User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1522 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Mar 25, 2012
    9
    One of the best movies I have seen. Why? Okay first off, if you didn't read the book(like me) you still get the premise of the movie. The idea is quite frightening, kids killing other kids, but it is way more than that. Sure some people may think its cheesy, but the movies they like are cheesy to more people than less. The movie to me was about, Will Power, Courage, and Romance. EvenOne of the best movies I have seen. Why? Okay first off, if you didn't read the book(like me) you still get the premise of the movie. The idea is quite frightening, kids killing other kids, but it is way more than that. Sure some people may think its cheesy, but the movies they like are cheesy to more people than less. The movie to me was about, Will Power, Courage, and Romance. Even though the movie is not R, don't think its a movie for kids under 13 or 14. Little kids may have nightmares, even though its not horror, just from the slight gore and scary ideas. I recommend you go see this, and like i'm going to do, read the book afterwords. Expand
  2. Mar 25, 2012
    0
    One of the worst movies I have ever seen.. The only reason I watched it was because we got to the movie theater late and it was the only thing playing.. Out-dated special effects, a story that left a lot to be desired and a weak ending.. Don't waste your money on this garbage
  3. Mar 25, 2012
    10
    First of, I would give this movie a 9.5 out of 10. Had to round. 2nd this is a great film. Book pretty good, movie great. Acting good, visuals good, and score is good. You need to see this film. This is a great start to a hopefully successful series.
  4. Mar 25, 2012
    6
    Here is the problem. This is a movie about 24 children trying to murder each other, but it's made for kids (PG). This prevents the movie from showing any drama involved in the act of fighting someone to death, as being PG not much violence or any bad language can be shown. The special effects and character development are both terrible. I didn't care who lived or died, this includesHere is the problem. This is a movie about 24 children trying to murder each other, but it's made for kids (PG). This prevents the movie from showing any drama involved in the act of fighting someone to death, as being PG not much violence or any bad language can be shown. The special effects and character development are both terrible. I didn't care who lived or died, this includes the lead character.

    All this being said. The story is still good and the actors performances save this movie. The general concensus of people I saw this movie with was, "it was alright glad I saw it".
    Expand
  5. Mar 25, 2012
    10
    This movie was amazing. Some critics will tell you that it did not do the book justice, but I feel that no one would see a movie that could fit everything into it that we all wanted. The movie would be around 4 to 5 hours long if the relationships were developed as well as they could have been. The director did a fantastic job pushing everything together into a cohesive amazing film. IfThis movie was amazing. Some critics will tell you that it did not do the book justice, but I feel that no one would see a movie that could fit everything into it that we all wanted. The movie would be around 4 to 5 hours long if the relationships were developed as well as they could have been. The director did a fantastic job pushing everything together into a cohesive amazing film. If one reads the book BEFORE seeing the movie, they will be ultimately rewarded with a much deeper emotional bond to the characters, but that being said, READ THE BOOK! It's not that hard. The only thing that I would have wanted is Cato coming to Clove and giving his emotional breakdown. They tried to swap that with his monologue at the end, but it would have been much more emotional if Clove had Cato to hold her. I'm sure most things were cut solely to make the movie a reasonable time length, so take that into consideration when judging this film. In other words - read the book, even if you have already seen the movie, you will want to see it again and experience the full impact. Expand
  6. Mar 25, 2012
    7
    Many of the points brought up in previous reviews have really nailed the pros and cons of this movie. However, I feel a vastly undisclosed topic is this movies sub par realism: cheap sets and poor costumes leave the reader slightly disengaged; a huge aspect of this movie for me (as an avid reader of the books) was seeing it all come to life - and I just feel like it really didn't do thatMany of the points brought up in previous reviews have really nailed the pros and cons of this movie. However, I feel a vastly undisclosed topic is this movies sub par realism: cheap sets and poor costumes leave the reader slightly disengaged; a huge aspect of this movie for me (as an avid reader of the books) was seeing it all come to life - and I just feel like it really didn't do that for me. Also, the lack of violence is problematic. While I understand that this movie had to appeal to a wide range of audiences, it really took away from the raw power and darkness of the books. This is a world where they pit children against each other in televised fights to the death; a little blood may have helped to get that point across. I'm also fairly disappointed in the subtle differences between this movie and the book - I understand you can't put everything in, but not giving us proper character development and back story leave the viewer either confused or merely annoyed at the shallowness of it all. Albeit, these issues are minor; the movie did a very good job of portraying the book accurately and telling the same story. Despite these setbacks, the movie was fairly good. There was a brilliant fight scene between Katniss and rival character Clove, and great work with Peeta and his camouflage. The movie had me on the edge of my seat, always waiting for more. Go see this movie, it's worth it. But it's a much better bargain if you've read the books. Friends of mine who didn't read them came up to my afterward puzzled, asking for explanation after explanation. Not understanding the book won't help you to understand what they cut, and how the characters are (or not) growing. It's a story so unique and action packed, it would have been good no matter who brought it to life - I suppose I just wish it were a little more above and beyond; more than a top-grossing movie, but a great movie as well. Expand
  7. Mar 25, 2012
    6
    I haven't read any of the books, but had heard good things about them and the film, so decided to take the plunge and watch it. I don't think it did a good job of setting up a back story for new comers, as all there really was, was the short film during the initial tribute selection and the occasional flashback, which didn't go into much detail.

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

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

    Overall it was a fun film to watch and I'll probably end up watching the trilogy as they come out, and read the books at some point too.
    Expand
  8. Mar 25, 2012
    8
    HG is FAR better than it had to be, and not as good as it could have been. But, like the characters forced by the game to do things they otherwise wouldn't Ross and his team work within the PG-13 constraints to make a good action movie that still is about kids killing kids for sport. Lawrence is simply stunning in the lead role, and the orbiting characters are all top notch (Special kudosHG is FAR better than it had to be, and not as good as it could have been. But, like the characters forced by the game to do things they otherwise wouldn't Ross and his team work within the PG-13 constraints to make a good action movie that still is about kids killing kids for sport. Lawrence is simply stunning in the lead role, and the orbiting characters are all top notch (Special kudos to Lenny Kravitz are in order). Sadly, the boys of HG are almost pointless, and Peeta is completely clueless to boot. In the end it is riveting and enjoyable too, but I cannot help but think what this could be in a world where an R rated HG could get made by Chris Nolan. That would be something that would satisfy a real hunger. Expand
  9. Mar 24, 2012
    9
    Jennifer Lawrence was the workhorse of this film and she carried the burden brilliantly. Smokin' hot, super smart -- just an all around great performance. Mix this in with a tight script and excellent direction and you've got a hit. Hunger Games clocks in at 144 minutes and you'll be happy for the whole of it. The weakest part of the movie is the opening, where I wish they had gone aJennifer Lawrence was the workhorse of this film and she carried the burden brilliantly. Smokin' hot, super smart -- just an all around great performance. Mix this in with a tight script and excellent direction and you've got a hit. Hunger Games clocks in at 144 minutes and you'll be happy for the whole of it. The weakest part of the movie is the opening, where I wish they had gone a little more Fellowship of the Rings-ish with an acted-out narrative rather than some blocks of text, but this is a minor gripe. Really, there's nothing to complain about of any substance here. This is the best movie I have seen in a long time. Expand
  10. Mar 24, 2012
    7
    I thought this film was good. The fact that I assumed the movie would be the next "Twilight" series made me very skeptical and worried that the film wouldn't be good, but now I stand corrected because this film wasn't bad. The premise was genius and the leads of the movie had an okay chemistry between each other the entire film. The one thing I must point out is the fact that they reallyI thought this film was good. The fact that I assumed the movie would be the next "Twilight" series made me very skeptical and worried that the film wouldn't be good, but now I stand corrected because this film wasn't bad. The premise was genius and the leads of the movie had an okay chemistry between each other the entire film. The one thing I must point out is the fact that they really only concentrated on the two leads and really no one else. The main lead: Jennifer Lawrence, who was in X-Men: First Class got her first really big lead role and played her part really well and kept the film going throughout. This for me is a film you can watch once and never again because it just wasn't a super great film. Expand
  11. Mar 24, 2012
    10
    Just as great as I expected. It was perfectly paced, the acting was incredible, and it actually stays (mostly) true to the book. There were some details from the book that were left out of the movie, but they would've been really hard to explain and the movie would've been way too long. But just like the book, the movie offers lots of action; emotion; tear-jerking moments; andJust as great as I expected. It was perfectly paced, the acting was incredible, and it actually stays (mostly) true to the book. There were some details from the book that were left out of the movie, but they would've been really hard to explain and the movie would've been way too long. But just like the book, the movie offers lots of action; emotion; tear-jerking moments; and well-developed, likable characters. I give this movie a fully enthusiastic 10/10. It definitely does the book justice and I highly recommend it. Expand
  12. Mar 24, 2012
    10
    Not since the Harry Potter franchise has a book been brought to life as a movie as well as this. Just as I imagined. I can't wait for the rest of the franchise to come to the big screen!
  13. Mar 24, 2012
    7
    Didn't read the books before seeing the movie, I'm thinking of reading them after seeing it. The movie was a pretty decent work of fiction as itself but I felt like the movie left a lot of things unexplained that were probably explained in the books. I think films made from books should exist as separate entities telling the same story in a different medium.
  14. Mar 24, 2012
    8
    Oh sinnerman where u gone run to? where u gone run 2? Its She-Robinhood of Sherwood Forest. Read it. Breakthrough film introduce younger audiences hunger for blood and gore instead of family friendly Disney. Made Twilight look like a cartoon but its a bit cold and dry. Direction+Art is SUPERB! Not borrowed. Original!
  15. Mar 24, 2012
    7
    Before I saw this movie, I decided I wanted to walk into it with no knowledge of anyone's opinion. I didn't check Facebook, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IMDB, or watch TV for a week. After my brother and I discussed our opinions of the movie, I checked out Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic and was somewhat surprised by the positive reaction to this film. To me, this film was a little betterBefore I saw this movie, I decided I wanted to walk into it with no knowledge of anyone's opinion. I didn't check Facebook, Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IMDB, or watch TV for a week. After my brother and I discussed our opinions of the movie, I checked out Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic and was somewhat surprised by the positive reaction to this film. To me, this film was a little better than okay. At the beginning of the film, It had some very effective dramatic scenes in it (especially the reaping). The cinematography was pretty decent, though I could have used a little less shaky cam. As the film went on, I was introduced to the film's vision of the capital, which was a little too over-the-top in my opinion. I understand it's supposed to be that way, but it does take away what makes the capital so ominous in the first place. As the games begin, we get our first action scene, which like every other action scene in this movie, was badly shot, poorly edited, was mostly bloodless, and extremely hard to follow (all because they needed their PG-13 rating). Imagine the fighting scenes in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, but with a bunch of kids in a field killing each other rather than giant robots. While I was still enjoying the film alright, the action scenes really made the film not as good as it should have been. Also, it seemed that whenever something dramatic would happen in the games, it would cut back to a goofy newscaster. And while I see the satire the film was trying to pull, it really did take away from the tone of the film. The ending was better concluded than it was in the book, so I give the film some props for that. As for the performances, almost all of them were engaging and well done. Overall, the pros slightly outweighed the cons, but just barely. Expand
  16. Mar 24, 2012
    7
    I submitted a review but not a rating, so my 2 and a half star review has a rating of 10. I'd actually rate this a 6.5. The movie disappointed me by lacking the urgency of the book, being too shallow (not that the book was really deep), failing to convey Katniss' and other characters' inner selves, and not carrying sufficient weight for the subject matter. I don't want more actual gore,I submitted a review but not a rating, so my 2 and a half star review has a rating of 10. I'd actually rate this a 6.5. The movie disappointed me by lacking the urgency of the book, being too shallow (not that the book was really deep), failing to convey Katniss' and other characters' inner selves, and not carrying sufficient weight for the subject matter. I don't want more actual gore, but they failed to convey the disturbing, horrific nature of the Games. I've been more disturbed at TV dramas. The audience in my theater barely reacted, and walked out as soon as the credits started as if they were no more affected than the people in the Capitol. Basically, what was good about the book was missing. Maybe I'd have thought it was better if I hadn't known what was coming, but if a movie has to rely just on suspense for its value, it's pretty shallow. And if I hadn't read the book, I would have misread many character motivations, which were largely glossed over and simplified. I would have misconstrued the climax for sure. This seemed like a sure-fire book-to-film transfer, but the book is so much better. Jennifer Lawrence is the best thing about the movie; I just wish her role has been written better. Expand
  17. Mar 24, 2012
    8
    Being a huge fan of the book, I had high expectations for such a big-budget adaptation. Collins did an excellent job adapting her novel to a different media, and with exception of a few changes, held true to the original source material. The few changes that were made in foresight will enhance future film adaptations by removing confusing details or adding new plot devices that, whileBeing a huge fan of the book, I had high expectations for such a big-budget adaptation. Collins did an excellent job adapting her novel to a different media, and with exception of a few changes, held true to the original source material. The few changes that were made in foresight will enhance future film adaptations by removing confusing details or adding new plot devices that, while exceptional in the original novel, do not translate as well to the film.

    The characters, with a few exceptions, were superbly acted and well developed. I applaud the director for limiting the amount of romance in the film (which becomes almost sickeningly annoying in the sequel novels), which allowed for good character development but did not leave me feeling like I was watching characters from twilight in a different movie.

    Plot wise the film follows the novel fairly consistently; a few plot holes exist which take away slightly from the overall feel. Otherwise, it is an excellent movie and an enjoyable experience.
    Expand
  18. Mar 24, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Overall, it felt like those late afternoon teen shows (Spellbinder etc). They're okay, but not really meaty enough for the seriousness of the idea, and a little too bland. I was reminded a lot of "Tomorrow When the War Began". I also haven't read the books.

    The cons:
    TERRIBLE cinematography, like really bad. Shaky, handheld camera only works if a) it's done very sparingly and b) the camera focuses on the same thing (allowing the eye to compensate). Luckily it seemed to disappear about 15mins into the film. Oddly, the shakiest camera work was when nothing much was happening, rather than using it for dramatic effect.

    Shallow story. The characters didn't really seem to feel the emotion of what was happening to them. Jennifer Lawrence, despite being somewhat of a cutie, has very limited facial expressions. The other guy was no better. There's no examination of what's coming up (ie: a kill-or-be-killed death match). Sure, the story presents this as happening for the last 73 years, but surely there was some space for the leads to at least object to the idea.
    It's also worth pointing out that during the arena scenes, there was a *complete* lack of tension. There is an initial bloodbath, where half the "tributes" die, and then nothing. None of the other teen killer/victims get any significant screentime, which means that there's no care when they die. Without any emotional connection, it's just empty. The author claims to have come up with the idea while "channel-surfing the TV where she saw people competing for some prize and then saw footage of the Iraq war. She describes how the two combined in an unsettling way". Unfortunately, all that the author has done is create a story where we watch brutality for enjoyment. Maybe the rest of the series will discover some form of theme that contradicts this idea, but at the moment its a continuation of what it thinks it's parodying.

    Overall, it's okay, and I assume the excitement is because the books were better. It's very bland, shallow, and leaves me wanting more. Not more violence and blood, but more depth and feeling. I'll have forgotten most of it in a day or so.
    Expand
  19. Mar 24, 2012
    10
    The film is beautifully imagined and shot and is in keeping with the essence of the book. In one sense fans of the literary franchise will be pleased that the overall story has be preserved and allowed to adapt organically during the conversion. But as is often found in literary to cinematic adaptations, timing and relationships to characters (and between characters on screen) may have aThe film is beautifully imagined and shot and is in keeping with the essence of the book. In one sense fans of the literary franchise will be pleased that the overall story has be preserved and allowed to adapt organically during the conversion. But as is often found in literary to cinematic adaptations, timing and relationships to characters (and between characters on screen) may have a different impact than would be the case in the process of reading. The sentimental and nostalgic moments do certainly tug at ones heartstrings but rather differently than is the case with the novel. The film is a stand-alone piece and so to say that it fails in some way in light of the literary genre would be both untrue and unfair. What could be said is that the deep impact the story is created to embed in the mind may take longer than if one weaved the world themselves as we do when we read. This film is probably one of the better examples of the difference between the film and literary genres in terms of impact on imagination. In all, it's well shot, well scripted and certainly well acted. I have a feeling that this franchise, more-so than other popular young-adult phenomena will be more about the complete story rather than individual pieces. For superfans of the book it might take two viewings, as for all else it should by all rights make for entertaining viewing. Expand
  20. Mar 24, 2012
    1
    If you are a teenage girl, you will love this movie. Everyone else over 25 you might as well wait for the 3rd installment to see if they make it better. The main actress is great but the plot is so thin and predictabile. I can't believe I was taken in by all the hype. A big disappointment.
  21. Mar 24, 2012
    8
    Wonderful movie that moves along more quickly than one thinks. The acting is first rate and the movie has a nervous edge throughout. It is very thought provoking as any parent would not know what to do considering the future of our planet. Still feeling queasy.
  22. Mar 24, 2012
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It was lacking in many aspects compared to the book, but it is understandable since movie length is something constantly hanging over a directors head since you have to keep the movie short enough to keep people interested, but long enough to get what you can into the movie. My personal opinion is that the director and the movie in general could have really turned out better if there was more emotion put into some of the scene's. I understand you can't show in a PG-13 movie a 12 year old getting impaled by a spear, but Rue's death in the movie lacked alot of the emotion that the book was able to portray. What should have been a revenge killing fueld by anger and sadness was merely Katniss defending herself and unfortunately Rue got in the cross fire after the spear missed Katniss. Not only did it lack emotion with Katniss by Rue's side as she died the aftermath was completely left out, Katniss was supposed to decorate Rue's body in flowers but instead simply got a bouquet of flowers and laid them on her. And a major symbol from district 11 in the form of the bread they send her is missed out. While tension is rising in district 11 showing them already in the process of a riot is going to be something they will have to skirt around in the 2nd film when Katniss is trying to stop rebellion, well that's a little late seeing that it started before you even used the berries to defy the capitol, guess Rue's death is the spark, not the berries. All and all except for a few gripes about lack of emotion the film did a good job sticking true to the books, while they slightly shot themselves in the foot, and will have to do some cosmetic work with the 2nd movie to fix some blunders of the 1st movie and then stick true to the 2nd book I have faith in the team. Actors did a great job portraying their characters, I wasn't sold on Peeta's actor but after seeing him in the movie i saw the great choice they made in him, and Katniss's actress did a great job as well. Expand
  23. Mar 24, 2012
    8
    An absolute thrill of a film. I didn't read any of the books, and that could help with my perception of the movie. But taken as a film (and that's how a movie should be judged, ultimately), The Hunger Games is a great experience that follows a young heroine in a society which thrives off of the murder of young, underpriveledged children as a form of entertainment. Jennifer LawrenceAn absolute thrill of a film. I didn't read any of the books, and that could help with my perception of the movie. But taken as a film (and that's how a movie should be judged, ultimately), The Hunger Games is a great experience that follows a young heroine in a society which thrives off of the murder of young, underpriveledged children as a form of entertainment. Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss) delivers a wonderful performance, while supporting cast members such as Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, and Donald Sutherland bring this movie to life. The execution of the movie's direction and post-production give it the feel that Riddley Scott's "Gladiator" and Kurt Wimer's "Equilibrium" had a silver screen child, and named it "The Hunger Games". While not as gorey or adult-themed as the previous films, it still finds all the right places to be violent without forcing audiences to endure grissley violence (which certainly could have ensued). If you're looking for a great package in one film, The Hunger Games might be your ticket. But then again, there's probably a small group of people who won't find it as entertaining. Most of those people have already decided not to partake in this adventure. Here's to looking forward to the potential of a strong trilogy in the making! Expand
  24. Mar 24, 2012
    10
    I love this movie!
    The part when the tributes ran at the beginning to get the weapons etc. was pretty brutal. I loved Katniss :D
    I would reccomend this movie to anyone, I loved it.
  25. Mar 24, 2012
    9
    I've never read the books, and knew next-to-nothing about the movie when I walked into the theater, and this movie knocked my socks off. I loved the tense atmosphere that is present throughout most of the film; it keeps you on the edge of your seat. Great, believable acting, especially from Ms. Lawrence. And a wonderful story and setting that was both engaging and awe-inspiring. DefinitelyI've never read the books, and knew next-to-nothing about the movie when I walked into the theater, and this movie knocked my socks off. I loved the tense atmosphere that is present throughout most of the film; it keeps you on the edge of your seat. Great, believable acting, especially from Ms. Lawrence. And a wonderful story and setting that was both engaging and awe-inspiring. Definitely the best movie I've seen so far in 2012. Not sure how it holds up to the book, but I personally think this movie is fantastic. Expand
  26. Mar 24, 2012
    9
    The movie did the book justice---the acting was absolutely fantastic. The actress who portrays Katniss has a great sense at portraying raw emotions. I loved every minute of it, and I understand as a fan, that you do have to leave out little details, because it is a movie, not a 350+ page book. Great work!
  27. Mar 24, 2012
    9
    Had a blast. Lots of fun. Almost wish it was longer to explain some parts the book more thoroughly. As usual the books are better but they tried hard to make a movie true to the book, and they did a good job. Will see it again
  28. Mar 24, 2012
    6
    It's tough rating this movie, because there is a lot to like - but it seems so intent on being the first in a series that it just barely stands on its own two feet. Really, I'm afraid that people who haven't read the books aren't going to have the first clue about how good this story actually is and I wonder what this movie could have been if they'd allowed it to be it's own story asIt's tough rating this movie, because there is a lot to like - but it seems so intent on being the first in a series that it just barely stands on its own two feet. Really, I'm afraid that people who haven't read the books aren't going to have the first clue about how good this story actually is and I wonder what this movie could have been if they'd allowed it to be it's own story as opposed to just a set up for the profit monster they expect the second and third parts to be. Not to mention, for a story called "The Hunger Games" you'd figure food would be a larger part of the story (as in the book), but there is surprisingly little of anything related to poverty, hunger, or food that contribute so much to who Peeta and Katniss (not to mention district 11's Rue) are as characters.

    What's the like? Jennifer Lawrence, Stanley Tucci, and seeing how the games are run.
    What's to hate? Really underdeveloped characters, poor pacing really hampers emotionally significant moments, and the camera work is at times amateurish.
    Expand
  29. Mar 24, 2012
    7
    I didn't read the books at all but ya I guess this was alright. A lot like Battle Royale but in some sort of weird American/Ancient Roman future. The pacing was a little slow and the action was poorly shot but the story was alright and I liked how the style of the Capital. I wish the movie was R rated so I can see those kids really tear each other apart.
  30. Mar 24, 2012
    10
    The Hunger games has put out a movie with action romance and suspense all at the same time. This movie had me on the edge of my seat. This is a must see movie and i cant wait till the new one comes out Catching Fire!
  31. Mar 24, 2012
    9
    If you're looking for a direct copy and paste of the book, you may be left disappointed. As expected, some non-important filler parts were left out for time constraints (the movie was already two hours and thirty minutes). At first, I didn't really think about it. This movie, as promising as the book, may leave you a bit empty if you're looking for something overly 'epic'. The amount ofIf you're looking for a direct copy and paste of the book, you may be left disappointed. As expected, some non-important filler parts were left out for time constraints (the movie was already two hours and thirty minutes). At first, I didn't really think about it. This movie, as promising as the book, may leave you a bit empty if you're looking for something overly 'epic'. The amount of action suits the book perfectly, therefore does justice to the series. I think the director did well, however, if you've not read the book you will most likely not fully enjoy the movie. After thinking about it, this movie has some really deep points that are so true within our everyday world, which can only be reflected in film. THIS is the best thing that the movie did, tying with the action thus making the flow better. Expand
  32. Mar 24, 2012
    7
    I have not read the books, so I'm evaluating this strictly as movie, not as adaptation of book. Generally I was satisfied with the movie. It's not brilliant but it's worth considering. However it felt shallow on parts. Especially character development. Also some segments were not explained enough. I don't know anything about this post-apocalyptic world. So for public like me, non readers,I have not read the books, so I'm evaluating this strictly as movie, not as adaptation of book. Generally I was satisfied with the movie. It's not brilliant but it's worth considering. However it felt shallow on parts. Especially character development. Also some segments were not explained enough. I don't know anything about this post-apocalyptic world. So for public like me, non readers, there should be some segments that more obviously explain stuff.
    Nevertheless I'm happy with cast. Mostly. Also visually movie is rich. Contrast between capitol and districts is well made. And killing scenes are well handled for the target group. At the end of the day it teen movie.
    Expand
  33. Mar 24, 2012
    10
    When I stepped out of the movie theater, I had a feeling of absolute joy! I was sitting there with a rapid heart rate throughout the whole movie. I read the books before I saw the movie and the books are magnificent! The perhaps best part of it was the acting. My god, Jennifer Lawrence is a brilliant actor! I was also very impressed of Josh Hutcherson. To summarize: Go see this movie!
  34. Mar 24, 2012
    10
    Fantastic adaptation of the book. Jennifer Lawrence is again wonderful and the film made me laugh and cry. Dont worry about the 12A rating it is all implied and in most cases shows the deaths anyway. DIRECTORS cut will be FAB! a*****************
  35. Mar 24, 2012
    4
    I was quite disappointed by the Hunger games. There is nothing wrong with using such a heavily recycled idea, but the entire purpose of the idea of an inescapable death-match scenario is to have incredibly gripping psychological drama that leaves the viewer/reader (in the case of the better form of battle royale) anguished at the tragedy of the event. This did not occur in the slightest,I was quite disappointed by the Hunger games. There is nothing wrong with using such a heavily recycled idea, but the entire purpose of the idea of an inescapable death-match scenario is to have incredibly gripping psychological drama that leaves the viewer/reader (in the case of the better form of battle royale) anguished at the tragedy of the event. This did not occur in the slightest, and there are a few reasons why. The acting was bland, the main contenders felt more like human masks than the deep and complex beings that they need to be to make this idea actually work. Their individual deaths or suffering left absolutely no impact on the viewer. Linked to this is the fact that the actual character development was sorely lacking. The pacing of the movie was problematic, the idea seemed interesting at first but it wasn't until around 1hr 30mins that the goal it was building towards actually happened. On a different note, the action itself (an important component of the idea) was limited and confusing, with so much fancy camera work going on it was hard to tell what was actually happening. In saying that though the futuristic element, was a refreshing take and the cinematography re its futuristic nature was very impressive. For me the highlight of the film was Stanley Tucci, he was as fantastic as ever. Expand
  36. Mar 24, 2012
    10
    I loved the books, the movie was sensational. Collins' is most certainly proud of her vision brought to life on the Big Screen. This movie is a must see for fans and for strangers to Collins' breathtaking trilogy.

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

    All I have left to say, to "Kat Murphy, Special to MSN Movies", is "who are you again?" This woman who so loved the books, but trashed the movie, is the woman who loves bean paste in her cheesecake. Her "eclectic" taste in movies has bled her of every reasonable perception of top notch entertainment. Take your Eel ice-cream and Geoduck sausage taste for movies Kat Murphy, the rest of us plan to enjoy the wonderful Double Fudge brownie with a side of taste-bud tingling Espresso Bean ice cream movie any day. Hunger Games is one of the most tasty visionary treats I've had the pleasure of seeing in a long time.
    Expand
  37. Mar 24, 2012
    7
    I didn't exactly know what to expect going into seeing this movie. I personally have only read the first book in the series and there are a few things that books can do that movies can't, like spending ALOT of time developing the characters while movies need to introduce them and move on. I personally felt like the story between Katniss and her mother, particularly the reason why there'sI didn't exactly know what to expect going into seeing this movie. I personally have only read the first book in the series and there are a few things that books can do that movies can't, like spending ALOT of time developing the characters while movies need to introduce them and move on. I personally felt like the story between Katniss and her mother, particularly the reason why there's such a rift between them, was overlooked, but they were barely featured in the movie even if her family is her motivation to participate in the Games. I felt like the relationship between Peeta and Katniss was kinda forced in the movie and just generally didn't seem to flow very well with everything else. Katniss' relationship with Rue was the best part of the movie and really brought the emotional roller coaster to it's greatest height. I thought everything else about the movie was very well done and it definitely was fun to watch. However expect some of the movie limitations on character development to dampen your opinion of this movie if your an avid fan of the series as you won't get anywhere near the amount of development that the book can bring. But fans and newcomers to the series alike will both like this movie as it still does a good job selling the raw emotions that each of the characters bring. Expand
  38. Mar 23, 2012
    8
    A great adaptation of the novel that Gary Ross does well with much help from Jennifer Lawrence's great performance. An immersible experience with Ross's directing, he carefully places The Hunger Games a movie for any audience, displaying the underlying emotion, violence, and steady storyline for the fans of the novel and newcomers alike. Lawrence really embodies herself as Katniss andA great adaptation of the novel that Gary Ross does well with much help from Jennifer Lawrence's great performance. An immersible experience with Ross's directing, he carefully places The Hunger Games a movie for any audience, displaying the underlying emotion, violence, and steady storyline for the fans of the novel and newcomers alike. Lawrence really embodies herself as Katniss and displays another award worthy consideration. While The Hunger Games is a great start, it seems as there is a large potential in the trilogy that Ross is not fully uncovering. Needless, Catching Fire hopefully is something that expands the initial story to more epic proportions like The Dark Knight did with Batman. Expand
  39. Mar 23, 2012
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Based on Suzanne Collins' Hunger Games trilogy, in a futuristic time where a nation had fallen apart after a horrific war two tributes from each district are chosen to fight to the death until one victor remains in what you would call a reality television show that is broad cast live to audiences. To those who are familiar with The Hunger Games trilogy, prepared to be impressed with this sensational adaptation and to those who aren't, prepare to witness an incredible journey filled with suspense and originality.



    Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), a citizen of District 12 volunteers to tribute for The Hunger Games to save her little sister Prim from being tribute. Against a fellow citizen Peeta (Josh Hitcherson) who she develops a relationship with, has to fight to the death and although we don't see much of Gale (Liam Hemsworth), there is a clear understanding of their relationship and how he feels for her. Katniss must fight for her life on this suspenseful and emotional must see journey.



    Filled with convincing performances by all the cast, The Hunger Games is a winner! Staying true to the book, director Gary Ross does a flawless job of introducing the first of the trilogy. It's an emotional fight to the victory that instantly captures you. A fearless adaptation where every minute keeps you enthralled. With its inventive story and strong cast, The Hunger Games works on screen and ends on top .
    Expand
  40. Mar 23, 2012
    10
    The movie was very entertaining. I didn't know anything about the books, and so going in as a complete noob I found the movie easily understood. A great book-movie tie in. Loved in, not a dull moment. A lot of great moments!
  41. Mar 23, 2012
    10
    Dear reviewers and review readers,
    I come bearing great news about a tale that will exhilarate your body and soul. It's name is The Hunger Games. Though I did not read the trilogy, I felt that this movie topped many other movies that I have seen in the past few years and maybe more if I thought deep enough. I am sure that I missed some information but if you understand movies like a mature
    Dear reviewers and review readers,
    I come bearing great news about a tale that will exhilarate your body and soul. It's name is The Hunger Games. Though I did not read the trilogy, I felt that this movie topped many other movies that I have seen in the past few years and maybe more if I thought deep enough. I am sure that I missed some information but if you understand movies like a mature professional, then it is very easy to catch onto. Don't be one of those people who obsess over making movies seem very terrible because they don't want to be hipsters. If you can withstand two and a half hours of every emotion that you can see in a movie, then you will absolutely love the Hunger Games.
    Expand
  42. Mar 23, 2012
    9
    The move was GREAT! It was missing very little explanatory details that if you read the book, you would spot. But, two thumbs up! The casting was perfect and my questions about if Josh Hutcherson was a good pick for Peeta was answered with a Yes.
  43. Mar 23, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Unfortunately, this movie didn't cut it for me. The characters were bland and two-dimensional, the cinematography left something to be desired, and the plot moved by so quickly that nothing was given adequate time. Like Katniss's relationships with Peeta and Gale. Or her time spent with Rue. Quite honestly, I needed these relationships to be formed and dwelt upon at length in the film in order to give the Games the meaning that they needed. Unless the characters (and the viewer) have something to lose, a movie can never achieve true emotional involvement and suspense. All in all, this was an unfortunate disappointment. Expand
  44. Mar 23, 2012
    9
    I do not get the negative reviews? The movie followed the book quite closely which I had hoped for and was not disappointed! Yes some of the richness of the book was left out but still for 2.5 hr long as is. I forgive some trimming. The acting was excellent loved Jennifer in Winters Bone and she did Katniss perfectly! I will rave and recommend friends see it!
  45. Mar 23, 2012
    10
    I haven't read the books yet but I certainly will now that I have had the pleasure of seeing one of the best films in recent memory. The screenplay is tight and fast paced but the story keeps its integrity throughout the film. The acting is first class and Jennifer Lawrence will have a long and prosperous career unless she does something really stupid. (see Lohan, Lindsay). The onlyI haven't read the books yet but I certainly will now that I have had the pleasure of seeing one of the best films in recent memory. The screenplay is tight and fast paced but the story keeps its integrity throughout the film. The acting is first class and Jennifer Lawrence will have a long and prosperous career unless she does something really stupid. (see Lohan, Lindsay). The only criticism I have is that they "dumbed down" the graphic violence to get a PG13 rating. The killings are done so quickly and cleanly that the camera barely gives you time to realize what has happened. The "anti- CSI effect" sanitizes the brutality of the contest and in a way it hides the evil of the adults who have orchestrated these "games." I look forward to the sequels with same anticipation of the Harry Potter movies. Expand
  46. Mar 23, 2012
    7
    The hunger games' largest problem is that it chooses to emphacize on it's dramatic material between the lovebirds over it's thematic material. Does the film do the book justice? kind of I guess. Will all the teen girls that go see this film be happy they sure will. This does not meen i did not enjoy it, it just meens it could have been a lot better by taking a few more risks as the criticsThe hunger games' largest problem is that it chooses to emphacize on it's dramatic material between the lovebirds over it's thematic material. Does the film do the book justice? kind of I guess. Will all the teen girls that go see this film be happy they sure will. This does not meen i did not enjoy it, it just meens it could have been a lot better by taking a few more risks as the critics like to say. Expand
  47. Mar 23, 2012
    6
    Though the concept is hardly an original one, "The Hunger Games," directed by Gary Ross ("Pleasantville," "Seabiscuit," and the upcoming "Catching Fire"), visually details the first installment of the widely acclaimed dystopian trilogy written by Suzanne Collins. Taking a page or two from earlier films of a similar variety, as in a much tamer account of Fukasaku's "Battle Royale" (2001)Though the concept is hardly an original one, "The Hunger Games," directed by Gary Ross ("Pleasantville," "Seabiscuit," and the upcoming "Catching Fire"), visually details the first installment of the widely acclaimed dystopian trilogy written by Suzanne Collins. Taking a page or two from earlier films of a similar variety, as in a much tamer account of Fukasaku's "Battle Royale" (2001) and delivering the same satirical overtones and vision of runaway celebrity culture and reality-tv obsession like Weir's "The Truman Show" (1998), the film shines in its tense tone and from a couple of its leads (Lawrence and Hutcherson), though is lessened by its invariably unstable, twitchy camerawork (using three angles at times) and over-editing swiftness --despite its intentions to make for intensified pathos and a neurotic dystopia--which fails to match the book's same sense of loss from death and the competition's ubiquitous ambiance of uncompromising gravity and carnage. Notwithstanding the camerawork, editing errors, and violence-saving restraint (let's not forget its rated PG-13), 'Games' is very much engrossing; the one-hundred and forty-four minute runtime never seems too tedious or soporific. Moreover, the film retains its grip on the viewer's attention much in part to its nimbly brisk pace and stunning cinematography. Lawrence is really what puts 'Games' on the same map as "Harry Potter" and further away from "Twilight;" she has a calming innocence that is both steady and assuring to the viewer, and blue eyes that are equally riveting. If viewers are familiar with her in "Winter's Bone," the same barefaced committment is brought to her character Katniss Everdeen, the bow-and-arrow-slinging heroine, who volunteers for her eleven-year old sister in the annual "Hunger Games." It is through Katniss that audiences become genuinely concerned with the competition's outcome; rooting for the heroine over even her District 12-adversarily-forced friend Peeta (Hutcherson). His character attires a strong, affecting visage that tears the viewer momentarily for whom to continue to cheer for; Katniss still wins over the crowd. But even more effective, is the film's transition from the book, which is told in first-person (Katniss as the focal point), to an omni-prescent scope. With this clever, and much safer, modification, the audience gets to see both the Hunger Games control room (the studio show stage) as well as the artifical, environmentally-staged battlefield. Furthermore, the continual change of pace from hunting (the action) and the scripted show (presentation) mimicks a "real-life" reality premise where audiences see both the physical confrontation and the manipulated, interviews, pre-game ceremonies and beauty-style pagentry, laden with flamboyant fashion and persistent directing coordinators. The control room, as in all of the film's setting, draws a strong, at times too close, semblance to "Fifth Element;" apparently Hollywood's only visual representative take on what the future world will be. Amalgamated from this "reality-show" are hosts and staff, some memorable, and some one would like to repress. Among the former, is madcap, blue-bouffant, male-Oprah-like Stanley Tucci, the horrificly bearded high-tech coordinator, Wes Bentley, and the long, wooly white, lion mane coiffure of Donald Sutherland as the usually distinguished and mellifluous, President Snow of the 'Games'; he is demonically brutal in his antagonistic role. As a whole, 'Hunger' is a film that is steered money first into a consuming demographic (13-19), and restrains itself knowingly from achieving brilliance by ensuring it stays the course. Though it starts as if it will last an eternity, and stand amongst cinematic grandeur, the film inexorably loses it steam and transmutes into the melodrammatic plodding in the woods that follows the "Twilight" series far too subserviently. In addition to the increasingly eggregious display of treacle adolescent-romance and fluff, the initial brilliant cinematography by Tom Stern is supplanted with noticeably cooler, more mundane tones. And, once the fighting itself begins, the teens on the battlefield are just not given the same degree of complexity and richness as the adults; they are seen as sheer psychopaths with no souls. Moreover, the need to add the laboriously dull and done-before love triangle only frames what will hopefully "tie-in" in the next installment, but the incipient longing for relationships does not put an effective cap on this origin account. Not endowing the same cultural study of class critique, as the superior "Battle Royale," 'Games' is obviously too Hollywood for its own good, eliminating some of the greater meanings the film desires to fulfill. The crux of the point: breaking box-office records is more important than making breaking one's highest expectations; settling for green is the greater compromise. Expand
  48. Mar 23, 2012
    6
    Stunningly decent, yes that is how i think i will describe this it is strange almost like the concept is well done yet still not allowed to flourish. The over all scope of things is easily grasped and i can respect keeping it PG-13 for it's audience but it is just a little to lacking in detail, the book is deep, rich and complex while the movie lack the same stunning epic feel
  49. Mar 23, 2012
    10
    To me the Hunger Games was sort of like Lord of the Flies meets Mad Max. Has anyone read Lord of the Flies or seen Mad Max with Mel Gibson? There was also a Japanese movie called Battle Royale that came out a few years ago but was never released in the US.
  50. Mar 23, 2012
    5
    The Hunger Games = Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome with Teenagers. I'm not saying it is a bad film but much of the premise was clearly borrowed from the Mel Gibson apocalyptic trilogy of Mad Max/ The Road Warrior.
  51. Mar 23, 2012
    10
    The Hunger Games is a fantastic movie, and the reason? The cast, the books, the story, all is amazing in the Hunger Games. The best is Jennifer Lawrence at Katniss Everdeen. I love The Hunger Games, is an amzing movie.
  52. Mar 23, 2012
    7
    Having read the book, I can say that this movie was a relatively loyal adaptation, andI was reasonably surprised byit.Itis true that not everything fromthe bookis captured here. But to expectthe filmmakers to translate every single page fromthe book ontothe screen would be unfair (it's not possible). With that being said, judged onit's own terms (asintelligent, blockbusterHaving read the book, I can say that this movie was a relatively loyal adaptation, andI was reasonably surprised byit.Itis true that not everything fromthe bookis captured here. But to expectthe filmmakers to translate every single page fromthe book ontothe screen would be unfair (it's not possible). With that being said, judged onit's own terms (asintelligent, blockbuster entertainment),the film succeeds.It's fast-paced, suspenseful, emotional, and brutal whereit needs to be. Jennifer Lawrence gives a great performance as Katniss Everdeen (if any ofthe other rumored casting choices were chosen for Katniss,they would have paledin comparison to Lawrence's work here). Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks and Lenny Kravitz also give standout performances.The production designis great (futuristicinthe capitol, primalinthe arena), andthe actionis well-choreographed.The 2 hour and 20 minute running time flew by, and bythe endI was already anticipatingthe next two films. Expand
  53. Mar 23, 2012
    10
    Hunger Games is THE must-see-movie of the year! Everything fits together perfectly - the cast, their acting, the directing...wow
    Especially Jennifer Lawrence's acting is reason enough to watch, but there is so much more.
    Believe me - this movie won't disappoint anyone who loves the books. Everyone in the cinema praised this amazing masterpiece and you will be the next:)
  54. Mar 23, 2012
    10
    It was just as I had imagined. There were details left out for time purposes, maybe they will be more detailed oriented in the next two movies. Fast paced, amazing adventure. Capitol was amazing.
  55. Mar 23, 2012
    3
    The movie was very superficial. Glossed over the backstory and pretty much all of the relationships in a rush to get to the games. Then much of the tension of the games was missing, too. Not sure I would have been able to follow if I hadn't read the book. Add the "Blair Witch" camera work, and the whole experience was disappointing.
  56. Mar 23, 2012
    3
    The movie left a lot to be desired and did not do the book justice. Character development in the movie was weak and if a viewer has not read the book, the characters and their relationships with each other is shallow and confusing. This confusion is clear when reading reviews by people who admit to not reading the books. In particular the relationship between Catniss and her familyThe movie left a lot to be desired and did not do the book justice. Character development in the movie was weak and if a viewer has not read the book, the characters and their relationships with each other is shallow and confusing. This confusion is clear when reading reviews by people who admit to not reading the books. In particular the relationship between Catniss and her family needs to be expanded upon and built upon so we can understand the relationship between Rue and Catniss and the tragedy of the circumstances they are put into. The relationship between Peeta and Catniss is also confusing and shallow, sanitizing the internal conflict felt by them. And finally we get to Haymitch, who is a shadow of the character he was in the book. Expand
  57. Mar 23, 2012
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Having read the books numerous times, the movie is lacking is so many ways. Scenes were redacted which I understand you have to keep the film lengthen under consideration but do not add scenes that have no mention or relevance into the movie. Also, the time lines are important in this film. You are building up to something. When you leave so much out how do you have that reference for later films. You do not get to connect with Katniss and Peeta in the film like you do in the books. I blame the SIGNIFICANT shortening of the cave scenes. The whole last 30 minutes of the film was horrible. Adding the extra fighting in the last scene did not add any value but took away from the film. Had the last Cornucopia scene been left as originally written, it would have made for a much more dramatic conclusion and wrap of the film. Expand
  58. Mar 23, 2012
    5
    I'm not really sure if i should compared the movie to the book. Because usually the movie is NEVER as good as the books are. What i really loved about the books was the "Katniss-Perspective" which the movie didn't have a ruined it quite a bit. A lot of the books are about Katniss thoughts about everything and everyone around here. And the movie didn't give away that feeling at all.

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

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

    The movie also skipped a lot of the book too. And i understand that it's quite hard to fit in everything.
    That's why i think it would better if it was made into a TV Show like Game of Thrones instead of a movie.
    Expand
  59. Mar 23, 2012
    8
    I saw this movie at midnight like the many others around the country and left the theater feeling pretty good. The movie presents itself as a great compliment to the first book of the trilogy. The movie used a good mix of fast paced action, emotions, moral dilemmas, and satire and the camera work was mildly creative giving the film a more edgy feel. Though the shaky camera style doesn'tI saw this movie at midnight like the many others around the country and left the theater feeling pretty good. The movie presents itself as a great compliment to the first book of the trilogy. The movie used a good mix of fast paced action, emotions, moral dilemmas, and satire and the camera work was mildly creative giving the film a more edgy feel. Though the shaky camera style doesn't sit well with others I felt it suited the atmosphere of the movie very well. The camera work deviates from mainstream films and gives us a different perspective.

    The movie does a good job following the book with minimal deviations. The deviations that did occur did seem to hamper the movie. It was some of the finer details the film passed by that hurt it.

    Unfortunately, because of the limits of length, the movie did not flesh out the characters as well as hoped nor was the back story laid out very well. I fear that those seeing the movie without reading the books will not appreciate everything the movie has to offer or understand it. I will say that one of the best aspects of this movie was the attention to detail in costumes, character design, and settings. The movie is great and is definitely a tribute to those who read the books first.
    Expand
  60. Mar 23, 2012
    8
    I waited eagerly for this movie to come out for months, bought tickets in advance, and showed up to the midnight premier trembling with excitement, and I was not disappointed. The cinematography at the very beginning was stunning. I was reminded of footage from the Great Depression, with the ragged children and old people, the downtrodden workers. The poverty in the districts was apparent.I waited eagerly for this movie to come out for months, bought tickets in advance, and showed up to the midnight premier trembling with excitement, and I was not disappointed. The cinematography at the very beginning was stunning. I was reminded of footage from the Great Depression, with the ragged children and old people, the downtrodden workers. The poverty in the districts was apparent. The movie was very tensely shot, the audience felt physically nervous when the characters did, and several of the key moments were heart-wrenching. (When Gale carries Prim away and Katniss is marched to the stage was just terrible to watch.) Cinna was absolutely masterfully done- he was a quiet, graceful, honest presence. Rue was PERFECT. They way Rue and Katniss' alliance was formed was quite masterful as well, though a bit truncated. Rue was such a lovable character though, that her death was 'toned down', probably because people don't want to see a sweet little curly headed girl be rent in half with a spear. It seemed almost too quick and they cut out most of the song. I enjoyed how they showed the uprising of district 11 ( I like to think the man who started it was Rue's father) but was disappointed that they didn't include District 11's gift. The violence over all was toned down considerably, which I expected since they wanted to keep it PG13. Mostly you saw a lot of scuffling a la "cloverfield" and then a body fell. There were a few exceptions, but mostly we just saw brief ( and I mean, a second) shots of the aftermath.

    The Capitol was fairly well done- attention to detail was excellent. It appeared very ominous, with all the bright colors seeming off, the people looking frightening in their candy-colored costumes. Seneca Crane easily makes himself hated, and President Snow is like an evil Santa Claus. There is a foolish blood lust in the capitol, accentuated by Effie Trinket and her horrible comments like "You're only here for a short time but you get to enjoy yourself!" (Read: we feed you well before we kill you) Effie lacked some dimension in my opinion, though. She seemed to be soley comedic relief. Haymitch did a great job. His drunkenness was minimized, and he displayed genuine caring that wasn't seen originally in the books, but it played out well. This movie inserted lots of excellent sensory techniques to suck in the viewer. There was a high pitched buzzing after an explosion, and the familiar sound of "far away" that most people are familiar with when they are nervous. There was flashes of light and sudden swoops to indicate pain and dizziness. These little additions made the film more believable. You felt like you were there. Overall, the movie met my expectations, though, honestly, they should have just made it rated R and served into the violence like it should have been. This story isn't about violence for violence's sake, its about corruption and moral latitude. You have to see the horror to understand. It is definitely worth seeing, in fact, I saw it twice.
    Expand
  61. Mar 23, 2012
    7
    In no way was it a masterpiece, but the Hunger Games proved itself an excitingly intense movie, led by the powerful performances from Lawrence and Hutcherson. The action was at best decent, sticking true to the book, yet not nearly as epic it could be, and the cinematography was obviously purposeful, yet at times disorienting. My biggest disappointment was soundtrack. At times I felt theIn no way was it a masterpiece, but the Hunger Games proved itself an excitingly intense movie, led by the powerful performances from Lawrence and Hutcherson. The action was at best decent, sticking true to the book, yet not nearly as epic it could be, and the cinematography was obviously purposeful, yet at times disorienting. My biggest disappointment was soundtrack. At times I felt the movie stumbled along, lacking the addicting fast pace of the book, and I feel like that may be due to the ho-hum soundtrack. There was no driving force, no beat to the film to carry the film forward, and because of that, the film suffered. Overall, I enjoyed the movie and found it worth the twelve dollars. However, I would not see it again. Expand
  62. Mar 23, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The movie was OKAY at best. The cinematography was so terrible that I was having motion sickness. Some of the scenes made me flat out go: â Expand
  63. Mar 23, 2012
    9
    As someone who was a fan of the books, I was a little nervous going in to this movie. Not just because I was worried that it would be good enough, but also because first person narratives are generally harder to adapt to the screen. I was worried that the main character would lose a lot of her complexity in the translation, just because of the limitations of the medium. I'm happy to sayAs someone who was a fan of the books, I was a little nervous going in to this movie. Not just because I was worried that it would be good enough, but also because first person narratives are generally harder to adapt to the screen. I was worried that the main character would lose a lot of her complexity in the translation, just because of the limitations of the medium. I'm happy to say that Jennifer Lawrence's performance absolutely proved me wrong. I think they made the character a little nicer for the movie (or, they left out some of her meaner stuff for the sake of pacing) and there were a few times where she had to have something explained to her rather than working it out herself (again, that has more to do with translating a first person narrative to screen without including a voice over), but the integrity of the character is still very much intact. Lawrence's performance was nicely understated while also selling the key emotional moments.

    If I had one complaint about this movie (which I do), it's that the story probably would have been better served if they were willing to let it have an R-rating. I understand why they wouldn't want that, considering the demographic they're aiming for, but a lot of the violence of the actual Hunger Games was a little too sanitized for my taste.
    Expand
  64. Mar 23, 2012
    10
    I can't believe it was that good! I came out of the theater generally surprised and a little guilt-stricken for not having read any of the books. That was a choice, mind you. I will read the first book this week. I'm reading them in sequential order, after I see the film based on that specific book. Anyway... It was an amazing film! The acting was impressive, all-around...including Peta.I can't believe it was that good! I came out of the theater generally surprised and a little guilt-stricken for not having read any of the books. That was a choice, mind you. I will read the first book this week. I'm reading them in sequential order, after I see the film based on that specific book. Anyway... It was an amazing film! The acting was impressive, all-around...including Peta. Peeta? Pita? P.E.T.A.? Yeah. That kid. He's usually is such bad movies that I have always disliked him. I don't have a gripe with any of the cast, to be honest with you. My only real problem with the film would be the camera work. It was fairly shaky at parts, especially in the first ten minutes or so. I understand using that technique for the action shots, due to budget restrictions. It's a bit odd to use them for other parts. Then again, they were trying to give District 12 (Where the main protagonists are from) a gritty/poor feeling. Without spoiling any major plot points, I'll tell you that I LOVE that feeling of heartache I got from this film, specifically toward the end. Everything else can be summed up fairly simply. The music was phenomenal; both the score and the soundtrack. James Newton Howard is a genius, as always. It's not as memorable as some of his other "hits", but still...it definitely added a lot to the film, like a score should. The script was brilliant, the pacing was perfect, and it seems like Gary Ross knows what he's doing. I cannot WAIT for the next two movies! Expand
  65. Mar 23, 2012
    8
    I'm rounding up from 7.5. It about matched my expectations (which were pretty high after reading some of the reviews). And for someone who didn't read the books it left minimal questions and kept things smooth and rather exciting.
  66. Mar 23, 2012
    9
    Gary Ross did an excellent job adapting Suzanne Collin's novel. He even succeeded in explaining many of the ambiguities left by her writing. Jennifer Lawrence was excellent, as always, giving a realistic portrayal as an independent woman struggling to survive. I would recommend this movie to both fans of the series and newcomers.
  67. Mar 23, 2012
    8
    The Hunger Games was really better than what I'd expect. Awesome fast-paced action entertainment laced with moral dilemmas and a satire on the entertainment industry of our generation all wrapped up in a compelling story with a strong emotional core. Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen is convincing and is pitch-perfect as a strong independent protagonist with an air of vulnerability.The Hunger Games was really better than what I'd expect. Awesome fast-paced action entertainment laced with moral dilemmas and a satire on the entertainment industry of our generation all wrapped up in a compelling story with a strong emotional core. Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen is convincing and is pitch-perfect as a strong independent protagonist with an air of vulnerability. And unlike a certain Ms Swan, she doesn't need a guy to sweep her off her feet. The ensemble cast is perfectly casted, from Woody Harrelson to Stanley Tucci. Don't worry about whether this'll turn out like Twilight because it's not. There's no sappy love story here. When the games begin, her only concern is to stay alive and even when she does show affection it's all part of the game.

    Can't speak for the readers who'd want every single detail from the book done right but keep in mind that the screenplay was co-written by Suzanne Collins. If The Hunger Games is just a little taste or preview for what's to come in the cinemas this year than it'll be a good 2012. It's definitely worth the money to watch and will watch it again in another preferred format.
    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.