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. May 21, 2013
    5
    The Hunger Games, based on a novel of the same title by Suzanne Collins, fails to deliver as much suspense as the novel does and even though it tries to deliver some action it delivers no action. The Hunger Games is also extremely complicated for those who have not read the book. There are countless things that the viewer won't know if they haven't read the book. The scenes also went byThe Hunger Games, based on a novel of the same title by Suzanne Collins, fails to deliver as much suspense as the novel does and even though it tries to deliver some action it delivers no action. The Hunger Games is also extremely complicated for those who have not read the book. There are countless things that the viewer won't know if they haven't read the book. The scenes also went by way to fast in my opinion. For a movie that is two hours and twenty-two minutes (about two hours and ten minutes with out the ending credits), this movie should have been made way better. The special effects, though, were extraordinary. Expand
  2. May 12, 2013
    9
    As a fan of the source material, I was looking forward for the movie adaptation. After the film ended, I came to the conclusion that the book was better, because it contained a bit more information. However, the result they presented to us by far exceeded my expectations and led me to think that The Hunger Games not only was a great time, as it was one of the most faithful adaptations IAs a fan of the source material, I was looking forward for the movie adaptation. After the film ended, I came to the conclusion that the book was better, because it contained a bit more information. However, the result they presented to us by far exceeded my expectations and led me to think that The Hunger Games not only was a great time, as it was one of the most faithful adaptations I had ever seen. The movie's tone is exactly what you get while reading the novel, and it captures that dramatic violence and raw emotion the characters were submited to. The acting is powerful and it greatly benefits from Jennifer Lawrence's blow-minding portrayl of Katniss, who will certainly become one of the most beloved heroines of all time. Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth are a perfect match for a love triangle, that unlike the Twilight franchise it actually works. Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci were capable enough of throwing a little comedic timing on the first half to relief a bit of the pressure that the audience itself catches, because you are rooting for the characters throughout this journey. In the end, The Hunger Games is superbly acted and provides us the best take we could have ever been provided to such a inspirational story of hope, motivation, rebelion and most importantly political corruption and its consequences. Expand
  3. Apr 29, 2013
    8
    A fun adventure movie that can be hard for some to take. Good performances and a solid script makes The Hunger Games a fun watch that makes you want to see the sequel.
  4. Apr 28, 2013
    2
    Shameful ripoff of "Battle Royale," and much lower in quality. It's Battle Royale for "the Twilight crowd." The acting was stale, the action was bland, and there wasn't any reason given to me to really care about anything going on. The author of the books claims to have never heard of Battle Royale, and that's a laugh!
  5. Apr 22, 2013
    5
    The Hunger Games is an overall disappointment. The book tells you that this "game" comes with brutality, and the movie tells you brutality can't be found only glimpses of disturbing imagery can. For the technical categories The Hunger Games is an achievement. The pace destroys the movie though. Movies are kind of like music. They have timing. The Hunger Games threw events at you bam bamThe Hunger Games is an overall disappointment. The book tells you that this "game" comes with brutality, and the movie tells you brutality can't be found only glimpses of disturbing imagery can. For the technical categories The Hunger Games is an achievement. The pace destroys the movie though. Movies are kind of like music. They have timing. The Hunger Games threw events at you bam bam bam bam! It tried to fit everything in so well that the movies pace was to uneasy and fast leaving it with boringness and unpleasantsy. Expand
  6. Apr 20, 2013
    9
    Read all 3 books and must say, the movie follows the first book, "The Hunger Games" quite well. Although I didn't like when they made Katniss get the Mocking-jay pin from an old lady instead of Madge. But other than that, followed the book better than most movies based on books.
  7. Apr 15, 2013
    3
    The Hunger Games tells a story that is either told too fast or too stretched. The actors do either a great job or a horrible one (like the actor playing Peeta who always looks like he shat his pants). It could have been good, but it's dragged down by flaws that could have easily been prevented.
  8. 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
  9. Mar 27, 2013
    7
    an original story the costume is actually confusing but i liked the performance of both the leading the actors and i loved the movie overall feeling and i can't wait for the rest of the series.
  10. Mar 24, 2013
    9
    um filme muito bom, desde o começo no distrito pobre a escolha dos tributos até a conclusão do jogos. Mas vale lembrar que eles omitem varias passagens importantes do livro, que acaba fazendo o livro melhor!
  11. Mar 24, 2013
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Jennifer Lawrence stuns her audience with her amazing capabilities as an actress. The acting was well done, as were the effects. The film did, however have many production errors, one being the death order of the tributes in the bloodbath jumbled. Amandla Stenberg made an impressing acting debut as Rue, where actors such as Isabelle Fuhrman and Jack Quade, who are fairly new in the film industry did well as Clove and Marvel. I would have liked that Madge Undersee was included into the film, along with a few other scenes during and after the games that were omitted from the final picture. Expand
  12. Mar 19, 2013
    3
    Not worth it. Please, I read the book for school and decided to check out the movie. My God that was terrible almost as terrible as Avatar. I fell asleep 3 times. The book was filled with action but this movie wasn't. Acting was good that's why I gave it a three. If you want to be entertained you would have a better chance watching the book cover then this. The book cover was moreNot worth it. Please, I read the book for school and decided to check out the movie. My God that was terrible almost as terrible as Avatar. I fell asleep 3 times. The book was filled with action but this movie wasn't. Acting was good that's why I gave it a three. If you want to be entertained you would have a better chance watching the book cover then this. The book cover was more interesting then the movie. Avoid movies like this and you will be happy. You want my advice, watch Spring Breakers. Expand
  13. Mar 17, 2013
    10
    Easily one of the best book to film adaptions of all time and one of the best movies of 2012, The Hunger Games is a dystopian film which is able to provide an amazing story line with fantastic performances from the cast, most notably Jennifer Lawrence who plays Katniss Everdeen, the film's heroine. Recommended for people who want to see a good film with a good message.
  14. Mar 15, 2013
    10
    I hated the concept of it kids killing kids but the acting was superb by all. Every character was meant to be there and had a purpose. I know people will say why give it a ten if you hated the concept. Look at it this way I hate Leonard Cohen I don't like his style if singing but he is still a brilliant songwriter.
  15. Mar 10, 2013
    6
    The movie Gladiator felt real. You got the feeling that the gladiators were going to fight to their death: they were peeing before the gates opened up, they were silent, etc... The people in The Hunger Games might as well have been at a party. They showed no sense of worry or that they were about to fight each other for their lives. Maybe the younger ones might have wondered what was goingThe movie Gladiator felt real. You got the feeling that the gladiators were going to fight to their death: they were peeing before the gates opened up, they were silent, etc... The people in The Hunger Games might as well have been at a party. They showed no sense of worry or that they were about to fight each other for their lives. Maybe the younger ones might have wondered what was going on even!

    This killing each other for the entertainment of others, has happened in human history: Ancient Rome, maybe even else where! Could it happen again?!?! I wanted some connection or reference made and the sense that this might happen again in humanity. We are already at UFC.

    I wanted to see the audience (in the film) cheering on the kills, like in Gladiator. I wanted to be shocked and scared at the end. Having two main characters survive at the end (and both return home) gave me the sense that the movie was about youth surviving, not youth being killed.
    Expand
  16. 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.
  17. Feb 22, 2013
    9
    The Hunger Games was everything I expected, but not more than that. I am a huge fan of the series, having read all the books months ago, but I've avoided the movie until all the hype died down, so that I could give an honest opinion, and here it is. The film was terrific, one of the best adaptation of a book I've read. Jennifer Lawrence was absolutely perfect as Katniss and if she doesn'tThe Hunger Games was everything I expected, but not more than that. I am a huge fan of the series, having read all the books months ago, but I've avoided the movie until all the hype died down, so that I could give an honest opinion, and here it is. The film was terrific, one of the best adaptation of a book I've read. Jennifer Lawrence was absolutely perfect as Katniss and if she doesn't get a ton of awards for the role, there is no justice in Hollywood. That's the good news, however the movie was far from perfect. Friends who went with me and had never read the books, found it to be slow, and didn't understand certain things. At times, I could see their point. Several major things were rushed or just left out of the film. This led to some confusion, and then there's Peeta. I love Josh Hutcherson and thought he was terrific, but the portrayal of Peeta wasn't accurate. He was nowhere near as likeable as he is in the books and he comes off looking like kind of a The end of the games was also problematic, as they changed a key point that I thought was pivotal going into Catching Fire. It will be interesting to see what they do to fix that before the next film. Overall I loved the movie and thought it was awesome, but if you didn't read the books, you might be a little confused by parts of it and see it as slow. Parts of the film that dragged on were explained through thoughts in Katniss's head during the book. Without knowing what was going on at those points, I could see how some audience members may have been bored with it. The movie and especially the books live up to all the hype and are well worth your time, The Hunger Games is something you are not going to want to miss. Expand
  18. Feb 19, 2013
    6
    The Hunger Games is a half-decent albeit illogical science-fiction action movie. The plot revolves around 24 teenagers being forced into taking part in a fight to the death. The movie is 2 hours and 21 minutes long and yet they still manage to not properly introduce all of the contestants to us which makes their inevitable deaths meaningless and although this detracts from the seriousThe Hunger Games is a half-decent albeit illogical science-fiction action movie. The plot revolves around 24 teenagers being forced into taking part in a fight to the death. The movie is 2 hours and 21 minutes long and yet they still manage to not properly introduce all of the contestants to us which makes their inevitable deaths meaningless and although this detracts from the serious atmosphere they're trying to create, it does make for an entertaining action movie. The story seems puzzled together from several other movies/books and put together as a mostly coherent and entertaining whole despite some logical fallacies. The writers must be highly conformist creatures for them to believe people would sit idly by when you force their children to fight to the death year after year. The Hunger Games has a happy ending but it leaves much to be desired. Like his holiness Snake Plissken said "The more things change, the more they stay the same" and I couldn't find think of a more fitting vote to describe the ending of this movie. However, f you manage to look beyond these flaws, you'll have quite an entertaining film if you watch it in two or three parts. The beautiful Jennifer Lawrence, as usual, manages to put on a show and if it wasn't for her, this movie probably wouldn't be rated as high as it currently is. Expand
  19. 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.
  20. 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
  21. Feb 15, 2013
    9
    This was an engaging movie. The world building was fabulous, and the characters were very well done. The score was amazing too. The book's mythology was very well captured. The feel and tone was consistently dark and brooding. I had read the book first, and I recognize that in a movie it's all show and no tell, so it was refreshing that they tried to capture the story from differentThis was an engaging movie. The world building was fabulous, and the characters were very well done. The score was amazing too. The book's mythology was very well captured. The feel and tone was consistently dark and brooding. I had read the book first, and I recognize that in a movie it's all show and no tell, so it was refreshing that they tried to capture the story from different viewpoints. But I was still disappointed that they didn't include the moments where Katniss comes across as very human and flawed. I was hoping they would include a voice-over for the heroine. I'm not saying they should have narrated everything, but Katniss's thoughts at key moments would have made the situations more entertaining, like her feelings about Peeta as they change when the story moves forward. All in all, I was very satisfied. If anyone who read the book isn't happy with the adaptation, I suggest you consider The Golden Compass, which was based on an awesome book but turned into a pile of rubbish upon adaptation; as it included far less character development, had lesser running time and toned down violence. Expand
  22. 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.
  23. 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. TheThe 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
  24. 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 cameraThe 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
  25. 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.
  26. Jan 17, 2013
    9
    I like this movie a lot, the action and stuff. Nice movie.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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 saysMore 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
  31. 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
  32. 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.
  33. 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,
    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
  34. 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.
  35. 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 andThe 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
  36. 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 theSpoilers. 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
  37. 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.
  38. Nov 28, 2012
    8
    Smart, sophisticated, and toting an exceedingly superb lead performance, "The Hunger Games" not only nails expectations - it exceeds them.
  39. Nov 26, 2012
    3
    Admittedly, I was already tired to begin with when I started watching this movie (which resulted in me falling asleep halfway and missing around 60% of the awful movie). Either way, I don't understand the hype about this movie. It wasn't good at all, it was terrible. Terrible actors, terrible everything. I don't recommend this for anyone to watch. The only reason I'm rating it 3, is to beAdmittedly, I was already tired to begin with when I started watching this movie (which resulted in me falling asleep halfway and missing around 60% of the awful movie). Either way, I don't understand the hype about this movie. It wasn't good at all, it was terrible. Terrible actors, terrible everything. I don't recommend this for anyone to watch. The only reason I'm rating it 3, is to be fair. But seriously though, it was awful. Expand
  40. 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.
  41. 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
    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
  42. 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.
  43. 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.
  44. 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.
  45. 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
    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
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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 . . .
  50. 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
  51. 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 herThe 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
  52. 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 fitIf 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
  53. 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 boundariesAfter 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
  54. 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 workingBest 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
  55. 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....!!!
  56. 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
  57. 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!
  58. 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 inI 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
  59. 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 bookI 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
  60. 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"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
  61. 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
  62. 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.
  63. Aug 24, 2012
    0
    So my previous review was about why this movie was bad as a film, like poor/very bad(characterization, setting or general surreal atmosphere was just not serious/believable at all and this was put forth with no explanation, costumes of people especially soldiers, storyline and I want to say game play but this isn't a video game; I guess the closest thing would be the way the story workedSo my previous review was about why this movie was bad as a film, like poor/very bad(characterization, setting or general surreal atmosphere was just not serious/believable at all and this was put forth with no explanation, costumes of people especially soldiers, storyline and I want to say game play but this isn't a video game; I guess the closest thing would be the way the story worked itself out was pathetic).
    However this was based on the idea that this was a genuine story, which it is not. This book and film are both completely based on Battle Royal and this film brings absolutely nothing new to this type of storyline. Also, Battle Royal actually had gore while simultaneously making a good film in every way this movie failed it succeeded. If Battle Royal was in English, I bet he could sue on copy right in this day and age but that's another story....
    Expand
  64. 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 afterWhilst 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
  65. 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 intoI 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
  66. 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.
  67. 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?
  68. 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
    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
  69. 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!!
  70. 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
  71. 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 similarHunger 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
  72. 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.
  73. Aug 19, 2012
    6
    The movie itself isn't that bad but the story wasn't in my opinion told good.
    I did not read the book but during the movie I felt constantly like something is missing and that lasted through entire movie. The end confirmed that something is missing because the ending gave the vibe of something unfinished. Overall I would also like to add that movie could've lasted for 30-40 minutes
    The movie itself isn't that bad but the story wasn't in my opinion told good.
    I did not read the book but during the movie I felt constantly like something is missing and that lasted through entire movie. The end confirmed that something is missing because the ending gave the vibe of something unfinished. Overall I would also like to add that movie could've lasted for 30-40 minutes shorter and with better storytelling.
    Expand
  74. 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.
  75. 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.
  76. 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 andHaving 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
  77. 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
  78. 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 setsPretty 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
  79. 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 aI,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
  80. Aug 16, 2012
    0
    Lets mix "the running man" with the tv show "Survivor" target the audience for "teenagers" but lets make it as violent as possible. Thats the end result for this movie. The movie is not orginal, boring, NOT real, the characters act as if they were on a tv show and their lives werent not in danger. They formed "Alliances" when the whole idea was the strongest person survives? give me aLets mix "the running man" with the tv show "Survivor" target the audience for "teenagers" but lets make it as violent as possible. Thats the end result for this movie. The movie is not orginal, boring, NOT real, the characters act as if they were on a tv show and their lives werent not in danger. They formed "Alliances" when the whole idea was the strongest person survives? give me a break! AVOID this movie at all costs! Expand
  81. 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.
  82. 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
  83. 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.
  84. 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
  85. Aug 9, 2012
    6
    A refreshingly grim and realistic premise for an American film meant for teens. Disney it ain't and that's a strength. The weakness? Way, way too much fidelity to the source material. The first hour and a half is ponderous and keeps repeating plot and character points that may have been useful in the novel, but really drag the movie down at least when it pertains to the villainousA refreshingly grim and realistic premise for an American film meant for teens. Disney it ain't and that's a strength. The weakness? Way, way too much fidelity to the source material. The first hour and a half is ponderous and keeps repeating plot and character points that may have been useful in the novel, but really drag the movie down at least when it pertains to the villainous characters. They are portrayed without an ounce of balance or empathy! As an artistic choice, it's fine, but then someone should have taken some liberties with the script to assure that we weren't treated to endless scenes of Tucci and company being wretched and evil. It got old very quickly. Casting was mostly well done. Rue worked for me and I believe was a true artistic choice especially in Katniss' final acts for her. Lawrence was much, much better in this role than in anything she has done before. It's the first time I've seen her reveal herself in her acting. She worked for me and the nuances of the premise made me feel like I was not watching something put out there to make the kids "feel empowered" which is 90% of teen film. To be commended. Expand
  86. 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.
  87. 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.
  88. 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,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
  89. 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
  90. 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 understandAll 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
  91. 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, andThe 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
  92. 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.
  93. 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 wereFor 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
  94. 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.
  95. 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 thingsIn 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
  96. Jul 17, 2012
    6
    The Hunger Games, the film adaptation of the hugely popular first book of the trilogy by Suzanne Collins (of which I have read none) may feel a bit underwhelming to fans of the books (I have personally heard such griping), but it still has amazing visuals, great set pieces, and engaging performances from Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson in particular. The film contains many scenes ofThe Hunger Games, the film adaptation of the hugely popular first book of the trilogy by Suzanne Collins (of which I have read none) may feel a bit underwhelming to fans of the books (I have personally heard such griping), but it still has amazing visuals, great set pieces, and engaging performances from Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson in particular. The film contains many scenes of violence that seem somewhat restrained (even the moment when the kids are to begin the game, many dizzying quick cuts are made to keep a teen-friendly PG-13 rated massacre). But the interplay between the well drawn, interesting characters is directed with precision from Gary Ross and the ambition of the source material seems to remain intact. It might even feel a bit short at nearly two-and-a-half hours due to the prolonged quick pace, so The Hunger Games should aptly thrill and entertain. Expand
  97. 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 thisI 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
  98. 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 anI 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
  99. 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 onBeing 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
  100. 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 aDefinitely 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
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.