User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1525 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 31, 2012
    2
    In The Hunger Games, it's the theatre-goers who lose their lunch. I only really watched the first third of this movie, the rest of it I had motion sickness so bad I could only really listen. I've never gotten sick from a movie before, and it is an experience I hope never to repeat.

    Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson gave very entertaining performances as always. Elizabeth Banks should
    In The Hunger Games, it's the theatre-goers who lose their lunch. I only really watched the first third of this movie, the rest of it I had motion sickness so bad I could only really listen. I've never gotten sick from a movie before, and it is an experience I hope never to repeat.

    Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson gave very entertaining performances as always. Elizabeth Banks should have given this movie a pass as she is unrecognizable and adds nothing to the story.

    The subject matter is simply awful: a society that thinks it's entertaining to watch children murder each other. I won't be seeing the sequels.
    Expand
  2. Apr 1, 2012
    3
    Honestly, this movie didn't reflect how good of a book this was. It didn't show much character for anyone, including Katniss. When you saw kids from other districts die, it was hard to feel bad because you knew nothing about their history (excluding Rue). Katniss and Peeta's relationship was very confusing if you hadn't read the books, and Haymitch's actor wasn't as sharp as he shouldHonestly, this movie didn't reflect how good of a book this was. It didn't show much character for anyone, including Katniss. When you saw kids from other districts die, it was hard to feel bad because you knew nothing about their history (excluding Rue). Katniss and Peeta's relationship was very confusing if you hadn't read the books, and Haymitch's actor wasn't as sharp as he should have. Also, there were not very many cave scenes, Gale wasn't a very big part, and what about Flavius, Octavia, Venia, Portia? This was an utter let down to what was one of my favorite books. Expand
  3. Apr 2, 2012
    3
    It's like watching an episode of Buffy. Just corny, predictable and constant wtfs. I just found myself in awe of how often I was laughing and wondering why they didn't opt to use realism over Twilightish teenism.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. Apr 9, 2012
    10
    The Hunger Games is an unforgettable film experience. It features an incredible performance from Jennifer Lawrence and amazing supporting performances from everyone. Gary Ross's direction may be criticized but he really manages to bring you into the story. You feel for the character, you feel pure emotion. The film manages to scare you, manages to make you cry. It never drags and should beThe Hunger Games is an unforgettable film experience. It features an incredible performance from Jennifer Lawrence and amazing supporting performances from everyone. Gary Ross's direction may be criticized but he really manages to bring you into the story. You feel for the character, you feel pure emotion. The film manages to scare you, manages to make you cry. It never drags and should be recognized as one of the best films of 2012. I give this movie 98%. Expand
  7. Apr 12, 2012
    9
    I will keep it short and sweet. I had no expectations going into this movie and I really liked it. I enjoyed the build-up and politics up to the actual games. Woody Harrelson with his usual comic relief. Definitely entertaining. Worth seeing in the theatre for sure!!
  8. Apr 14, 2012
    10
    I wish i could have given this movie an eleven! This movie not only showed the brutality of humans, but the inhumane treatment of "slave-like" districts. This movie was amazing, short and simple.
  9. 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.
  10. Apr 18, 2012
    9
    This is one of the best teen movie this year! I do not know why this movie just got a 6.7 rating? This movie can make the heart beat of the people who saw it! Amazing film!
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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 .
  16. 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.
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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!!
  24. 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....!!!
  25. 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
  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. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. 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.
  32. Apr 14, 2013
    0
    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
  33. 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.
  34. Jul 16, 2013
    0
    First off, I neither liked this film nor the books. The entire concept was taken directly from Battle Royale and has just interjected elements from The Lord of The Flies. There are several ways that the character of Katniss is just a bland, sociopathic male-stand-in who does everything wrong and seems to get out alive. Peeta is creepy. No question. How he tries to make Katniss act likeFirst off, I neither liked this film nor the books. The entire concept was taken directly from Battle Royale and has just interjected elements from The Lord of The Flies. There are several ways that the character of Katniss is just a bland, sociopathic male-stand-in who does everything wrong and seems to get out alive. Peeta is creepy. No question. How he tries to make Katniss act like she's in love with him for the better of the viewers and how he admitted to nearly stalking her in both the film and book. Gale and Prim are useless characters who, if they were removed, the story would still be the same. Haymich isn't alcoholic at all, he's an occasional drunk, and I'm ready to stand up to that point with anyone who wants to protest. I don't want this review to run long with everything that's wrong with this, because there aren't enough characters here to rightly explain. But what I hate the most is the sheer fact that such a large bandwagon has been made for this film/book. There are other alternatives out there that do it so much better than this. Just because millions of people like something doesn't make it as good as everyone praises it to be. Expand
  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. 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.
  42. 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.
  43. 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
  44. Mar 23, 2012
    6
    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
  45. Mar 23, 2012
    6
    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)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
  46. Mar 24, 2012
    7
    I didn't exactly know what to expect going into seeing this movie. I personally have only read the first book in the series and there are a few things that books can do that movies can't, like spending ALOT of time developing the characters while movies need to introduce them and move on. I personally felt like the story between Katniss and her mother, particularly the reason why there'sI didn't exactly know what to expect going into seeing this movie. I personally have only read the first book in the series and there are a few things that books can do that movies can't, like spending ALOT of time developing the characters while movies need to introduce them and move on. I personally felt like the story between Katniss and her mother, particularly the reason why there's such a rift between them, was overlooked, but they were barely featured in the movie even if her family is her motivation to participate in the Games. I felt like the relationship between Peeta and Katniss was kinda forced in the movie and just generally didn't seem to flow very well with everything else. Katniss' relationship with Rue was the best part of the movie and really brought the emotional roller coaster to it's greatest height. I thought everything else about the movie was very well done and it definitely was fun to watch. However expect some of the movie limitations on character development to dampen your opinion of this movie if your an avid fan of the series as you won't get anywhere near the amount of development that the book can bring. But fans and newcomers to the series alike will both like this movie as it still does a good job selling the raw emotions that each of the characters bring. Expand
  47. Mar 24, 2012
    7
    I have not read the books, so I'm evaluating this strictly as movie, not as adaptation of book. Generally I was satisfied with the movie. It's not brilliant but it's worth considering. However it felt shallow on parts. Especially character development. Also some segments were not explained enough. I don't know anything about this post-apocalyptic world. So for public like me, non readers,I have not read the books, so I'm evaluating this strictly as movie, not as adaptation of book. Generally I was satisfied with the movie. It's not brilliant but it's worth considering. However it felt shallow on parts. Especially character development. Also some segments were not explained enough. I don't know anything about this post-apocalyptic world. So for public like me, non readers, there should be some segments that more obviously explain stuff.
    Nevertheless I'm happy with cast. Mostly. Also visually movie is rich. Contrast between capitol and districts is well made. And killing scenes are well handled for the target group. At the end of the day it teen movie.
    Expand
  48. Mar 24, 2012
    9
    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 ofIf 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
  49. Mar 24, 2012
    7
    I didn't read the books at all but ya I guess this was alright. A lot like Battle Royale but in some sort of weird American/Ancient Roman future. The pacing was a little slow and the action was poorly shot but the story was alright and I liked how the style of the Capital. I wish the movie was R rated so I can see those kids really tear each other apart.
  50. Mar 24, 2012
    6
    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 asIt'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
  51. Mar 24, 2012
    9
    Had a blast. Lots of fun. Almost wish it was longer to explain some parts the book more thoroughly. As usual the books are better but they tried hard to make a movie true to the book, and they did a good job. Will see it again
  52. Mar 24, 2012
    9
    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!
  53. Mar 24, 2012
    9
    I've never read the books, and knew next-to-nothing about the movie when I walked into the theater, and this movie knocked my socks off. I loved the tense atmosphere that is present throughout most of the film; it keeps you on the edge of your seat. Great, believable acting, especially from Ms. Lawrence. And a wonderful story and setting that was both engaging and awe-inspiring. DefinitelyI've never read the books, and knew next-to-nothing about the movie when I walked into the theater, and this movie knocked my socks off. I loved the tense atmosphere that is present throughout most of the film; it keeps you on the edge of your seat. Great, believable acting, especially from Ms. Lawrence. And a wonderful story and setting that was both engaging and awe-inspiring. Definitely the best movie I've seen so far in 2012. Not sure how it holds up to the book, but I personally think this movie is fantastic. Expand
  54. Mar 24, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It was lacking in many aspects compared to the book, but it is understandable since movie length is something constantly hanging over a directors head since you have to keep the movie short enough to keep people interested, but long enough to get what you can into the movie. My personal opinion is that the director and the movie in general could have really turned out better if there was more emotion put into some of the scene's. I understand you can't show in a PG-13 movie a 12 year old getting impaled by a spear, but Rue's death in the movie lacked alot of the emotion that the book was able to portray. What should have been a revenge killing fueld by anger and sadness was merely Katniss defending herself and unfortunately Rue got in the cross fire after the spear missed Katniss. Not only did it lack emotion with Katniss by Rue's side as she died the aftermath was completely left out, Katniss was supposed to decorate Rue's body in flowers but instead simply got a bouquet of flowers and laid them on her. And a major symbol from district 11 in the form of the bread they send her is missed out. While tension is rising in district 11 showing them already in the process of a riot is going to be something they will have to skirt around in the 2nd film when Katniss is trying to stop rebellion, well that's a little late seeing that it started before you even used the berries to defy the capitol, guess Rue's death is the spark, not the berries. All and all except for a few gripes about lack of emotion the film did a good job sticking true to the books, while they slightly shot themselves in the foot, and will have to do some cosmetic work with the 2nd movie to fix some blunders of the 1st movie and then stick true to the 2nd book I have faith in the team. Actors did a great job portraying their characters, I wasn't sold on Peeta's actor but after seeing him in the movie i saw the great choice they made in him, and Katniss's actress did a great job as well. Expand
  55. Mar 24, 2012
    8
    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.
  56. Mar 24, 2012
    7
    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 betterBefore 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
  57. Mar 24, 2012
    7
    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.
  58. Mar 24, 2012
    7
    I thought this film was good. The fact that I assumed the movie would be the next "Twilight" series made me very skeptical and worried that the film wouldn't be good, but now I stand corrected because this film wasn't bad. The premise was genius and the leads of the movie had an okay chemistry between each other the entire film. The one thing I must point out is the fact that they reallyI thought this film was good. The fact that I assumed the movie would be the next "Twilight" series made me very skeptical and worried that the film wouldn't be good, but now I stand corrected because this film wasn't bad. The premise was genius and the leads of the movie had an okay chemistry between each other the entire film. The one thing I must point out is the fact that they really only concentrated on the two leads and really no one else. The main lead: Jennifer Lawrence, who was in X-Men: First Class got her first really big lead role and played her part really well and kept the film going throughout. This for me is a film you can watch once and never again because it just wasn't a super great film. Expand
  59. Mar 24, 2012
    9
    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 aJennifer 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
  60. Mar 25, 2012
    6
    I haven't read any of the books, but had heard good things about them and the film, so decided to take the plunge and watch it. I don't think it did a good job of setting up a back story for new comers, as all there really was, was the short film during the initial tribute selection and the occasional flashback, which didn't go into much detail.

    Once in the Capital, and the build up to
    I haven't read any of the books, but had heard good things about them and the film, so decided to take the plunge and watch it. I don't think it did a good job of setting up a back story for new comers, as all there really was, was the short film during the initial tribute selection and the occasional flashback, which didn't go into much detail.

    Once in the Capital, and the build up to and in the arena is where it got a lot more enjoyable. The action/ survival sequences were really well done, and made you feel more for the individual characters, but I couldn't help but want for more of a Battle Royale type 'only one survivor' story.

    Overall it was a fun film to watch and I'll probably end up watching the trilogy as they come out, and read the books at some point too.
    Expand
  61. Mar 25, 2012
    7
    Many of the points brought up in previous reviews have really nailed the pros and cons of this movie. However, I feel a vastly undisclosed topic is this movies sub par realism: cheap sets and poor costumes leave the reader slightly disengaged; a huge aspect of this movie for me (as an avid reader of the books) was seeing it all come to life - and I just feel like it really didn't do thatMany of the points brought up in previous reviews have really nailed the pros and cons of this movie. However, I feel a vastly undisclosed topic is this movies sub par realism: cheap sets and poor costumes leave the reader slightly disengaged; a huge aspect of this movie for me (as an avid reader of the books) was seeing it all come to life - and I just feel like it really didn't do that for me. Also, the lack of violence is problematic. While I understand that this movie had to appeal to a wide range of audiences, it really took away from the raw power and darkness of the books. This is a world where they pit children against each other in televised fights to the death; a little blood may have helped to get that point across. I'm also fairly disappointed in the subtle differences between this movie and the book - I understand you can't put everything in, but not giving us proper character development and back story leave the viewer either confused or merely annoyed at the shallowness of it all. Albeit, these issues are minor; the movie did a very good job of portraying the book accurately and telling the same story. Despite these setbacks, the movie was fairly good. There was a brilliant fight scene between Katniss and rival character Clove, and great work with Peeta and his camouflage. The movie had me on the edge of my seat, always waiting for more. Go see this movie, it's worth it. But it's a much better bargain if you've read the books. Friends of mine who didn't read them came up to my afterward puzzled, asking for explanation after explanation. Not understanding the book won't help you to understand what they cut, and how the characters are (or not) growing. It's a story so unique and action packed, it would have been good no matter who brought it to life - I suppose I just wish it were a little more above and beyond; more than a top-grossing movie, but a great movie as well. Expand
  62. Mar 25, 2012
    6
    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 includesHere 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
  63. Mar 25, 2012
    9
    One of the best movies I have seen. Why? Okay first off, if you didn't read the book(like me) you still get the premise of the movie. The idea is quite frightening, kids killing other kids, but it is way more than that. Sure some people may think its cheesy, but the movies they like are cheesy to more people than less. The movie to me was about, Will Power, Courage, and Romance. EvenOne of the best movies I have seen. Why? Okay first off, if you didn't read the book(like me) you still get the premise of the movie. The idea is quite frightening, kids killing other kids, but it is way more than that. Sure some people may think its cheesy, but the movies they like are cheesy to more people than less. The movie to me was about, Will Power, Courage, and Romance. Even though the movie is not R, don't think its a movie for kids under 13 or 14. Little kids may have nightmares, even though its not horror, just from the slight gore and scary ideas. I recommend you go see this, and like i'm going to do, read the book afterwords. Expand
  64. Mar 25, 2012
    7
    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 playingFrom 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
  65. DME
    Mar 25, 2012
    8
    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.
  66. Mar 25, 2012
    9
    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 toI 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
  67. Mar 25, 2012
    6
    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,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
  68. Mar 25, 2012
    9
    The Hunger Games movie didn't develop the characters enough to have any emotional attachment to them. This is because the movie doesnâ
  69. Mar 25, 2012
    9
    This movie stays true to the book and is executed well by the main actors. My only complaints are that the camera work was awful and parts of the story are hard to understand if you didn't read the book. Still, those things do not dampen my enthusiasm for this movie. It is a well written, well produced, and excellent film.
  70. Jun 22, 2012
    9
    One of the few novel adaptations that actually comes close to approaching the quality of its source material. The only blunder was not expanding much on Rue's character the way they did in the book. Otherwise, this is a useful companion to the book that even expands on the book's social commentary (mostly by being more unsubtle, but that's beside the point). You don't need to read the bookOne of the few novel adaptations that actually comes close to approaching the quality of its source material. The only blunder was not expanding much on Rue's character the way they did in the book. Otherwise, this is a useful companion to the book that even expands on the book's social commentary (mostly by being more unsubtle, but that's beside the point). You don't need to read the book to understand it, either - my dad saw it and liked it. Anyway, I loved the shaky camera and the way they would take out all the sound in the fighting scenes and replace it with white noise. It made it more horrifying. After all, this is NOT an epic popcorn roller-coaster ride, this is a disturbing, upsetting vision of the direction in which our shallow, sheltered, desensitized, gossipy, flamboyant, privileged first-world western society could very well head. We ARE the Capitol audience, and something very much like the Hunger Games could insinuate in the near future. The movie did an excellent job illustrating this (loved Cato's monologue - that actually should have been in the book). Along with that, the cast was superb. Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Isabelle Fuhrman and Liam Hemsworth are all terrific actors. And the soundtrack (especially the credits song) was great. Expand
  71. May 2, 2012
    8
    great movie it handled the teen violence really well and was true enough to the book would have gotten a 9 or 10 from me if it had been a bit closer to the books story and it could have had more of its little details
  72. Mar 26, 2012
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. 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... Expand
  73. Mar 26, 2012
    8
    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 especiallyDefinitely 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. Collapse
  74. Mar 26, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I have read the entire Hunger Games series and had been looking forward to the movie immensely. I was disappointed at how normal the movie was. Don't get me wrong, the movie was good. But it certainly did not do the book justice due to several flaws. Firstly, the character development was rather weak especially the relationship between Peeta and Katniss. I believe that more effort and time could have been spent to show Peeta's love towards Katniss and also, why Katniss had no choice but to love him back during the course of the game. In terms of summarization of the story, I thought the script writer did a good job at taking important parts from the story so that the audience who did not read the book could get a general idea at what the movie was about. However, too many small details were left out. I find it irritating that the hovercraft did not appear to pick up dead bodies especially in Rue's scene. Even more so, President Snow was not depicted constantly licking his mouth. This and many other lack small details ruined the expectation, fun and excitement for the fans of the series. Meanwhile, I find scenes where most of the conversation occurs mainly in monologue rather boring. The actors can and have acted well, but many scenes of slow and quiet talking bore me out instead of making me feel what the characters were feeling at that time. I cannot imagine how it would be like for non book readers. Perhaps, the worst part is that the entire movie did not pick up sufficient pace to get the audience to enjoy the action scenes around the second half of the movie. It gave a rather monotonous atmosphere throughout the movie save for some exciting scenes.

    This movie deserves a 6 for me. Perhaps it could have been better if it were split into two parts or if a narrative from Katniss' perspective was introduced to explain many parts of the movie. Either way, I hope the director will not produce a similarly paced second movie because that would be obscenely boring already.

    P.S Haymitch was an **** in this movie. He sounds retarded with the cowboy accent.
    Expand
  75. Mar 26, 2012
    9
    wow im in love with that girl. such an impressive personality, so real. what a great movie! the only downside is that some parts of the movie look nonsense, but other than that its amazing
  76. Mar 26, 2012
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. To those who realize that this movie is supposed to be part of a series of films, this movie won't be too surprising in many ways. The premise presents itself in a clear light, and almost everything about the movie, from the acting, to the costume design, to the writing, tries to paint everything as obvious as possible (We get it, the rich have no connection to the poor, the poor hate the rich, no human wants to embrace the concept of death/murder, and self-preservation is an impeccably strong mindset). Luckily, everything from the acting to the costume design to the writing is also well done. The pacing of the movie manages to move well, even through the slower parts of the film, and actually makes you interested in some characters (Even if the movie makes it apparent that some characters WILL die before the end, going as far to give some characters attributes, emotions, personal connections and an overall unique style, yet never giving them a name.)

    Do know this: the movie is good. I'll just say that now before I continue. I have a bit of a pessimistic view on things, and the next paragraph will be a bit of a downer.

    Maybe it's me, but having the movie focus so heavily on one character removes the tension of the entire movie ("Oh, only one entrant will survive? I wonder if it's gonna be the protagonist who gets 90% of the screen time..."). The movie then tries to create some tension by putting the protagonist in peril every two seconds, only to be saved by, usually not by her own skill, but the incredible stupidity of everyone else involved. The movie even goes so far as damn near showing that almost EVERY entrant is more skilled than her, yet every opportunity someone has to easily murder her, passes up the chance out of pity, fear, alternative opportunity, or quite simply no good reason. There's even a moment where she's stuck up a tree with a leg injury and nowhere to go, and the four well-equipped and skilled people hunting her decide to just go to sleep instead of the plethora of ideas that would have safely ended in her death (Like climbing an adjacent tree and shooting her with an arrow, or blowing up the tree, or burning the tree). it also seems like many entrants outside the main ones are simply there to demonstrate things to the protagonist. All of these things are well and fine if the actual hunger games were only a part of the story, but no, the movie pretty much ends right afterward. The main meat of the story was too obvious, and suffered too large a number of logical failures.
    Expand
  77. Jul 4, 2012
    7
    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 narrativeI'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
  78. Mar 26, 2012
    5
    I always wonder after seeing a movie where I have read the book beforehand, â
  79. Mar 26, 2012
    8
    I've never read the books so i don't know if this movie is a great adaption but i really enjoyed the movie. The acting was good, story was quite compelling and the action was good throughout. Reminded me of Battle Royale which i also enjoyed.
  80. Mar 27, 2012
    8
    "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"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
  81. Mar 26, 2012
    8
    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 theI 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
  82. Mar 26, 2012
    6
    The Hunger Games? Well to me they were a mixture of an amazing storyline but had terrible execution. I think the romance was pushed to hard, and although there was phenomenal acting parts, a lot of it was a big slab of cheese. I would give anywhere from a 6.0 to an 8.0 I think there downfall was the execution and the seemingly forced romance. In other words, it reminded me of CaptainThe Hunger Games? Well to me they were a mixture of an amazing storyline but had terrible execution. I think the romance was pushed to hard, and although there was phenomenal acting parts, a lot of it was a big slab of cheese. I would give anywhere from a 6.0 to an 8.0 I think there downfall was the execution and the seemingly forced romance. In other words, it reminded me of Captain America with Chris Evans. All in all, a little less than satisfactory. Expand
  83. Mar 26, 2012
    5
    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 hisJennifer 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
  84. Mar 26, 2012
    8
    In the spirit of Last-Man-Standing contest, Hunger Games surprisingly succeeds in mixing teen love story with bloody combat. Usually movies with romantic trait tend to stroll back and forth boringly which leads to slumber inducing moments or late regret of purchasing the ticket, and usually survivor type movies tend to abuse gore in your face which leaves the tension specifically only toIn the spirit of Last-Man-Standing contest, Hunger Games surprisingly succeeds in mixing teen love story with bloody combat. Usually movies with romantic trait tend to stroll back and forth boringly which leads to slumber inducing moments or late regret of purchasing the ticket, and usually survivor type movies tend to abuse gore in your face which leaves the tension specifically only to scare tactic, leaving you without a damn to give about the characters aside from how and when they will die. Hunger Games balances them both and creates a well paced movie with great storytelling and adequate visceral display to boot. It's an action movie that takes its time as the battle doesn't start halfway into the movie and fortunately doesn't repeat the old mistake, giving outrageous death in early minutes then leaves you hanging for the rest. The pace builds up nicely with large ambitious world to introduce, this pays off when the plot becomes more intense in the later half. In the world of Hunger Games, each year they will commemorate a festival in which 24 Tributes, young boys and girls from twelve districts, will take part in a battle royal until one victor remains standing. The lead Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) are likeable as the representatives from District 12, one of the most rural there is. People like underdog, to quote one of the characters. Katniss is an older sister who volunteers herself after her sister was originally picked by a sort of eerie lottery called the Reaping. She is courageous, realistically appealing and very easy to root for. Peeta has more character development as he's not initially oozing with confident compared to Katniss, audience might be unsympathetic towards him but he matures during the story. Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) is quite whimsical as their secretly caring yet partially sober mentor. He has an awkward parental figure, much like in Zombieland. Effie (Elizabeth Banks) is a curios character, she views the life and problems with undermining perspective, perhaps a commentary of its dystopian world which has overly indulged itself to the point of apathy. Regardless of that, she is enigmatically appealing, although mostly for a bit irony. Cinna (Lenny Kravitz) is a delightful addition, he portrays a rather metrosexual image consultant which provides more mature support and shows more affection than the other two. Too bad he doesnâ Expand
  85. Mar 26, 2012
    7
    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 veryWhile 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
  86. Mar 27, 2012
    8
    Good solid film. Most of my issues with it have more to do with the way it was marketed. It looked as if they were trying to bill it as some sort of action film, when in fact it really isn't. If you are looking for the lead character to be some sort of badass, you will be sorely dissapointed. Instead, what you get is a pretty well considered scenerio for what would be more likely to happenGood solid film. Most of my issues with it have more to do with the way it was marketed. It looked as if they were trying to bill it as some sort of action film, when in fact it really isn't. If you are looking for the lead character to be some sort of badass, you will be sorely dissapointed. Instead, what you get is a pretty well considered scenerio for what would be more likely to happen to random teens placed in an unreasonably butal situation. If you view this violent drama for what it really is it, it doesn't disappoint. Expand
  87. Mar 27, 2012
    6
    This movie is way overhyped/overrated. Don't expect too much from a movie based off of a teen book. The story is good(though sort of shallow - again, teen book), but the look/feel/direction of this movie is pretty terrible. Gary Ross, the Director, is just bad and it would be a shame if he directed the other 2 films. I see him directing them though because the film did so well. The movieThis movie is way overhyped/overrated. Don't expect too much from a movie based off of a teen book. The story is good(though sort of shallow - again, teen book), but the look/feel/direction of this movie is pretty terrible. Gary Ross, the Director, is just bad and it would be a shame if he directed the other 2 films. I see him directing them though because the film did so well. The movie is like if you took Mad Max, dusted and cleaned everyone/everything, made it PG, put in rainbows, and made them all teenagers. Shame, really. Also, am I the only one that thinks it looks like it was filmed with an iPhone? Expand
  88. Mar 27, 2012
    9
    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
  89. Mar 27, 2012
    7
    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.
  90. Mar 27, 2012
    9
    Firstly, I would recommend reading the book first, you will miss a lot of the implied parts if you don't. Secondly I will start with my nitpicks. The shaky cam is a little annoying (its nowhere near transformers level, don't worry). There are a few minor moments from the book I wish were kept. I actually wish the movie was longer to flesh out the story. I didn't like the end part with theFirstly, I would recommend reading the book first, you will miss a lot of the implied parts if you don't. Secondly I will start with my nitpicks. The shaky cam is a little annoying (its nowhere near transformers level, don't worry). There are a few minor moments from the book I wish were kept. I actually wish the movie was longer to flesh out the story. I didn't like the end part with the Gamemaker. And I could do without all the extreme closeups.

    Great casting, great acting, great costumes. The characters are awesome. Even though I read the book and knew the plot, I was still on the edge of my seat rooting for Katniss. The movie is well paced, the acting is brilliant! I just can't say enough good about the movie. The reason its not a 10 is because of the cinematography, no other reason.
    Expand
  91. Mar 27, 2012
    8
    Good movie. First 30 minutes were boring, since they explained the story which I already understood from the trailer. Next 2 hours more than add up for it.
  92. Mar 28, 2012
    9
    I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It stays 90% true to the book and the action scenes have been dumbed down in order to reach the intended audience rating. Nonetheless, I enjoyed the breakaway from traditional survival game violence, suggesting the violence with enthusing it. I recommend it.
  93. Mar 28, 2012
    8
    I thought this movie was pretty decent for being based on a movie and enjoyed seeing it. I would recommend absolutely seeing it in theaters if you read the books but wait for it to come out on dvd if you haven't read the books. I feel it did a overall good job and getting the theme of the book down and got the important events in the film. I do wish they could have explained some importantI thought this movie was pretty decent for being based on a movie and enjoyed seeing it. I would recommend absolutely seeing it in theaters if you read the books but wait for it to come out on dvd if you haven't read the books. I feel it did a overall good job and getting the theme of the book down and got the important events in the film. I do wish they could have explained some important things in the book because I was only able to understand them because I read the book but ended up having to explain some things to my family because they didn't read the book. Although I felt they left some key info out of the book I feel it was pretty faithful and helped show the type of world they lived in better than what I could do with my imagination. I felt this movie is better suited to someone who has read the books because it serves as pictures to better visualize the world better when you already know the story. Otherwise I feel this movie might be a little confusing. I would totally recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys Orwellian plots and think its ultimately a great ride. Expand
  94. Mar 28, 2012
    9
    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 toIt 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
  95. Mar 28, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I was excited to, go see Hunger Games. But I knew, it was going have some setbacks. So (Of course) just like the book, it starts with Katniss Everdeen, comforting her sister, and hunting with her best friend. After she sells some, squirrel meat to support her family, she goes to the Reaping for the 74th Hunger Games. A competition that, takes two 12-18 year old kids from all 12 districts, and fight to the death.
    She volunteers to pay tribute, to protect her sister since she was one of, the children chosen to fight. So she's on her way to, the Capital to please the crowd, and survive the Hunger Games. Of course they have to, make some changes to the movie in order to make, it 90 minutes long. Changes like: Instead of the, District 1 Boy (I believe he is in District 1) waiting for Katniss to come, and rescue Rue. He comes in late, and throws the spear at Rue, when Katniss frees her.
    But some of these changes kind of, screws with the plot a bit. In the book, the District 12 Tributes have a deal with Haymitch to, actually helping them instead of getting drunk. That conversation is, nowhere in the movie (Or I missed it). That would be, a very important plot point for their survival. Same thing with, the Rue scene, in the book, the Career Tributes knew that Rue died because, the District 1 boy was ordered to kill her. In the movie, they had no way of knowing since, they did not know he was there.
    He just found them there, and took his chance. Another issue I have with the movie is that, it needed more character development. Bringing Rue back up again, when she died, I did not feel sad at all, (Maybe because I saw it coming) she only had about five lines in the movie. Another thing, the scenes are too short, and 99% of the movie has Katniss in it. Yes the entire book is in, Katniss's prospective but there are so many, more creative scenes you can do.
    Just a few scenes are, out of the arena to, explain things like Tracker Jackers. I have one more complaint, which is probably the worst part in the movie. Shaky cam, they try to be, clever by using shaky cam, to censor the violence so it can, get a pg-13 rating. But what they get is a, disorienting mess that will give anyone, who watches a headache. Bottom line, it's enjoyable, but it could be better.
    The actors are either, serious or awkward. The cinematography is a mess. But I don't, think it will stop you from watching this movie. Watch it or not, it's your choice but, the book has better story elements, in terms of characters, and small plot points. My rating for this movie would be a 6.5/10.
    Expand
  96. Mar 28, 2012
    8
    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 littleAlthough 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
  97. Mar 29, 2012
    7
    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 theIn 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
  98. Mar 29, 2012
    9
    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 toOk 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
  99. Mar 29, 2012
    4
    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 theThe 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
  100. Mar 30, 2012
    8
    Please note that I have not read the books, and had only heard a brief background of the concept before seeing the film. Fortunately, I found "The Hunger Games" to be fantastic and well worth the money. The story explains that there are 12 districts that provide resources to the Capitol, which house the elite of the world. The occupants of the districts live often in poverty and have toPlease note that I have not read the books, and had only heard a brief background of the concept before seeing the film. Fortunately, I found "The Hunger Games" to be fantastic and well worth the money. The story explains that there are 12 districts that provide resources to the Capitol, which house the elite of the world. The occupants of the districts live often in poverty and have to be extremely resourceful to survive. Some time ago, the districts banded together and attempted to overthrow the Capitol. This resistance was squashed and now every year, the Capitol requires one young female and one young male from each district to fight to the death in a last man standing scenario on television.

    I found the relationships to be shallow but they did their job. There were some concepts here and there that I thought were far fetched (holo-deck like killing machine hell hounds?) And the film is largely predictable, with weak attempts to cover up the obvious direction they were taking us. But is it entertaining? You bet. I was not disappointed and will read the books eventually.
    Expand
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.