has zero character development, plot development, and the history behind the games was never really explained. Lawrence spent most of her time sleeping in a tree while my film going partner spent her time looking at her watch. Hunger Games is close to being a movie you would see on Mystery Science Fiction Theather. It made Avatar look a classic . You can see the sequels coming but I will not go.… Expand

Jennifer Lawrence is terrific, but by asking us to assume the position of the elites (rooting for some of the Tributes, by making them cartoonishly loathsome) the film ends up asking us to assume the roles it is ostensibly condemning. Josh Hutcherson is useless, as he fails to convey the terror inherent in knowing that he is about to die a brutal death, and Liam Hemsworth, for all his admirable dialect work, seems like an over-privileged Beverly HIlls kid, not a starving, oppressed, district paeon. Elizabeth Banks is fine in her first scene, and then her accent disappears. The film is never boring, but its message is questionable.… Expand

In this version of the future, TV has extended reality competition to the ultimate: kids between 13-18 are selected to fight to the death. Before the games begin, they visit the dramatically-modern capital city, where they're groomed for TV and prepped for the fight. Jennifer Lawrence soaks up most of the screen time as a serious, determined young woman who seems destined to dominate the pack. Once the match begins, her home-grown survival skills come to play. The action is sporadic with all the killings dispatched quickly and painlessly (for the PG-13 rating). The art direction is colorful and the drama unfolds with solid zeal. Fans of the books will probably appreciate the film more. I found it satisfying without being special.… Expand

Ok seriously this movie is a drama. It reminded me of twilight. Mostly talking and almost no fight scenes. At least on TV when they advertise they make it look more like an action moive , WRONG! This movie tries to make you sad and that's it.

Very close to the book, don't know what people are whining about. Only bad thing was shaky camera in first 15 minutes, then later in "distress" scenes. Totally unnecessary and annoying. Yes book is better, but what can you do in 2 hours and 13 min? Pretty much what they did. I do hope to see extended scenes of Peeta's injury and reaction by Katniss as they have to operate on him in the DVD. Other than that, everything was great.… Expand

"The Hunger Games" was one of my favorite books of recent years, and I thought the movie was very faithful to the book. Jennifer Lawrence in particular was perfect as Katniss. It is true, as some reviewers state, that the movie leaves a lot of the back story of Katniss and Peeta out, but there is enough in the flashbacks so viewers get the idea. At first I thought Josh Hutcherson was wrong for the Peeta role, but he won me over with his performance. Overall a very good adaptation of a very good book. Anytime you make a movie of a beloved book it can never live up to some people's expectations. I thought they did a great job. My only major criticism would be the ever moving motion of the camera. I really hate this stupid technique that directors are using these days. You can get motion sick at the movies and it's annoying.… Expand

The movie did the book justice---the acting was absolutely fantastic. The actress who portrays Katniss has a great sense at portraying raw emotions. I loved every minute of it, and I understand as a fan, that you do have to leave out little details, because it is a movie, not a 350+ page book. Great work!

If you thought that the trailer was a bit lacking in action then I'm afraid to say the film's the same. It's all about the build up (admittedly good) to the games which comprise around 20-30 mins near the end of the film. It's all over way too quickly and you're sitting there with a very unsatisfied blood lust. Speaking of lust though, Jennifer Lawrence bags this film an extra point for me seeing as she's plays the role brilliantly and oh yeah, she's fit as hell.… Expand

The movie does not do justice to the book, nor to the characters. The character of Katmis is well portrayed by a talented actress. However the move seems more interested in the environment and techie tricks than in the depth of the characters that were developed in the book. ,How well one likes this movie may depend upon whether they have read the book first (thereby liking the movie more because they bring more to the movie than is in it), or having not not read the book , and being limited to what the movie actually portrays (which seems to be more Hollywood than Hunger Games). Unlike the excellent book, the movie seems to have chosen flash and style over substance.… Expand

I'd give The Hunger Games a passing grade. Its worth seeing if you had read the books, but it's probably a tad bit confusing for those who haven't. The acting was mediocre, the plot seemed rushed yet the audience is still engaged, and it gets the job done as a book adaptation. If you're a fan of the series it wouldn't be a bad idea to check it out, but don't go in expecting every detail to be there.… Expand

This is called to see a full movie, funny, sentimental and full of action! Stanley Tucci gave the best supporting actor, just great! the only thing that disappointed me a bit was his artistic direction, I feel I could have done better, so other well.

I think this movie is very good, but the book, gives much more detail then then the movie. Some people didn't like the movie because it didn't have enough action. I think it had enough action in it. The movie plot is good enough to keep you into the movie fro start to finish. The movie has a very good cast which could get this movie an oscar nom. This is not an oscar movie but the cast in the movie could bump it up and get it a nom. If it does get a nom it will be a just barely. Good movie and great book.… Expand

An eccentric future. People wear wierd makeup and have blue hair. I'm listening. Children killing each other. I'm listening. A fully developed world that truly makes me believe that this place could exist 300 years from now. I'm sold. This movie creates a place in time, and I feel like I'm there. Check.

Sad, thought-provoking, deep, emotional, and downright depressing these are the words I would use to describe The Hunger Games. I've never read the book, but this movie has made me want to. It's an absolutely emotional film. The characters are absolutely extremely well done. So much so in fact that I wanted to know more and more about them, including the minor and villain characters. If I had one complaint it would be that some scenes aren't as detailed as they should be. A problem I believe they had because they couldn't fit all the details from the book into the movie. This is a movie I do recommend, just keep in mind it's a pretty brutal film.… Expand

The Hunger Games is a decent movie taken from a book... A book which in turn takes it's elements from films like Battle Royale and The Running Man. Talk about cyclical! The Hunger Games shines when viewed as a character piece (Jennifer Lawrence's performance is excellent) or as a slight meditation on social greed and the notion of celebrity. That said, the movie has it's faults. The primary one being the lack of stirring action sequences. The editing and pacing of these scenes when they do arrive are simply unexciting. One thing I will say though is that the violence is tastefully neutered. I have no desire to see young children graphically killed and was mercifully spared from doing so. Ultimately, The Hunger Games was an entertaining movie that I enjoyed. Not nearly as much as Battle Royale, however.… Expand

Though the concept is hardly an original one, "The Hunger Games," directed by Gary Ross ("Pleasantville," "Seabiscuit," and the upcoming "Catching Fire"), visually details the first installment of the widely acclaimed dystopian trilogy written by Suzanne Collins. Taking a page or two from earlier films of a similar variety, as in a much tamer account of Fukasaku's "Battle Royale" (2001) and delivering the same satirical overtones and vision of runaway celebrity culture and reality-tv obsession like Weir's "The Truman Show" (1998), the film shines in its tense tone and from a couple of its leads (Lawrence and Hutcherson), though is lessened by its invariably unstable, twitchy camerawork (using three angles at times) and over-editing swiftness --despite its intentions to make for intensified pathos and a neurotic dystopia--which fails to match the book's same sense of loss from death and the competition's ubiquitous ambiance of uncompromising gravity and carnage. Notwithstanding the camerawork, editing errors, and violence-saving restraint (let's not forget its rated PG-13), 'Games' is very much engrossing; the one-hundred and forty-four minute runtime never seems too tedious or soporific. Moreover, the film retains its grip on the viewer's attention much in part to its nimbly brisk pace and stunning cinematography. Lawrence is really what puts 'Games' on the same map as "Harry Potter" and further away from "Twilight;" she has a calming innocence that is both steady and assuring to the viewer, and blue eyes that are equally riveting. If viewers are familiar with her in "Winter's Bone," the same barefaced committment is brought to her character Katniss Everdeen, the bow-and-arrow-slinging heroine, who volunteers for her eleven-year old sister in the annual "Hunger Games." It is through Katniss that audiences become genuinely concerned with the competition's outcome; rooting for the heroine over even her District 12-adversarily-forced friend Peeta (Hutcherson). His character attires a strong, affecting visage that tears the viewer momentarily for whom to continue to cheer for; Katniss still wins over the crowd. But even more effective, is the film's transition from the book, which is told in first-person (Katniss as the focal point), to an omni-prescent scope. With this clever, and much safer, modification, the audience gets to see both the Hunger Games control room (the studio show stage) as well as the artifical, environmentally-staged battlefield. Furthermore, the continual change of pace from hunting (the action) and the scripted show (presentation) mimicks a "real-life" reality premise where audiences see both the physical confrontation and the manipulated, interviews, pre-game ceremonies and beauty-style pagentry, laden with flamboyant fashion and persistent directing coordinators. The control room, as in all of the film's setting, draws a strong, at times too close, semblance to "Fifth Element;" apparently Hollywood's only visual representative take on what the future world will be. Amalgamated from this "reality-show" are hosts and staff, some memorable, and some one would like to repress. Among the former, is madcap, blue-bouffant, male-Oprah-like Stanley Tucci, the horrificly bearded high-tech coordinator, Wes Bentley, and the long, wooly white, lion mane coiffure of Donald Sutherland as the usually distinguished and mellifluous, President Snow of the 'Games'; he is demonically brutal in his antagonistic role. As a whole, 'Hunger' is a film that is steered money first into a consuming demographic (13-19), and restrains itself knowingly from achieving brilliance by ensuring it stays the course. Though it starts as if it will last an eternity, and stand amongst cinematic grandeur, the film inexorably loses it steam and transmutes into the melodrammatic plodding in the woods that follows the "Twilight" series far too subserviently. In addition to the increasingly eggregious display of treacle adolescent-romance and fluff, the initial brilliant cinematography by Tom Stern is supplanted with noticeably cooler, more mundane tones. And, once the fighting itself begins, the teens on the battlefield are just not given the same degree of complexity and richness as the adults; they are seen as sheer psychopaths with no souls. Moreover, the need to add the laboriously dull and done-before love triangle only frames what will hopefully "tie-in" in the next installment, but the incipient longing for relationships does not put an effective cap on this origin account. Not endowing the same cultural study of class critique, as the superior "Battle Royale," 'Games' is obviously too Hollywood for its own good, eliminating some of the greater meanings the film desires to fulfill. The crux of the point: breaking box-office records is more important than making breaking one's highest expectations; settling for green is the greater compromise.… Expand

While not being the most original movie ever made, The Hunger Games is a completely enjoyable time at the movie theater. The one thing I like most about this movie is the vehement extremest on both sides of the spectrum. This is not exactly a movie to get all riled up about and proclaim it the "worst" or "best" of all time, especially when you only see about 10 movies a year and have very little historical perspective on the grand scale of cinema. Everybody calm down.… Expand

I really liked this movie as both an adventure movie and a study of celebrity and how society is so obsessed with it and corruption in Government. Jennifer Lawrence is brilliant and holds the movie together so well as she is in more or less every scene. After her role in the brilliant Winters Bone and Xmen First Class she is definitely an actress on the rise and rise. I loved the cinematography with the "wasp sting" scene really standing out for me. The future setting is also very interesting in both the glitzy Capitol and rundown slum districts. My Girlfriend liked the love story element so it was a win win movie for me.… Expand

This was a very entertaining film, but having not read the books, I came in with no expectations and left with the feeling that I'd already seen this done almost EXACTLY in 'Battle Royale'. Jennifer Lawrence was brilliant as always. I adored her in 'The Poker House' and 'Winter's Bone' and she is easily one of our greatest acting commodities. It held my interest, so I give it a solid 6, but I thought the plot was a blatant ripoff. Sort of like 'Avatar' ripped off 'Ferngully'.… Expand

I saw this film back on its first opening weekend and I had high expectations seeing how I have read and enjoyed the whole book series. For that, I absolutely enjoyed this movie and it is entertaining as all hell! The only problems are that some parts from the book were left out and you have to be patient to be satisfied with the actual Hunger Games tournament. Other than that, the acting, the visuals, the story are all great!… Expand

The Hunger Games is not like Harry Potter or Twilight Saga, let's say we must trust the hype. It's thrilling and touching. Gary Ross put this movie-based-on-book more exciting with his hand. Thanks to solid acting from Lawrence.

Ok I always gave this movie crap as just another huge hit with the tweens but I saw it today and I liked it a lot. I know I totally gave in and call me Hot Topic but I'm a fan now. I do wish the movie gave more depth into some of the other characters more so you could really feel the different emotions for love and hate but I'm really looking forward to the next film and I may have to start reading ;)… Expand

I always wonder after seeing a movie where I have read the book beforehand, â

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.

Stunningly decent, yes that is how i think i will describe this it is strange almost like the concept is well done yet still not allowed to flourish. The over all scope of things is easily grasped and i can respect keeping it PG-13 for it's audience but it is just a little to lacking in detail, the book is deep, rich and complex while the movie lack the same stunning epic feel

The entire plot is based on the illogical premise that the games will keep the masses cowered and docile. But forcing two citizens from each region into lethal combat for public display and entertainment is a sure way to stir the populace into revolt and to make martyrs out of the participants. The random selection of contestants makes the slaughter of children inevitable, which would further inflame the populace. But this is just the beginning of a whole string of illogical plot developments that overwhelmed my ability to suspend disbelief. The film's robotic acting and dialogue make the moronic plot even more unbearable. I suspect that the producers knew they could profit by showing attractive young
actors running around in futuristic costumes trying to kill each other and not have to bother with meaningful content or story. Hunger games left me starving for an engaging story or characters.… Expand

Jennifer Lawrence was the workhorse of this film and she carried the burden brilliantly. Smokin' hot, super smart -- just an all around great performance. Mix this in with a tight script and excellent direction and you've got a hit. Hunger Games clocks in at 144 minutes and you'll be happy for the whole of it. The weakest part of the movie is the opening, where I wish they had gone a little more Fellowship of the Rings-ish with an acted-out narrative rather than some blocks of text, but this is a minor gripe. Really, there's nothing to complain about of any substance here. This is the best movie I have seen in a long time.… Expand

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.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I never read the book. Many people consider that a negative. I consider it a benefit. I am able to judge the world not based on my expectations for the book's movie, but on my expectations for a movie in general. I am able to expect the movie to leave me without questions that could be answered by the novel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Overall, it was a solid film. I wish I could have given it a 7.5, because honestly it doesn't deserve an 8. No movie should be judged by the book it is based on, but no movie based on a book should rely on the book it is based on. Overall, the Hunger Games doesn't rely on the novel - it explains most things well - but it lacks the character development and, well, non-cheesy introduction of plot elements that it needs.… Expand

The Hunger Games is a good movie. Not fanboy amazing, not hater terrible. It's good. As it is in most movies, there are a lot of little details that were taken out, but the details weren't necessary to the story. That said, the movie is definitely better if you've read the book. Is the book the difference between a 3 and an 8? No. It's the difference between an 8 and a 6. The movie has action, great acting, good looking actors and an actual plot. The movie stands well on it's own, but it is best enjoyed if you've read the book first. If you've read the book, you automatically fill in all the missing pieces, and that creates a wholesome, spectacular visual representation of the book. The movie shouldn't be criticized for leaving details out, the books should be criticized for having too much detail. That said, I definitely urge you to read the book and THEN go see the movie, but the movie is great on it's own, and worth seeing either way. (JENNIFER LAWRENCE!!!… Expand

Definitely better than the book. Most of my gripes about the movie actually come from the source material: the plot holes, unexplained scenarios, certain shallow characters (Peeta) are all things that bothered me when reading the book. Granted, it's written for young adults, so there's a fair amount of simplicity and cliche to be expected, but the hype around this book made me especially critical. Another gripe I have is the names of the weird animals in the book... Tracker Jackers? Muttants? ...I think she could have done better than that... Overall, the book isn't poorly written, it's just adequate. Even while reading the book, I was thinking that it would make a really fun movie, and the movie would likely be better than the book if it had quality art direction, pacing, and acting. Luckily, it has all of those things. The art style, effects, and camera work are all surprisingly good. The pacing is much better than the book, and kept me interested throughout (the book, on the other hand, had some incredibly dull stretches, i.e. in the cave with Peeta for days...). When I read reviews that say this "didn't do the book justice", I wonder if the reviewer is 12 years old (which I probably shouldn't complain about since I'm talking about a young adult movie), or if they've just never read a good book. There is truly not much depth to be found in the novel - it's entertaining and quick, and if it gets kids reading, then great - but it's not really something that leaves you thinking. If you're an adult, and a friend tells you to read the book, do yourself a favor and grab Game of Thrones instead. This movie doesn't have much depth either, but that's ok, because it's basically an action blockbuster. I promise you, you're not missing much by skipping the book and watching this - and you're gaining hours of time. As for acting, Jennifer Lawrence is fantastic, as you'd expect. She was amazing in Winters Bone, and is great in this as well. Woody Harrelson is one of my favorite actors, and tends to steal the show in all his movies, even as a supporting character. Without those two, this movie would likely have been pretty forgettable. Other supporting characters were good too, but didn't stand out. As for the Twilight comparisons, I think they're inaccurate. They're both young adult books with a female lead and a love triangle. Other than that, I don't see how they're similar; Bella broods and cries, while Katniss shoots people with arrows blows things up. The Hunger Games is far better than the Twilight movies (which isn't saying much - in fact I've never been able to sit through one). I say this as a 20-something man though, so I understand I'm not the target audience for either. But enough about Twilight. All in all, I give The Hunger Games a generous 8 for fantastic acting, nice art direction, and pure entertainment value.… Expand

I'll make it clear from the start, I regrettably haven't read Suzanne Collins' book series this film (and its inevitable sequels) are based on. I'm still quite able to judge it in cinematic terms, and besides, I would rather not become one of those over-protective readers who take it as a personal insult whenever the slightest change is made to the story for the sake of on-screen narrative flow. As all good sci-fi does, the film comments on an issue hugely relevant to contemporary society, in this case it's the rapidly increasing extremity and dominance of reality TV. The world of The Hunger Games is a dystopian future ruled by an oppressive, authoritarian government, where every district of Panem (formally North America) are annually forced to submit a teenage boy and girl to compete in a brutal blood sport for the dual purpose of keeping the formally rebellious lower-classes downtrodden, and to keep the rich citizens of the Capitol entertained as the ultimate form of twisted reality TV. The cast of the film are quite superb. Jennifer Lawrence is utterly captivating as the film's heroine Katniss Everdeen, District 12's female competitor, and Josh Hartnett continues to prove himself a fast-rising star as the District's male competitor Peeta Mellark, though both are acted off the screen by newcomer Amandla Stenberg playing an intelligent but younger-than-average games competitor, Rue. The veteran actors playing the adult characters all seem to be having a great deal of fun, from Woody Harrelson's cynical and alcoholic, but good-natured Hunger Games survivor Haymitch, the porcelain-doll-like games promoter Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), eccentric stylist Cinna (Lenny Kravitz) and especially Stanly Tucci's batty blue-haired TV host Caesar Flickerman. The only one who doesn't appear to be having a good time is Donald Sutherland, playing President Snow, though to be fair he's only a very minor character in this installment. and the filmmakers probably just wanted to get a big name in early to play a character who becomes (so I'm told) far more essential in the sequels. The games themselves are extremely well-realised - after the back-story to this particularly pessimistic vision of the future is established and the characters introduced, we are plunged into a something that is a cross between Battle Royale and Deliverance. When I first heard about the film and its teen-friendly certificate, I thought it would be limiting to the film tackling its exceptionally dark subject matter. Quite the contrary - a lower certification forces director Gary Ross and cinematographer Tom Stern to get creative. The action is thrilling, and what happens to the young competitors is in many ways more horrifying and visceral when it is slightly obscured by clever editing or if it happens just off-screen - your own imagination fills in the gaps and these fights don't lose any impact. I do however question why you're not allowed to show blood on weapons in a 12A certificated film, yet you can show a young boy's neck being broken and the two lead characters covered in blood at the film's finale. The story sucks you in and keeps you engaged throughout, though the run-time is a little gruelling, and the final act is pretty generic. The film cleverly addresses powerful and timeless themes of freedom and morality, coming of age and loss of innocence, and serves as a warning against technological dependence. While all these themes are all effectively discussed in the film, I still see potential to expand on them in the sequels, where these thematic seeds will really have the opportunity to bloom. I really was pleasantly surprised by The Hunger Games - I expected little more than a sub-par Battle Royale, but through a combination of stunning visuals, great performances, and mature discussion of complex thematic material, it stands on its own terms, and can be enjoyed by the teen audience it was marketed at and adults alike. I look forward to seeing the uncut version of the film, that is yet to be released in the UK, once it is released on DVD, and see just how much the film is changed. Whether the next instalment of the series has the same impact without the artistic talent and energy of director Gary Ross, who has now dropped out, remains to be seen...… Expand

I personally didn't read the books but after watching the movie there is probably a good reason why. this movie is.... Mediocre. The story is bland, the build up things with little payoff and the editing is how you say GOD AWFUL. Extreme shaky cam and extreme close ups really hurt this movies potential. I also utterly despise the setting. A post apocalyptic future where the rich control the poor. DONE TO DEATH! You really have to work hard when your movie is worse than New Moon and that's me being nice. AVOID THIS MOVIE!!!… Expand

I haven't read the book but it made perfect sense to me. As far as blockbusters go it was pretty darn good. It's a difficult thing to do a film like this well but they managed it, and in the process created something of a classic for our times.

What an excellent film. Having read the books, i love the way Gary Ross brought the highly acclaimed book to the big screen. Yes it had its differences from the book, but wow he did an amazing job. The parts that were missing from the books were understandable because he had to appeal to the audience that didn't read the book and help them understand the development of the story and the plot. The character development was the biggest flaw i saw in the film. It seemed very weak. I read the books yet i didn't feel anything for Gale and his relationship with Katniss in the movie, and the actor for Peeta was very weak, but you can't expect picture perfect acting from a newcomer like him. Same with Katniss and Rue's relationship, it wasn't built up nearly as much as it was in the book, yet the movie was already 2 and a half hours so its understandable. Overall though this film was just beautiful. The development to the games was perfect, the games themself were perfect and the way they brought the capitol and district 12 to life was perfect, exactly as i pictured it in the book. The action was very well done as well. This movie was almost perfect with just a few minor flaws. I'd give it a 9.5/10 but ill round it up to 10/10. Whether you have or have not read the books, you will love this movie for sure. Thank you Gary Ross (director) for bringing one of our favorite books to life in a beautiful way.… Expand

THE HUNGER GAMES
â

It's tough rating this movie, because there is a lot to like - but it seems so intent on being the first in a series that it just barely stands on its own two feet. Really, I'm afraid that people who haven't read the books aren't going to have the first clue about how good this story actually is and I wonder what this movie could have been if they'd allowed it to be it's own story as opposed to just a set up for the profit monster they expect the second and third parts to be. Not to mention, for a story called "The Hunger Games" you'd figure food would be a larger part of the story (as in the book), but there is surprisingly little of anything related to poverty, hunger, or food that contribute so much to who Peeta and Katniss (not to mention district 11's Rue) are as characters.

What's the like? Jennifer Lawrence, Stanley Tucci, and seeing how the games are run.
What's to hate? Really underdeveloped characters, poor pacing really hampers emotionally significant moments, and the camera work is at times amateurish.… Expand

The Hunger Games - 10/10 - The Hunger Games is inventive, inspirational and at times mind-blowing. It's not the greatest adaptation of the novel but this film stands alone. The shaky camera might be a little must but it's a brilliant way for this film that's about kids killing kids to bypass the MPAA and a R rating. Also a blockbuster of this nature made for under a hundred million and not being a total disaster is a feat within itself. Hunger Games is a must watch blockbuster in a randomly placed March!… Expand

Before I saw this movie, I decided I wanted to walk into it with no knowledge of anyone's opinion. I didn't check Facebook, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IMDB, or watch TV for a week. After my brother and I discussed our opinions of the movie, I checked out Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic and was somewhat surprised by the positive reaction to this film. To me, this film was a little better than okay. At the beginning of the film, It had some very effective dramatic scenes in it (especially the reaping). The cinematography was pretty decent, though I could have used a little less shaky cam. As the film went on, I was introduced to the film's vision of the capital, which was a little too over-the-top in my opinion. I understand it's supposed to be that way, but it does take away what makes the capital so ominous in the first place. As the games begin, we get our first action scene, which like every other action scene in this movie, was badly shot, poorly edited, was mostly bloodless, and extremely hard to follow (all because they needed their PG-13 rating). Imagine the fighting scenes in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, but with a bunch of kids in a field killing each other rather than giant robots. While I was still enjoying the film alright, the action scenes really made the film not as good as it should have been. Also, it seemed that whenever something dramatic would happen in the games, it would cut back to a goofy newscaster. And while I see the satire the film was trying to pull, it really did take away from the tone of the film. The ending was better concluded than it was in the book, so I give the film some props for that. As for the performances, almost all of them were engaging and well done. Overall, the pros slightly outweighed the cons, but just barely.… Expand

The Hunger Games is, a decent movie, I could say. It starts with Katniss, you fanboys know her, right? Well she is a dull character that has no reason for the audience to want her to win. As that continues, the plot expands, and the plot is great. Should keep viewers interested in this clever, expanding plot; despite it's simularities to "Most Dangerous Game". Anyways, Peeta, is another dull character. In fact, all the characters are. I can name a list of films that had begter characters. But then, I feel how the film was overall. In the end, it's an okay film, perhaps for the better than for the worse. I recommend this film, overall.… Expand

Its a bit **** just some girl crying for about 6 hours. I would say its a cross between Battle Royale and Twilight. It bigs these two people up like there these amazing people with awesome powers, and they hardly get used. The main guy in it supposed to have this amazing throw and he doesnt even throw anything throughout the film.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I read the books and was dying to see it the day it came out and I have to say, I was not disappointed. The CGI and acting were both a lot better than I thought they would be. The movie was not at all brought down a notch violence wise for kids. Many people who saw the movie actually think it should have been rated R. One of my favorite things with this movie is that it stayed almost exactly with the book. Many big blockbuster films based off of books are so drastically changed that it completely ruins the story for all of those who read the book originally. all in all, i would rate this a solid 9.5 out of 10. It doesn't deserve a 10 in my opinion because I feel like the beginning part when Katniss is in District 12 before the Reaping was way too short and you didn't really get to know Gale and how Katniss feels for him.… Expand

success does not imply quality. while you can't argue the fact that The Hunger Games is a box office success, the film itself is quite a let down. as with many teen novels that are adapted to film, the film displays a fundamentally poorly thought out execution. The plot is under developed, almost implying knowledge that can only be know from reading the book, an example of which is the relationship of the primary character (Katniss) with her Mother. The characters are underdeveloped and the plot lacks appeal. If you don't enjoy picking apart films, then you should enjoy it regardless of what anyone has to say.… Expand

Movie, great. Actors, great. Plot, special effects, sounds, great, great, great.

SUPER SHAKY CAMERA: I got a headache about half of the way through this movie and had to close my eyes so I didn't throw up. The camera ruined the whole movie for me, which is unfortunate because after reading the book, I was incredibly psyched.

It was much better than I ever expected. The pace was good and the story pulled you in. Certainly a star making performance for Jennifer Lawrence who carries the movie (as she must) without any missteps. She was great in Winter's Bone and now she will have the massive box office success to go with her great acting skills. With 2 more movies in the franchise, this was a great way to kick things off. Must see in the genre and the first really solid movie of 2012.… Expand

NOTE: IF YOU HAVE READ THE BOOK: MAKE THIS A 7/10. TL;DR THE MOVIE WOULD'VE BEEN POTENTIAL FOR BEST PICTURE BUT IT IS RUINED BY ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE PACING AND CHARACTER/WORLD DEVELOPMENT. The acting is superb (Especially Woody Harrelson as Haymitch) the visuals/audio stunning, and it follows rather well with the book. It paints an excellent image from the book. So why does it have a 5/10? Two reasons: Pacing and Character/World Development. The pacing was absolute crap. So crap it brings the score down by 2 points. With the 2 1/2 hours of the film, some scenes were uselessly prolonged (ESPECIALLY THE BEGINNING. The book had a long beginning, but it used it to explain the story), and could've been used to develop and explain the story. Character/World Development? For those who haven't read the book, this movie will be very confusing. It doesn't explain the purpose of the Districts, who most of the people are, the reasons behind the actions done, and generally what's going on. Who was that old guy with the big white beard? President Snow. Who was that guy with the strange stubble beard? Seneca Crane, the Head Gamemaker. Who was that cat at the beginning? Buttercup, one of Prim's pets, who only tolerates Katniss. Why is it called the "Hunger" games? Because most of the districts are in poverty, and many people starve to death. The winner of the Hunger Games get out of that poverty, and the district gets some extra food. What happened to District 13? It was destroyed by the Capitol during the Dark Days of the rebellion (No, this isn't a spoiler. This is backstory known by all the characters), as a demonstration of the Capitol's power and because it's possible to live without graphite. If you just watched the film without reading the book, you wouldn't know any of that stuff. So much potential ruined. sigh… Expand

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 .

From the top to the end "The Hunger Games" is a total entertainment . The story is very nicely built up . It succeed to create the hunger for the game for the audience . I very much like the before gaming part coz it gave the story a better shape, which is very rare . The gaming part was good , actually a bit better then I thought it would be. Jennifer was the perfect choice for playing Katniss . She was really amazing . She did so much better then I though she would and her acting was top class . Josh on the other hand was the weakest of all the main characters , it wasn't his best role and sometimes it felt like he wasn't trying to act well . One of my fav characters of the novel is Haymitch. And Harrelson did absolutely a fine job screening the character . Elizabeth , Stanley ,Sutherland was also good in there roles . Wes Bentley on the other side had his breakthrough role . He was really awesome . As for the director Gary Ross , I didn't like his direction that much . Before gaming part was okay but he failed to create the suspense and thriller which was very much needed at some point . I've never doubted James Newton Howard's music and I still stand corrected . So overall , With a very promising cast and an amazing story makes The Hunger Games is one of the best young-adult thriller movie ever . Its enjoyable , its a total entertainment and it has two more sequel that im very much looking forward to ..................… Expand

The movie is just as shallow as the book. There's little depth, zero character development, and the technology that The Capitol exudes is entirely unbelievable. 1. Shaking-camera approach was the wrong choice. The director was going for that voyeuristic, narrow-perspective, suspenseful feeling but it just ends up giving the viewer a headache. I found myself squinting at the screen for the first half of the movie (shakiness seems to absolve once the tributes arrive in the arena), and I found myself rubbing my eyes more than paying attention.

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

3. Just to have a third item... all of those tributes sure are GOOD LOOKING for being so poor. And why weren't there any fat tributes? One last thing: If these Hunger Games have been going on for close to 75 years, wouldn't every district by now train their tributes?… Expand

Fantastic movie. Very friendly towards all audiences above 10. Action packed, emotional and entertaining. One of the only criticisms I can say is that there was some sloppy scenes and direction. Im sure the next one will be much more professional looking.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I saw the movie opening day with my girlfriend and her family and we all really liked it.
The extravagant clothes and styles were amazing and I can promise you that you'll be seeing costume design nominations at the academy awards for this movie .
Jennifer Lawrence's acting is superb along with just about every single character I can think of from their alcoholic coach, to Rou, to the co-star Josh Hutcherson who will more than likely be nominated for his awesome performances.
The movie also follows the book to tee. The only complaint was that Rou was black, but whatever, Overall this is a really great movie and everyone should see it, I'm not saying to join the bandwagon like twilight fans do cause who knows if the Hunger Games squeal Catching Fire will be any good seeing how it was defiantly the weakest book of the trilogy.… Expand

Didn't read the books before seeing the movie, I'm thinking of reading them after seeing it. The movie was a pretty decent work of fiction as itself but I felt like the movie left a lot of things unexplained that were probably explained in the books. I think films made from books should exist as separate entities telling the same story in a different medium.

After all the dreadful Twilight movies that have come our way, we finally get a teen-targeted movie worth watching! The movie's biggest strong point is Jennifer Lawrence's gripping portrayal of Katniss, she played the role just as one would picture her in the book. I also don't think they could've got a better Peeta if they tried, Josh Hucterson IS Peeta. The violence pushes the boundaries for PG-13 films and it makes for some very powerful and tense moments. The Disctrict 12 scenes have a haunting conviction over them and the Capitol scenes display a perfect satire of our society. My only problems with the movie were that it needed a director more experienced with action films, the action and CGI were fairly poor, and the changes they made the climax stopped it from tugging my emotional strings like it did in the book. Apart from that it was brill and I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the series take shape.… Expand

this films is good, but there is a problem the movie dont mentions her friendship with Rue, but out of this the film is very good and i cried a lot when Rue died

even though the movie was 2 hours long, it failed to show all the important details in the book. maybe splitting it in 2 movies would have been a good idea? also, the movie was way less fun to watch if you haven't read the book. and i think an important job of a film that was based on a book is for it to be good on it's own right, as with lord of the rings. i haven't read the books and i still had a great time watching those.
looking past these mistakes, i must admit that i liked the movie and was never bored watching it, but still, i had a feeling it could have been better.… Expand

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 a break! AVOID this movie at all costs!… Expand

The Hunger Games books were a emotional amazing thrill ride. However, the movie was quite a disappointment. My favorite character in the books was Haymitch because of his character development. I was expecting him to fall off the stage at the beginning or something but nope. not there. Speaking of character development. There is a huge lacking in character development between the influential characters like Haymitch, Cinna, and especially Peeta. If I was part of the audience at the Capitol watching the "star-crossed lovers" I would NOT have been convinced they were in love. Anyway, besides from the overly-used shaky cam at the beginning the presentation of the scenes was good. The audio experience was not what I expected but it works.

In summary:
The Hunger Games was presented in a unexpected way that works to the feel of the setting(Panem); however, there is a extreme lack of character development especially between the "star-crossed lovers" which is essential to the story in books 1 and 2. With all the hype, the odds were not in this movie's favor.… Expand

This review contains spoilers. tl:dr If you like Twilight you'll probably like this, otherwise...meh. I haven't read the book so I don't know how well it has translated into film. Hopefully it hasn't done the book justice because it is not a great movie. The pacing is awful, with some parts mind numbingly boring, and then other scenes rushed and compressed. Camera work is terrible, shaky and nausea inducing. There are numerous immersion breaking plot holes. A movie doesn't have to have every little piece fit together perfectly, but when plot holes break your suspension of disbelief it is bad writing. For example wtf would the 'bad guys' have set up a booby trap so that the only way it can work involves destroying their own food supply...major facepalm. Also, I realise that these are meant to be kids, but for people locked into a life and death struggle they sure spend a lot of time crashing through the bush yelling at the tops of their voices, without making the slightest attempt at stealthiness, even the supposedly 'trained' ones from Districts 1 and 2. And how the hell did Rue's District buddy know what Catniss had done for Rue. Very little that the characters do makes any sense...there doesn't seem to be any motivation for much of it. I'm guessing that's one of the losses from the translation from the book? Finally, there is zero explanation of why this supposedly ultra advanced society (eg the almost magical healing ointments) keeps such a large portion of itself in virtual servitude. I'm not saying that it can't be that way, lots of today's real life societies are dystopian, but there should be some reason. Is it a religious thing, is there a critical shortage of resources or land. Who knows? It just seems that we're supposed to accept that all of the rich people are evil bastards who like to make children fight to the death. Seems legit...… Collapse

I can't help but think that there's something missing - the visual effects were stunning, there was an adequate enough storyline and the actors themselves couldn

Although it's runtime may seem a little too lengthy for some, The Hunger Games is an audacious drama/action with moments of pure, majestic thrill as Jennifer Lawrence gives an almost perfect portrayal as the outspoken Katniss Everdeen. Overall, it stands out from the action genre as a whole by providing solid acting, careful writing and intense fighting sequences that are certain to please the trilogy faithful.… Expand

NOTE: I haven't read the book
THE HUNGER GAMES is a tense and powerful adaptation of the teen novel that contains thrilling moments, some good acting and a nice art style. Though, the final act is rushed, the camera work is occasionally quite shaky and some of the characters are quite irritating.

A lot of hype and little substance to back up what should be a very intelligent thriller. While hardly mindless fun, the film misses a number of opportunities to really build the world leaving non readers confused and uninterested. It's not really until the battles that you might become remotely engaged in what's going on but even that's a stretch. The first half of the movie flies by with little background about why the Hunger Games are done the way they are, why there was an uprising to begin with and who these people in the Capitol are and their motivations for watching children slaughter each other on live TV.

The characters are strikingly bland and undeveloped and the relationship is just thrown in there to appeal to Twilight Fans. We don't know much about our main character other than she comes from a Coal Mining town and her father died somehow. (presumably in an accident or something). Her mother is a zoned out space cadet leaving Kat to care for her sister or something. The constant shaking of the camera is distracting and downright obnoxious, the first half of the movie I kept saying "hold the camera still." It's so tiring seeing shaking camera under the BS reason of "causing confusion" especially in a film that's supposed to be about the gravity of this sick and twisted game. I can't tell who's killed and I can't find my self caring. I don't know who anyone is or why they matter. The saving grass is an impressive score by James Newton Howard who actually managed to make an interesting music score this time. The film gives enough substance to make it interesting and worth checking out the future sequels but still leaves a lot to be desired. The characters are boring, the story is rushed, there's no exposition or reason for anyone to care. Bring a motion sickness bag if you are prone to an upset stomach.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The start of the film was very promising, setting up the film well. It showed the relationships between characters brilliantly for the short amount of time there was to do that in. The relationship between Catniss and her sister,Prim, was particularly well done, and you could at least see that there was some sort of history between Catniss and her mother. The only thing that could of been explained much better in the introduction was the absence of the father. The other thing that was done well was the history of the country Panem. Although many readers of the book might have felt disappointed with it, I felt that it showed us just enough so that we weren't clueless about it's history and it didn't drag on too much.

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

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

But one thing that I do give The Hunger Games credit for is it's ability not to bore you. It could very easily be one of the most boring films of all time as although the book is very good it has parts where there is not so much action. The director managed to not cut these parts out put curve round them. Another thing I credit this film with is it's 50/50 chesiness. They've done it perfectly. While not making it to dark and unhollywoody they've also made it not too "Disney". The bit that really proved my point is the bit where there about to eat the berry (Yes it would of been better if they had eaten the berry but come on that's not going to happen) and instead of making it all dramatic and and making the gamemaker say in slow motion with crappy music, "Nooooooooo...wait. You win. We are the bad guys and we have lost", the gamemaker splutters as though really panicked and with no cheesy music, "Wait, wait, ur... both of you can win" which made the whole cinema laugh and really redeemed the film for me. All I can say about this film to sum it up is that it's better than Twilight, go and see it if you want and that I'm not eagerly awaiting the sequel at all.… Expand

Although the adaptation from the book is good I hear, I haven't read any of them, but the movie successfully gave me the urge to read them. Mainly for the back-story and the reasons why things were done in the movie that weren't explained that well. And that was a flaw in the movie that I really disliked.. It needed to elaborate on the hand signal you see multiple times and maybe a little more about the other districts would have been nice. The other flaw is that I hear the book is much grittier than the movie in which case this movie should have been rated R to make a good movie adaptation even better. The movie was done well and I understand that they make more money because it is PG-13, but an R rating with more grit would have made this movie a 10 for me. Woody Harrelson definitely made this movie for me.. He was perfect for his character and I love the guy as an actor. I'm glad he can be a part of a highly successful movie for once. But all in all it was better than my expectations. Hyped movies are the ones I stay away from but this one deserves ALMOST all of the hype.… Expand

I was expecting more. Also kids killing kids did not sit well with me. I guess I'm okay with that. The day I am okay with that I need to see a psychiatrist.

Having never read the book/s, I went in to this movie with high hopes. It failed on several different levels. Like Stephan Kings "The Long Walk" the ending was predictable, and a let down. I might someday flip through the book, and will hope the director failed miserably at translation. Until that time comes, this movie will remain a failure! Although it was slightly watchable, I kept expecting something. But after 2 hours 22 mins, I was left only with expectation...… Expand

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 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

If you're looking for a direct copy and paste of the book, you may be left disappointed. As expected, some non-important filler parts were left out for time constraints (the movie was already two hours and thirty minutes). At first, I didn't really think about it. This movie, as promising as the book, may leave you a bit empty if you're looking for something overly 'epic'. The amount of action suits the book perfectly, therefore does justice to the series. I think the director did well, however, if you've not read the book you will most likely not fully enjoy the movie. After thinking about it, this movie has some really deep points that are so true within our everyday world, which can only be reflected in film. THIS is the best thing that the movie did, tying with the action thus making the flow better.… Expand

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'm honestly very surprised about how many people are stating about how faithful the movie is to the book. While I did enjoy how we learned more to Seneca Crane's backstory (even though that does subtract from the surprise of learning of his death in the second book/movie), it seemed to me that the screenplay took the crucial aspects of the book, then rewrote all the dialogue. I understand the need to keep things trimmed down, and the book is massive in scope, but there were countless moments where I was waiting for a particular line that I liked from the book, only to find it was changed, seemingly for no reason, to a weaker line ("Did I actually get a pair of fighters this year?").

Now, massive dialogue changes aside, I couldn't help but find the major tweak to the origins of the mockingjay pin being a bit upsetting. The mockingjay pin is probably the best known symbol for Katniss and becomes very important in the later books/movies, yet, the source becomes some random vendor from the Hobb (whom I'd like to imagine was Greasy Sae, although that's never explained).

Trying to look at this movie from the perspective of someone who's never read the book, I felt that everything from the start of the games on was just rushed. The part I was probably looking forward to the most was Cinna's costumes. Yet, I found myself completely disappointed. My imagination certainly did a better job than the special effects folks, as the costumes were honestly rather mundane. After Katniss was stung by the trackerjackers, Rue applied the leaves which improved her wounds, yet, the movie never explained what those leaves were for.

The romance between Katniss and Peeta? I felt it in the book, but in the movie, the chemistry just wasn't there. It wasn't the actors, but rather how rushed the story had become at that point. I understand that a first person book is extremely hard to transform into a movie, but I still can't help but think we should have seen more from Katniss's perspective. Hearing some of her thoughts and explanations would have been far better than the occasional scene swap to some announcers trying to fill in the clueless audience.

Significant changes from the book to movie adaptation that I thought were particularly unneeded included:
… Expand