User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1574 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

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 24, 2012
    7
    I submitted a review but not a rating, so my 2 and a half star review has a rating of 10. I'd actually rate this a 6.5. The movie disappointed me by lacking the urgency of the book, being too shallow (not that the book was really deep), failing to convey Katniss' and other characters' inner selves, and not carrying sufficient weight for the subject matter. I don't want more actual gore,I submitted a review but not a rating, so my 2 and a half star review has a rating of 10. I'd actually rate this a 6.5. The movie disappointed me by lacking the urgency of the book, being too shallow (not that the book was really deep), failing to convey Katniss' and other characters' inner selves, and not carrying sufficient weight for the subject matter. I don't want more actual gore, but they failed to convey the disturbing, horrific nature of the Games. I've been more disturbed at TV dramas. The audience in my theater barely reacted, and walked out as soon as the credits started as if they were no more affected than the people in the Capitol. Basically, what was good about the book was missing. Maybe I'd have thought it was better if I hadn't known what was coming, but if a movie has to rely just on suspense for its value, it's pretty shallow. And if I hadn't read the book, I would have misread many character motivations, which were largely glossed over and simplified. I would have misconstrued the climax for sure. This seemed like a sure-fire book-to-film transfer, but the book is so much better. Jennifer Lawrence is the best thing about the movie; I just wish her role has been written better. Expand
  2. May 30, 2012
    0
    Have I missed something, or is 'Hunger Games' in essence the same film as 'Battle Royale'.

    The Battle Royale. metacritic summary says 'Summary: Battle Royale is a violent epic about an innocent group of Junior High students forced by the government to hunt and kill their classmates for sport.'. And for 'Hunger Games' summary 'the evil Capitol of the nation of Panem forces each of its
    Have I missed something, or is 'Hunger Games' in essence the same film as 'Battle Royale'.

    The Battle Royale. metacritic summary says 'Summary: Battle Royale is a violent epic about an innocent group of Junior High students forced by the government to hunt and kill their classmates for sport.'. And for 'Hunger Games' summary 'the evil Capitol of the nation of Panem forces each of its twelve districts to send a teenage boy and girl to compete'.

    Is it a remake, or just a rip off?
    Expand
  3. Apr 1, 2012
    10
    It was excellent. I've read the books and I enjoyed the movie. No 10 rating for some of the acting and the changes to the script but none the less I enjoyed it.
  4. Apr 21, 2012
    7
    The Hunger Games is a very good movie. Did it very well from the book. They didn't make it a lot like the book but still a great film. The Hunger Games 7.9/10
  5. May 8, 2012
    0
    Hot garbage. Thought this movie was gonna be the PG-13 version of "Battle Royale". Instead it's just another dumb twilight esc movie. No thanks Hollywood, you can keep your tweenie movies to yourself.
  6. Mar 24, 2012
    8
    An absolute thrill of a film. I didn't read any of the books, and that could help with my perception of the movie. But taken as a film (and that's how a movie should be judged, ultimately), The Hunger Games is a great experience that follows a young heroine in a society which thrives off of the murder of young, underpriveledged children as a form of entertainment. Jennifer LawrenceAn absolute thrill of a film. I didn't read any of the books, and that could help with my perception of the movie. But taken as a film (and that's how a movie should be judged, ultimately), The Hunger Games is a great experience that follows a young heroine in a society which thrives off of the murder of young, underpriveledged children as a form of entertainment. Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss) delivers a wonderful performance, while supporting cast members such as Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, and Donald Sutherland bring this movie to life. The execution of the movie's direction and post-production give it the feel that Riddley Scott's "Gladiator" and Kurt Wimer's "Equilibrium" had a silver screen child, and named it "The Hunger Games". While not as gorey or adult-themed as the previous films, it still finds all the right places to be violent without forcing audiences to endure grissley violence (which certainly could have ensued). If you're looking for a great package in one film, The Hunger Games might be your ticket. But then again, there's probably a small group of people who won't find it as entertaining. Most of those people have already decided not to partake in this adventure. Here's to looking forward to the potential of a strong trilogy in the making! Expand
  7. Mar 23, 2012
    10
    The Hunger Games is a fantastic movie, and the reason? The cast, the books, the story, all is amazing in the Hunger Games. The best is Jennifer Lawrence at Katniss Everdeen. I love The Hunger Games, is an amzing movie.
  8. Mar 23, 2012
    10
    The movie was very entertaining. I didn't know anything about the books, and so going in as a complete noob I found the movie easily understood. A great book-movie tie in. Loved in, not a dull moment. A lot of great moments!
  9. Mar 24, 2012
    10
    The film is beautifully imagined and shot and is in keeping with the essence of the book. In one sense fans of the literary franchise will be pleased that the overall story has be preserved and allowed to adapt organically during the conversion. But as is often found in literary to cinematic adaptations, timing and relationships to characters (and between characters on screen) may have aThe film is beautifully imagined and shot and is in keeping with the essence of the book. In one sense fans of the literary franchise will be pleased that the overall story has be preserved and allowed to adapt organically during the conversion. But as is often found in literary to cinematic adaptations, timing and relationships to characters (and between characters on screen) may have a different impact than would be the case in the process of reading. The sentimental and nostalgic moments do certainly tug at ones heartstrings but rather differently than is the case with the novel. The film is a stand-alone piece and so to say that it fails in some way in light of the literary genre would be both untrue and unfair. What could be said is that the deep impact the story is created to embed in the mind may take longer than if one weaved the world themselves as we do when we read. This film is probably one of the better examples of the difference between the film and literary genres in terms of impact on imagination. In all, it's well shot, well scripted and certainly well acted. I have a feeling that this franchise, more-so than other popular young-adult phenomena will be more about the complete story rather than individual pieces. For superfans of the book it might take two viewings, as for all else it should by all rights make for entertaining viewing. Expand
  10. Mar 23, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The movie was OKAY at best. The cinematography was so terrible that I was having motion sickness. Some of the scenes made me flat out go: â Expand
  11. Mar 23, 2012
    10
    Hunger Games is THE must-see-movie of the year! Everything fits together perfectly - the cast, their acting, the directing...wow
    Especially Jennifer Lawrence's acting is reason enough to watch, but there is so much more.
    Believe me - this movie won't disappoint anyone who loves the books. Everyone in the cinema praised this amazing masterpiece and you will be the next:)
  12. Mar 23, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Unfortunately, this movie didn't cut it for me. The characters were bland and two-dimensional, the cinematography left something to be desired, and the plot moved by so quickly that nothing was given adequate time. Like Katniss's relationships with Peeta and Gale. Or her time spent with Rue. Quite honestly, I needed these relationships to be formed and dwelt upon at length in the film in order to give the Games the meaning that they needed. Unless the characters (and the viewer) have something to lose, a movie can never achieve true emotional involvement and suspense. All in all, this was an unfortunate disappointment. Expand
  13. Mar 24, 2012
    1
    If you are a teenage girl, you will love this movie. Everyone else over 25 you might as well wait for the 3rd installment to see if they make it better. The main actress is great but the plot is so thin and predictabile. I can't believe I was taken in by all the hype. A big disappointment.
  14. Mar 23, 2012
    5
    The Hunger Games = Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome with Teenagers. I'm not saying it is a bad film but much of the premise was clearly borrowed from the Mel Gibson apocalyptic trilogy of Mad Max/ The Road Warrior.
  15. Mar 23, 2012
    7
    In no way was it a masterpiece, but the Hunger Games proved itself an excitingly intense movie, led by the powerful performances from Lawrence and Hutcherson. The action was at best decent, sticking true to the book, yet not nearly as epic it could be, and the cinematography was obviously purposeful, yet at times disorienting. My biggest disappointment was soundtrack. At times I felt theIn no way was it a masterpiece, but the Hunger Games proved itself an excitingly intense movie, led by the powerful performances from Lawrence and Hutcherson. The action was at best decent, sticking true to the book, yet not nearly as epic it could be, and the cinematography was obviously purposeful, yet at times disorienting. My biggest disappointment was soundtrack. At times I felt the movie stumbled along, lacking the addicting fast pace of the book, and I feel like that may be due to the ho-hum soundtrack. There was no driving force, no beat to the film to carry the film forward, and because of that, the film suffered. Overall, I enjoyed the movie and found it worth the twelve dollars. However, I would not see it again. Expand
  16. Mar 23, 2012
    7
    Having read the book, I can say that this movie was a relatively loyal adaptation, andI was reasonably surprised byit.Itis true that not everything fromthe bookis captured here. But to expectthe filmmakers to translate every single page fromthe book ontothe screen would be unfair (it's not possible). With that being said, judged onit's own terms (asintelligent, blockbusterHaving read the book, I can say that this movie was a relatively loyal adaptation, andI was reasonably surprised byit.Itis true that not everything fromthe bookis captured here. But to expectthe filmmakers to translate every single page fromthe book ontothe screen would be unfair (it's not possible). With that being said, judged onit's own terms (asintelligent, blockbuster entertainment),the film succeeds.It's fast-paced, suspenseful, emotional, and brutal whereit needs to be. Jennifer Lawrence gives a great performance as Katniss Everdeen (if any ofthe other rumored casting choices were chosen for Katniss,they would have paledin comparison to Lawrence's work here). Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks and Lenny Kravitz also give standout performances.The production designis great (futuristicinthe capitol, primalinthe arena), andthe actionis well-choreographed.The 2 hour and 20 minute running time flew by, and bythe endI was already anticipatingthe next two films. Expand
  17. Mar 25, 2012
    10
    First of, I would give this movie a 9.5 out of 10. Had to round. 2nd this is a great film. Book pretty good, movie great. Acting good, visuals good, and score is good. You need to see this film. This is a great start to a hopefully successful series.
  18. Mar 26, 2012
    10
    Completely faithful to the book, 'The Hunger Games' is thought provoking, action packed, and features a particular spotlight performance from Jennifer Lawrence. Certainly the film is intense and violent, but not bloody not gory, making the controversial killings easier for audiences to digest. Even so I would not recommend this film to audiences younger than 13, but as a credit to theCompletely faithful to the book, 'The Hunger Games' is thought provoking, action packed, and features a particular spotlight performance from Jennifer Lawrence. Certainly the film is intense and violent, but not bloody not gory, making the controversial killings easier for audiences to digest. Even so I would not recommend this film to audiences younger than 13, but as a credit to the film-makers, it will appeal to all age groups above this. Expand
  19. 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.
  20. Mar 23, 2012
    7
    The hunger games' largest problem is that it chooses to emphacize on it's dramatic material between the lovebirds over it's thematic material. Does the film do the book justice? kind of I guess. Will all the teen girls that go see this film be happy they sure will. This does not meen i did not enjoy it, it just meens it could have been a lot better by taking a few more risks as the criticsThe hunger games' largest problem is that it chooses to emphacize on it's dramatic material between the lovebirds over it's thematic material. Does the film do the book justice? kind of I guess. Will all the teen girls that go see this film be happy they sure will. This does not meen i did not enjoy it, it just meens it could have been a lot better by taking a few more risks as the critics like to say. Expand
  21. 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
  22. Mar 28, 2012
    10
    This movie does the book JUSTICE! An amazing recap of everything. The did however forget a few parts, but it doesn't subtract away from the accuracy/amazingness of the storyline. If you haven't read the book you might be quite lost 0_o
  23. Mar 24, 2012
    10
    I loved the books, the movie was sensational. Collins' is most certainly proud of her vision brought to life on the Big Screen. This movie is a must see for fans and for strangers to Collins' breathtaking trilogy.

    All I have left to say, to "Kat Murphy, Special to MSN Movies", is "who are you again?" This woman who so loved the books, but trashed the movie, is the woman who loves bean
    I loved the books, the movie was sensational. Collins' is most certainly proud of her vision brought to life on the Big Screen. This movie is a must see for fans and for strangers to Collins' breathtaking trilogy.

    All I have left to say, to "Kat Murphy, Special to MSN Movies", is "who are you again?" This woman who so loved the books, but trashed the movie, is the woman who loves bean paste in her cheesecake. Her "eclectic" taste in movies has bled her of every reasonable perception of top notch entertainment. Take your Eel ice-cream and Geoduck sausage taste for movies Kat Murphy, the rest of us plan to enjoy the wonderful Double Fudge brownie with a side of taste-bud tingling Espresso Bean ice cream movie any day. Hunger Games is one of the most tasty visionary treats I've had the pleasure of seeing in a long time.
    Expand
  24. Mar 24, 2012
    10
    The Hunger games has put out a movie with action romance and suspense all at the same time. This movie had me on the edge of my seat. This is a must see movie and i cant wait till the new one comes out Catching Fire!
  25. Mar 25, 2012
    10
    This movie was amazing. Some critics will tell you that it did not do the book justice, but I feel that no one would see a movie that could fit everything into it that we all wanted. The movie would be around 4 to 5 hours long if the relationships were developed as well as they could have been. The director did a fantastic job pushing everything together into a cohesive amazing film. IfThis movie was amazing. Some critics will tell you that it did not do the book justice, but I feel that no one would see a movie that could fit everything into it that we all wanted. The movie would be around 4 to 5 hours long if the relationships were developed as well as they could have been. The director did a fantastic job pushing everything together into a cohesive amazing film. If one reads the book BEFORE seeing the movie, they will be ultimately rewarded with a much deeper emotional bond to the characters, but that being said, READ THE BOOK! It's not that hard. The only thing that I would have wanted is Cato coming to Clove and giving his emotional breakdown. They tried to swap that with his monologue at the end, but it would have been much more emotional if Clove had Cato to hold her. I'm sure most things were cut solely to make the movie a reasonable time length, so take that into consideration when judging this film. In other words - read the book, even if you have already seen the movie, you will want to see it again and experience the full impact. Expand
  26. Mar 25, 2012
    10
    A great book adaptation, that kept me all the movie on the edge of my seat. Its talented cast brought an excellent performance and its leading star, Jennifer Lawrence, did not disappoint at all.
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. 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!
  30. 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
  31. Mar 23, 2012
    10
    I can't believe it was that good! I came out of the theater generally surprised and a little guilt-stricken for not having read any of the books. That was a choice, mind you. I will read the first book this week. I'm reading them in sequential order, after I see the film based on that specific book. Anyway... It was an amazing film! The acting was impressive, all-around...including Peta.I can't believe it was that good! I came out of the theater generally surprised and a little guilt-stricken for not having read any of the books. That was a choice, mind you. I will read the first book this week. I'm reading them in sequential order, after I see the film based on that specific book. Anyway... It was an amazing film! The acting was impressive, all-around...including Peta. Peeta? Pita? P.E.T.A.? Yeah. That kid. He's usually is such bad movies that I have always disliked him. I don't have a gripe with any of the cast, to be honest with you. My only real problem with the film would be the camera work. It was fairly shaky at parts, especially in the first ten minutes or so. I understand using that technique for the action shots, due to budget restrictions. It's a bit odd to use them for other parts. Then again, they were trying to give District 12 (Where the main protagonists are from) a gritty/poor feeling. Without spoiling any major plot points, I'll tell you that I LOVE that feeling of heartache I got from this film, specifically toward the end. Everything else can be summed up fairly simply. The music was phenomenal; both the score and the soundtrack. James Newton Howard is a genius, as always. It's not as memorable as some of his other "hits", but still...it definitely added a lot to the film, like a score should. The script was brilliant, the pacing was perfect, and it seems like Gary Ross knows what he's doing. I cannot WAIT for the next two movies! Expand
  32. Mar 23, 2012
    10
    Dear reviewers and review readers,
    I come bearing great news about a tale that will exhilarate your body and soul. It's name is The Hunger Games. Though I did not read the trilogy, I felt that this movie topped many other movies that I have seen in the past few years and maybe more if I thought deep enough. I am sure that I missed some information but if you understand movies like a mature
    Dear reviewers and review readers,
    I come bearing great news about a tale that will exhilarate your body and soul. It's name is The Hunger Games. Though I did not read the trilogy, I felt that this movie topped many other movies that I have seen in the past few years and maybe more if I thought deep enough. I am sure that I missed some information but if you understand movies like a mature professional, then it is very easy to catch onto. Don't be one of those people who obsess over making movies seem very terrible because they don't want to be hipsters. If you can withstand two and a half hours of every emotion that you can see in a movie, then you will absolutely love the Hunger Games.
    Expand
  33. Mar 23, 2012
    8
    I'm rounding up from 7.5. It about matched my expectations (which were pretty high after reading some of the reviews). And for someone who didn't read the books it left minimal questions and kept things smooth and rather exciting.
  34. Mar 24, 2012
    10
    I love this movie!
    The part when the tributes ran at the beginning to get the weapons etc. was pretty brutal. I loved Katniss :D
    I would reccomend this movie to anyone, I loved it.
  35. 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
  36. 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.
  37. Mar 28, 2012
    10
    I really want to address the people that say it wasn't like the book: First they can't put everything into a 2 hour movie, also I believed that it was the best Book to film adaptation I have ever seen. Its not like most movies that were hollywooded, but this film didn't do that. I highly recommend this film, even if you didn't read the books
  38. Mar 23, 2012
    9
    Gary Ross did an excellent job adapting Suzanne Collin's novel. He even succeeded in explaining many of the ambiguities left by her writing. Jennifer Lawrence was excellent, as always, giving a realistic portrayal as an independent woman struggling to survive. I would recommend this movie to both fans of the series and newcomers.
  39. Mar 24, 2012
    10
    When I stepped out of the movie theater, I had a feeling of absolute joy! I was sitting there with a rapid heart rate throughout the whole movie. I read the books before I saw the movie and the books are magnificent! The perhaps best part of it was the acting. My god, Jennifer Lawrence is a brilliant actor! I was also very impressed of Josh Hutcherson. To summarize: Go see this movie!
  40. Mar 25, 2012
    10
    I think they did the best job they could fitting a 400 page book into a 2 hour and 20 minute movie. Jennifer Lawrence gives a stellar performance. She is the perfect Katniss. I think viewers need to appreciate that the book and the movie are two different forms of media that were never intended to be carbon copies.
  41. 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!!
  42. Mar 23, 2012
    5
    I'm not really sure if i should compared the movie to the book. Because usually the movie is NEVER as good as the books are. What i really loved about the books was the "Katniss-Perspective" which the movie didn't have a ruined it quite a bit. A lot of the books are about Katniss thoughts about everything and everyone around here. And the movie didn't give away that feeling at all.

    And
    I'm not really sure if i should compared the movie to the book. Because usually the movie is NEVER as good as the books are. What i really loved about the books was the "Katniss-Perspective" which the movie didn't have a ruined it quite a bit. A lot of the books are about Katniss thoughts about everything and everyone around here. And the movie didn't give away that feeling at all.

    And like another person wrote about the movie that i fully agree with: "The cinematography was so terrible."

    The movie also skipped a lot of the book too. And i understand that it's quite hard to fit in everything.
    That's why i think it would better if it was made into a TV Show like Game of Thrones instead of a movie.
    Expand
  43. Mar 25, 2012
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Well I have read the book and I suppose that makes me the target audience. I was so bored towards the middle, I started picking on the scenes that seemed to me heavy handed and just sloppy. SPOILER: the wasps scene was VERY heavy handed in my opinion, as well as the land mines. Every time the presenters appeared on the screen, they only explained the stuff that the audience didn't know from the book. It could've been done in a more subtle way in the beginning of the movie. Why not show the boy laying down land mines during the training? If you want to use the presenters the make them appear frequently to mask the sloppy explanations.. I don't know.. Also baffling is the scene just before the start of the Games when the kids are on their starting positions. It's a horrible and at the same time mesmerising moment but the close-up camera and lack of musical score suck out the feeling from the scene. There's actually NO sound at all when the action begins. And yes I know it's supposed to be a tragic and a brutal situation, but this is exactly why the sound is so important.

    It's just my opinion but I wouldn't make this movie in such a realistic way, without a musical score (or at least any memorable musical theme), all based on close ups and grit. I didn't feel any emotional attachment to anything and anyone (we're supposed to root for the oppressed districts, remember?) But so little time is spent on developing that story line, and so much time wasted on the filler scenes before and during the actual games that the movie appears overly long and at the same time, nothing major is happening. District 11 is rebelling after the little girl, Rue dies, but her death is so muted, and so devoid of emotion that I personally felt little, and not just because I knew she was going to die.This is where a good musical score can underline the emotions in a character who is strong willed on the outside but very confused on the inside. By the way it's the 74th Games ( means it's been 74 years since the beginning of the regime) and NOW everyone is rebelling? Why nobody took a minute to explain why the situation is so tense nowadays?

    I could go on saying how Jennifer Lawrence and the rest of the kids don't look even remotely like they are 17. I could say that there are scenes that I liked with Haymitch and the lady from the Capitol stealing the scenes they're in and Cinna's presence being so muted it's almost a disgrace to an important character of the book. And here lies the problem. The book is about Catniss and not just kids killing each other and the horror that it represents. It's about emotions, her emotions, emotions of the people who surround her. The movie is about actions, and horror and realism. Cinna was important to Catniss because of how he inspired and awed her, in the movie there's nothing to it. Instead we have the void. No music, barely any emotion. The color palette is somehow muted, and the contrast between the capitol and the districts is conveyed only through the ridiculous makeup. Scenes that are supposed to be big and awesome look "meh" (that goes for the parade, capitol reveal, arena reveal, final denouement).

    I can't say it was a bad movie, but it's a deeply flawed one. It's just not the movie I'd want to watch again. And that's below expectations.
    Expand
  44. 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.
  45. 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
  46. Apr 18, 2012
    7
    I liked the film but I nearly got up and walked out as soon as the shaky camera work began. Its a lazy filmmakers attempt to gin up anxiety. I was a little surprised to see a cautionary tale on authoritarian government in this age of nanny stateism and political correctness. Perhaps the next generations rebelliousness will be to return us to constitutional government and liberty. MaybeI liked the film but I nearly got up and walked out as soon as the shaky camera work began. Its a lazy filmmakers attempt to gin up anxiety. I was a little surprised to see a cautionary tale on authoritarian government in this age of nanny stateism and political correctness. Perhaps the next generations rebelliousness will be to return us to constitutional government and liberty. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I can hope. Expand
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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. Collapse
  50. Mar 30, 2012
    4
    Ok seriously this movie is a drama. It reminded me of twilight. Mostly talking and almost no fight scenes. At least on TV when they advertise they make it look more like an action moive , WRONG! This movie tries to make you sad and that's it.
  51. 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!
  52. Sep 10, 2012
    5
    If you thought that the trailer was a bit lacking in action then I'm afraid to say the film's the same. It's all about the build up (admittedly good) to the games which comprise around 20-30 mins near the end of the film. It's all over way too quickly and you're sitting there with a very unsatisfied blood lust. Speaking of lust though, Jennifer Lawrence bags this film an extra point for meIf you thought that the trailer was a bit lacking in action then I'm afraid to say the film's the same. It's all about the build up (admittedly good) to the games which comprise around 20-30 mins near the end of the film. It's all over way too quickly and you're sitting there with a very unsatisfied blood lust. Speaking of lust though, Jennifer Lawrence bags this film an extra point for me seeing as she's plays the role brilliantly and oh yeah, she's fit as hell. Expand
  53. Apr 15, 2012
    7
    The movie does not do justice to the book, nor to the characters. The character of Katmis is well portrayed by a talented actress. However the move seems more interested in the environment and techie tricks than in the depth of the characters that were developed in the book. ,How well one likes this movie may depend upon whether they have read the book first (thereby liking the movie moreThe movie does not do justice to the book, nor to the characters. The character of Katmis is well portrayed by a talented actress. However the move seems more interested in the environment and techie tricks than in the depth of the characters that were developed in the book. ,How well one likes this movie may depend upon whether they have read the book first (thereby liking the movie more because they bring more to the movie than is in it), or having not not read the book , and being limited to what the movie actually portrays (which seems to be more Hollywood than Hunger Games). Unlike the excellent book, the movie seems to have chosen flash and style over substance. Expand
  54. Apr 24, 2012
    7
    I'd give The Hunger Games a passing grade. Its worth seeing if you had read the books, but it's probably a tad bit confusing for those who haven't. The acting was mediocre, the plot seemed rushed yet the audience is still engaged, and it gets the job done as a book adaptation. If you're a fan of the series it wouldn't be a bad idea to check it out, but don't go in expecting every detailI'd give The Hunger Games a passing grade. Its worth seeing if you had read the books, but it's probably a tad bit confusing for those who haven't. The acting was mediocre, the plot seemed rushed yet the audience is still engaged, and it gets the job done as a book adaptation. If you're a fan of the series it wouldn't be a bad idea to check it out, but don't go in expecting every detail to be there. Expand
  55. 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.
  56. Oct 26, 2012
    9
    Sad, thought-provoking, deep, emotional, and downright depressing these are the words I would use to describe The Hunger Games. I've never read the book, but this movie has made me want to. It's an absolutely emotional film. The characters are absolutely extremely well done. So much so in fact that I wanted to know more and more about them, including the minor and villain characters. If ISad, thought-provoking, deep, emotional, and downright depressing these are the words I would use to describe The Hunger Games. I've never read the book, but this movie has made me want to. It's an absolutely emotional film. The characters are absolutely extremely well done. So much so in fact that I wanted to know more and more about them, including the minor and villain characters. If I had one complaint it would be that some scenes aren't as detailed as they should be. A problem I believe they had because they couldn't fit all the details from the book into the movie. This is a movie I do recommend, just keep in mind it's a pretty brutal film. Expand
  57. 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
  58. 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
  59. 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
  60. 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
  61. Mar 26, 2012
    5
    I always wonder after seeing a movie where I have read the book beforehand, â
  62. 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
  63. Jun 9, 2012
    2
    The entire plot is based on the illogical premise that the games will keep the masses cowered and docile. But forcing two citizens from each region into lethal combat for public display and entertainment is a sure way to stir the populace into revolt and to make martyrs out of the participants. The random selection of contestants makes the slaughter of children inevitable, which wouldThe entire plot is based on the illogical premise that the games will keep the masses cowered and docile. But forcing two citizens from each region into lethal combat for public display and entertainment is a sure way to stir the populace into revolt and to make martyrs out of the participants. The random selection of contestants makes the slaughter of children inevitable, which would further inflame the populace. But this is just the beginning of a whole string of illogical plot developments that overwhelmed my ability to suspend disbelief. The film's robotic acting and dialogue make the moronic plot even more unbearable. I suspect that the producers knew they could profit by showing attractive young
    actors running around in futuristic costumes trying to kill each other and not have to bother with meaningful content or story. Hunger games left me starving for an engaging story or characters.
    Expand
  64. 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
  65. Apr 16, 2012
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I never read the book. Many people consider that a negative. I consider it a benefit. I am able to judge the world not based on my expectations for the book's movie, but on my expectations for a movie in general. I am able to expect the movie to leave me without questions that could be answered by the novel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Overall, it was a solid film. I wish I could have given it a 7.5, because honestly it doesn't deserve an 8. No movie should be judged by the book it is based on, but no movie based on a book should rely on the book it is based on. Overall, the Hunger Games doesn't rely on the novel - it explains most things well - but it lacks the character development and, well, non-cheesy introduction of plot elements that it needs.
    Expand
  66. Apr 9, 2012
    4
    Its a bit **** just some girl crying for about 6 hours. I would say its a cross between Battle Royale and Twilight. It bigs these two people up like there these amazing people with awesome powers, and they hardly get used. The main guy in it supposed to have this amazing throw and he doesnt even throw anything throughout the film.
  67. 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
  68. 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
  69. Apr 16, 2012
    7
    even though the movie was 2 hours long, it failed to show all the important details in the book. maybe splitting it in 2 movies would have been a good idea? also, the movie was way less fun to watch if you haven't read the book. and i think an important job of a film that was based on a book is for it to be good on it's own right, as with lord of the rings. i haven't read the books and ieven though the movie was 2 hours long, it failed to show all the important details in the book. maybe splitting it in 2 movies would have been a good idea? also, the movie was way less fun to watch if you haven't read the book. and i think an important job of a film that was based on a book is for it to be good on it's own right, as with lord of the rings. i haven't read the books and i still had a great time watching those.
    looking past these mistakes, i must admit that i liked the movie and was never bored watching it, but still, i had a feeling it could have been better.
    Expand
  70. 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
  71. 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
  72. 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
  73. Mar 31, 2012
    5
    Having never read the book/s, I went in to this movie with high hopes. It failed on several different levels. Like Stephan Kings "The Long Walk" the ending was predictable, and a let down. I might someday flip through the book, and will hope the director failed miserably at translation. Until that time comes, this movie will remain a failure! Although it was slightly watchable, I keptHaving never read the book/s, I went in to this movie with high hopes. It failed on several different levels. Like Stephan Kings "The Long Walk" the ending was predictable, and a let down. I might someday flip through the book, and will hope the director failed miserably at translation. Until that time comes, this movie will remain a failure! Although it was slightly watchable, I kept expecting something. But after 2 hours 22 mins, I was left only with expectation... Expand
  74. Apr 20, 2012
    9
    I'm writing this review as a person who has yet to read the books yet. Watching the movie without any knowledge of what you are going into is o.k, (The story is simple enough to follow), but when i watched it, i had know idea who was doing what and who's killing who. I only barely remembered 2 or 3 of the characters because of the lack character development. The movie itself is fast pacedI'm writing this review as a person who has yet to read the books yet. Watching the movie without any knowledge of what you are going into is o.k, (The story is simple enough to follow), but when i watched it, i had know idea who was doing what and who's killing who. I only barely remembered 2 or 3 of the characters because of the lack character development. The movie itself is fast paced and if you've read the books, would probably leave you amazed. The story is solid, acting is solid and pretty everything is well done. I only wished that the character's could be more fleshed out in the movie. I would recommend this movie to pretty much anyone because its probably one of the best movies to be released this year. Expand
  75. Mar 30, 2012
    4
    Disappointed. I hope they do better in Catching Fire and Mockingjay. I love the books, i love the actors. I just can't imagine someone else playing the roles of Katniss, Peeta, Gale, Effie, Prim and Haymitch. But please, I beg whoever is concerned with this franchise. Do better with the next installment.
  76. Apr 24, 2012
    8
    I think that the greatest thing about this movie is that you don't have to read the book to get it, its intelligent, immersive and very appropriate to the present day. The story is obviously great and elegantly adapted to the screen. Every part of this movie is filled with so much cruelty that its refreshing to have a PG 13 movie being so hard-core. Also Lawrence is a perfect Katniss andI think that the greatest thing about this movie is that you don't have to read the book to get it, its intelligent, immersive and very appropriate to the present day. The story is obviously great and elegantly adapted to the screen. Every part of this movie is filled with so much cruelty that its refreshing to have a PG 13 movie being so hard-core. Also Lawrence is a perfect Katniss and this is one of the casting feats of the year for sure. Surely you would think that all this cruelty and violence would get at least a glimpse of some guts, but this is not the case. It is so expertly made that you would think that you saw everything without really noting that all you got was a glimpse. This type of trick builds a lot of momentum, but unfortunately the commentary in the background does drag a bit and kills the tension. On the other hand a major point that the movie does occurs outside the arena when the game makers are pulling the strings, its so coldly executed that its chilling to say the least, but its memorable as well. Expand
  77. Apr 21, 2012
    10
    I saw the film the same day as they released it.
    I was scared, cuz I didn't know if it was gonna be a **** like Harry Potter or Twilight...but finaly I can say is a really awesome film.
    In every aspect. Really great. Maybe it had some strange thing at the begginning, but at last, it was amazing. If you're thinking you're gonna watch some commercial **** like Twilight or something like
    I saw the film the same day as they released it.
    I was scared, cuz I didn't know if it was gonna be a **** like Harry Potter or Twilight...but finaly I can say is a really awesome film.
    In every aspect.
    Really great.
    Maybe it had some strange thing at the begginning, but at last, it was amazing.
    If you're thinking you're gonna watch some commercial **** like Twilight or something like that, youre very wrong.
    And if you like Battle Royale, you're going to like this one.
    Expand
  78. Apr 19, 2012
    9
    I am no Hunger Games nerd. That is to say, I read the books, but I am not obsessed by them. I didn't even liked the second two that much. I did, however, like the first book in the series. Quite a bit actually. So, it came as a surprise to me when I enjoyed the movie even more than the book. In case you have, somehow, missed reading the book(s), The Hunger Games is an annual event thatI am no Hunger Games nerd. That is to say, I read the books, but I am not obsessed by them. I didn't even liked the second two that much. I did, however, like the first book in the series. Quite a bit actually. So, it came as a surprise to me when I enjoyed the movie even more than the book. In case you have, somehow, missed reading the book(s), The Hunger Games is an annual event that occurs in a not-so-future-future time, when one girl and boy from each district (24 children in all) is randomly selected to battle to the death in a glamorous and ferocious televised event. Katniss volunteers as a tribute when her younger sister, Prim, is selected to be in the Hunger Games. Now Katniss must somehow survive the treacheries of the Hunger Games, and show the Capitol she is no pawn in their game. The Hunger Games is, as one would expect, extremely intense. Children heartlessly killing each other to survive. And it's goes beyond shooting from afar. Combat occurs within tripping distance. Slashing of knives, snapping of necks, all these duels between children between the ages of 12 and 18. But The Hunger Games is PG-13 (as opposed to R), so the violence is portrayed in a way, in which you don't see much of the actual killing. You just know what is implied. The camera is placed at strategic angles so that you may see some blood and the attack, but not the knife or the ax digging into the child's flesh. Actually, it's all very tame, considering the subject. I'm not the kind of person that can watch a lot of gore, so this was perfectly fine with me. Now that I've got all that boring stuff regarding the violence out of the way, I can start sharing my opinion on the film: As of now, The Hunger Games is the best movie I've seen this year. There were two points in the movie in which I ALMOST cried. I held back tears, for certain. And it wasn't easy. The Hunger Games is very emotional. The camera is very shaky. The movie often feels like a found-footage film. At first, the shaky camera irritated me. But within 10 minutes, I had become so connected with the movie, that I didn't even notice the camera. In the first half (before the actual games begin), there is a decent amount of humor. This is not a comedy, so don't expect to be in stitches, but there are some mild laughs. Almost all of these come from the Capitol's lightheartedness towards the Hunger Games. They laugh and joke about it. It is important to them, but they don't give a second thought about the 23 people who will die as a result. The casting is marvelous. Everyone does a wonderful job portraying their characters. Before seeing the movie, I was a bit skeptical at some of the actor choices, but all the doubt washed away as each character appeared on screen. Also, the makeup and costumes are incredible. They're so ridiculously silly looking (intentionally), and it just feels perfect. Truly well done. The score is equally wonderful. The music is powerful, and during the games, adds invaluable amounts of tension. Hats off to the composers. The action is tense. Your pulse will most certainly quicken. In addition to other competitors, there are tracker jackers (genetically engineered wasps), dog-like wolves, and fire. Lots of fire. There are plenty of plot twists that will certainly shock those who haven't read the book. This movie is emotional, tense, and overall, wonderful. I do have a few minor nitpicks, specifically regarding character interaction. Cinna doesn't get enough screen time. We just don't feel the relationship between him and Katniss like we did in the book. President Snow doesn't seem quite as menacing as he is in the book, though he's evil enough. Also, the romance portion of the film is disappointingly cheesy. Teenage girls in the audience certainly fell for it, but I often rolled my eyes. Also, the ending isn't a true ending. We get a hook for a sequel. It's not so much a cliffhanger, it's just a "To be continued." I didn't mind too much, and fans of the book won't either, but I suspect there will be some who will be irritated by this. The Hunger Games has a few flaws, but in the end, it's the best film of the year so far. Fantastic story, lots of emotion, good action, believable acting, superb score, amazing makeup and costumes, need I go on? Simply put, The Hunger Games is a must see. I was originally uninterested in the sequels, but this movie was so good, I may rethink skipping them. May the odds be ever in your favor, and happy Hunger Games! Expand
  79. 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
  80. Apr 2, 2012
    4
    It's not a bad film.... It really isn't... Sure the beginning to me felt like a an average flick that you see on SciFi, just changing the channel when you're board and have nothing to watch. One thing I liked though was a really charismatic was Woody Harrelson playing the drunk. The only winner from district 12. The poor district. And the environment of the setting, 12 districts thatIt's not a bad film.... It really isn't... Sure the beginning to me felt like a an average flick that you see on SciFi, just changing the channel when you're board and have nothing to watch. One thing I liked though was a really charismatic was Woody Harrelson playing the drunk. The only winner from district 12. The poor district. And the environment of the setting, 12 districts that separate the classes of rich and poor. How well the story could give to sympathize others and root for the underdog. The ever so awesome characters like Rue or how we could fall in love with Katniss's bad ass audition into the Hunger Games. Seems interesting, but not really realistic. Main characters look well groomed despite being poor, the plot had huge holes in order to create the story, a Twilight-esque romance, an one dimensional enemies, cliches here and there.

    You'd must be teenager in order to get you're mind blown for this bland-fest, otherwise it will leave you asking more questions or not fully satisfied. For those who would give this a perfect rating, would feel satisfied. But for serious film fans, it could leave you craving more better tasting grub.
    Expand
  81. 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.
  82. Apr 16, 2012
    8
    THE HUNGER GAMES is a raw and brutal vision of the future, where annually two tributes from each of the twelve districts in Panem (once the United States) fight to the death in the Hunger Games, a fight to the death that is televised for the world to see. The film has a brilliant premise, and remained perfectly true to the book.
  83. 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
  84. 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
  85. 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
  86. Apr 1, 2012
    10
    When a movie can keep my husband (who works nights and usually dozes off during matinees) awake and inspire me to purchase and read the book (which at the time I had not) and leave us both wanting for more you know it's got to be good. This is the best movie I've seen in a long time. I'm about half way through the book now and can understand why some find the movie off putting...there isWhen a movie can keep my husband (who works nights and usually dozes off during matinees) awake and inspire me to purchase and read the book (which at the time I had not) and leave us both wanting for more you know it's got to be good. This is the best movie I've seen in a long time. I'm about half way through the book now and can understand why some find the movie off putting...there is more character development in the book but as far as an onscreen adaptation goes I think they did an excellent job. You can't get everything in a book on screen in the just over a couple of hours. Kept me on the edge of my seat and had me bawling like a baby at parts...Can't believe Hollywood got one right for a change...seems like we've had a dry spell for a few years now...definitely worth the price of admission which these days is saying a lot. Expand
  87. 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
  88. Apr 26, 2012
    7
    In my opinion, it felt like the movie was just about getting the attention from the female perspective, because this was more of a romantic - love - story then a worthy movie. But it wasnt so bad overall
  89. 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
  90. 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
  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 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
  93. Mar 31, 2012
    8
    i am intrigued by the concept of the book that seems to mock our Reality Show era, which even though not as extreme as life vs death, but more like we're enjoying watching people destroy other people. I guess Gary Ross did gave the book justice. Not all of my favorite scene are there, I also have to say that the book is much more brutal, but as a PG-13 movie, it's quite entertaining. Thei am intrigued by the concept of the book that seems to mock our Reality Show era, which even though not as extreme as life vs death, but more like we're enjoying watching people destroy other people. I guess Gary Ross did gave the book justice. Not all of my favorite scene are there, I also have to say that the book is much more brutal, but as a PG-13 movie, it's quite entertaining. The cast also great and fit perfectly for their character. Expand
  94. Mar 31, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. i'm not saying this was a bad movie, but the cinematography was absolutely horrible and the story line was average. The acting all round was very good, especially Jennifer Lawrence who was amazing as Katniss. The story line never really gripped me at any point in the film, normally you should feel engaged from beginning to end, yet I never did. Finally the worst part of the film, the camera work, the shaky cam is completely over used, making me feel disorientated throughout the entire film. I could understand if they used it just for fights, i would be fine, but they use it in the most inappropriate of places, like a man eating a piece of bread. It's not the worst film i have ever seen, but it's not the best and it's easily forgettable. Expand
  95. Apr 1, 2012
    6
    While the background story and universe of this movie are compelling enough, the actual plot of the movie left me with a few unanswered questions. Action scenes and special effects were decent at best, and the ending felt too easy and rushed. The characters are thin as cardboard and their motivations never become clear. I also feel the creators could have done more with the psychologicalWhile the background story and universe of this movie are compelling enough, the actual plot of the movie left me with a few unanswered questions. Action scenes and special effects were decent at best, and the ending felt too easy and rushed. The characters are thin as cardboard and their motivations never become clear. I also feel the creators could have done more with the psychological consequences of mortal kid combat than the occasional random outburst into tears. In the end, it's not a bad movie, it's decent enough to recommend it to anyone, but don't expect a top notch action film. Expand
  96. Apr 15, 2012
    7
    As the early minutes of the movie unfolded, it seemed to me that its principal premise was assembled by prominent ideas that came before it. When the story reveals to us that young men and women would have to slaughter each other for survivalâ
  97. Apr 15, 2012
    8
    The hunger games is a riveting movie. It is amazingly in depth on fighting, but lacks actual story. Who are the people in the capitol? What do they mean by al the derogatory terms in the movie? What happened to the cat, buttercup. In my opinion, the movie itself is okay. They just need to express what is going on a little better. When the 12 districts were mentioned, would you wonder,The hunger games is a riveting movie. It is amazingly in depth on fighting, but lacks actual story. Who are the people in the capitol? What do they mean by al the derogatory terms in the movie? What happened to the cat, buttercup. In my opinion, the movie itself is okay. They just need to express what is going on a little better. When the 12 districts were mentioned, would you wonder, which one has the edge or perhaps which one will lose? The political roles of each and every character, city, district, and action need to be present. What happened to the rebellious acts that were caused by the berries Peeta had. Were you able to understand what the heck was going on? In my opinion, you should at least read the book before watching the movie. Usually, all books have more detail than the movies, so most should just read the books before the movie!!!! Expand
  98. Apr 17, 2012
    9
    What a fantastic, action-jammed film 'The Hunger Games' is! Perfect casting and fact-paced visuals make it one of the most exciting films of the 21st Century so far.
  99. Apr 21, 2012
    10
    No entiendo porque tanto revuelo, una pelicula mas!!! Muy predecible, las escenas con efectos especiales eran dignas de cualquier pelicula de TV, esperaba mucho mas, no nos vendan espejitos por favor
  100. Apr 23, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. However,each time i look upon a pair of dream red bottom shoes,i will canâ Expand
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.