Lionsgate | Release Date: March 23, 2012
7.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1774 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,230
Mixed:
353
Negative:
191
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
4
lukechristianscApr 12, 2014
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
cameronmorewoodNov 5, 2012
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
ydnar4Feb 7, 2015
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 itExtremely 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
TokyochuchuJan 30, 2013
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 (JenniferThe 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
MarcDoyleMar 27, 2012
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
9 of 19 users found this helpful910
All this user's reviews
5
nutterjrMay 23, 2012
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 superiorI 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. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
drlowdonJul 31, 2014
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 oneBased 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
oblique15Jan 5, 2013
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
gameguardian21Sep 26, 2016
The hunger games is not a bad movie, but it's just not for me. To me, it's just like twilight, but with more action, and a ton of shaky, and less vampires.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
StaticSpineMay 10, 2014
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
A_NorthernerNov 11, 2012
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
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
JamesLApr 8, 2012
I have never read the books but I can tell you the movie is so flawed that I could write a book about it. At first, it seems like they could not decide on whether they wanted to make a serious film or a campy film to show to people reallyI 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
CitizenCharlieMar 26, 2012
I always wonder after seeing a movie where I have read the book beforehand, â
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
TheDRauchJul 17, 2012
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 hasThe 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Lambo442Sep 10, 2012
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 wayIf 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
TheWalrus2000Apr 22, 2013
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 GamesThe 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
SeriosityNov 9, 2012
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
seancriswellAug 23, 2012
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,wellI 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
FDT44Mar 23, 2012
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 trilogyThough 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
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
4
joao1198pedroDec 10, 2014
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
cag11Nov 29, 2013
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.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Skullgirlsfan13Jun 17, 2013
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 aboutThe 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
CPD98Nov 22, 2014
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 elementoUna 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...
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
lahaine2012Aug 4, 2012
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 makeThis 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
RaygirlApr 13, 2012
BORING! I'll say right off the bat that I didn't read any the "Books" (I am a 40-something female whose favorite genre is action sci-fi, i.e. Aliens, Terminator, Matrix, etc.) and was hoping for a good movie. Unfortunately, this movie wasBORING! 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
jzmeApr 10, 2012
Honestly, the movie was just averagely good in terms of story line. It was really strange how subtle they touch on the story of the girl's family & friends back home. For example the role of the guy back at her hometown who likes her was notHonestly, 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
xolveAug 24, 2014
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
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
ElucidateApr 19, 2014
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 actionNot 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
RedfordstoMar 29, 2012
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 littleThe 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
15 of 28 users found this helpful1513
All this user's reviews
6
MossyCDLApr 1, 2012
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 likeComing 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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews