User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1474 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Feb 26, 2013
    8
    The movie was definitely good. I liked the action, suspense, and the emotions of the characters throughout the film. The book and the film has some differences but they're okay. I Recommended you watch it.
  2. Feb 22, 2013
    9
    The Hunger Games was everything I expected, but not more than that. I am a huge fan of the series, having read all the books months ago, but I've avoided the movie until all the hype died down, so that I could give an honest opinion, and here it is. The film was terrific, one of the best adaptation of a book I've read. Jennifer Lawrence was absolutely perfect as Katniss and if she doesn't get a ton of awards for the role, there is no justice in Hollywood. That's the good news, however the movie was far from perfect. Friends who went with me and had never read the books, found it to be slow, and didn't understand certain things. At times, I could see their point. Several major things were rushed or just left out of the film. This led to some confusion, and then there's Peeta. I love Josh Hutcherson and thought he was terrific, but the portrayal of Peeta wasn't accurate. He was nowhere near as likeable as he is in the books and he comes off looking like kind of a The end of the games was also problematic, as they changed a key point that I thought was pivotal going into Catching Fire. It will be interesting to see what they do to fix that before the next film. Overall I loved the movie and thought it was awesome, but if you didn't read the books, you might be a little confused by parts of it and see it as slow. Parts of the film that dragged on were explained through thoughts in Katniss's head during the book. Without knowing what was going on at those points, I could see how some audience members may have been bored with it. The movie and especially the books live up to all the hype and are well worth your time, The Hunger Games is something you are not going to want to miss. Expand
  3. Feb 19, 2013
    6
    The Hunger Games is a half-decent albeit illogical science-fiction action movie. The plot revolves around 24 teenagers being forced into taking part in a fight to the death. The movie is 2 hours and 21 minutes long and yet they still manage to not properly introduce all of the contestants to us which makes their inevitable deaths meaningless and although this detracts from the serious atmosphere they're trying to create, it does make for an entertaining action movie. The story seems puzzled together from several other movies/books and put together as a mostly coherent and entertaining whole despite some logical fallacies. The writers must be highly conformist creatures for them to believe people would sit idly by when you force their children to fight to the death year after year. The Hunger Games has a happy ending but it leaves much to be desired. Like his holiness Snake Plissken said "The more things change, the more they stay the same" and I couldn't find think of a more fitting vote to describe the ending of this movie. However, f you manage to look beyond these flaws, you'll have quite an entertaining film if you watch it in two or three parts. The beautiful Jennifer Lawrence, as usual, manages to put on a show and if it wasn't for her, this movie probably wouldn't be rated as high as it currently is. Expand
  4. Feb 16, 2013
    7
    With much more than just a movie aimed at young public 'The Hunger Games' plays on the screen in various social problems, human stupidity, and a big girl with a bow.
  5. Feb 15, 2013
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. "It all makes sense if you read the book". Well, I guess it's time to put a warning label on the DVD cover about that, because this movie makes no sense. At all. I really hope the books are better thought and better written than this movie, that can be described only as garbage on garbage on garbage that the viewer is forced to swallow. Plot holes, unanswered questions, non-sense, "The Hunger Games" has them all. During the movie you'll find yourself simply asking two kind of questions: "Are they really that stupid?" and "What the hell?". Some examples? Here we go, but I doubt I'll have enough typing space. --The participants make teams. Yes, you read that correctly: they make TEAMS. For like an hour you're told only one of them can survive but, yeah, they make teams. You could understand that behaviour from the kind-hearted Katniss, but, wait, it gets better: the BAD GUYS make teams. And they sleep together. Of course, no one of them thinks about slaughtering all of his teammates during the night to win the games, because, yes, they are that stupid. --You managed to get all the food supplies? It would be a good idea to surround them with two dozens land mines, just in case the good girl wants to blow them and starve you to death. Yes, they are that stupid. --The good girl climbs a tree while chased by a bunch of bad guys? No problem, since no one of that uber-skilled teen assassins is able to climb a tree aswell. Again, it gets better: she kills one by throwing an hive full of killer bees on them while they're sleeping (somehow the bees can tell the good guys from the bad ones). --At one point she's about to be killed, but the bad guy is kind enough to wait, go close and confess all of his murders, so the not-so-good-but-not-that-bad girl can get revenge. Oh, it gets even better: she kills only the bad guy and spares Katniss, since she somehow forgot (again) only one of them can win.--On the "What the hell?" category: when short on participants, they "summon" two giant rabid dogs through a computer. No explanation whatsoever, they just click a couple of times, make a 3D drawing and...here we go, giant dogs. Also, these dogs are like 6 feet high, but can't jump over a 4 1/2 feet high roof, otherwise the good girl would've died. --The baker-guy manages to disguise himself as a rock. And he's damn good at it, but...wait. What tools did he use? And when? No explanation. --The end would have been a great comedy moment if I hadn't payed real money to see it. It goes like this: "We changed the rules of the game, you both win. No, wait, it was a joke, the rules stay the same, one of you have to die. Wait... What? Are you killing yourselves? For real? Nononono! Wait! Wait! We change the rules, ok, we change the rules. You both win, long life to the Hunger Games!". I mean, are you serious? Are you f***ing serious? These games go on for like a century and no one, never ever thought you can simply cheat by threatening to kill yourselves as the last survivors? Again: are they really *that stupid*? And these overpowered, totalitarian organizers never ever thought about this *little flaw*? They have to be tricked by a couple of teenagers to realize their idiocy? --These are just some of the pearls you'll find in this movie, let alone the poor acting of everyone, including Woody Harrelson that was probably *really* drunk during all the shoots. If "The Hunger Games" was a movie from Mel Brooks, it would've been a round 10 in comedy. Don't waste your money on this rubbish. Expand
  6. Feb 15, 2013
    9
    This was an engaging movie. The world building was fabulous, and the characters were very well done. The score was amazing too. The book's mythology was very well captured. The feel and tone was consistently dark and brooding. I had read the book first, and I recognize that in a movie it's all show and no tell, so it was refreshing that they tried to capture the story from different viewpoints. But I was still disappointed that they didn't include the moments where Katniss comes across as very human and flawed. I was hoping they would include a voice-over for the heroine. I'm not saying they should have narrated everything, but Katniss's thoughts at key moments would have made the situations more entertaining, like her feelings about Peeta as they change when the story moves forward. All in all, I was very satisfied. If anyone who read the book isn't happy with the adaptation, I suggest you consider The Golden Compass, which was based on an awesome book but turned into a pile of rubbish upon adaptation; as it included far less character development, had lesser running time and toned down violence. Expand
  7. Feb 5, 2013
    9
    A movie that is well acted and well made. This movie brings the book to life in an extraordinary/unforgettable way that has powerful relations with humanity, politics, and reality television which all takes part in our society in how we know what's going on and what our government is doing.
  8. Jan 30, 2013
    6
    The Hunger Games is a decent movie taken from a book... A book which in turn takes it's elements from films like Battle Royale and The Running Man. Talk about cyclical! The Hunger Games shines when viewed as a character piece (Jennifer Lawrence's performance is excellent) or as a slight meditation on social greed and the notion of celebrity. That said, the movie has it's faults. The primary one being the lack of stirring action sequences. The editing and pacing of these scenes when they do arrive are simply unexciting. One thing I will say though is that the violence is tastefully neutered. I have no desire to see young children graphically killed and was mercifully spared from doing so. Ultimately, The Hunger Games was an entertaining movie that I enjoyed. Not nearly as much as Battle Royale, however. Expand
  9. Jan 28, 2013
    8
    The Hunger Games was overall a good movie. I enjoyed it thoroughly and feel like it did an extremely good job connecting you with it's characters. This film is exciting and engaging. The entire cast did a good job in this film and I would easily recommend this film to friends. The only problem that I had with this film is that sometimes when there were characters being killed the camera got very shaky making it hard to tell what's going on sometimes but this was most likely an attempt to avoid a "R" rating. All and all The Hunger Games is a good movie and very entertaining! Expand
  10. Jan 21, 2013
    7
    All in all, it's an enjoyable movie. Because I read the book, the movie didn't seem rushed, but keeping the book out of mind, the movie seems to be quirkily put together. It is an enjoyable story, and entertaining nonetheless. Jennifer Lawrence, again, does a fantastic job.
  11. Jan 17, 2013
    9
    I like this movie a lot, the action and stuff. Nice movie.
  12. Jan 7, 2013
    9
    It wasn't that bad but quite disappointing compared to the books. I think Jennifer Lawrence did a wonderful job. But Josh Hutcherson wasn't a best choice for Peeta.
  13. Jan 5, 2013
    6
    Keyword to this movie is overrated! I was sure it would not live up to the hype but it did not even come close. It is the most overrated movie from last year. It was also kind of strange.
  14. Dec 29, 2012
    9
    The movie is great. What I like about this movie is that every time u watch it, you find different interesting things. I think the story is great and the movie is very well-done.
  15. Dec 22, 2012
    8
    More than a decade ago, there was another sci-fi movie whose main statement wasn't so much in the plot or the characters (which were great, nevertheless), but in the aesthetics of the world depicted. That film was Gattaca, and The Hunger Games does the same, just in the opposite way: Gattaca was a dystopic society with a marvellous taste, while in the world of the Games the bad taste says it all. Gary Ross and his team were brave enough to take such horrible outfits, hairstyles and television cliches to the big-screen, and make them the silent and haunting connection between the fiction and us. Expand
  16. Dec 21, 2012
    10
    One of the best book adaptations of all time.
    Intense and surreal. As a bookworm, I could say that reading the book of course is better but watching this is so extreme that you just have to watch it fervently. I loved it. 10 out of 10.1 :D
  17. Dec 20, 2012
    7
    I can see why people don't like this movie. For what it's worth- I really liked it. i thought it was well done, the effects are nicely done. However, it's a good movie. Not the best movie ever made, but still, a well done film that isn't to be overlooked.
  18. Zal
    Dec 20, 2012
    8
    When I heard The Hunger Games was going to be turned into a movie, I was worried about how it would translate to film. I'm not a die hard fan of the series nor do I think the series is perfect, but I do respect it and its intentions.

    Overall, I think this movie was good. As I suspected, there were some problems translating the material to film and I don't blame this on the director,
    writers, actors, or anyone else. I knew the violence would be toned down because PG-13 movies have strict guidelines. I also knew that we wouldn't get much of Katniss's inner struggle since cinema is a "show me" medium where as literature is not.

    The acting is spectacular, especially from Jennifer Lawrence. Banks and Harrelson were having the time of their life filming this.

    The world of Panem has a very Star Wars-y feel which you may or may not like. Personally, I liked it.

    I think what would have helped this movie is if they made it longer. Yes, it's already 2 hrs and 30 min, but THG deserves the Lord of the Rings treatment. It's a big story that should be told in full detail. Like those who read the books, I wish it could have been more violent but I think we all knew that that could never happen without this movie being a hard R.

    While there are many, many flaws, THG was well made. They didn't do the best they could have done with this movie, but it's still a solid movie.
    Expand
  19. Dec 18, 2012
    7
    I liked the plot of this film, the post-apocalyptic era and the twisted way to punish the kids by holding annual games in which they have to kill to win, pretty disturbing yet exciting. Jennifer Lawrence's performance was really great. May the odds be ever in her favor.
  20. Dec 5, 2012
    8
    The near perfect adaptation that the book deserved. Jennifer Lawrence shows that she truly is a rising star in Hollywood as she gives a flawless performance as heroine, Katniss Everdeen. Elizabeth Banks is surprising great as Effie, and Stanley Tucci solidifies himself as one of the best character actors around and one of the most underrated actors. The Hunger Games was intense and stylish. I loved it! Expand
  21. Dec 1, 2012
    8
    Spoilers. Although I have not read the book, "The Hunger Games" is an excellently-done film full of great acting, beautiful direction and truly raw drama and emotion. The violence in this film is not easy to see - where other action films often glorify brutal combat between grown men with guns, this movie is about a televised deathmatch between teens and even kids. The tension between the characters is viscerally palpable, and the hate and fear everyone lives in is one you end up feeling as well. When the games start, the suspense is tangible and startlingly authentic, and you are genuinely shocked when the violence breaks out. When Katniss's friend is killed, you feel her emotion, and the riot that breaks out in District 11 afterwards is communicated with spellbinding power. And at the end, when you learn the feelings of Cado, it is a moment that quiets you into submission, and shows how even the tough and violent kid is, ultimately, as scared and hopeless as the rest of them. It's an epic commentary and a very powerful film, and so earns a good 5 stars for its cinematic execution. Expand
  22. Dec 1, 2012
    9
    The Hunger Games is a big blockbuster that knows how to do a film mixing action, drama, fiction, romance and adventure. I felt, when i just leave the theater after watching this film, original like it is, that a new phenomenon was born. I was right. Waiting for the sequel "Catching Fire", but while it doesn't get into the theaters, we have to enjoy this great movie.
  23. Nov 28, 2012
    8
    Smart, sophisticated, and toting an exceedingly superb lead performance, "The Hunger Games" not only nails expectations - it exceeds them.
  24. Nov 26, 2012
    3
    Admittedly, I was already tired to begin with when I started watching this movie (which resulted in me falling asleep halfway and missing around 60% of the awful movie). Either way, I don't understand the hype about this movie. It wasn't good at all, it was terrible. Terrible actors, terrible everything. I don't recommend this for anyone to watch. The only reason I'm rating it 3, is to be fair. But seriously though, it was awful. Expand
  25. Nov 25, 2012
    8
    An eccentric future. People wear wierd makeup and have blue hair. I'm listening. Children killing each other. I'm listening. A fully developed world that truly makes me believe that this place could exist 300 years from now. I'm sold. This movie creates a place in time, and I feel like I'm there. Check.
  26. Nov 11, 2012
    6
    Why did I watch it?
    I had never heard of the Hunger Games series prior to the film coming out, proof if needed that I'm obviously not a 'young adult anymore! the other half came in with this the other day so I gave into the hype and gave it a go.

    What's it all about?
    Set in a fictional American dystopian future, a new nation called Panem is divided into 12 distinct districts and
    controlled by the powerful and rich Capitol. As punishment for an uprising some years before, The Capitol organise a yearly competition known as the Hunger Games where each district must send 2 competitors, one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18, known as tributes. The children are left to fight until the death until only one survives and is declared the champion. Should you watch it?
    I was largely non-fussed by The Hunger Games. Having not read the books I've no idea how the adaptation compares but as a standalone film it wasn't bad but it wasn't too great either. The story borrows elements from The Truman Show, Running Man and Blade Runner among others. I should plead ignorance in having not yet seen Battle Royale, but I'm aware that the plot is remarkably similar. The point being that the plot is not awfully original.

    The directing and editing in the districts did not work for me. The shaky camera work and chop editing might have been selected to create a sense of disorganisation and panic in the districts during tribute selection but I found it too much. Another gripe I had was the use of flashbacks by Gary Ross. Flashbacks of unseen footage provide the viewer with an opportunity to see what has previously occured and can be plot aids but why did Ross choose to show flashbacks of scenes we had already seen, one in particular several times over. I clearly missed the importance of the scene.

    I felt the film was dumbed down in places, definitely in terms of violence, which I can understand with this being a Hollywood production with children involved but also with some of the script. A prime example being at the end when the game organiser announces that the rules are being changed spontaneously again, It is so obvious what the rule change is going to be but yet the characters are made to listen to the full announcement with a few more seconds afterwards to digest the ramifications.

    There are decent performances from Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Allen so its far from all bad.
    Expand
  27. Nov 9, 2012
    6
    It has good acting and a great atmosphere, but after an interesting first half it becomes ultimately too tame and predictable to be considered great.
  28. Nov 7, 2012
    8
    Never read the books and never will. Only watched this because my dad bought it for my sister. That being said, It was actually pretty good. Plenty of action, well acted, and it was entertaining. I wouldn't mind sitting through the sequel.
  29. Nov 5, 2012
    4
    Feels kind of like a giant game of paintball. The setting is convoluted and the characters go undeveloped. I want to call it a missed opportunity, but I couldn't tell you what I think that opportunity is.
  30. Nov 3, 2012
    9
    This review contains fairly major spoilers about half way through (you have been warned)!

    The Hunger Games is an amazing movie filled with suspense. The action scenes are incredibly tense and quick, as you watch the film, you become nervous, it is very engaging, questions will pop up in your head: What's gonna happen to everyone, who will die next, what will the actual hunger games be
    like, who will be picked to compete, what the heck is going on (only if you didn't read the writing at the start, if you don't read it, you'll have no idea what's going on!)?! The plot is interesting and makes you anxious, it has much depth, but it is a little confusing, and the character building is slightly off, you don't get to know the characters incredibly well, but saying that, you do get a big idea of what they are like, and when a character dies and/or something bad to them happens, you do get emotional, either on the verge of crying or mildly weeping, one particular character, from district 11, when she dies, you cry, and you fill really sorry for her (presumably) dad. It is amazingly gripping, the whole thing is. Another thing: the people who made this must of worked insanely hard to make it an amazing experience to watch, because the whole thing is incredibly tense and exciting; the compelling and not too complex plot, the impressive special effects, the great acting, the suspense, the exiting action sequences, the extremely well-fitted music, the well done dialogue and the perfectly done camera angles are the things that make it so amazing to watch! The only things stopping this brilliant movie from getting a 10 are: the character building thing, the fact that the actor of the main character is definitely not a teenager, and the slightly over the top makeup. So I give this film a 9.5/10. Expand
  31. 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 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
  32. Oct 26, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I think that The hunger games is one of the best movie ever and if you don't agree with me I can say that you are very stuped person! This is my opinion! Expand
  33. Oct 22, 2012
    7
    The Hunger Games stomps the Twilight saga flat, and though I found those films somewhat amusing, this one is the real deal... http://www.facebook.com/ElvisPresleySonElvisAaronPresleyJr
  34. Oct 15, 2012
    8
    Despite a few minor problems, The Hunger Games proves to be a promising start to what will no doubt become the next beloved Hollywood mega-series ,The new Twilight? We don't think so. This is much better . . .
  35. Oct 8, 2012
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Thrilling,Engaging and entertaining dystopian action sci-fiction flick. Really liked the visuals and all the action scenes. This is the real deal of Dram and action. Screenplay,costumes and make up all are decent. Especially the make up and movie sets are very beautiful and elegant which make the people from novel come to life. Now,considering the novel,this movie adaption misses a few things i wanted to see onscreen. One is I expected it to be more violent onscreen with a R Rating but they made PG-13 Stuff, i don't know why,to make more money i guess. That shaky cinematography too. some of the important messages had been cut down. These things really disappoint me because i loved the novel and wanted it to be more precise. other than that it is good popcorn entertainer. Loved Jennifer Lawrence though. Acting is far far better than that Kristen-NO-Expression-Stewart. Not only Jennifer but all the actors did their job very good. Now looking forward to sequels.Hope they will be better. Expand
  36. Oct 3, 2012
    10
    The Hunger Games tells the story of Katniss Everdeen, a 16 year old girl who volunteers to take her sisters place for the female District 12 contestant for the Hunger Games. Set in a future where the public are controlled by offering up a male and a female between 12 and 16 every year in a last man standing contest. Katniss will have to fight her instincts to make new allies, choose her enemies and fall in love to win the hearts of the viewers and to increase her chances of survival.
    The films special effects are good, the larger ones are noticeable but the smaller ones not so much making it fit in with the reality or not feel to it not to mention the top notch acting. The Hunger Games is one of 2012's unmissable films.
    Expand
  37. Oct 2, 2012
    7
    If you didnt know what this movie is based off of its based off the book The Hunger Games. I think the directors did a pretty poor job on this movie because they cut out pretty important parts from the book. I just got done reading the book, a few days ago and it is a really good book,the movie,eh. One thing i didnt like is the casting because the girl who played Katniss doesnt really fit the character and Peeta's actor is ugly,just saying. If you havent read the book dont watch this movie because you will have no idea what the hell is going on at all. Expand
  38. Oct 2, 2012
    9
    After all the dreadful Twilight movies that have come our way, we finally get a teen-targeted movie worth watching! The movie's biggest strong point is Jennifer Lawrence's gripping portrayal of Katniss, she played the role just as one would picture her in the book. I also don't think they could've got a better Peeta if they tried, Josh Hucterson IS Peeta. The violence pushes the boundaries for PG-13 films and it makes for some very powerful and tense moments. The Disctrict 12 scenes have a haunting conviction over them and the Capitol scenes display a perfect satire of our society. My only problems with the movie were that it needed a director more experienced with action films, the action and CGI were fairly poor, and the changes they made the climax stopped it from tugging my emotional strings like it did in the book. Apart from that it was brill and I'm looking forward to seeing the rest of the series take shape. Expand
  39. Sep 29, 2012
    9
    Best movie of the year by far. The Hunger Games is a stunning visual phenomenon. The special effects is what won me over. The tension keeps you on the edge of your seat. At the time I watched this movie, I had not read the book. Therefore, I had no idea whatsoever of what was going to happen. I was still stunned! But now I have read the first book of The Hunger Games trilogy and am working on the second. Expand
  40. Sep 25, 2012
    8
    not exactly like the book, but still very good. Not if the beginning of the movie, the camera recorded badly on purpose or is he had Parkinson's....!!!
  41. 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 me seeing as she's plays the role brilliantly and oh yeah, she's fit as hell. Expand
  42. Sep 4, 2012
    10
    A very intense revolutionary and spell-binding ride, that as it is exceptionally original, it is the container and surely, the master of all things suspense. Definetly, a must-see!
  43. Sep 2, 2012
    8
    I think this movie is very good, but the book, gives much more detail then then the movie. Some people didn't like the movie because it didn't have enough action. I think it had enough action in it. The movie plot is good enough to keep you into the movie fro start to finish. The movie has a very good cast which could get this movie an oscar nom. This is not an oscar movie but the cast in the movie could bump it up and get it a nom. If it does get a nom it will be a just barely. Good movie and great book. Expand
  44. Sep 1, 2012
    9
    I wonder is this Film would have been as thrilling to see without having read the books. The only thing keeping this movie from being a 10 is the fact that the book has so much more flavor and nuance. The only thing giving this movie a 9 is seeing my book-fueled imagination come to life. By itself, anyone can enjoy Hunger Games and walk away thouroughly entertained. Read the book before the movie (and suspend your hopes of seeing a direct interpretation of the book), and you will enjoy the Film so much more. Expand
  45. Sep 1, 2012
    3
    So this is it? This movie is very disappointing as it brings zero excitement. The authors vision of the world is really naive. I expected the main character to "crush the system" in some interesting way, while she just bowed down to it. There is nothing thrilling in action scenes, neither nothing touching in the plot. My final reaction was a big question mark when I saw the "heroes" smiling to the cameras and just returning home. I can only think of recommending this movie to young kids but there's this overall violence that makes it questionable. Expand
  46. Sep 1, 2012
    4
    The Book was much more exiting and detailed than the movie
    The hunger games [The movie] was very undetailed and the acting was terrible too
    If you havent read the book you cannot understand ANYTHING! I read the book after the movie
    Im giving a 4 because it wasent a waste of my time either and its more surprising when its on a film than in a book
  47. Aug 27, 2012
    8
    NOTE: I haven't read the book
    THE HUNGER GAMES is a tense and powerful adaptation of the teen novel that contains thrilling moments, some good acting and a nice art style. Though, the final act is rushed, the camera work is occasionally quite shaky and some of the characters are quite irritating.
  48. Aug 24, 2012
    0
    So my previous review was about why this movie was bad as a film, like poor/very bad(characterization, setting or general surreal atmosphere was just not serious/believable at all and this was put forth with no explanation, costumes of people especially soldiers, storyline and I want to say game play but this isn't a video game; I guess the closest thing would be the way the story worked itself out was pathetic).
    However this was based on the idea that this was a genuine story, which it is not. This book and film are both completely based on Battle Royal and this film brings absolutely nothing new to this type of storyline. Also, Battle Royal actually had gore while simultaneously making a good film in every way this movie failed it succeeded. If Battle Royal was in English, I bet he could sue on copy right in this day and age but that's another story....
    Expand
  49. Aug 24, 2012
    7
    Whilst I have not read the books, I thought the film was very well done but was drawn-out far too long. Gary Ross does brilliantly when building the tenision and the cast were superb. The climax was slightly predicatable but still encapsulated the clever twists and turns for which I think the novels are famous for. Woody Harrelson is quickly becoming one of my favourite actors after turning in another superb display. Expand
  50. Aug 23, 2012
    6
    I am always very skeptical to see anything made from teen material, but was pleasantly surprised by Hunger Games. The premise does feel familiar, but done in a more interesting way then we have seen before. This movie is well written,well acted, and looks great. The action plays out in a pretty cool way and ends on an emotional note. I am hopeful that going forward this does not turn into a love triangle movie, in which case I will be "Team I Don't Care". But based on the first act alone, this is a pretty cool story line. Expand
  51. Aug 22, 2012
    5
    It was a long movie and not a lot of real time action. The scenes bounced some as if the camera person was moving/running. But it was entertaining enough to sit through if yo have 2 + hours to burn.
  52. Aug 22, 2012
    2
    A poor rip-off of Battle Royale. I'm pretty sure the book is interesting, but this movie was a gross disaster. A bunch of unexplained cut-scene, poorly constructed story, illogical actions. Very disapointed and I really don't see why people like this?
  53. Aug 21, 2012
    4
    Lame Movie... not worth watching and disappointing :(

    The main story is not believable or not justified in the movie (I did not read the book , but I'm sure it's better), the whole movie is slow paced (specially the beginning) and it had almost no action at all .

    You'll not really care about the main character , and I was not convinced by the stupid connections between main
    characters (where the love came from all of a sudden).
    Also little kids just jump into killing other human beings that easily?? and be good at it and even enjoy it ...!!!
    Expand
  54. Aug 21, 2012
    10
    This is one of my favorite movies!! Jennifer Lawrence made the perfect Katniss and Josh Hutcherson the perfect Peeta!! If you want to see an AMAZING movie, i totally recomand this one!! It was almost as good as the book!!
  55. Aug 21, 2012
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. After all the hype I finally saw it, and, well, don't beleive the hype. First of all it absolutely drags on, scene after scene, developing very slowly. To it's credit, it is spending time on character development, which can sometimes be rare in movies today. But, there's so many un-necessarry shots and long cuts that one can easily see how the films 2 and a half hour length could be shortened. All this build up finally leads to the actual "games" and then the film starts to pick up a bit. The main problem I had with the film though, is that it seems to always be hinting at a deeper, more devious plot-line, that simply never manifests. For example, there are 3 or 4 bizarrely out of place "flashbacks" to previous scenes. This devices suggests that "hey, that scene was important, remember it, because you will need to when we tie in the sub-plot." But, finally, in the end, you come to discover that there is no sub plot. It's all just meat and potatoes action move schlock, dumbed down and amped up for the American movie viewing masses. Those flashbacks? It's like the director is saying "Hey, stay with us, Stay awake! I know this film is long and boring, but try to remember what's happening!" It's a slap in the face and an insult to intelligence. Finally, in the end, you succumb to the fact that the film is mostly a love story, but, you may be holding out hope for a big "stick it to the man" moment where the tyrants of the film get their come-uppance, (And also delivering a sub-text on the American government and politics), but nope, we are robbed of that as well. They just go home. This is a film engineered for the teenage Twilight crowd, not adults, and definitely not lovers of intellectual fiction or science fiction. The hype these days... Expand
  56. Aug 20, 2012
    7
    Hunger Games may be just the first chapter of a trilogy, but it works and works alone as summer entertainment. Admittedly his dystopian approach and simplified presentation of some more complex issues very quickly ends up hurting the potential of the film, but it does not lose in interest and competence, even why, despite owning a certain differential in comparison to other similar productions public, should not be judged outside of its purview. In short, Hunger Games is a film for the purpose of entertaining mor-made ​​for a younger audience and this aspect fulfills its function well. Expand
  57. Aug 19, 2012
    10
    To be totally honest, I didn't like the book. But the movie was a lot better. Very suspenseful, rich plot, several twists, and unexpected surprises around every corner, you need to see this movie.
  58. Aug 19, 2012
    6
    The movie itself isn't that bad but the story wasn't in my opinion told good.
    I did not read the book but during the movie I felt constantly like something is missing and that lasted through entire movie. The end confirmed that something is missing because the ending gave the vibe of something unfinished. Overall I would also like to add that movie could've lasted for 30-40 minutes
    shorter and with better storytelling. Expand
  59. Aug 18, 2012
    10
    I would say 70 percent of the people gave bad reviews didn't actually see the movie. The move overall was well done, story was there albeit its not the same as the book but that is expected. Actor performances were top notch and this is just a really nice treat for a movie.
  60. Aug 18, 2012
    7
    This is a 7.2, the book is a lot more descriptive than the movie, and I thought too much was left out from the book. Though the movie was good, I would recommend reading the book first.
  61. Aug 18, 2012
    7
    Having not read the books, I sat down to watch this film with an element of caution - would the film be any good? Would I feel like I knew the story by the end? Rather than compare the film to the book, I'll just look at the story of the film. It doesn't seem to introduce the brutality or the importance of the Hunger Games itself. However, when the "Hunger Games" do start the immediacy and harshness of just how violent this film is shocks to the core. The pace of the film changes like a stab to the side. However, I didn't feel a connection with Lawrence's character and I didn't feel like I was willing her to win the competition either. It wasn't a bad performance from Lawrence, but not much empathy was allowed to be developed as the pace of the film quickened towards an abrupt end. Expand
  62. Aug 18, 2012
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I'm honestly very surprised about how many people are stating about how faithful the movie is to the book. While I did enjoy how we learned more to Seneca Crane's backstory (even though that does subtract from the surprise of learning of his death in the second book/movie), it seemed to me that the screenplay took the crucial aspects of the book, then rewrote all the dialogue. I understand the need to keep things trimmed down, and the book is massive in scope, but there were countless moments where I was waiting for a particular line that I liked from the book, only to find it was changed, seemingly for no reason, to a weaker line ("Did I actually get a pair of fighters this year?").

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

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

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

    Significant changes from the book to movie adaptation that I thought were particularly unneeded included:
    Expand
  63. Aug 17, 2012
    8
    Pretty close to the book and although it's a 2,5 hour film they had to compress events and characters a quite bit. People that got plenty of time in the book now don't even get called by name and some interesting background details and subplots get lost. The acting is excellent but the lack of budget is noticable in some less then perfect VFX shots and they hide the lack of extensive sets by keeping the camera (too) close to the actors. A good film but it certainly helps to have read the book. Expand
  64. Aug 16, 2012
    4
    I,as a 27 year old person am very disappointed about the film,but glad not to read the book.I respect who watched and liked the film but in my opinion,the script was so much ordinary.There were only tiny little bit action and drama in this film.This film is like the ''first'' film of an ordinary(not good,just ordinary) director. Last words,unless you are between 6-16,and like to take a nap while watching movies,don not ever think about seeing this film... Expand
  65. Aug 16, 2012
    0
    Lets mix "the running man" with the tv show "Survivor" target the audience for "teenagers" but lets make it as violent as possible. Thats the end result for this movie. The movie is not orginal, boring, NOT real, the characters act as if they were on a tv show and their lives werent not in danger. They formed "Alliances" when the whole idea was the strongest person survives? give me a break! AVOID this movie at all costs! Expand
  66. Aug 14, 2012
    0
    Dumbest and senseless movie ever! Some people, dressed like a gay freak show, taking some lowlifes's children for a gladiator's fights to make them (lowlifes) calm?! Only a tiny example of stupidity.
  67. Aug 12, 2012
    8
    this films is good, but there is a problem the movie dont mentions her friendship with Rue, but out of this the film is very good and i cried a lot when Rue died
  68. Aug 10, 2012
    7
    Exciting yet incredibly uncomfortable/unnerving all at the same time, this film delivers a powerful message, but eventually wears out its welcome, running about a half hour too long.
  69. Aug 9, 2012
    3
    totally overrated and just flat out boring. during the action scenes the camera moved back and forth so much that i swear to God the cameraman was drunk off his ass
  70. Aug 9, 2012
    6
    A refreshingly grim and realistic premise for an American film meant for teens. Disney it ain't and that's a strength. The weakness? Way, way too much fidelity to the source material. The first hour and a half is ponderous and keeps repeating plot and character points that may have been useful in the novel, but really drag the movie down at least when it pertains to the villainous characters. They are portrayed without an ounce of balance or empathy! As an artistic choice, it's fine, but then someone should have taken some liberties with the script to assure that we weren't treated to endless scenes of Tucci and company being wretched and evil. It got old very quickly. Casting was mostly well done. Rue worked for me and I believe was a true artistic choice especially in Katniss' final acts for her. Lawrence was much, much better in this role than in anything she has done before. It's the first time I've seen her reveal herself in her acting. She worked for me and the nuances of the premise made me feel like I was not watching something put out there to make the kids "feel empowered" which is 90% of teen film. To be commended. Expand
  71. Aug 7, 2012
    7
    Based on the book by Suzanne Collins, the hunger games movie is a good tribute that will probably leave fans delighted. Though not as exciting as the book, it is still worth seeing.
  72. Aug 6, 2012
    6
    LO MEJOR....Jennifer Lawrence y Gary Ross que apuesta por un enérgico entretenimiento para contrarrestar tanto romance cursi en el que se suele caer en este tipo de films.
    LO PEOR.... la dirección artística (dada por su escaso presupuesto) y lo light que resulta la película para una historia de estas características.
  73. Aug 4, 2012
    6
    This was a good movie, not great, not groundbreaking, but a solid film. The Hunger Games has a striking plot, and is well adapted to the screen by the director and screenwriters, for the most part. For the part that's not; they failed to make this film the steering social commentary that it wishes to be. They touched on various themes, but didn't do much with it, or give as much insight, as one may desire. The movie focuses on a televised death match ritual, to entertain the elite and keep the masses at bay. With a plot like that, a bit more could have been done in the way of thematic complexities. What director, Gary Ross, did right, was narrate a good, tightly woven story to the screen and managed action and character development well. Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson give good performances here. However, I wasn't too keen on Josh Hutcherson's work, but fortunately Lawrence does enough acting for both of them. The film was a visual treat, thanks to unique costumes, makeup and hairstyles, which gave it a sometimes whimsical look. Whether or not you are familiar with the books (which I'm not) this should be a satisfying film, which marks a solid adaptation. Lets see what the future holds for this franchise. Expand
  74. Aug 4, 2012
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The premise of hunger games is great, a battle to the death between selected "tributes" from each district. And for a 144minute film, it is paced really well and does not get boring, especially when the Games dont actualy start till after the first hour. Unfortunately the film does feel a little gappy, the games take place over an unknown amount of time, many people die without you knowing or seeing anything, this means the ending just appears without warning. The film would of definately benefited from using the TV coverage to let us know just whats going on. Expand
  75. Jul 31, 2012
    10
    All of my friends raved about this movie, and I now know why! It was amazing and had me totally hooked. I immediately went to the bookstore afterwards and bought all of the books. Upon completing the first book (in a matter of hours), I discovered the movie follows the book extremely well. I don't understand the negative reviews, unless some people are so dense they can only understand nonstop action. In any case, if you like futuristic plots and a great premise, I recommend it. Expand
  76. Jul 25, 2012
    8
    The film remains faithful to the basics of the books for characters, major plot events, settings, and overall theme of taking a stand against corrupted power. Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss is the character from the start. For non-believers, any doubts should be erased by the scene with Cinna just before the launch. Josh Hutcherson gradually comes to life as Peeta: strong, sensitive, and utterly likable. Woody Harrelson as Haymitch may have differed a bit from the book, but was still on target and attention-getting. Donald Sutherland as President Snow makes you listen to every word, a commanding presence.

    Unfortunately, the rushed pace of the film, especially the actual games, made it difficult to identify with/care about characters other than Katniss and Peeta, or respond to some as villains other than Cato. The character of Rue had potential but lacked development, not much time for audience to bond with her. Some memorable lines of dialogue were cut from book, like the ones Haymitch yelled at the reaping. Overall, the gripes are minor, a promising start to the film version of the series for readers of the book.
    Expand
  77. Jul 23, 2012
    10
    It has some disturbing images but I like the arena part.A survival battle.I want to see Catching Fire and mockingjay part one and two.In box office the number one.
  78. Jul 21, 2012
    8
    For me it's always an exciting, strong experience when watching a book that influenced and inspired me so much turn into a movie. The result was quite good, mostly because of the outstanding, strong, amazing acting of Jennifer Lawrence. I was amazed by the fact that the movie stays loyal to the book and frankly it was quite close to it. The outcome is mesmerizing. Many scenes were emotionally strong. The acting, again mostly by Jennifer lawrence who was so believable in the movie made the movie the way it is. She brought out katniss characteristicts perfectly and her performance was unbelievable! Some of the scenes like Rue's death or the final battle with Cato were amazing. I was crying at least two times during the movie cuz there were scenes so emotionally strong. The details in the movie were quite good but I think they left so many important details out. The brutality which is a big un missing, strong detail in the book was lowered basically to nothing which was disappointing cuz the movie could rise itself to a whole new better level if the director was more daring. Some of the actors were not present enough like Josh Hutcherson has Peeta. There were so many scenes between him and katniss in the book that shows how amazing he is and sadly they left it out. Over all it was a great movie. Warth the money and time. I hope they're going to dare more in the next movie "catching fire" and I hope they're going to bring it to a whole new level. Expand
  79. Jul 19, 2012
    5
    It was a good movie with an amazing performance by Jennifer Lawrence and terrific costume design. But every movie has it's flaws and with this one: the fans.
  80. Jul 17, 2012
    8
    In preparation for seeing the movie, I decided to read the books and loved them. Because of this, I had high expectations for the movie, and I can say it certainly delivered. The film is very close to the book, making it a very character-driven adventure. It does a great job of adapting to the screen, whether it's by adding small scenes that weren't in the book in order to explain things in movie format, or by taking out unnecessary small scenes that would make the movie drag on, it is clear the writers and director knew what they were doing. In the end, this makes it a solid flick with engaging characters, thriller action, and great performances. Expand
  81. Jul 17, 2012
    6
    The Hunger Games, the film adaptation of the hugely popular first book of the trilogy by Suzanne Collins (of which I have read none) may feel a bit underwhelming to fans of the books (I have personally heard such griping), but it still has amazing visuals, great set pieces, and engaging performances from Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson in particular. The film contains many scenes of violence that seem somewhat restrained (even the moment when the kids are to begin the game, many dizzying quick cuts are made to keep a teen-friendly PG-13 rated massacre). But the interplay between the well drawn, interesting characters is directed with precision from Gary Ross and the ambition of the source material seems to remain intact. It might even feel a bit short at nearly two-and-a-half hours due to the prolonged quick pace, so The Hunger Games should aptly thrill and entertain. Expand
  82. b3_
    Jul 15, 2012
    3
    I hated this movie. I had no expectations when going to see it having not read the book or barley having seen the trailer. This film was just far too long and It is rare that I get so bored in the cinema that I either want to sleep or leave.. I did not care for the characters at all as they were unbelievable and annoying. The acting was mediocre to bad and again gave an emphasis to this fake vibe I was getting. The film was just one big lame cliche for me. Time and time again out of the all the odds things would work out for the main character. I know this is typical for movies, but I was actually thinking 'are they serious?'. Without going into any more detail or spoilers I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone over 18, or anyone who likes music because background music in this movie was almost nonexistent. Expand
  83. Jul 12, 2012
    10
    I was so excited but also so concerned that they were going to screw up this movie, based on a book that is one of my favorites. But I am pleased to say, they did great! The casting is great, the story is great, the direction is great (but, maybe a little bit too much shaky cam?) and the pacing is great. Of course, some parts of the book weren't included, but that's to be expected with an adaption of a novel. Expand
  84. Jul 9, 2012
    9
    Being a major fan of the books, i was expecting alot out of the movie. I went into the movie theater thinking it was going to disappoint me, and came out corrected. I was amazingly blown away and moved by the movie. I was so proud of what Gary Ross did with the movie and he did a great job with the risky choice of a handheld camera. There was not one point in the movie where you weren't on the edge of your seat, watching for what happened next. But, i have to admit i was disappointed that their was alot left out from the books, but everything in the movie was already spot on to the book, that i didn't worry to much about it! I loved it, the actors were perfect for the roles. Jennifer Lawrence did a spectacular job and Josh Hutcherson was the perfect love interest. I loved it, very well done. And i think i speak on behalf of all the fans when i say this, We are SO ready for "Catching Fire". I loved the romance and i loved the action of the movie, the cave scenes and the kiss were spot on and emotional. Fantastic Job, Ross. Expand
  85. Jul 9, 2012
    8
    Definitely worth the time and money. Although this came out a while ago, I'm still going to review it for those who haven't seen it. Action, romance, and suspense. It's all in this movie. The characters are put to the test and they have to prove that they are fully capable of survival. Most aren't. What I find most interesting is the political message that this film presents. It's a message, and a warning, about the dangers of totalitarianism and materialism. For totalitarianism, it's the whole reason why the, "Hunger Games," exist. The government wants to make sure that it's citizens are under control. For materialism, throughout the film we see the expressions and glorification of people and objects. Possessions are what bring importance and notability. It's a stark reminder of what we, as people, need to hold up as important in our society. Although we may all enjoy this film, it goes a lot further than the portrayal of a competitive, and deadly, game. Expand
  86. Jul 4, 2012
    7
    I'll make it clear from the start, I regrettably haven't read Suzanne Collins' book series this film (and its inevitable sequels) are based on. I'm still quite able to judge it in cinematic terms, and besides, I would rather not become one of those over-protective readers who take it as a personal insult whenever the slightest change is made to the story for the sake of on-screen narrative flow. As all good sci-fi does, the film comments on an issue hugely relevant to contemporary society, in this case it's the rapidly increasing extremity and dominance of reality TV. The world of The Hunger Games is a dystopian future ruled by an oppressive, authoritarian government, where every district of Panem (formally North America) are annually forced to submit a teenage boy and girl to compete in a brutal blood sport for the dual purpose of keeping the formally rebellious lower-classes downtrodden, and to keep the rich citizens of the Capitol entertained as the ultimate form of twisted reality TV. The cast of the film are quite superb. Jennifer Lawrence is utterly captivating as the film's heroine Katniss Everdeen, District 12's female competitor, and Josh Hartnett continues to prove himself a fast-rising star as the District's male competitor Peeta Mellark, though both are acted off the screen by newcomer Amandla Stenberg playing an intelligent but younger-than-average games competitor, Rue. The veteran actors playing the adult characters all seem to be having a great deal of fun, from Woody Harrelson's cynical and alcoholic, but good-natured Hunger Games survivor Haymitch, the porcelain-doll-like games promoter Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), eccentric stylist Cinna (Lenny Kravitz) and especially Stanly Tucci's batty blue-haired TV host Caesar Flickerman. The only one who doesn't appear to be having a good time is Donald Sutherland, playing President Snow, though to be fair he's only a very minor character in this installment. and the filmmakers probably just wanted to get a big name in early to play a character who becomes (so I'm told) far more essential in the sequels. The games themselves are extremely well-realised - after the back-story to this particularly pessimistic vision of the future is established and the characters introduced, we are plunged into a something that is a cross between Battle Royale and Deliverance. When I first heard about the film and its teen-friendly certificate, I thought it would be limiting to the film tackling its exceptionally dark subject matter. Quite the contrary - a lower certification forces director Gary Ross and cinematographer Tom Stern to get creative. The action is thrilling, and what happens to the young competitors is in many ways more horrifying and visceral when it is slightly obscured by clever editing or if it happens just off-screen - your own imagination fills in the gaps and these fights don't lose any impact. I do however question why you're not allowed to show blood on weapons in a 12A certificated film, yet you can show a young boy's neck being broken and the two lead characters covered in blood at the film's finale. The story sucks you in and keeps you engaged throughout, though the run-time is a little gruelling, and the final act is pretty generic. The film cleverly addresses powerful and timeless themes of freedom and morality, coming of age and loss of innocence, and serves as a warning against technological dependence. While all these themes are all effectively discussed in the film, I still see potential to expand on them in the sequels, where these thematic seeds will really have the opportunity to bloom. I really was pleasantly surprised by The Hunger Games - I expected little more than a sub-par Battle Royale, but through a combination of stunning visuals, great performances, and mature discussion of complex thematic material, it stands on its own terms, and can be enjoyed by the teen audience it was marketed at and adults alike. I look forward to seeing the uncut version of the film, that is yet to be released in the UK, once it is released on DVD, and see just how much the film is changed. Whether the next instalment of the series has the same impact without the artistic talent and energy of director Gary Ross, who has now dropped out, remains to be seen... Expand
  87. Jul 3, 2012
    4
    I personally didn't read the books but after watching the movie there is probably a good reason why. this movie is.... Mediocre. The story is bland, the build up things with little payoff and the editing is how you say GOD AWFUL. Extreme shaky cam and extreme close ups really hurt this movies potential. I also utterly despise the setting. A post apocalyptic future where the rich control the poor. DONE TO DEATH! You really have to work hard when your movie is worse than New Moon and that's me being nice. AVOID THIS MOVIE!!! Expand
  88. Jul 2, 2012
    7
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Rae Dolly lives in the Ozarks with an incapacitated mother and two younger siblings, a boy and a girl. Since mom is a cipher, and dad, gone missing, going on three weeks, Rae becomes the de facto head of the household; the surrogate parent, who at 17, has no time for games. It's hillbilly against hillbilly. Nobody claims to know the whereabouts of Rae's father, quote unquote. Also on her plate, Rae fights foreclosure on the family abode. The bail bondsman has come to collect. Her neighbors, former moonshiners-turned-crystal meth producers, don't know who the real enemy is. They kill their own kind; they'll even kill Rae, if she gets too close. In the interim, the army dreamer is the family's sole provider, the only one man enough to put food on the table. Hardly the squeamish type, Rae takes dead aim on a squirrel, but only because it's too late in the day for deer. That's where a certain girl of the future acquires her way with the bow and arrow. The gravitas, the grit; it's in the blood. Rae skins the critter, and with the boy's help. removes its innards. Flinching isn't permitted. But Rae has her limits, though. She cracks, finally, when it's time to saw off her daddy's hands. Somebody else wields the chainsaw, while Rae holds the body over water, in the lake where his killers dumped him. By proving that her father is dead, she gets to keep the house. The family stays intact. As a result, Rae cancels her military plans, and never leaves the Ozarks. As a result, future generations are doomed. Since the Missouri outback, the setting for Winter's Bone, could double as Panem's District 12, a coal mining outpost, and because the same actress occupies the cross-generational diegeses of the present and the future, it's not hard to imagine that somewhere down the line, somewhere in the family tree, a Dolly got together with an Everdeen, thereby making Rae an ancestor of Katniss', and correspondingly, the Debra Granik film, a Hunger Games prequel, hypothetically speaking. Viewed in a vacuum, the harsh post-apocalyptical conditions that afflicts District 12, the most impoverished of the Capitol's outlying districts, plays like a travesty, this gross disparity between the haves and have-nots. But by using Winter's Bone as an extrapolative tool, a bigger picture emerges, the narrative alters, where the Panemians are partly to blame for the state they're in. It's no wonder that the insurrection against the Capitol failed. The districts don't respect each other. Class warfare persists still among the tributes, despite the grisly outcome inherent in the yearly televised spectacle, whose death toll, by sheer numbers alone, should unite and align the districts against the Capitol. But that's just not the case. During the testing period, the academy-trained tributes from District 1 give off an aura of superiority over their competition, especially Peeta, whose poor archery skills, Katniss warns, makes him look weak, and an easy target for the alpha kids. It's only when the boy throws a metal ball into an arrow rack does he gain a measure of respect from his opponents. Already emasculated by his mother, who back home, lets Peeta know that she's rooting for Katniss, perhaps, leads to the ultimate betrayal, when he forms a coalition on the playing field with the District 1 tributes against his partner, which nearly results in death by arrow, as the girl's combatants fire at will towards the tree which tenuously harbors her. Earlier in the film, in a pre-game interview, Peeta announces his love for Katniss to the entire Panemic world, but he sure has a strange way of showing it. Worse than a supposed suitor, Rae is left alone to face the small community's wrath due to the traitorous actions of her father, the snitch who tells the authorities about the meth labs that dot the Ozark landscape. By turning informant, the father should have known that he was putting not just himself, but his daughter in harm's way, also. The local women nearly beat Rae to death. In a sense, like Katniss, who outscores Peeta 11-8 on the assessment tests, Rae gets punished for being better a man, which in her case, is having the nerve of doing something better than cooking crank like the old man. In both films, wars are waged amonst people of the same social class against each other. Knowing that Rae has mouths to feed, the people next door play a little hunger games of their own, waiting until dark to share their carcass, a newly slaughtered deer. Both the hillbillies and the disenfranchised youths fail to realize that they're on the same side. The Japanese are smarter. In Battle Royale, there are real alliances; they work together in earnest, without intrigue. They understand who the real enemy is. In another precursing film, The Running Man, we can gauge audience reaction throughout the bloody spectacle. No doubt, viewers across the Capitol want Katniss and Peeta to fight. Alas, they're unseen. Just like us. Expand
  89. Jun 30, 2012
    3
    What could have been a series of exhilarating death-matches is, instead, a tedious melodrama. I REALLY don't appreciate the pointless shaky-cam thing. No review of THG would be complete without a comparison to 2000's "Battle Royale"; taking the respective budgets into account and hence disregarding THG's higher production values, I declare BR to be a far superior film, in terms of both entertainment as well as social commentary. Expand
  90. Jun 22, 2012
    9
    One of the few novel adaptations that actually comes close to approaching the quality of its source material. The only blunder was not expanding much on Rue's character the way they did in the book. Otherwise, this is a useful companion to the book that even expands on the book's social commentary (mostly by being more unsubtle, but that's beside the point). You don't need to read the book to understand it, either - my dad saw it and liked it. Anyway, I loved the shaky camera and the way they would take out all the sound in the fighting scenes and replace it with white noise. It made it more horrifying. After all, this is NOT an epic popcorn roller-coaster ride, this is a disturbing, upsetting vision of the direction in which our shallow, sheltered, desensitized, gossipy, flamboyant, privileged first-world western society could very well head. We ARE the Capitol audience, and something very much like the Hunger Games could insinuate in the near future. The movie did an excellent job illustrating this (loved Cato's monologue - that actually should have been in the book). Along with that, the cast was superb. Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Isabelle Fuhrman and Liam Hemsworth are all terrific actors. And the soundtrack (especially the credits song) was great. Expand
  91. Jun 20, 2012
    4
    Disappointing. Had a good start but ultimately failed to live up to the series. Arena done well but not so accurately to the book. Captured gore but failed to give a sense of emotion to the viewers.
  92. Jun 19, 2012
    7
    No Movie is as good as the book,so we cant ask for anything more than this. The begging of the movie was painful to watch, with boring and lenghty explanatory scene it almost killed me to watch. When the hunger games strarted the action scenes were short and the camera was shaking this was in order, to achieve a pg-13 rating. The end of the movie was like the book but for some reason in the book sounded better. Well movies will be movies Expand
  93. Jun 19, 2012
    9
    given that i read the 3 books in a weekend i cannot deny the fact that the story is awesome. i think the movie did not do the books justice but no movie usually does the book justice. would recommend the books though
  94. Jun 18, 2012
    9
    The Hunger Games was great thanks to the somewhat raw performance by Jennifer Lawrence. She is a great actress but I wasn't really expecting to be blown away like I was. The hunger Games flows very very smoothly and the pacing is swift and just about perfect. Remaining exceptionally true to the source material and capturing the world of Panem almost to a T, It's a great movie and I would just about recommend it to anyone. Expand
  95. Jun 14, 2012
    7
    I enjoyed The Hunger Games a lot, but there are definitely some problems with the movie that prevented it from being truly amazing in my opinion. For starters the movie has some very interesting themes and ideas (like using terror to subdue the masses, etc...) but sadly they're very underused, which is understandable as you don't have as much time in a film. But if the movie is going to lose in depth I expected it to make up in pacing and action, and unfortunately the pacing was very slow at times and I found myself very bored in the middle of the movie because of the heavy exposition that wasn't very well done, so it was a lose-lose situation. The next problem I had were the action sequences, it's simple you couldn't see a damn thing. Now, this has some upsides, for example the violence wasn't shown in a epic fashion and at the same time they would spend a great amount of time showing you the consequences of it, which makes it very real and poignant, but the big downside like I said is that you can't see a damn thing and have no idea what just happened. Overall though I enjoyed the characters and performances a lot, the actors did a great job I think. So yeah all in all The Hunger Games is the perfect example of a good movie that has the potential to be amazing with its sequels, if they manage to fix the small issues, and turn it into a great trilogy, which I'm hopeful they will. Expand
  96. Jun 13, 2012
    6
    Read the book before watching this film, it will help you to understand everything better. The film is ok and Woody Harrelson is good in it. Its not violent enough and i appreciate the certification but it would have hit home more if it was more explicit violence-wise. My tip is to watch Battle Royale instead, its a simiar plot but a much better film.
  97. Jun 9, 2012
    9
    Honestly, from the beginning of the movie I did not understand what was going on. Though as the movie progressed it did make sense, this movie has a GREAT script, Very good actors, some special effects, the perfect amount! Very diverse , suspenseful movie! Its totally a GO!
  98. 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 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
  99. Jun 9, 2012
    9
    I think it is the best movie ever, except for the fact that it was not completely true to the book. It skipped most of the actual games, some of the foods, and the costumes are a little different than in the book. It was still a great movie!!!!!! Some of the quotes were not in it, though...
    Still AWESOME!! I highly recommend it.

    -kataangforever1
  100. Jun 9, 2012
    4
    The book Hunger Games was published in 2008 and the film released in 2012. It shows a sophisticated society. Although it is impossible not to notice all the similarities with the japanese film Battle Royale, released in 2000, eight years before. In this film, students are kidnapped in a excursion trip and wake up with a head-explosive-collar. They were selected to a life and death game with only one survivor or none at all. Each one receive a backpack with food, drink, lantern and one weapon or survival device. Each six hours they are informed about the dead and the danger zones to be avoided in order not to explode their necks. Alliances are made and death follows the smallest suspicion. Previous infatuations and enmities are explicited. Enfasis centers in the animal inside all of us and how thick is the civil layer of our personalities and our survival willingness. Hunger Games is much more complex, however it is impossible to deny so many similarities 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.