User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1593 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 5, 2012
    4
    Feels kind of like a giant game of paintball. The setting is convoluted and the characters go undeveloped. I want to call it a missed opportunity, but I couldn't tell you what I think that opportunity is.
  2. Apr 12, 2014
    4
    I give this rating 4/10 because i watched it to many times they make dumb choices in the movie .
    Grade for hunger games B
    Grade for catching fire D.
  3. Jan 30, 2013
    6
    The Hunger Games is a decent movie taken from a book... A book which in turn takes it's elements from films like Battle Royale and The Running Man. Talk about cyclical! The Hunger Games shines when viewed as a character piece (Jennifer Lawrence's performance is excellent) or as a slight meditation on social greed and the notion of celebrity. That said, the movie has it's faults. TheThe Hunger Games is a decent movie taken from a book... A book which in turn takes it's elements from films like Battle Royale and The Running Man. Talk about cyclical! The Hunger Games shines when viewed as a character piece (Jennifer Lawrence's performance is excellent) or as a slight meditation on social greed and the notion of celebrity. That said, the movie has it's faults. The primary one being the lack of stirring action sequences. The editing and pacing of these scenes when they do arrive are simply unexciting. One thing I will say though is that the violence is tastefully neutered. I have no desire to see young children graphically killed and was mercifully spared from doing so. Ultimately, The Hunger Games was an entertaining movie that I enjoyed. Not nearly as much as Battle Royale, however. Expand
  4. Mar 27, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I saw the movie as two distinct parts - the introduction and every thing leading up to the actual hunger game, and the game itself with the resolution. The first part is very interesting, and the the tension leading up to Katniss's "insertion" into the game is palpable. I was almost jumping out of my seat with anticipation. However, the second part of the film is a complete let-down. Perhaps we've seen too many Survivor & Challenge seasons, but the action is flat and borderline boring. Even though everything is at stake, it doesn't feel that way. The PG-13 rating takes much of the grittiness away from the story. I would have liked to have seen Katniss take part in more than a single killing. She essentially backs into the win.â Expand
  5. Feb 7, 2015
    5
    Extremely overrated! There was a lot of hype for this film and I can't believe that so many people were drawn in by this movie. Now we have another mediocre film series based on a novel for teenagers. The best thing about this film is that it spawned the career of Jennifer Lawrence, who has shown off her chops in a lot of better films. I won't be watching another one of these films.
  6. May 23, 2012
    5
    I feel such a victim of advertising! Twighlight fans rejoice. Yet another superficial hollywood megaproduction polylogy. If the objective is to feel shocked by youngsters thrown into a survival of the fittest contest, then a much superior film is Battle Royale.
  7. Jan 5, 2013
    6
    Keyword to this movie is overrated! I was sure it would not live up to the hype but it did not even come close. It is the most overrated movie from last year. It was also kind of strange.
  8. Jul 31, 2014
    6
    Based on the bestselling books for young adults the Hunger Games is a set in a world where, in order to keep the population under control, two children from each of the twelve districts are chosen to compete a two week trial in which only one can survive.

    I haven't read the books but throughout the movie I got the sense that certain elements have been left underdeveloped and toned down
    Based on the bestselling books for young adults the Hunger Games is a set in a world where, in order to keep the population under control, two children from each of the twelve districts are chosen to compete a two week trial in which only one can survive.

    I haven't read the books but throughout the movie I got the sense that certain elements have been left underdeveloped and toned down in order to maintain a reasonable running time and ensure a rating that would allow fans of the books to see it. In large part thanks to the central performance by, the always excellent, Jennifer Lawrence however The Hunger Games still makes for a relatively entertaining watch. It is well shot and moves along at a good pace with just enough tension to keep things from become too predictable.

    Not a classic but certainly worth a watch.
    Expand
  9. Jul 28, 2014
    5
    Watching "The Hunger Games" was like watching again one of the many young-adult films, that have their protagonist struggle with something superior and manage to beat it. In an all-too-generic plot, Lawrence's Katniss is more than acceptable, even though she does not get the chance to display much more than a girl-turned-hero. One of the most interesting points is that the film does notWatching "The Hunger Games" was like watching again one of the many young-adult films, that have their protagonist struggle with something superior and manage to beat it. In an all-too-generic plot, Lawrence's Katniss is more than acceptable, even though she does not get the chance to display much more than a girl-turned-hero. One of the most interesting points is that the film does not feature a romance between its protagonists, and this makes it different from other films of the same genre. An unimportant aspect, yes, but one of the very few "originalities" the film has to demonstrate.

    A must-see, definitely, at least because you have to know the story in order to watch the much more interesting sequel(s).
    Expand
  10. May 10, 2014
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. So much wasted potential. I really loved the good dystopian atmosphere of the movie beginning, but when it came to the games - it started becoming less good. The strange turn of events, unnecessarily lengthy cheesy and "dramatic" sequences. I didn't like the thing that there were fireballs thrown to the main character and those giant dogs in the end. Just kills all the immersion. The other thing I didn't like - the main hero is not just so good, she just always gets lucky, so that means any other lucky guy can be on her place, I mean you can't see why she is the one to win, there is always someone/something to help her. Otherwise the actors are good, I always like to see Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson on screen. Overall, I didn't enjoy the movie though I do not regret the wasted time. Expand
  11. Nov 11, 2012
    6
    Why did I watch it?
    I had never heard of the Hunger Games series prior to the film coming out, proof if needed that I'm obviously not a 'young adult anymore! the other half came in with this the other day so I gave into the hype and gave it a go.
    What's it all about? Set in a fictional American dystopian future, a new nation called Panem is divided into 12 distinct districts and
    Why did I watch it?
    I had never heard of the Hunger Games series prior to the film coming out, proof if needed that I'm obviously not a 'young adult anymore! the other half came in with this the other day so I gave into the hype and gave it a go.

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

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

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

    There are decent performances from Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Allen so its far from all bad.
    Expand
  12. Mar 26, 2012
    5
    I always wonder after seeing a movie where I have read the book beforehand, â
  13. Jul 17, 2012
    6
    The Hunger Games, the film adaptation of the hugely popular first book of the trilogy by Suzanne Collins (of which I have read none) may feel a bit underwhelming to fans of the books (I have personally heard such griping), but it still has amazing visuals, great set pieces, and engaging performances from Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson in particular. The film contains many scenes ofThe Hunger Games, the film adaptation of the hugely popular first book of the trilogy by Suzanne Collins (of which I have read none) may feel a bit underwhelming to fans of the books (I have personally heard such griping), but it still has amazing visuals, great set pieces, and engaging performances from Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson in particular. The film contains many scenes of violence that seem somewhat restrained (even the moment when the kids are to begin the game, many dizzying quick cuts are made to keep a teen-friendly PG-13 rated massacre). But the interplay between the well drawn, interesting characters is directed with precision from Gary Ross and the ambition of the source material seems to remain intact. It might even feel a bit short at nearly two-and-a-half hours due to the prolonged quick pace, so The Hunger Games should aptly thrill and entertain. Expand
  14. Apr 22, 2013
    5
    The Hunger Games is an overall disappointment. The book tells you that this "game" comes with brutality, and the movie tells you brutality can't be found only glimpses of disturbing imagery can. For the technical categories The Hunger Games is an achievement. The pace destroys the movie though. Movies are kind of like music. They have timing. The Hunger Games threw events at you bam bamThe Hunger Games is an overall disappointment. The book tells you that this "game" comes with brutality, and the movie tells you brutality can't be found only glimpses of disturbing imagery can. For the technical categories The Hunger Games is an achievement. The pace destroys the movie though. Movies are kind of like music. They have timing. The Hunger Games threw events at you bam bam bam bam! It tried to fit everything in so well that the movies pace was to uneasy and fast leaving it with boringness and unpleasantsy. Expand
  15. Nov 9, 2012
    6
    It has good acting and a great atmosphere, but after an interesting first half it becomes ultimately too tame and predictable to be considered great.
  16. Apr 8, 2012
    5
    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 DarkI 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
  17. Jul 1, 2015
    5
    Emocionante e incrível, mas com algumas cenas irritantes a ponto de ser questionante, até mesmo irritante, para tanta tecnologia demostrada no filme, deveria existir algo racional sendo demostrado.
  18. Aug 23, 2012
    6
    I am always very skeptical to see anything made from teen material, but was pleasantly surprised by Hunger Games. The premise does feel familiar, but done in a more interesting way then we have seen before. This movie is well written,well acted, and looks great. The action plays out in a pretty cool way and ends on an emotional note. I am hopeful that going forward this does not turn intoI am always very skeptical to see anything made from teen material, but was pleasantly surprised by Hunger Games. The premise does feel familiar, but done in a more interesting way then we have seen before. This movie is well written,well acted, and looks great. The action plays out in a pretty cool way and ends on an emotional note. I am hopeful that going forward this does not turn into a love triangle movie, in which case I will be "Team I Don't Care". But based on the first act alone, this is a pretty cool story line. Expand
  19. Sep 10, 2012
    5
    If you thought that the trailer was a bit lacking in action then I'm afraid to say the film's the same. It's all about the build up (admittedly good) to the games which comprise around 20-30 mins near the end of the film. It's all over way too quickly and you're sitting there with a very unsatisfied blood lust. Speaking of lust though, Jennifer Lawrence bags this film an extra point for meIf you thought that the trailer was a bit lacking in action then I'm afraid to say the film's the same. It's all about the build up (admittedly good) to the games which comprise around 20-30 mins near the end of the film. It's all over way too quickly and you're sitting there with a very unsatisfied blood lust. Speaking of lust though, Jennifer Lawrence bags this film an extra point for me seeing as she's plays the role brilliantly and oh yeah, she's fit as hell. Expand
  20. Feb 19, 2013
    6
    The Hunger Games is a half-decent albeit illogical science-fiction action movie. The plot revolves around 24 teenagers being forced into taking part in a fight to the death. The movie is 2 hours and 21 minutes long and yet they still manage to not properly introduce all of the contestants to us which makes their inevitable deaths meaningless and although this detracts from the seriousThe Hunger Games is a half-decent albeit illogical science-fiction action movie. The plot revolves around 24 teenagers being forced into taking part in a fight to the death. The movie is 2 hours and 21 minutes long and yet they still manage to not properly introduce all of the contestants to us which makes their inevitable deaths meaningless and although this detracts from the serious atmosphere they're trying to create, it does make for an entertaining action movie. The story seems puzzled together from several other movies/books and put together as a mostly coherent and entertaining whole despite some logical fallacies. The writers must be highly conformist creatures for them to believe people would sit idly by when you force their children to fight to the death year after year. The Hunger Games has a happy ending but it leaves much to be desired. Like his holiness Snake Plissken said "The more things change, the more they stay the same" and I couldn't find think of a more fitting vote to describe the ending of this movie. However, f you manage to look beyond these flaws, you'll have quite an entertaining film if you watch it in two or three parts. The beautiful Jennifer Lawrence, as usual, manages to put on a show and if it wasn't for her, this movie probably wouldn't be rated as high as it currently is. Expand
  21. 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
  22. Dec 10, 2014
    4
    How summit keep insisting on teenage dumb movies? People said that this movie is great, but not even jennifer lawrence save this crap,i hope the sequels gets better.
  23. Nov 29, 2013
    6
    Alright, I was hyped for this movie, and I was somewhat let down by it. I loved the book series, and I guess I should have known that movies based off books aren't going to be as good.
  24. Jun 17, 2013
    6
    The idea of having this dystopian future where kids are picked to kill each other off for the sake of peace between tribes/clans? I didn't read the book and it clearly shows with my own future opinions. First off I would like to talk about the idea, this in some way sounds creative, but also confusing. I mean, why do they have to do this? I felt like they didn't really answer that, orThe idea of having this dystopian future where kids are picked to kill each other off for the sake of peace between tribes/clans? I didn't read the book and it clearly shows with my own future opinions. First off I would like to talk about the idea, this in some way sounds creative, but also confusing. I mean, why do they have to do this? I felt like they didn't really answer that, or maybe I just wasn't paying attention enough to find the answers I was looking for. With that confusing plot aside, this is an "okay" movie. I like the visuals, the main character is pretty well done and acted out pretty well. The main issue for me is just the idea; don't get me wrong I love the idea, I personally am a fan of Batlle royale) but again I just needed a reason to believe in this idea. Overall, an okay movie, just a little bit of bumps in the road, but I think this will be a good franchise. Expand
  25. Nov 22, 2014
    5
    Una película totalmente sobrevalorada, con unos personajes tan estúpidos como poco interesantes y una trama absurda. Aunque, si la tengo que comparar con las otras dos que la preceden, esta me parece mejor. Al menos tenía un poco el elemento sorpresa y el final fue algo mejor.
    Pero vamos, que como película no vale mucho...
  26. Aug 4, 2012
    6
    This was a good movie, not great, not groundbreaking, but a solid film. The Hunger Games has a striking plot, and is well adapted to the screen by the director and screenwriters, for the most part. For the part that's not; they failed to make this film the steering social commentary that it wishes to be. They touched on various themes, but didn't do much with it, or give as much insight,This was a good movie, not great, not groundbreaking, but a solid film. The Hunger Games has a striking plot, and is well adapted to the screen by the director and screenwriters, for the most part. For the part that's not; they failed to make this film the steering social commentary that it wishes to be. They touched on various themes, but didn't do much with it, or give as much insight, as one may desire. The movie focuses on a televised death match ritual, to entertain the elite and keep the masses at bay. With a plot like that, a bit more could have been done in the way of thematic complexities. What director, Gary Ross, did right, was narrate a good, tightly woven story to the screen and managed action and character development well. Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson give good performances here. However, I wasn't too keen on Josh Hutcherson's work, but fortunately Lawrence does enough acting for both of them. The film was a visual treat, thanks to unique costumes, makeup and hairstyles, which gave it a sometimes whimsical look. Whether or not you are familiar with the books (which I'm not) this should be a satisfying film, which marks a solid adaptation. Lets see what the future holds for this franchise. Expand
  27. Apr 13, 2012
    5
    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 BIGBORING! 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
  28. Apr 10, 2012
    4
    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 bitHonestly, 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
  29. Apr 19, 2014
    6
    Not bad, but lacking in many aspects. While the scenery is stunning, character development seems rather insufficient and the pacing of the film is somewhat awkward. Furthermore, it is obvious that all the techniques employed during action sequences were intended to tone down the violence to a childish level (to maintain a PG-13 rating perhaps, which would certainly guarantee a better boxNot bad, but lacking in many aspects. While the scenery is stunning, character development seems rather insufficient and the pacing of the film is somewhat awkward. Furthermore, it is obvious that all the techniques employed during action sequences were intended to tone down the violence to a childish level (to maintain a PG-13 rating perhaps, which would certainly guarantee a better box office performance). The violence is an important aspect of the story, and such blatant toning-down is simply unacceptable. Expand
  30. Mar 29, 2012
    5
    The premise is excellent. An Orwellian future where children are offered to the state as entertainment. There was so much promise. Not having read the books, it's like being invited to a party but not knowing anyone. There was very little character development. Further, the casting of Peta seemed poorly done. Lenny Kravitz does an excellent job in the background. The "Rue" racial thing, IThe premise is excellent. An Orwellian future where children are offered to the state as entertainment. There was so much promise. Not having read the books, it's like being invited to a party but not knowing anyone. There was very little character development. Further, the casting of Peta seemed poorly done. Lenny Kravitz does an excellent job in the background. The "Rue" racial thing, I don't get and can't imagine it makes a difference. But my real question is, in a dystopian future, why are all the children so beautiful? Shouldn't there be some level of emaciation if the outer sectors struggle just to be fed? Despite these problems, the first half of the movie is well pace and knitted together. Something happens in the first "combat" sequence. The combat fog falls and the pacing changes. The whole experience is uninspired. The action sequences themselves are far too close. Take your dramamine if you're in the theater and be prepare to have no idea what's happening. The movie is interesting. But a good premise and interesting plot don't necessarily make a quality movie. Expand
  31. Apr 1, 2012
    6
    Coming from the perspective of someone who hasn't read the books yet (although I really should get to doing that), The Hunger Games raises a lot of questions that end up unanswered by the end of the film. How did a dystopian society like Penam get founded and take hold in the first place? What world order would let a nation that forces children to fight and kill each other to exist? WhatComing from the perspective of someone who hasn't read the books yet (although I really should get to doing that), The Hunger Games raises a lot of questions that end up unanswered by the end of the film. How did a dystopian society like Penam get founded and take hold in the first place? What world order would let a nation that forces children to fight and kill each other to exist? What were the justifications and causes of the war? Why are the citizens of Penam who live outside the districts so ostentatious? It would have been nice if this background history was clarified. Instead, the film treats you as if you already know why, which puts those who have read the books at a great advantage over those who haven't. The overall pacing of the film felt rushed and the transitions from scene to scene felt slightly abrupt. And then there is a complete lack of focus on practically all the characters except Katniss. I mean just look at Gale. For a character who I've read is supposed to be the third most important character after Katniss and Peeta, his role in this film was all but shafted to a few inconsequential chit-chats with Katniss and staring at the screen watching the games at various points in the film. This lack of development continues on to Haymitch, Effie, and Cinna, who are so underdeveloped that it leaves their characters ambiguous as to whether they are truly good or evil. Acting wise, Jennifer Lawrence clearly out-acts everyone else in the film. Her ability to convey a broad-spectrum of emotions is superb. Stanley Tucci is at the bottom of the acting list. I don't really know if he was having problems getting suited to his role, but his whole performance came off as forced and uncomfortable. Technically, the film was great at conveying psychological intensity, which is a major plus for an action film like this. Other pluses include great visual effects, great costume, set and makeup design, a great soundtrack made possible by the collaboration of various musicians, and most of all, not embellishing the violence of the kids killing each other (thank you). There is still room for development in the next two films, but overall, the movie is a whole heck of a lot better than most other action films (especially ones adapted from books). Expand
  32. Jul 19, 2012
    5
    It was a good movie with an amazing performance by Jennifer Lawrence and terrific costume design. But every movie has it's flaws and with this one: the fans.
  33. Aug 24, 2014
    5
    This film comes across as exploitative and cheap as the games it depicts. As an audience member, I felt shallow, exploitive and confused about whether I should be enjoying this.
    But it is aimed at a younger, less empathetic, and less clever audience.
    Perhaps the irony of watching the watchers is satisfying to some. Personally it left an incredibly bad taste in my mouth. I could go into
    This film comes across as exploitative and cheap as the games it depicts. As an audience member, I felt shallow, exploitive and confused about whether I should be enjoying this.
    But it is aimed at a younger, less empathetic, and less clever audience.
    Perhaps the irony of watching the watchers is satisfying to some. Personally it left an incredibly bad taste in my mouth. I could go into the stupid plot-holes, the greyscale-esque blue-and-gold visual delivery, the ending which gives you no emotional reward but... at the end, unlike the running man and the truman show, this never feels anything but shallowly-emotional and forced.
    Expand
  34. Apr 21, 2012
    6
    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.
  35. May 18, 2014
    6
    It's kinda nice and watchable. Background story is great. But it lacks depth. Some moments are really weird and not in a good way ... The costume design is awesome, very creative!
  36. 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
  37. Nov 28, 2013
    6
    Ok; honestly, I didn't see this originally because it didn't look interesting to me. But everyone hyped it up, and now with all the "catching fire" buzz I decided to check out the first one to see if I was wrong. The 6 rating is to be fair to the actors, who did a great job with a ridiculous script. The premise of the movie is unbelievable, while the parallels with reality are too subtleOk; honestly, I didn't see this originally because it didn't look interesting to me. But everyone hyped it up, and now with all the "catching fire" buzz I decided to check out the first one to see if I was wrong. The 6 rating is to be fair to the actors, who did a great job with a ridiculous script. The premise of the movie is unbelievable, while the parallels with reality are too subtle and underdeveloped. It is like half action movie, half Alice in Wonderland (the strange Tim Burton one), and it doesn't work-- at least, not for me. I have heard the books are better; well that is usually true, but if the book is based on the same premise-- a futuristic society hosting gladiator events between children --I would probably find it equally ridiculous. Expand
  38. 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
  39. May 17, 2012
    4
    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 upThe 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
  40. Apr 28, 2012
    5
    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.
  41. May 21, 2013
    5
    The Hunger Games, based on a novel of the same title by Suzanne Collins, fails to deliver as much suspense as the novel does and even though it tries to deliver some action it delivers no action. The Hunger Games is also extremely complicated for those who have not read the book. There are countless things that the viewer won't know if they haven't read the book. The scenes also went byThe Hunger Games, based on a novel of the same title by Suzanne Collins, fails to deliver as much suspense as the novel does and even though it tries to deliver some action it delivers no action. The Hunger Games is also extremely complicated for those who have not read the book. There are countless things that the viewer won't know if they haven't read the book. The scenes also went by way to fast in my opinion. For a movie that is two hours and twenty-two minutes (about two hours and ten minutes with out the ending credits), this movie should have been made way better. The special effects, though, were extraordinary. Expand
  42. Jul 5, 2013
    4
    I'll start off by making the point that I'm acutely aware that I'm not the target audience of this picture, but would also add that this shouldn't prevent any appreciation I might have when it's done right. Sadly, The Hunger Games struggles on too many occasions for this to be a consideration. I will say that my own biases may also play a part, as general irritation with certain aspects ofI'll start off by making the point that I'm acutely aware that I'm not the target audience of this picture, but would also add that this shouldn't prevent any appreciation I might have when it's done right. Sadly, The Hunger Games struggles on too many occasions for this to be a consideration. I will say that my own biases may also play a part, as general irritation with certain aspects of the movie may relate to me specifically.

    Disclaimers aside, the early stages of the film were reasonable. It was much grittier than I was expecting in introducing the hardships of life in the district. However, it didn't take long for the first source of annoyance to rear its teen heartthrob of a head...

    I'm far more familiar with Liam Hemsworth's brother Chris than I am with him, and on this evidence, Liam should be taking more than a few pointers from his older brother. Why he chose to earnestly squint his way through the mercifully brief screen time he is afforded is beyond me, and quite honestly, it drove me nuts. It smacks of pandering to the tweenie audience (as do the ridiculously transparent character names) and it really aggravated me. Saving grace then that he was not, as I was expecting, the male counterpart to Lawrence's Katniss. I found Josh Hutcherson infinitely less infuriating and was able to move on with my life without putting a hole in my TV.

    On a mildly positive note, the scenes of children being herded to the 'reaping', the name given to the event at which the contestants are chosen, was suitably dark in tone. There is a decent sense of foreboding about the whole thing and I was fairly engaged for a few minutes, the tearful goodbyes and desperation adding to the spectre of things to come. It was reminiscent of a few wartime movies, but the fact that it was even in there was pleasing. Unfortunately, this is not where the beg, borrow and steal mentality ended.

    I'm not so sure that there is anything completely original left in the popular view of a science fiction future, but when it becomes so distracting that you can't stop pointing out aspects derived from other films, there's a problem. I won't bore anyone with a complete list here, suffice it to say that I noticed everything from Gattaca to Demolition Man and many others in between being misappropriated in the set design and it really got to me. On top of this, The Fifth Element provides more or less the entirety of the cues for the costumes of the population of the city. I was relieved once the action moved to the event itself and this is where the film was at its strongest.

    A good proportion of the action sequences are executed quite well and undeniably raise the film as a whole. The soundtrack is all a bit 'by the numbers', but bearable and apt at the very least. There's a lot of contrived plot silliness that takes place during the games sequences, but at least this section didn't exhaust me like much of the rest of the film did.

    Ultimately, it's not much worse than average, but there was far too much about this that had me gritting my teeth in despair to get anything out of the experience.
    Expand
  43. Apr 15, 2012
    5
    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 thesuccess 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
  44. 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
  45. Apr 11, 2012
    6
    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 anotherThe 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
  46. Dec 8, 2013
    5
    The movie has it's moments but then it becomes hard to imagine the world where 23 kids are killed every year on a live tv show just for entertainment of the others.
  47. Nov 12, 2014
    5
    What really bums me out about this movie is that is had incredible potential. The storyline was primed to be a great blockbuster with tons of action and great moments. The writers never got this to perdition. The "climax" in the movie is basically nonexistent with the ending being equally crappy.
  48. Mar 25, 2012
    6
    This was a very entertaining film, but having not read the books, I came in with no expectations and left with the feeling that I'd already seen this done almost EXACTLY in 'Battle Royale'. Jennifer Lawrence was brilliant as always. I adored her in 'The Poker House' and 'Winter's Bone' and she is easily one of our greatest acting commodities. It held my interest, so I give it a solid 6,This was a very entertaining film, but having not read the books, I came in with no expectations and left with the feeling that I'd already seen this done almost EXACTLY in 'Battle Royale'. Jennifer Lawrence was brilliant as always. I adored her in 'The Poker House' and 'Winter's Bone' and she is easily one of our greatest acting commodities. It held my interest, so I give it a solid 6, but I thought the plot was a blatant ripoff. Sort of like 'Avatar' ripped off 'Ferngully'. Expand
  49. Jun 13, 2012
    6
    Read the book before watching this film, it will help you to understand everything better. The film is ok and Woody Harrelson is good in it. Its not violent enough and i appreciate the certification but it would have hit home more if it was more explicit violence-wise. My tip is to watch Battle Royale instead, its a simiar plot but a much better film.
  50. Apr 1, 2012
    6
    While the background story and universe of this movie are compelling enough, the actual plot of the movie left me with a few unanswered questions. Action scenes and special effects were decent at best, and the ending felt too easy and rushed. The characters are thin as cardboard and their motivations never become clear. I also feel the creators could have done more with the psychologicalWhile the background story and universe of this movie are compelling enough, the actual plot of the movie left me with a few unanswered questions. Action scenes and special effects were decent at best, and the ending felt too easy and rushed. The characters are thin as cardboard and their motivations never become clear. I also feel the creators could have done more with the psychological consequences of mortal kid combat than the occasional random outburst into tears. In the end, it's not a bad movie, it's decent enough to recommend it to anyone, but don't expect a top notch action film. Expand
  51. May 25, 2012
    6
    I am like a lot of the movie goers and many of the "want to see this film" viewers who hasn't even read the book. I saw all of the Harry Potter films, and yet, I still didn't read those books either. My point here is that we should remember that a good amount of the viewers of this movie hasn't read the book and solely came to watch it for its entertainment purpose. I am one of thoseI am like a lot of the movie goers and many of the "want to see this film" viewers who hasn't even read the book. I saw all of the Harry Potter films, and yet, I still didn't read those books either. My point here is that we should remember that a good amount of the viewers of this movie hasn't read the book and solely came to watch it for its entertainment purpose. I am one of those people. Prior to the movie, I knew the jest of what it was about. Pretty simple story, really: The movie is set in the future where a boy and a girl is chosen randomly from each district in the nation to fight to the death, all while the nation is watching it on television. The viewers of this movie follow Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) in district 12.
    The cast itself was well chosen. I have seen Josh Hutcherson in a couple of movies prior to this film and I find it interesting how he has grown into this more mature character. I have seen Katniss Everdeen before as well and I wasn't surprised to see her portray this tough and almost what seemed angry character in this film. The plot was kind of bland for me. It was well done, but for me the story seemed to repeat itself with challenges. The challenges were either nature related or it had to deal with betrayal. The climax of the film, now that I think of it, was hard to find. I knew there was a point to where the end of the movie had to soon be over, but I also remember wondering when the movie was. It was hard to pick out the climax
    The action sequences were good and they kept my attention. I have to point out that the movie set designs were really well done. You could tell that this movie was set on the future based off of the costuming and the set design. Overall, the problem that I had with this movie was that it just seemed that everything seemed too cliche. Many of the conflicts, the dialogue, the characters...they have all been used before in many other movies. I felt like I had read the book before and I knew what was going to happen. Was I disappointed with this film? No. This is kind of what I expected out of it. A lot of young readers created a lot of build up for a movie that based itself off of the book that they read. Media, previews, gossip...it all created build up for something that just turned out good in the end- not great. Luckily, I knew what the movie was about before I saw it, sot that I wouldn't have been too disappointed.
    This was a movie worth watching and I may watch it once or twice again when the time arrives randomly, but I feel as though this movie will be forgotten.
    Expand
  52. Aug 21, 2012
    4
    Lame Movie... not worth watching and disappointing :(

    The main story is not believable or not justified in the movie (I did not read the book , but I'm sure it's better), the whole movie is slow paced (specially the beginning) and it had almost no action at all . You'll not really care about the main character , and I was not convinced by the stupid connections between main
    Lame Movie... not worth watching and disappointing :(

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

    You'll not really care about the main character , and I was not convinced by the stupid connections between main characters (where the love came from all of a sudden).
    Also little kids just jump into killing other human beings that easily?? and be good at it and even enjoy it ...!!!
    Expand
  53. Nov 29, 2013
    4
    Just an okay at best movie. The main thing I had a problem with this movie is that you don't have any emotional investment in the characters. Even at moments where you are clearly supposed to feel sad or happy, you jut don't. The characters just aren't all that dimensional. Also, there is too much use of shaky camera and its hard to tell what is going on. I think the filmmaker decidedJust an okay at best movie. The main thing I had a problem with this movie is that you don't have any emotional investment in the characters. Even at moments where you are clearly supposed to feel sad or happy, you jut don't. The characters just aren't all that dimensional. Also, there is too much use of shaky camera and its hard to tell what is going on. I think the filmmaker decided to do this so that you don't see all the violence which would make this movie rated R, because hey if the movies PG-13 its going to make a lot more money. Hunger Games isn't that great of a movie but there are some enjoyable elements to it. Expand
  54. Mar 26, 2012
    5
    Jennifer Lawrence is terrific, but by asking us to assume the position of the elites (rooting for some of the Tributes, by making them cartoonishly loathsome) the film ends up asking us to assume the roles it is ostensibly condemning. Josh Hutcherson is useless, as he fails to convey the terror inherent in knowing that he is about to die a brutal death, and Liam Hemsworth, for all hisJennifer Lawrence is terrific, but by asking us to assume the position of the elites (rooting for some of the Tributes, by making them cartoonishly loathsome) the film ends up asking us to assume the roles it is ostensibly condemning. Josh Hutcherson is useless, as he fails to convey the terror inherent in knowing that he is about to die a brutal death, and Liam Hemsworth, for all his admirable dialect work, seems like an over-privileged Beverly HIlls kid, not a starving, oppressed, district paeon. Elizabeth Banks is fine in her first scene, and then her accent disappears. The film is never boring, but its message is questionable. Expand
  55. 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.
  56. Apr 9, 2012
    4
    Its a bit **** just some girl crying for about 6 hours. I would say its a cross between Battle Royale and Twilight. It bigs these two people up like there these amazing people with awesome powers, and they hardly get used. The main guy in it supposed to have this amazing throw and he doesnt even throw anything throughout the film.
  57. Apr 6, 2012
    5
    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?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
  58. Mar 10, 2013
    6
    The movie Gladiator felt real. You got the feeling that the gladiators were going to fight to their death: they were peeing before the gates opened up, they were silent, etc... The people in The Hunger Games might as well have been at a party. They showed no sense of worry or that they were about to fight each other for their lives. Maybe the younger ones might have wondered what was goingThe movie Gladiator felt real. You got the feeling that the gladiators were going to fight to their death: they were peeing before the gates opened up, they were silent, etc... The people in The Hunger Games might as well have been at a party. They showed no sense of worry or that they were about to fight each other for their lives. Maybe the younger ones might have wondered what was going on even!

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

    I wanted to see the audience (in the film) cheering on the kills, like in Gladiator. I wanted to be shocked and scared at the end. Having two main characters survive at the end (and both return home) gave me the sense that the movie was about youth surviving, not youth being killed.
    Expand
  59. Jun 12, 2013
    4
    Very little character development, weak storyline. This movie did have the potential to be great, but with weak character development, mediocre action scenes, and what felt like a weak storyline it was utterly dissappointing. If more time was spent on getting the viewers to know and identify with the characters it might have been a great movie.
  60. Jul 3, 2012
    4
    I personally didn't read the books but after watching the movie there is probably a good reason why. this movie is.... Mediocre. The story is bland, the build up things with little payoff and the editing is how you say GOD AWFUL. Extreme shaky cam and extreme close ups really hurt this movies potential. I also utterly despise the setting. A post apocalyptic future where the rich controlI personally didn't read the books but after watching the movie there is probably a good reason why. this movie is.... Mediocre. The story is bland, the build up things with little payoff and the editing is how you say GOD AWFUL. Extreme shaky cam and extreme close ups really hurt this movies potential. I also utterly despise the setting. A post apocalyptic future where the rich control the poor. DONE TO DEATH! You really have to work hard when your movie is worse than New Moon and that's me being nice. AVOID THIS MOVIE!!! Expand
  61. Apr 2, 2012
    4
    It's not a bad film.... It really isn't... Sure the beginning to me felt like a an average flick that you see on SciFi, just changing the channel when you're board and have nothing to watch. One thing I liked though was a really charismatic was Woody Harrelson playing the drunk. The only winner from district 12. The poor district. And the environment of the setting, 12 districts thatIt's not a bad film.... It really isn't... Sure the beginning to me felt like a an average flick that you see on SciFi, just changing the channel when you're board and have nothing to watch. One thing I liked though was a really charismatic was Woody Harrelson playing the drunk. The only winner from district 12. The poor district. And the environment of the setting, 12 districts that separate the classes of rich and poor. How well the story could give to sympathize others and root for the underdog. The ever so awesome characters like Rue or how we could fall in love with Katniss's bad ass audition into the Hunger Games. Seems interesting, but not really realistic. Main characters look well groomed despite being poor, the plot had huge holes in order to create the story, a Twilight-esque romance, an one dimensional enemies, cliches here and there.

    You'd must be teenager in order to get you're mind blown for this bland-fest, otherwise it will leave you asking more questions or not fully satisfied. For those who would give this a perfect rating, would feel satisfied. But for serious film fans, it could leave you craving more better tasting grub.
    Expand
  62. 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
  63. Apr 6, 2012
    5
    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 wasYes, 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
  64. Apr 14, 2012
    6
    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.
  65. May 17, 2012
    5
    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, merelyTo 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
  66. Sep 1, 2012
    4
    The Book was much more exiting and detailed than the movie
    The hunger games [The movie] was very undetailed and the acting was terrible too
    If you havent read the book you cannot understand ANYTHING! I read the book after the movie
    Im giving a 4 because it wasent a waste of my time either and its more surprising when its on a film than in a book
  67. Oct 6, 2013
    4
    I really bored in this movie action scenes were boring but acting was good i cant deny that especially jennifer lawrence did an awesome job for me if you planning to enter the franchise just read the books
  68. Mar 30, 2012
    4
    Ok seriously this movie is a drama. It reminded me of twilight. Mostly talking and almost no fight scenes. At least on TV when they advertise they make it look more like an action moive , WRONG! This movie tries to make you sad and that's it.
  69. 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
  70. Mar 29, 2012
    4
    The Hunger Games books were a emotional amazing thrill ride. However, the movie was quite a disappointment. My favorite character in the books was Haymitch because of his character development. I was expecting him to fall off the stage at the beginning or something but nope. not there. Speaking of character development. There is a huge lacking in character development between theThe Hunger Games books were a emotional amazing thrill ride. However, the movie was quite a disappointment. My favorite character in the books was Haymitch because of his character development. I was expecting him to fall off the stage at the beginning or something but nope. not there. Speaking of character development. There is a huge lacking in character development between the influential characters like Haymitch, Cinna, and especially Peeta. If I was part of the audience at the Capitol watching the "star-crossed lovers" I would NOT have been convinced they were in love. Anyway, besides from the overly-used shaky cam at the beginning the presentation of the scenes was good. The audio experience was not what I expected but it works.

    In summary:
    The Hunger Games was presented in a unexpected way that works to the feel of the setting(Panem); however, there is a extreme lack of character development especially between the "star-crossed lovers" which is essential to the story in books 1 and 2. With all the hype, the odds were not in this movie's favor.
    Expand
  71. Apr 3, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The start of the film was very promising, setting up the film well. It showed the relationships between characters brilliantly for the short amount of time there was to do that in. The relationship between Catniss and her sister,Prim, was particularly well done, and you could at least see that there was some sort of history between Catniss and her mother. The only thing that could of been explained much better in the introduction was the absence of the father. The other thing that was done well was the history of the country Panem. Although many readers of the book might have felt disappointed with it, I felt that it showed us just enough so that we weren't clueless about it's history and it didn't drag on too much.

    After the start, the plot started to run around like a headless chicken. Haymitch, played by Woody Harrelson, drifted around cluelessly. Although he did make me laugh at points, his attitude towards the tributes changes so dramatically from careless to caring for no reason at all except from the fact that Catniss stabbed a butter knife between his fingers. This made it hard for me to think of him as a meaningful character for the rest of the film. Although Cinna wasn't badly played I struggled to find where his sudden "obssesion" (couldn't think of a better word) with Catniss comes from. And finally the relationship between Peeta and Catniss. I thought there would be a proper explanation from the director about there history because there were flashbacks throughout the film leading up to it but really all that it revealed is that once Peeta threw Catniss a bit of bread and now they are having a big love, hate relationship because of it. Couldn't they of just told us that at the start of the film and saved the big flashback thing for Catniss's dad dieing (which you only get a hint of once in Tracker Jacker scene. I think the training leading up to the games was the worst done bit of the film.

    However the bit of the film during the games wasn't much better. Although they made the best of what is probably the hardest bit to adapt of the film it still fell short on a number of things like character development but most of all the acting itself! Catniss and Peeta were both very good obviously. But the acting of some of Cato's gang like Glimmer is just appaling. Come on. This is a major Hollywood blockbuster. The scene when Catniss has climbed up a tree and they're chasing after her wanted to make me laugh, cry and puke at the same time. The way she squeals in delight and bagsies killing Catniss is laughable at how cheesy it is. It reminded me of a cackling witch in a crap local village pantomime. The other terribly acted scene is the on where a girl (can't remember who) is being stung by tracker jackers and is calling for help. It reminded me of the witch in the Wizard of Oz crying "I'm melting, MELTING!" It's cringable. The other terrible thing is the way that the love between Peeta and Catniss comes out of nowhere. It doesn't explain it like it does in the book that for Catniss it's a tactic to win and get sponsors but for Peeta it's real.

    But one thing that I do give The Hunger Games credit for is it's ability not to bore you. It could very easily be one of the most boring films of all time as although the book is very good it has parts where there is not so much action. The director managed to not cut these parts out put curve round them. Another thing I credit this film with is it's 50/50 chesiness. They've done it perfectly. While not making it to dark and unhollywoody they've also made it not too "Disney". The bit that really proved my point is the bit where there about to eat the berry (Yes it would of been better if they had eaten the berry but come on that's not going to happen) and instead of making it all dramatic and and making the gamemaker say in slow motion with crappy music, "Nooooooooo...wait. You win. We are the bad guys and we have lost", the gamemaker splutters as though really panicked and with no cheesy music, "Wait, wait, ur... both of you can win" which made the whole cinema laugh and really redeemed the film for me. All I can say about this film to sum it up is that it's better than Twilight, go and see it if you want and that I'm not eagerly awaiting the sequel at all.
    Expand
  72. Apr 6, 2012
    5
    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.
  73. Mar 31, 2012
    5
    Having never read the book/s, I went in to this movie with high hopes. It failed on several different levels. Like Stephan Kings "The Long Walk" the ending was predictable, and a let down. I might someday flip through the book, and will hope the director failed miserably at translation. Until that time comes, this movie will remain a failure! Although it was slightly watchable, I keptHaving never read the book/s, I went in to this movie with high hopes. It failed on several different levels. Like Stephan Kings "The Long Walk" the ending was predictable, and a let down. I might someday flip through the book, and will hope the director failed miserably at translation. Until that time comes, this movie will remain a failure! Although it was slightly watchable, I kept expecting something. But after 2 hours 22 mins, I was left only with expectation... Expand
  74. Mar 27, 2012
    6
    This movie is way overhyped/overrated. Don't expect too much from a movie based off of a teen book. The story is good(though sort of shallow - again, teen book), but the look/feel/direction of this movie is pretty terrible. Gary Ross, the Director, is just bad and it would be a shame if he directed the other 2 films. I see him directing them though because the film did so well. The movieThis movie is way overhyped/overrated. Don't expect too much from a movie based off of a teen book. The story is good(though sort of shallow - again, teen book), but the look/feel/direction of this movie is pretty terrible. Gary Ross, the Director, is just bad and it would be a shame if he directed the other 2 films. I see him directing them though because the film did so well. The movie is like if you took Mad Max, dusted and cleaned everyone/everything, made it PG, put in rainbows, and made them all teenagers. Shame, really. Also, am I the only one that thinks it looks like it was filmed with an iPhone? Expand
  75. Apr 1, 2012
    5
    Sure, blurring the violence with shaky-cam helps to obtain the PG13 but I can't go along with the blatant choice to make a purported $78M production look like amateur hour by using handheld cameras throughout. I don't care if it was an "artistic" choice or not. This is a science fiction movie and no one is fooled that it is a documentary or an attempt at realism a la Blair Witch Project. ASure, blurring the violence with shaky-cam helps to obtain the PG13 but I can't go along with the blatant choice to make a purported $78M production look like amateur hour by using handheld cameras throughout. I don't care if it was an "artistic" choice or not. This is a science fiction movie and no one is fooled that it is a documentary or an attempt at realism a la Blair Witch Project. A simple conversation between two people in a room involves snap pans, quick cuts, even a few focus deficient zooms. I would say it looks like the kids from Super 8 made it but JJ Abrams knew that even seventies kids were smart enough to use a tripod. Expand
  76. Apr 5, 2012
    5
    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 orMediocre 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
  77. Apr 8, 2012
    5
    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.
  78. Aug 22, 2012
    5
    It was a long movie and not a lot of real time action. The scenes bounced some as if the camera person was moving/running. But it was entertaining enough to sit through if yo have 2 + hours to burn.
  79. Aug 19, 2012
    6
    The movie itself isn't that bad but the story wasn't in my opinion told good.
    I did not read the book but during the movie I felt constantly like something is missing and that lasted through entire movie. The end confirmed that something is missing because the ending gave the vibe of something unfinished. Overall I would also like to add that movie could've lasted for 30-40 minutes
    The movie itself isn't that bad but the story wasn't in my opinion told good.
    I did not read the book but during the movie I felt constantly like something is missing and that lasted through entire movie. The end confirmed that something is missing because the ending gave the vibe of something unfinished. Overall I would also like to add that movie could've lasted for 30-40 minutes shorter and with better storytelling.
    Expand
  80. Aug 16, 2013
    5
    When based on such amazing source materials as this, it should be hard messing it up. But this movie messes it up in almost every way possible. I kept facepalming because of all the errors that were made. Important characters and events are kept out of the movie. There is no character development at all. It's like the writer expect everyone to have read the books before seeing this, and IWhen based on such amazing source materials as this, it should be hard messing it up. But this movie messes it up in almost every way possible. I kept facepalming because of all the errors that were made. Important characters and events are kept out of the movie. There is no character development at all. It's like the writer expect everyone to have read the books before seeing this, and I bet over half of the people who saw this, didn't.

    So disappointed.
    Expand
  81. Jan 3, 2015
    6
    I loved the film on its initial release. Rewatching it,, the plot is straightfoward. It's 21st century "Running Man", for the teens. Unreality television being parodied. What makes the film interesting in the world, Jennifer Lawrence as the " rising star."
  82. 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
  83. Apr 8, 2012
    5
    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 forThe 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?
    Expand
  84. Mar 26, 2012
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. tl:dr If you like Twilight you'll probably like this, otherwise...meh. I haven't read the book so I don't know how well it has translated into film. Hopefully it hasn't done the book justice because it is not a great movie. The pacing is awful, with some parts mind numbingly boring, and then other scenes rushed and compressed. Camera work is terrible, shaky and nausea inducing. There are numerous immersion breaking plot holes. A movie doesn't have to have every little piece fit together perfectly, but when plot holes break your suspension of disbelief it is bad writing. For example wtf would the 'bad guys' have set up a booby trap so that the only way it can work involves destroying their own food supply...major facepalm. Also, I realise that these are meant to be kids, but for people locked into a life and death struggle they sure spend a lot of time crashing through the bush yelling at the tops of their voices, without making the slightest attempt at stealthiness, even the supposedly 'trained' ones from Districts 1 and 2. And how the hell did Rue's District buddy know what Catniss had done for Rue. Very little that the characters do makes any sense...there doesn't seem to be any motivation for much of it. I'm guessing that's one of the losses from the translation from the book? Finally, there is zero explanation of why this supposedly ultra advanced society (eg the almost magical healing ointments) keeps such a large portion of itself in virtual servitude. I'm not saying that it can't be that way, lots of today's real life societies are dystopian, but there should be some reason. Is it a religious thing, is there a critical shortage of resources or land. Who knows? It just seems that we're supposed to accept that all of the rich people are evil bastards who like to make children fight to the death. Seems legit... Expand
  85. Apr 5, 2012
    6
    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 byA 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.
    Expand
  86. Apr 6, 2012
    5
    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 rightIt 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.
    Expand
  87. Mar 30, 2012
    4
    Disappointed. I hope they do better in Catching Fire and Mockingjay. I love the books, i love the actors. I just can't imagine someone else playing the roles of Katniss, Peeta, Gale, Effie, Prim and Haymitch. But please, I beg whoever is concerned with this franchise. Do better with the next installment.
  88. Mar 25, 2012
    4
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Well I have read the book and I suppose that makes me the target audience. I was so bored towards the middle, I started picking on the scenes that seemed to me heavy handed and just sloppy. SPOILER: the wasps scene was VERY heavy handed in my opinion, as well as the land mines. Every time the presenters appeared on the screen, they only explained the stuff that the audience didn't know from the book. It could've been done in a more subtle way in the beginning of the movie. Why not show the boy laying down land mines during the training? If you want to use the presenters the make them appear frequently to mask the sloppy explanations.. I don't know.. Also baffling is the scene just before the start of the Games when the kids are on their starting positions. It's a horrible and at the same time mesmerising moment but the close-up camera and lack of musical score suck out the feeling from the scene. There's actually NO sound at all when the action begins. And yes I know it's supposed to be a tragic and a brutal situation, but this is exactly why the sound is so important.

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

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

    I can't say it was a bad movie, but it's a deeply flawed one. It's just not the movie I'd want to watch again. And that's below expectations.
    Expand
  89. Mar 28, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I was excited to, go see Hunger Games. But I knew, it was going have some setbacks. So (Of course) just like the book, it starts with Katniss Everdeen, comforting her sister, and hunting with her best friend. After she sells some, squirrel meat to support her family, she goes to the Reaping for the 74th Hunger Games. A competition that, takes two 12-18 year old kids from all 12 districts, and fight to the death.
    She volunteers to pay tribute, to protect her sister since she was one of, the children chosen to fight. So she's on her way to, the Capital to please the crowd, and survive the Hunger Games. Of course they have to, make some changes to the movie in order to make, it 90 minutes long. Changes like: Instead of the, District 1 Boy (I believe he is in District 1) waiting for Katniss to come, and rescue Rue. He comes in late, and throws the spear at Rue, when Katniss frees her.
    But some of these changes kind of, screws with the plot a bit. In the book, the District 12 Tributes have a deal with Haymitch to, actually helping them instead of getting drunk. That conversation is, nowhere in the movie (Or I missed it). That would be, a very important plot point for their survival. Same thing with, the Rue scene, in the book, the Career Tributes knew that Rue died because, the District 1 boy was ordered to kill her. In the movie, they had no way of knowing since, they did not know he was there.
    He just found them there, and took his chance. Another issue I have with the movie is that, it needed more character development. Bringing Rue back up again, when she died, I did not feel sad at all, (Maybe because I saw it coming) she only had about five lines in the movie. Another thing, the scenes are too short, and 99% of the movie has Katniss in it. Yes the entire book is in, Katniss's prospective but there are so many, more creative scenes you can do.
    Just a few scenes are, out of the arena to, explain things like Tracker Jackers. I have one more complaint, which is probably the worst part in the movie. Shaky cam, they try to be, clever by using shaky cam, to censor the violence so it can, get a pg-13 rating. But what they get is a, disorienting mess that will give anyone, who watches a headache. Bottom line, it's enjoyable, but it could be better.
    The actors are either, serious or awkward. The cinematography is a mess. But I don't, think it will stop you from watching this movie. Watch it or not, it's your choice but, the book has better story elements, in terms of characters, and small plot points. My rating for this movie would be a 6.5/10.
    Expand
  90. 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
  91. 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
  92. Mar 26, 2012
    6
    The Hunger Games? Well to me they were a mixture of an amazing storyline but had terrible execution. I think the romance was pushed to hard, and although there was phenomenal acting parts, a lot of it was a big slab of cheese. I would give anywhere from a 6.0 to an 8.0 I think there downfall was the execution and the seemingly forced romance. In other words, it reminded me of CaptainThe Hunger Games? Well to me they were a mixture of an amazing storyline but had terrible execution. I think the romance was pushed to hard, and although there was phenomenal acting parts, a lot of it was a big slab of cheese. I would give anywhere from a 6.0 to an 8.0 I think there downfall was the execution and the seemingly forced romance. In other words, it reminded me of Captain America with Chris Evans. All in all, a little less than satisfactory. Expand
  93. Mar 26, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I have read the entire Hunger Games series and had been looking forward to the movie immensely. I was disappointed at how normal the movie was. Don't get me wrong, the movie was good. But it certainly did not do the book justice due to several flaws. Firstly, the character development was rather weak especially the relationship between Peeta and Katniss. I believe that more effort and time could have been spent to show Peeta's love towards Katniss and also, why Katniss had no choice but to love him back during the course of the game. In terms of summarization of the story, I thought the script writer did a good job at taking important parts from the story so that the audience who did not read the book could get a general idea at what the movie was about. However, too many small details were left out. I find it irritating that the hovercraft did not appear to pick up dead bodies especially in Rue's scene. Even more so, President Snow was not depicted constantly licking his mouth. This and many other lack small details ruined the expectation, fun and excitement for the fans of the series. Meanwhile, I find scenes where most of the conversation occurs mainly in monologue rather boring. The actors can and have acted well, but many scenes of slow and quiet talking bore me out instead of making me feel what the characters were feeling at that time. I cannot imagine how it would be like for non book readers. Perhaps, the worst part is that the entire movie did not pick up sufficient pace to get the audience to enjoy the action scenes around the second half of the movie. It gave a rather monotonous atmosphere throughout the movie save for some exciting scenes.

    This movie deserves a 6 for me. Perhaps it could have been better if it were split into two parts or if a narrative from Katniss' perspective was introduced to explain many parts of the movie. Either way, I hope the director will not produce a similarly paced second movie because that would be obscenely boring already.

    P.S Haymitch was an **** in this movie. He sounds retarded with the cowboy accent.
    Expand
  94. Mar 31, 2012
    5
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. i'm not saying this was a bad movie, but the cinematography was absolutely horrible and the story line was average. The acting all round was very good, especially Jennifer Lawrence who was amazing as Katniss. The story line never really gripped me at any point in the film, normally you should feel engaged from beginning to end, yet I never did. Finally the worst part of the film, the camera work, the shaky cam is completely over used, making me feel disorientated throughout the entire film. I could understand if they used it just for fights, i would be fine, but they use it in the most inappropriate of places, like a man eating a piece of bread. It's not the worst film i have ever seen, but it's not the best and it's easily forgettable. Expand
  95. Apr 3, 2012
    6
    I saw the movie before reading the book, my main desire to read the book was a lack of satisfaction with the movie and having read and seen both I think I understand why. The main problem with the movie adaptation is a lack of emotional connection to the characters, I found it difficult to care about the characters because there simply was not much depth to them. In the book Katniss showsI saw the movie before reading the book, my main desire to read the book was a lack of satisfaction with the movie and having read and seen both I think I understand why. The main problem with the movie adaptation is a lack of emotional connection to the characters, I found it difficult to care about the characters because there simply was not much depth to them. In the book Katniss shows a certain vulnerability, particularly before the games, that is simply not conveyed in the film. She's confused, she's distrustful of Peeta, etcetera. She's essentially both scared and conflicted but putting on a brave face, and in the film the only sense I got was "brave face" with no depth behind it. This is a problem because the audience cannot relate to her to the level that is necessary. I think the movie could have used more close ups of her face, and maybe just more pantomime sort of acting, show us how she feels through her face, let us see her thinking, see the glimmer of fear and the grabbing hold of resolve. Instead she's stone-faced the whole time, and she does things without the audience seeing in her face the reason for her doing those things. The best part of the movie is the 5 minutes or so leading up to, and directly following the start of the game. Because we see her scared, and the start of the games has a very non-graphic but visceral feel to it but everything that follows is just not that interesting. The actor cast as peeta was also a poor choice. Myself and my company simply did not care for him as a character. The movie also shows a lot of behind the scenes footage, showing Seam when the games are being broadcast, showing the gamemakers, etcetera. None of this really adds to the movie. Sometimes it explains what's going on, or is a substitute for Katniss's own thoughts in the novel but the scenes are just not that compelling. Watching people manipulate computers is never that compelling. And while they give reason for things happening, they don't explain the mechanism for things happening and in that regard they do a disservice because my suspension of disbelief was torn a few times. Overall the movie had a lot of potential, but we as the audience simply don't care because we aren't given characters that we can care about. If the movie focused more on Katniss, showed the great depth of her emotion and her inner conflict, we would see her as more of a person and would relate to her struggle a lot more. Expand
  96. Apr 19, 2012
    5
    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 aFirst 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
  97. May 11, 2012
    4
    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 well........so how is this a good movie?
  98. May 20, 2012
    5
    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 justI 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
  99. May 23, 2012
    5
    I went to see this movie with my girlfriend and it seemed to me as if this is some sort of predictable cliche story. Don't get me wrong It's OK movie if you are not interesting in something that's brain challenging. It's like watching SF movie without science and fiction in it, you know that story is hollow and impossible to happen in real life, but who cares if you have couple of hours ofI went to see this movie with my girlfriend and it seemed to me as if this is some sort of predictable cliche story. Don't get me wrong It's OK movie if you are not interesting in something that's brain challenging. It's like watching SF movie without science and fiction in it, you know that story is hollow and impossible to happen in real life, but who cares if you have couple of hours of spare time to waste. Expand
  100. Jun 9, 2012
    4
    The book Hunger Games was published in 2008 and the film released in 2012. It shows a sophisticated society. Although it is impossible not to notice all the similarities with the japanese film Battle Royale, released in 2000, eight years before. In this film, students are kidnapped in a excursion trip and wake up with a head-explosive-collar. They were selected to a life and death gameThe book Hunger Games was published in 2008 and the film released in 2012. It shows a sophisticated society. Although it is impossible not to notice all the similarities with the japanese film Battle Royale, released in 2000, eight years before. In this film, students are kidnapped in a excursion trip and wake up with a head-explosive-collar. They were selected to a life and death game with only one survivor or none at all. Each one receive a backpack with food, drink, lantern and one weapon or survival device. Each six hours they are informed about the dead and the danger zones to be avoided in order not to explode their necks. Alliances are made and death follows the smallest suspicion. Previous infatuations and enmities are explicited. Enfasis centers in the animal inside all of us and how thick is the civil layer of our personalities and our survival willingness. Hunger Games is much more complex, however it is impossible to deny so many similarities Expand
Metascore
67

Generally favorable reviews - based on 44 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 35 out of 44
  2. Negative: 2 out of 44
  1. Reviewed by: David Denby
    Mar 26, 2012
    30
    The result is an evasive, baffling, unexciting production - anything but a classic.
  2. Reviewed by: Andy Klein
    Mar 23, 2012
    75
    Ross manages to keep the pacing remarkably swift, given that the games themselves don't start until halfway through the 144-minute running time.
  3. Reviewed by: Mike Scott
    Mar 23, 2012
    80
    Katniss is gritty, she's flinty, she's intimidating -- and she doesn't have to compromise one iota of her femininity for it. And Ross' movie tells her story wonderfully.