User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1422 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. May 21, 2012
    The book had more charm and justice. Its an okay movie. I guess... but both the book and the movie suffer from a uniteresting and boring start. I don't really suggest spending too much money on this.
  2. May 20, 2012
    First off, I have read all of the Hunger Games trilogy books. Second, this movie was a pretty spot on representation of the books. The action was gritty thanks to the director. The close up face shots and jagged angles added to the intensity. That said, there were a few "shaky cam" moments that could have been avoided. The fighting was brutal, and the subject of kids killing eachother is always kind of dark. I think showing the graphic murder of these young people nails the point home. The Capital in this film is bad, and they are ruthless. I hope to see the next two be even better than this one. Expand
  3. May 20, 2012
    I found hunger games the book to be quite enjoyable but this movie does little to take the interesting universe and make it into a compelling film. Pacing is off with the movie being either too much action or too much silently looking off into the distance. The main character is supposed to be a great thinker and strategist, but there is no attempt to display her cleverness, she's just mute most of the time. The action which does occur suffers from lazy "shaky cam" shots. And the sets and characters are all far to clean and precise to feel real. It's like watching a stage drama put on at your local park. Still the saving grace is the source material which still manages to save the whole production to some degree by taking place in such a strange compelling world. Expand
  4. May 20, 2012
    I saw this film back on its first opening weekend and I had high expectations seeing how I have read and enjoyed the whole book series. For that, I absolutely enjoyed this movie and it is entertaining as all hell! The only problems are that some parts from the book were left out and you have to be patient to be satisfied with the actual Hunger Games tournament. Other than that, the acting, the visuals, the story are all great! Expand
  5. May 19, 2012
    A really good film. The Hunger Games is probably one of the best films I have seen this year. The atmosphere is intense, the premise and story is emotional and thought provoking and the acting is top notch. Jennifer Lawrence is amazing as Katniss and I consider her one of the best new actresses today and the rest of the cast is great too. The only complain that I have with the whole film is that the action scenes are riddled with shaky camera shots, which is very disorientating and it did get annoying at parts but it wasn't enough to ruin the film. I've read the first book of the Hunger Games trilogy and I have to say this is a very well made adaptation. It stayed with the main plot and kept the maturity and serious treatment of its demographic, which are mostly teenagers, that the book conveys. Expand
  6. May 18, 2012
    This movie is horrible compared to the book.
    This movie is so overrated and liked by all the teen-twilight fans.
    So stupid, but whatever....
    The movie is horrible
  7. May 18, 2012
    My children are big fans of the books and quite enjoyed the movie. For myself, I've not read the books, but found the movie fun and easy-to-follow. Some of the futuristic styling seemed overly cheesy to me, but in general I enjoyed myself and would happily watch it again.
  8. May 17, 2012
    To be completely honest The Hunger Games did nothing for me. Yes i've read the book, Yes I loved the book, Yes I watched the movie, In fact twice. Most scenes in the movie can't even be compared to the Book. Maybe it's because this is the first time where I've read the book before the movie, if thats the case I will be very disappointed in the hobbit. Anyway, I rate this movie a 5, merely for the greatness of the book, not the movie. Expand
  9. May 17, 2012
    The Hunger Games is unoriginal and uninspiring, one of the strangest hyped movies I have seen in years. I was completely underwhelmed when I saw it. The story itself is cliche, the same futurist group of unfortunate souls forced to fight for the entertainment of the masses because of an oppressive regime. It wanted to be like the original Roller Ball, or Battle Royale, but ended up being more like the remake of Roller Ball, or Gamer. Jennifer Lawrence is good enough, but she seemed like the main character in a video game. She appeared very wooden (maybe that was the written character in the book) and I struggled to have any emotional connection whatsoever to her. The Hunger Games themselves lack the intensity that the long buildup implied. Maybe the PG-13 rating doomed the movie from the start and they weren't able to go where they wanted. The ending was inexcusable and a complete cop out, I won't spoil it but it made me lose faith in the source material to begin with. Bottom line, this is bad Science Fiction, and makes me wonder how low our standards have gotten that this was so highly regarded. Expand
  10. May 17, 2012
    Before seeing this movie I had no knowledge of what The Hunger Games was about. This movie was very interesting and different from many films out there that I have personally seen. I enjoyed it, when the action started it didn't fail to keep me on the edge of my seat. But the first hour of the movie, which was before all of the action, wasn't very exciting and it failed to keep my attention at some points. I guess all movies need some sort of build up to the awesome parts. Overall, the movie was great. Expand
  11. May 15, 2012
    The trailer didn't really appeal to me, but the reviews were good, both from professionals and the paying public alike so we gave it a go. Was it worth it? Absolutely! The Hunger Games is simply a grown up teen drama, playing around with ideas and inspiration from Greek mythology, namely Theseus And The Minotaur, as well as the Roman Games.

    But, quite correctly translating both into a
    more modern, Orwellian styled reality TV language, perfectly tailored for the time that we live in. Based on a series of novels only four years old themselves, by Suzanne Collins who also co-wrote the screenplay, The Hunger Games is everything to the genre of teen melodrama that Twilight isn't.

    The film is also held together by solid performances from the cast, led by Jennifer Lawrence, who as Katniss Everdeen, the only child ever to volunteer for the games, who does so to save her sister, delivers and low-key but intense turn. But so do her co-stars, whether it be Josh Hutcherson as her love interest or Woody Harellson who almost steals the show at times.

    The Hunger Games deals with mature subject matters, in a mature way all the way through, seeming not to shy away from the brutal and horrific topic of children murdering each other for the entertainment of the masses, without actually showing too much. But the intensity of the violence and the tone can a times be disturbing without be income distasteful. A fine line expertly walked by director Gary Ross.

    But it's not just the violent content that works here, so does the satire and political subtext, and boy is there subtext. The characters are well-rounded and their lives as well as their traumas are played out with a real sense of plausibility. And that is the key to a film like this. This is a fantasy film playing around with mythology and political satire. All of which can easily come crashing down but steering a steady ship and believing in your world goes along way to drawing in the audience to that world, which in many ways is filled with potholes, but who cares.

    The tone is more than engaging enough to hold us and that is in the end in the key to the film. Certainly a MUST for Twilight fans, to see what a real female role model looks like...
  12. May 14, 2012
    I didn't read the book, the trailer was quite promising anyway. But the movie turned out to be disappointing anyway.

    The universe is completely unbelievable. Maybe the point of the movie is not to be credible, I can live with it, maybe the universe is just deliberately filled with stupidity, incoherences, reflects an extremely naive and childish view of politics and such other things, and
    is overall poorly developed.

    Then maybe it is a movie about action? After all, having watched the trailer, action is what I hoped to see. The second half of the movie has a bit of action scenes, not that much however. A small part of less than half of the movie is dedicated to action (the other half of the movie being pointless because of the universe being uninteresting). All these action scenes are filmed in a shaky style, but an unmastered style (as opposed to a mastered shaky style, like in the Bourne trilogy, or Man on Fire). So the only part of the movie that could have been somehow entertaining fails as well.

    Uninteresting context and universe, amateurish action, not much is left to see in that movie.
  13. May 12, 2012
    Definitely could have been better. It had a fake feel to it something about the camera angles was weird or something. i cant put my finger on. anyways rated it 7 cause it was entertaining above all.
  14. May 12, 2012
    This was one awesome movie. Me and my wife went last weekend and we really enjoyed it. The cast was great and the costumes were out of this world. We left the movie theatre and were quiet in the car for a few minutes trying to rethink the movie and that what ifs...Definately a movie to go see.
  15. May 11, 2012
    Bad character development. Weak/unmemorable action sequences. Boring characters. Uninteresting world. Shaky cam that won't let you focus in on anything. Some of the worst dialogue I've ever seen. & it doesn't even follow the book all that how is this a good movie?
  16. May 11, 2012
    I think the goal was to translate the Hunger Games series into films that would still get it a PG-13 rating so that it's primary audience could actually go see the movies. It could have been much darker and more violent, but I think it was faithful to the book - and a thoughtful treatment of the various dystopian themes. There's so much more to the books than the violence of the games. Had the movie focused only on that it would have shortchanged the story. Instead, this film reaches for higher-hanging fruit. Jennifer Lawrence is a terrific actress who brought depth to the role of Katniss, but I thought Amandla Stenberg's portrayal of Rue was wonderful. I look forward to the next installment! Expand
  17. May 10, 2012
    Having never read the books, but still wanting too, I decided to watch the film first so that I would not be able to judge the film on its accuracy. Each moment of The Hunger Games was suspenseful magic, complemented by a fantastically acted cast and enjoyable characters. Each moment was genius, and I exited the cinema as I entered, wanting to see the film.
  18. May 10, 2012
    What a film this was. Every second, something was going on, the structure of how this film was made is incredible. I was gripping my chair in the cinema as you never know what was going to be flung at you at any second. The traps were especially good, like the tracker jackers and those wild beast things near the end of the movie ( including one jump scene that sent my popcorn flying!!!). 10 OUT A 10!! Expand
  19. May 8, 2012
    Hot garbage. Thought this movie was gonna be the PG-13 version of "Battle Royale". Instead it's just another dumb twilight esc movie. No thanks Hollywood, you can keep your tweenie movies to yourself.
  20. May 8, 2012
    A pretty good movie overall. I haven't read the book, so I'll judge this film as original work. The setting, although interesting and thought-provoking, wasn't really explained, which is a shame because a dystopic government is usually a good author's/director's choice. The acting was mostly well done, especially Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, but some of the characters weren't fully fleshed out - Katniss' parents and sister, in particular. This wouldn't really be a problem but there are recurring flashbacks to these figures at some points in the film and all they end up doing is making you wonder why they were there in the first place. Overall, this film is definitely worth seeing but don't expect not to see some "filler" in such a long movie. Expand
  21. May 3, 2012
    as someone who has not read the books. i enjoyed this film quite a bit. it had a suprising dose of humor in it that i did not expect. the only major complaint i have is that they should have just went for broke and made this a Rated R film. its still violent enough in tone and in visuals that children still may not be ready to view this. Also, there is a lot of heavy dialogue that most children are not going to understand or be interested in. in short they should have made it for the 17 and up crowd but all in all a good film. Expand
  22. May 2, 2012
    great movie it handled the teen violence really well and was true enough to the book would have gotten a 9 or 10 from me if it had been a bit closer to the books story and it could have had more of its little details
  23. May 2, 2012
    They did a pretty effective job of taking a book based entirely on internal dialogue and make it a 3d person movie. The movie also was judicious in what it left out or minimized. Unfortunately though, that led to a number of undeveloped characters (except Katniss of course). I really enjoyed the movie and can't wait to see what they do with the next one. This movie blew Twilight away, but I understand that the intended audience is slightly different. A very good dystopian science fiction film, albeit for the masses. Expand
  24. May 2, 2012
    I should talk about other series prior to talking about "The Hunger Game". I kept thinking about "Battle Royal", manga (Japanese comic book). "Battle Royal" came out as a manga first, then movie version of it came out. Manga version was the best, and the movie version sucked so bad. If you know both version of "Battle Royal", then you already got my point of this review.
    Honestly I did
    not read novel version of "The Hunger Game", but it was easy to feel something is missing on the story plot. Design and background of the movie (or the story) is awesome, but what is the point of nice looking movie without a nice story plot? Every boy and girl in the survival is not really attractive except the girl in the movie poster because story does not support characters well individually. There are 24 kids in the survival, and I only remember 5 or 6 of them......
    Now back to "Battle Royal", the main goal of the base storyline is a copy of "Battle Royal". This sounds like the main reason of this review. I gave low user score because "Battle Royal" is still better by comparing just movie versions. Don't blame my review with comparison on both unless you watched or read "Battle Royal".
  25. Apr 30, 2012
    To me, the Hunger Games was like watching something in the future. I know that it leaves out lots of parts, but if they took it right from the book, It would probably be rated R.
  26. Apr 28, 2012
    This was a very average movie. Too much drawn out story and not enough action. I also kept comparing it in my head to battle royale which made it seem even worse despite the age of battle royale. I was also left in no state of worry for the main character who i didn't care about and i never felt she was in any danger.
  27. Apr 28, 2012
    It's not flawless , but it manages to keep the viewer engrossed from start to finish thanks to some very thrilling action and a superb emotional emphasis that will stay with you for a very long time to come .
  28. Apr 26, 2012
    I must say, the book was far superior. The movie didn't cover the story as well as the novel did, so if you haven't read the book, you're going to be lost in some places. I loved the film, camera-work, dialogue, acting, and score, but it just didn't seem complete.
  29. Apr 26, 2012
    In my opinion, it felt like the movie was just about getting the attention from the female perspective, because this was more of a romantic - love - story then a worthy movie. But it wasnt so bad overall
  30. Apr 25, 2012
    Great blockbuster to fill the void that lotr and harry potter once held. The story is interesting and gripping and does not take too long to get going. I would defiantly watch again and buy on dvd lets hope they don't rush and **** up the next one.
  31. Apr 25, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Outdated special effects, unwatchable shaky camera style in the action scenes, strange choice of actress for the lead role (an almost too pretty well... developed woman to play the role of a malnourished - more like starved to death in the book- sixteen year old slum-girl. Terrible dialogue and character development, unrealistic depiction of the future with people wearing outdated 18th century costumes while possessing incredible, almost magical technology that could create something out of nothing. One of the biggest rip offs I have ever seen in my life. They have taken the story of the Battle Royale and abused it in the worst possible manner, throwing all the violence out the window or with the above mentioned shaky camera technique toned down to an absolute blur. For many actual minutes I couldn't see anything on the big screen and many of my friends had made similar complaints. A colossal waste of my money but I suppose at the same time a great cash in for the clever people behind this whole charade. This is definitely not a kids movie and it barely qualifies as adult one also. Expand
  32. Apr 24, 2012
    I'd give The Hunger Games a passing grade. Its worth seeing if you had read the books, but it's probably a tad bit confusing for those who haven't. The acting was mediocre, the plot seemed rushed yet the audience is still engaged, and it gets the job done as a book adaptation. If you're a fan of the series it wouldn't be a bad idea to check it out, but don't go in expecting every detail to be there. Expand
  33. Apr 24, 2012
    I thoroughly enjoyed the film, although the story line of a battle-to-the-death sounds bizarre to me (NOT familiar with the book; don't read fiction). I thought the lead actors were very well chosen. Loved it that the characters' personalities were developed throughout the film. Definitely looking forward to the sequels.
  34. Apr 24, 2012
    I think that the greatest thing about this movie is that you don't have to read the book to get it, its intelligent, immersive and very appropriate to the present day. The story is obviously great and elegantly adapted to the screen. Every part of this movie is filled with so much cruelty that its refreshing to have a PG 13 movie being so hard-core. Also Lawrence is a perfect Katniss and this is one of the casting feats of the year for sure. Surely you would think that all this cruelty and violence would get at least a glimpse of some guts, but this is not the case. It is so expertly made that you would think that you saw everything without really noting that all you got was a glimpse. This type of trick builds a lot of momentum, but unfortunately the commentary in the background does drag a bit and kills the tension. On the other hand a major point that the movie does occurs outside the arena when the game makers are pulling the strings, its so coldly executed that its chilling to say the least, but its memorable as well. Expand
  35. Apr 23, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. However,each time i look upon a pair of dream red bottom shoes,i will canâ Expand
  36. Apr 22, 2012
    Beautiful. The adaptation for the book was beautiful. True, the camera style was shaky and the relationship between Peeta and Katniss was shallow, and also true, some of the important parts of the movie were left out, but there were only 20 DIFFERENCES--you can count them on wikipedia if you don't believe me, they have a list--BETWEEN THE BOOK AND THE MOVIE. You see, pretty much almost all of the movies made nowadays bases off of books are AWFUL. They have too many differences to distinguish from the book it turns into a completely different plot, and soon enough, the movie turns into something different than what it was based off of. WHY THE NEGATIVE REVIEWS??? THE ADAPTATION WAS BEAUTIFUL!!! The acting was purely wonderful to watch; I have never seen a movie with such great acting. For all of those who say the acting was terrible, you should Google what the other possible choices are, and you'll probably be out of school for weeks due to nausea. Suzanne Collins was strictly GENIUS for choosing Liongate to to the remake. The criticism for the adaptation is unnecessary, the racial views are completely out of line, and the movie is lower on the user score than it should be. People, have a heart and have good taste to know when a movie that comes out is actually GOOD! Expand
  37. Apr 21, 2012
    This movie is fantastic, the action is not to childish, and Jennifer Lawrence's acting was impressive. My only complaint is that, in the novel, the story was more about the Hunger Games, in the movie, they try to make it more about teen romance, disappointing.
  38. Apr 21, 2012
    No entiendo porque tanto revuelo, una pelicula mas!!! Muy predecible, las escenas con efectos especiales eran dignas de cualquier pelicula de TV, esperaba mucho mas, no nos vendan espejitos por favor
  39. Apr 21, 2012
    The Hunger Games is a very good movie. Did it very well from the book. They didn't make it a lot like the book but still a great film. The Hunger Games 7.9/10
  40. Apr 21, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A lot of hype for a very lazy Hollywood movie. It falls especially flat once the Hunger Games begin. It seems that the director and all the actors didn't take the premise very seriously: that these are young children being forced to fight to the death with only one victor allowed. At times it felt more like revenge of the nerds where the dumb jocks band together to pick on the weaker kids. The stronger, Aryan-looking kids, go around seeking out Katniss with a joyous, kind of partying attitude. Have these teenagers somehow forgotten that only one person can survive? That at any moment the people they are next to have every reason to murder them in order to save themselves? One of them has no problems taking a nap while the others wait for Katniss to come down off the tree. And they laugh and flirt and play like school just got let out. And time after time the kids let others escape, sometimes for no reason at all. One large Black teen kills a young girl, as she is fighting with Katniss, then looks at Katniss and says something to the effect of "I'll let you go this time", for no reason. Has he forgotten that one way or another he will have to kill her to survive? Why wait to kill her too? Especially in the midst of bloodlust after killing someone else? This is his own life which is at stake, but you'd never guess from how he behaves. They just didn't take the premise seriously enough for me to take it seriously as an audience member. For a movie with this kind of budget and marketing machine, there is no excuse for such laziness. This made me want to watch Blade Runner, a Sci-Fi movie in which the director took care of the details. Expand
  41. Apr 21, 2012
    I expected more graphical violence - it plainly seems that they made the movie less violent, so kids could come to see it, and they would make more money. I really enjoyed the performance by the cast and the production value - you could feel the fear in the air for the first hour and a half of the movie.
  42. Apr 21, 2012
    I saw the film the same day as they released it. I was scared, cuz I didn't know if it was gonna be a **** like Harry Potter or Twilight...but finaly I can say is a really awesome film. In every aspect. Really great. Maybe it had some strange thing at the begginning, but at last, it was amazing. If you're thinking you're gonna watch some commercial **** like Twilight or something like that, youre very wrong.
    And if you like Battle Royale, you're going to like this one.
  43. Apr 20, 2012
    I'm writing this review as a person who has yet to read the books yet. Watching the movie without any knowledge of what you are going into is o.k, (The story is simple enough to follow), but when i watched it, i had know idea who was doing what and who's killing who. I only barely remembered 2 or 3 of the characters because of the lack character development. The movie itself is fast paced and if you've read the books, would probably leave you amazed. The story is solid, acting is solid and pretty everything is well done. I only wished that the character's could be more fleshed out in the movie. I would recommend this movie to pretty much anyone because its probably one of the best movies to be released this year. Expand
  44. Apr 19, 2012
    First of all, this is a 2-Dramamine movie - one of those films, like "The Hurt Locker" where the camera operator shakes it around on purpose, most likely to convince you that it's a dramatic scene. The result neither increases the tension nor settles the stomach. It does, however, draw attention to itself, reminding you that there's a guy/woman holding a camera and that we're watching a movie. Aside from that, and aside from the usual "Let's get to know the contestants before we kill them" format (in fairness, quite unavoidable if it's to remain true to the book), this isn't a bad action movie. We all know how much the book owes to Shirley Jackson ("The Lottery"), but then we all know how JK Rowlings borrowed liberally. I don't begrudge them that. I'm just hoping they hold the damn camera still in the next movie. Expand
  45. Apr 19, 2012
    I am no Hunger Games nerd. That is to say, I read the books, but I am not obsessed by them. I didn't even liked the second two that much. I did, however, like the first book in the series. Quite a bit actually. So, it came as a surprise to me when I enjoyed the movie even more than the book. In case you have, somehow, missed reading the book(s), The Hunger Games is an annual event that occurs in a not-so-future-future time, when one girl and boy from each district (24 children in all) is randomly selected to battle to the death in a glamorous and ferocious televised event. Katniss volunteers as a tribute when her younger sister, Prim, is selected to be in the Hunger Games. Now Katniss must somehow survive the treacheries of the Hunger Games, and show the Capitol she is no pawn in their game. The Hunger Games is, as one would expect, extremely intense. Children heartlessly killing each other to survive. And it's goes beyond shooting from afar. Combat occurs within tripping distance. Slashing of knives, snapping of necks, all these duels between children between the ages of 12 and 18. But The Hunger Games is PG-13 (as opposed to R), so the violence is portrayed in a way, in which you don't see much of the actual killing. You just know what is implied. The camera is placed at strategic angles so that you may see some blood and the attack, but not the knife or the ax digging into the child's flesh. Actually, it's all very tame, considering the subject. I'm not the kind of person that can watch a lot of gore, so this was perfectly fine with me. Now that I've got all that boring stuff regarding the violence out of the way, I can start sharing my opinion on the film: As of now, The Hunger Games is the best movie I've seen this year. There were two points in the movie in which I ALMOST cried. I held back tears, for certain. And it wasn't easy. The Hunger Games is very emotional. The camera is very shaky. The movie often feels like a found-footage film. At first, the shaky camera irritated me. But within 10 minutes, I had become so connected with the movie, that I didn't even notice the camera. In the first half (before the actual games begin), there is a decent amount of humor. This is not a comedy, so don't expect to be in stitches, but there are some mild laughs. Almost all of these come from the Capitol's lightheartedness towards the Hunger Games. They laugh and joke about it. It is important to them, but they don't give a second thought about the 23 people who will die as a result. The casting is marvelous. Everyone does a wonderful job portraying their characters. Before seeing the movie, I was a bit skeptical at some of the actor choices, but all the doubt washed away as each character appeared on screen. Also, the makeup and costumes are incredible. They're so ridiculously silly looking (intentionally), and it just feels perfect. Truly well done. The score is equally wonderful. The music is powerful, and during the games, adds invaluable amounts of tension. Hats off to the composers. The action is tense. Your pulse will most certainly quicken. In addition to other competitors, there are tracker jackers (genetically engineered wasps), dog-like wolves, and fire. Lots of fire. There are plenty of plot twists that will certainly shock those who haven't read the book. This movie is emotional, tense, and overall, wonderful. I do have a few minor nitpicks, specifically regarding character interaction. Cinna doesn't get enough screen time. We just don't feel the relationship between him and Katniss like we did in the book. President Snow doesn't seem quite as menacing as he is in the book, though he's evil enough. Also, the romance portion of the film is disappointingly cheesy. Teenage girls in the audience certainly fell for it, but I often rolled my eyes. Also, the ending isn't a true ending. We get a hook for a sequel. It's not so much a cliffhanger, it's just a "To be continued." I didn't mind too much, and fans of the book won't either, but I suspect there will be some who will be irritated by this. The Hunger Games has a few flaws, but in the end, it's the best film of the year so far. Fantastic story, lots of emotion, good action, believable acting, superb score, amazing makeup and costumes, need I go on? Simply put, The Hunger Games is a must see. I was originally uninterested in the sequels, but this movie was so good, I may rethink skipping them. May the odds be ever in your favor, and happy Hunger Games! Expand
  46. Apr 18, 2012
    This is one of the best teen movie this year! I do not know why this movie just got a 6.7 rating? This movie can make the heart beat of the people who saw it! Amazing film!
  47. Apr 18, 2012
    I liked the film but I nearly got up and walked out as soon as the shaky camera work began. Its a lazy filmmakers attempt to gin up anxiety. I was a little surprised to see a cautionary tale on authoritarian government in this age of nanny stateism and political correctness. Perhaps the next generations rebelliousness will be to return us to constitutional government and liberty. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I can hope. Expand
  48. Apr 18, 2012
    Went to see this movie to see what all the teenaged fans were buzzing about, seeing as it has done very well at the box-office. I had only known the premise from a brief synopsis of the book series but had not had any interest. I did enjoy the movie, though as a dystopian future, its not that unusual. I'm sure the young readers to which this genre is new would be impressed by the premise of the story but for veteran consumers of speculative fiction, a lot of this will seem to be old hat. I liked the supporting cast, in particular Caitness' fashion stylist portrayed by Lenny Kravitz was a hoot. I also enjoyed the brief yet menacing presence of Donald Sutherland as the President. The young actors did a good job and played their roles in a nice restrained manner which didn't annoy me like actors in many movies aimed at teenaged audiences tend to do as I've gotten older. Jennifer Lawrence seems to have a bright future in front of her. Expand
  49. Apr 17, 2012
    What a fantastic, action-jammed film 'The Hunger Games' is! Perfect casting and fact-paced visuals make it one of the most exciting films of the 21st Century so far.
  50. Apr 16, 2012
    THE HUNGER GAMES is a raw and brutal vision of the future, where annually two tributes from each of the twelve districts in Panem (once the United States) fight to the death in the Hunger Games, a fight to the death that is televised for the world to see. The film has a brilliant premise, and remained perfectly true to the book.
  51. Apr 16, 2012
    This is a movie about a brutal gladator like event for people who don't like violence and like sparkly vampires. This is book i simply a short story called "the lottery" merged with a far supiorior Movie called battle royale. The lead actor "whos a hunter" does inane things like sit in a sunny clearing and run around in a blue blazer in the forest while shes supposed to be in a life and death game. Totally unrealistic and the combat was poor. Expand
  52. Apr 16, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I never read the book. Many people consider that a negative. I consider it a benefit. I am able to judge the world not based on my expectations for the book's movie, but on my expectations for a movie in general. I am able to expect the movie to leave me without questions that could be answered by the novel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Overall, it was a solid film. I wish I could have given it a 7.5, because honestly it doesn't deserve an 8. No movie should be judged by the book it is based on, but no movie based on a book should rely on the book it is based on. Overall, the Hunger Games doesn't rely on the novel - it explains most things well - but it lacks the character development and, well, non-cheesy introduction of plot elements that it needs.
  53. Apr 16, 2012
    even though the movie was 2 hours long, it failed to show all the important details in the book. maybe splitting it in 2 movies would have been a good idea? also, the movie was way less fun to watch if you haven't read the book. and i think an important job of a film that was based on a book is for it to be good on it's own right, as with lord of the rings. i haven't read the books and i still had a great time watching those.
    looking past these mistakes, i must admit that i liked the movie and was never bored watching it, but still, i had a feeling it could have been better.
  54. Apr 15, 2012
    success does not imply quality. while you can't argue the fact that The Hunger Games is a box office success, the film itself is quite a let down. as with many teen novels that are adapted to film, the film displays a fundamentally poorly thought out execution. The plot is under developed, almost implying knowledge that can only be know from reading the book, an example of which is the relationship of the primary character (Katniss) with her Mother. The characters are underdeveloped and the plot lacks appeal. If you don't enjoy picking apart films, then you should enjoy it regardless of what anyone has to say. Expand
  55. Apr 15, 2012
    The hunger games is a riveting movie. It is amazingly in depth on fighting, but lacks actual story. Who are the people in the capitol? What do they mean by al the derogatory terms in the movie? What happened to the cat, buttercup. In my opinion, the movie itself is okay. They just need to express what is going on a little better. When the 12 districts were mentioned, would you wonder, which one has the edge or perhaps which one will lose? The political roles of each and every character, city, district, and action need to be present. What happened to the rebellious acts that were caused by the berries Peeta had. Were you able to understand what the heck was going on? In my opinion, you should at least read the book before watching the movie. Usually, all books have more detail than the movies, so most should just read the books before the movie!!!! Expand
  56. Apr 15, 2012
    As the early minutes of the movie unfolded, it seemed to me that its principal premise was assembled by prominent ideas that came before it. When the story reveals to us that young men and women would have to slaughter each other for survivalâ
  57. Apr 15, 2012
    Not worth seeing at all. I only saw it because while planning to see 21 Jump Street (which is rated R) and having already been standing at the ticket booth, I found out my friend was still 16, and The Hunger Games was the only other interesting looking movie playing. I was with 2 friends, and none of us enjoyed it, mostly because it was painfully long, the plot was dull and slow-paced, and the character development was horrible, with useless characters and unnatural character relationships, that would have only made sense if you've read the book. On top of that, the cinematography was awful. The camera was constantly shaking, which made it look very unprofessional as a film. And the fight scenes were painful to watch because they were so poorly done. Bad camera work + bad fight scene choreography = severe motion sickness. And to add to that, the music never fit, especially during the fight scenes. In fact, the music was lazily written, with more focus on ridiculous audio effects rather than the actual musical aspect of it. And one more thing: Editors have no reason to tone the color down throughout the entire movie just to give it a slightly darker feeling. Be more creative. In conclusion, we would have had a much better experience had we seen 21 Jump Street instead of this over-hyped, lazily put together piece of crap. Expand
  58. Apr 15, 2012
    The movie does not do justice to the book, nor to the characters. The character of Katmis is well portrayed by a talented actress. However the move seems more interested in the environment and techie tricks than in the depth of the characters that were developed in the book. ,How well one likes this movie may depend upon whether they have read the book first (thereby liking the movie more because they bring more to the movie than is in it), or having not not read the book , and being limited to what the movie actually portrays (which seems to be more Hollywood than Hunger Games). Unlike the excellent book, the movie seems to have chosen flash and style over substance. Expand
  59. Apr 15, 2012
    Best Movie I've Ever See. If you've read the book you will absolutely love this movie.
    Jennifer Lawrence is a sexy beast and the movie is just sooooooooo good you have to see this movie i swear.
  60. Apr 14, 2012
    The Hunger Games - 10/10 - The Hunger Games is inventive, inspirational and at times mind-blowing. It's not the greatest adaptation of the novel but this film stands alone. The shaky camera might be a little must but it's a brilliant way for this film that's about kids killing kids to bypass the MPAA and a R rating. Also a blockbuster of this nature made for under a hundred million and not being a total disaster is a feat within itself. Hunger Games is a must watch blockbuster in a randomly placed March! Expand
  61. Apr 14, 2012
    Although it's runtime may seem a little too lengthy for some, The Hunger Games is an audacious drama/action with moments of pure, majestic thrill as Jennifer Lawrence gives an almost perfect portrayal as the outspoken Katniss Everdeen. Overall, it stands out from the action genre as a whole by providing solid acting, careful writing and intense fighting sequences that are certain to please the trilogy faithful. Expand
  62. Apr 14, 2012
    I wish i could have given this movie an eleven! This movie not only showed the brutality of humans, but the inhumane treatment of "slave-like" districts. This movie was amazing, short and simple.
  63. Apr 14, 2012
    I didnt like this movie to much.
    It was boring to me.
    The concept behind it was retarded.
    Who has kids killing other kids?
    Straight from the start you just knew how it was going to turn out.
  64. Apr 13, 2012
    this movie was very good i have not read the books yet but i love the storyline and the idea of the hunger games the whole setting is very unique and i will remember the characters for a while with there weird clothing and hair styles and colors and no this nothing like twilight this is actually good it takes place in the future and the was a war and people have to fight to the death, 20 of them from the 12 districts of the united states as punishment for the people of the districts rebelling for the poor conditions of the districts i would give this a 10 if they would have described the characters relationships with each other better Expand
  65. Apr 13, 2012
    BORING! I'll say right off the bat that I didn't read any the "Books" (I am a 40-something female whose favorite genre is action sci-fi, i.e. Aliens, Terminator, Matrix, etc.) and was hoping for a good movie. Unfortunately, this movie was TOTALLY over-hyped and didn't deliver. If you like the kind of action that has lots of shots of the main character sleeping in a tree and her BIG strategic moves involving a hornet's nest and some berries, you will think this is great entertainment. I would have given it less than 5 stars, but because of the costumes/hair/makeup in the middle section of the movie (which were very well done), I bumped it up a couple. I think it is only for people who read the "Books" since they can fill in mentally what the movie lacked (which was A LOT). Expand
  66. Apr 13, 2012
    I thoroughly enjoyed both the book and film of "The Hunger Games". The cast was chosen correctly and the scenes were made both hooking and exciting. Despite a few changes to the film from the book, it was a great family film and i encourage you to see it!
  67. Apr 13, 2012
    Just the plot alone gets an A from me for originality. I get sick to my stomach when I see so many cliche movies that are just carbon copies of some other unoriginal idea. This movie is of course suspenseful which is one of my fav things about seeing a movie edge of your seat moments. I always say movies coulda been better but thats cuz its always true no matter what. It was like 2 n a half hours I woulda liked more dialogue to get a better feel of the times they live in and what not. I recommend it though definitely. I will probably be borrowing my girlfriends hunger games books now to compare to the film. Expand
  68. Apr 12, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. this film is an OK process of the book but deferentially needed to be worked on especially the explaining of her father. this film did well with the costumes and the acting but the scene between Katniss and Peeta is not something i would of put them together for. this made the atmosphere disrupting and course them both to not look in love but having more of a "i have to do this if i want money" so over all 7.5 is my rating and i'm hoping this film makes up for it the second time round. Expand
  69. Apr 12, 2012
    I will keep it short and sweet. I had no expectations going into this movie and I really liked it. I enjoyed the build-up and politics up to the actual games. Woody Harrelson with his usual comic relief. Definitely entertaining. Worth seeing in the theatre for sure!!
  70. Apr 12, 2012
    The sci-fi elements, the characters, and situations were engaging and thought-provoking. But the story-telling was weak as there was very little tension,and the action scenes were difficult to follow and resolved too quickly. Worse, the movie had NO climax and then was abruptly over after a brief battle with a weak cliche antagonist and some poorly conceived CGI wolf creatures. Overall, I walked away satisfied but disappointed. Expand
  71. Apr 11, 2012
    The Hunger Games is, a decent movie, I could say. It starts with Katniss, you fanboys know her, right? Well she is a dull character that has no reason for the audience to want her to win. As that continues, the plot expands, and the plot is great. Should keep viewers interested in this clever, expanding plot; despite it's simularities to "Most Dangerous Game". Anyways, Peeta, is another dull character. In fact, all the characters are. I can name a list of films that had begter characters. But then, I feel how the film was overall. In the end, it's an okay film, perhaps for the better than for the worse. I recommend this film, overall. Expand
  72. Apr 11, 2012
    My wife and I like science fiction, and I particularly like this kind, where a social phenomenon that we think could not happen serves to reveal humanity and challenge our perceptions. I think this movie does both. I do not know how it compares to the book, but I will read it eventually. The movie version of the story is very well made. It does not have any slow moments and the photography is very well done. I really found nothing to complain about. The story is very interesting. When I think back on it I ponder on her choices. She never initiates the attack on a human. Her sole attack is on the supplies. She is defensive and conserving. This contrasts with the gang, which is narcissistic, arrogant and a killing machine. You have to wonder what holds the group together. They all know that at some point the gang will turn on each member till only one is left. At some point it would have made sense if two members of the gang tried to take out the alpha. Wouldn't that, if successful, have increased their chances of winning? It would have illustrated the nature of that gang. That mused, I think the nature was amply illustrated. Definitely go see it. Expand
  73. Apr 10, 2012
    The Hunger Games is a good movie. Not fanboy amazing, not hater terrible. It's good. As it is in most movies, there are a lot of little details that were taken out, but the details weren't necessary to the story. That said, the movie is definitely better if you've read the book. Is the book the difference between a 3 and an 8? No. It's the difference between an 8 and a 6. The movie has action, great acting, good looking actors and an actual plot. The movie stands well on it's own, but it is best enjoyed if you've read the book first. If you've read the book, you automatically fill in all the missing pieces, and that creates a wholesome, spectacular visual representation of the book. The movie shouldn't be criticized for leaving details out, the books should be criticized for having too much detail. That said, I definitely urge you to read the book and THEN go see the movie, but the movie is great on it's own, and worth seeing either way. (JENNIFER LAWRENCE!!! Expand
  74. Apr 10, 2012
    I'm wondering: how original is the premise? An post-apocalyptic world where live televised fights-to-the-death keep the populous' blood lust satisfied? Eh. Series 7: The Contenders did it way before, but not with Hunger Games' budget. Plus there's Running Man, the Road Warrior, and earlier, 1984. If the world ever becomes a world like the Hunger Games, I'd protest in the streets and risk dying in a Tiananmen square movement. Orwell wrote a better satire on society's need for bloodlust and authoritarianism, because he details a lot of what happened in the world before it got fragmented into superstates. There's no such luck with Suzanne Collins. I don't think Suzanne Collins or the film-makers have enough imagination or storytelling skills to give us the big picture of Panem or the characters should have. They're just waving their fingers at us tsk-tsking us for watching too much reality TV, that one day will lead to televised murder. Does Collins give her characters enough depth that they rebel against an insane society that has degraded to televised murder? Why do they go along with it? Like I said, I'd stand my ground and risk my life for freedom and autonomy before I'd let what happened in Pan Em happen to us. Expand
  75. Apr 10, 2012
    Honestly, the movie was just averagely good in terms of story line. It was really strange how subtle they touch on the story of the girl's family & friends back home. For example the role of the guy back at her hometown who likes her was not told much. Personally, there were many incomplete and insignificant scenes in the movie which makes it too long. However, the survival part was a bit interesting. The graphic was a bit poor, not up to my expectation, especially when the 12 districts march across the stadium. It was too fake for me. A so-so movie. Expand
  76. Apr 10, 2012
    i was so looking forward to watching this movie. I seen all of the amazing reviews and i hoped for the best... but i was so wrong... the book was soo much better the movie its scary.... i really dont know how people think the movie was so good.... i sat there wathing and thinking, wheres the part where haymitch fell of the stage... or where haymitch sent katniss the sleeping medicine so she could go to the cornucopia... and the red head avox girl and thats just a few parts they were missing... the book has soo much detail... in the book... you get to read how katniss is feeling about everything and how the events that just happened... decide her next decision.... im not a personal lover of romance in films... but in the book the "romance" between katniss and petta makes the plot soo much better... but in the film its all broken up and i cant make sence of what has happened.... i hate the fact that the directors have made this into a movie for kids... the book is for adults...there is a lot of viloence and scenes that are for older viewers but the DIRECTOR wants everyone to love this movie... but in my opinion he got it soo wrong... i just hope they dont make the same mistakes if they are ALLOWED to make the second book... which is also a great read
    i recommened to everyone who thinks that this movie is the best thing since slice bread... to read the book and you will instantly see the flaws and how bad the the movie truely is
  77. Apr 9, 2012
    I expected a ripoff of Battle Royale to at least be almost slightly 1% as interesting as Battle Royale, but instead I got into the theater and watched this boring piece of crap garbage for two hours. What a waste of time. People who liked this movie are either stupid or lying. Transformers 2 was a better movie because, in spite of horrible writing (which The Hunger Games is 100% full of), there was still a lot of action (which The Hunger Games has 0% of). With a bad plot and bad dialogue and bad everything story-wise and then two hours of boring non-action on top of that, what is even the point of this movie? Do not watch this. Obviously you will anyway and you will pretend you liked it because everyone told you to. Expand
  78. Apr 9, 2012
    The Hunger Games is an unforgettable film experience. It features an incredible performance from Jennifer Lawrence and amazing supporting performances from everyone. Gary Ross's direction may be criticized but he really manages to bring you into the story. You feel for the character, you feel pure emotion. The film manages to scare you, manages to make you cry. It never drags and should be recognized as one of the best films of 2012. I give this movie 98%. Expand
  79. Apr 9, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Youâ Expand
  80. Apr 9, 2012
    Its a bit **** just some girl crying for about 6 hours. I would say its a cross between Battle Royale and Twilight. It bigs these two people up like there these amazing people with awesome powers, and they hardly get used. The main guy in it supposed to have this amazing throw and he doesnt even throw anything throughout the film.
  81. Apr 9, 2012
    I actually really liked this movie. The acting was amazing, the movie was similar to the book, and I felt a lot of real emotions during this. This movie was just what I imagined in the book. Jennifer Lawrence did a particularly good job as Katniss, and the special effects were mostly good. Two things I didn't like were the fire coming from the tributes from District 12, and how the camera shook unnecessarily. I enjoyed this as I had read the book, but I reckon if you didn't read the book you would be quite confused as there was not a huge explanation and background. I am complimenting the book here, but I loved the plot and idea it. Overall, amazing! Full review here on my blog: Expand
  82. Apr 8, 2012
    Movie, great. Actors, great. Plot, special effects, sounds, great, great, great.

    SUPER SHAKY CAMERA: I got a headache about half of the way through this movie and had to close my eyes so I didn't throw up. The camera ruined the whole movie for me, which is unfortunate because after reading the book, I was incredibly psyched.
  83. Apr 8, 2012
    I have never read the books but I can tell you the movie is so flawed that I could write a book about it. At first, it seems like they could not decide on whether they wanted to make a serious film or a campy film to show to people really stoned for midnight weekend films. The futuristic utopia image was a joke as the film projected a country that was half Star Trek and half the Dark Ages. I thought the sets looked cheap and Woody Harrellson looked liked Tom Petty. Once they got around to the games, the film really lost any sense of reality as the one focused on 4 or 5 of the participants and we never saw anything about the others. The film has zero character development, plot development, and the history behind the games was never really explained. Lawrence spent most of her time sleeping in a tree while my film going partner spent her time looking at her watch. Hunger Games is close to being a movie you would see on Mystery Science Fiction Theather. It made Avatar look a classic . You can see the sequels coming but I will not go. Expand
  84. Apr 8, 2012
    The movie is just as shallow as the book. There's little depth, zero character development, and the technology that The Capitol exudes is entirely unbelievable. 1. Shaking-camera approach was the wrong choice. The director was going for that voyeuristic, narrow-perspective, suspenseful feeling but it just ends up giving the viewer a headache. I found myself squinting at the screen for the first half of the movie (shakiness seems to absolve once the tributes arrive in the arena), and I found myself rubbing my eyes more than paying attention.

    2. If The Capitol has the technology to spawn biological entities out of thin air (the dogs), then why would they need coal mining production, which was the entire purpose of District 12? The flamboyance of The Capitol suggests that technology has evolved far beyond coal burning. Nanotechnology, anti-gravity propulsion systems? Whew man, that's a big hole.

    3. Just to have a third item... all of those tributes sure are GOOD LOOKING for being so poor. And why weren't there any fat tributes? One last thing: If these Hunger Games have been going on for close to 75 years, wouldn't every district by now train their tributes?
  85. Apr 8, 2012
    I haven't read the book but it made perfect sense to me. As far as blockbusters go it was pretty darn good. It's a difficult thing to do a film like this well but they managed it, and in the process created something of a classic for our times.
  86. Apr 8, 2012
    This movie was a good but lacking adaptation of a great book. There are significant shortenings and unnecessary switches to make this movie PG 13. I understand the fact that in order to achieve significant revenue this movie had to be adaptable to a larger audience but it ripped the core of the story. i sutil recomendar watching it, but You WILL need to fill the gaps by reading the book.
  87. Apr 7, 2012
    Very close to the book, don't know what people are whining about. Only bad thing was shaky camera in first 15 minutes, then later in "distress" scenes. Totally unnecessary and annoying. Yes book is better, but what can you do in 2 hours and 13 min? Pretty much what they did. I do hope to see extended scenes of Peeta's injury and reaction by Katniss as they have to operate on him in the DVD. Other than that, everything was great. Expand
  88. Apr 6, 2012
    NOTE: IF YOU HAVE READ THE BOOK: MAKE THIS A 7/10. TL;DR THE MOVIE WOULD'VE BEEN POTENTIAL FOR BEST PICTURE BUT IT IS RUINED BY ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE PACING AND CHARACTER/WORLD DEVELOPMENT. The acting is superb (Especially Woody Harrelson as Haymitch) the visuals/audio stunning, and it follows rather well with the book. It paints an excellent image from the book. So why does it have a 5/10? Two reasons: Pacing and Character/World Development. The pacing was absolute crap. So crap it brings the score down by 2 points. With the 2 1/2 hours of the film, some scenes were uselessly prolonged (ESPECIALLY THE BEGINNING. The book had a long beginning, but it used it to explain the story), and could've been used to develop and explain the story. Character/World Development? For those who haven't read the book, this movie will be very confusing. It doesn't explain the purpose of the Districts, who most of the people are, the reasons behind the actions done, and generally what's going on. Who was that old guy with the big white beard? President Snow. Who was that guy with the strange stubble beard? Seneca Crane, the Head Gamemaker. Who was that cat at the beginning? Buttercup, one of Prim's pets, who only tolerates Katniss. Why is it called the "Hunger" games? Because most of the districts are in poverty, and many people starve to death. The winner of the Hunger Games get out of that poverty, and the district gets some extra food. What happened to District 13? It was destroyed by the Capitol during the Dark Days of the rebellion (No, this isn't a spoiler. This is backstory known by all the characters), as a demonstration of the Capitol's power and because it's possible to live without graphite. If you just watched the film without reading the book, you wouldn't know any of that stuff. So much potential ruined. sigh Expand
  89. Apr 6, 2012
    I was expecting more. Also kids killing kids did not sit well with me. I guess I'm okay with that. The day I am okay with that I need to see a psychiatrist.
  90. Apr 6, 2012
    Yes, I have read the books. Maybe I'm a little biased, but this movie was disappointing. Yes, it was entertaining. Yes, most of the acting is done well. But, that doesn't excuse all the stuff they cut out. It wasn't even that they cut out important stuff, they just SHORTENED important stuff. There was not enough time spent developing the relationships between the characters. There was especially not enough time spent developing Katniss and Rue. Same thing with Katniss and Peeta. Another problem is that this movie assumes that you read the book, so it doesn't bother to explain a lot of stuff. Overall, it was entertaining, but I will NOT be buying this when it comes out on DVD. Expand
  91. Apr 6, 2012
    It had a few interesting ideas, unfortunately it was let down by a confused, forced love-story seemingly aimed at the Twilight audience. The action scenes had potential yet because the film was a 12a it was barely allowed to explore them, resorting to jumpy cuts from certain fights to give the impression of brutality. Before the Hunger Games themselves, the film was heading in the right direction, however once we arrive at the big event, what takes place is at times nonsensical.
    At the end of the day, the film falls prey to the same issue that most book to film adaptations face, there's simply not enough screen time to explore the story in-depth.
  92. Apr 5, 2012
    What an excellent film. Having read the books, i love the way Gary Ross brought the highly acclaimed book to the big screen. Yes it had its differences from the book, but wow he did an amazing job. The parts that were missing from the books were understandable because he had to appeal to the audience that didn't read the book and help them understand the development of the story and the plot. The character development was the biggest flaw i saw in the film. It seemed very weak. I read the books yet i didn't feel anything for Gale and his relationship with Katniss in the movie, and the actor for Peeta was very weak, but you can't expect picture perfect acting from a newcomer like him. Same with Katniss and Rue's relationship, it wasn't built up nearly as much as it was in the book, yet the movie was already 2 and a half hours so its understandable. Overall though this film was just beautiful. The development to the games was perfect, the games themself were perfect and the way they brought the capitol and district 12 to life was perfect, exactly as i pictured it in the book. The action was very well done as well. This movie was almost perfect with just a few minor flaws. I'd give it a 9.5/10 but ill round it up to 10/10. Whether you have or have not read the books, you will love this movie for sure. Thank you Gary Ross (director) for bringing one of our favorite books to life in a beautiful way. Expand
  93. Apr 5, 2012
    Mediocre movie adaptation from a great book. I read the book and was looking forward to seeing it come to life. I really loved the capital scenes and the arena: just what I pictured. I also pictured the casting of Haymitch, Cinna and Katness but Josh cast as Peeta just wasnt as i pictured. The character development was the biggest flaw i felt from the movie. I got nothing from Katniss or Peeta. I didnt believe that Peeta had a deep love for Katniss. Nor did they go in any detail about Katniss' past. Haymitch isnt a drunk nor did they tell much about his back story or his role in the story. It really just seemed like they left out alot of detail from the books, assuming that the viewers already read the books. This created some plot holes, and really the movie should be separate from the book. Its not the best movie ever like some uber fans say. A good rent. Expand
  94. Apr 5, 2012
    This movie was absolutely horrible. No story, plot, character depth or development. Most of the actors looked as though they already knew the movie was bad and just phoned in their performances. Gary Ross should never be allowed to direct anything ever again. The camera work was so horrible I suffered dizziness and nausea through the entire film. Barely anything was explained in the movie, so if you never read the book, you were kept completely in the dark about what was supposed to be going on. Gary Ross only knows how to do 2 shots. Extreme unfocused closeup, and extreme focused closeup. All of the backdrops and costumes were completely wasted since you could never see a whole person. You were only allowed to see someone's eye here, or mouth there. The most baffling thing about this movie are all of the good reviews I see from the critics. But that just goes to show you that they are never right when it comes to judging a movie. This was the second movie I have ever walked out on (the first being Battlefield Earth) and demanded my money back. As long as teenage girls dominate the box office, we will be forced to see shallow, superficial, emotionless drivel. Expand
  95. Apr 5, 2012
    A lot of hype and little substance to back up what should be a very intelligent thriller. While hardly mindless fun, the film misses a number of opportunities to really build the world leaving non readers confused and uninterested. It's not really until the battles that you might become remotely engaged in what's going on but even that's a stretch. The first half of the movie flies by with little background about why the Hunger Games are done the way they are, why there was an uprising to begin with and who these people in the Capitol are and their motivations for watching children slaughter each other on live TV.

    The characters are strikingly bland and undeveloped and the relationship is just thrown in there to appeal to Twilight Fans. We don't know much about our main character other than she comes from a Coal Mining town and her father died somehow. (presumably in an accident or something). Her mother is a zoned out space cadet leaving Kat to care for her sister or something. The constant shaking of the camera is distracting and downright obnoxious, the first half of the movie I kept saying "hold the camera still." It's so tiring seeing shaking camera under the BS reason of "causing confusion" especially in a film that's supposed to be about the gravity of this sick and twisted game. I can't tell who's killed and I can't find my self caring. I don't know who anyone is or why they matter. The saving grass is an impressive score by James Newton Howard who actually managed to make an interesting music score this time. The film gives enough substance to make it interesting and worth checking out the future sequels but still leaves a lot to be desired. The characters are boring, the story is rushed, there's no exposition or reason for anyone to care. Bring a motion sickness bag if you are prone to an upset stomach.
  96. Apr 5, 2012
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Angels: I have not read the book. Also, I am an old dude who likes all kinds of movies-including movies with well constructed scenes of realistic violence...So, I went to this movie with high expectations. Unfortunately, for me, and I should have realized this from the ratings, the violence was sanitized so as to be suitable for high schoolers, with a low tolerance for violence. It is a great story, and the young actors did a fine job. Katniss was appealing, and believable as a 'tough enough" heroine (though not an ass-kicking one.) However, I found that the pace of the movie flagged in places, and there was an implausibility factor at a detail level. (I know it is basically implausible to imagine a society sacrificing children, but I got over that hurdle easily enough.) What I did not understand is why there were not any(?) desperate nihilistic young characters. (I grew up in a big city, and I came across quite a few. And judging from the crime in rural areas there are quite a few there too.) But why did the young tributes cooperate so meekly with the murderous theatre. I know some of the kids I grew up with would have tried to kill/assault their tormentors at the capitol. Does this happen in the next book/movie? Anyway, the movie was entertaining enough. And to put this movie in perspective, my son, who is college age, and sophisticated about movies, really enjoyed this one.
    Glow brightly Angels.
  97. Apr 5, 2012
    Now, this film isn't incredible, but it fulfilled everything I had hopes for when I went into the cinema. I think a lot of the scenes were done done very well, and it made me feel very tense, which is good. The only bad thing I could say about it was there were a few cliches that they used, but all in all it was a good film, at least, I enjoyed it, and that's why I gave it the score that I did.
  98. Apr 4, 2012
    I read the book before I saw the movie and I've got to say that it really does stay true to the book most of the time. The Hunger Games really had me on an emotional roller coaster for a while. I thought the casting was well done and Jennifer really stole the show. There were some scenes in the end that I thought should have been fleshed out more. Those scenes were really emotional in the book but in the movie they were a bit abbreviated. All in all, The Hunger Games is a very enjoyable movie that does not disappoint. Expand
  99. Apr 4, 2012
    Severely over rated. Acting was horrible, the heart of the book was not there, emotional aspects were not emotional because they were rushed and forced, and full of really bad acting. They emphasized the people fighting against the government part of the story, but they gave us a sappy ending that had nothing to do with the people or the oppressive government. This film simply had no soul, despite having more than enough inspiration from the book they some how destroyed it for the typical short attention span of American viewers. And for people saying the lead actress did a good job of acting, just ask your self how many facial expressions she actually used. She did them well, but she only had like 4. Just like that actress in the twilight series, once you watch another movie from the series you will see how incredible low her range is. The same 4 expressions over and over again will get pretty boring. Expand

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
    The result is an evasive, baffling, unexciting production - anything but a classic.
  2. Reviewed by: Andy Klein
    Mar 23, 2012
    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
    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.