Lionsgate | Release Date: March 23, 2012
7.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1790 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,244
Mixed:
356
Negative:
190
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)
0
theofficeMar 30, 2012
I don't blame the books. I haven't read them but just looking at wikipedia the overarching story as a lot of rich material to draw from. This movie just will have none of it. It was poorly written. Poorly acted (the lead girl was good butI don't blame the books. I haven't read them but just looking at wikipedia the overarching story as a lot of rich material to draw from. This movie just will have none of it. It was poorly written. Poorly acted (the lead girl was good but that was pretty much it). None of the backstory was explored. Just a bad movie plane and simple. The movie is really about a 3/10 but I'm giving it a 0 because of others voting it up. Basically the movie is totally overhyped. It really isn't good at all. Characters have no back story besides the 2 leads and they expect us to connect to other characters when something happens to them? Literally characters are introduced for 5 minutes and we are supposed to feel sad when they die? Ha. If the point of the games is to kill everyone else then why would these people form teams? Why would they sleep all at the same time? Why did one not wake up to betray the others silently. Just far far too many plot holes. Expand
15 of 29 users found this helpful1514
All this user's reviews
3
brass638Mar 23, 2012
The movie left a lot to be desired and did not do the book justice. Character development in the movie was weak and if a viewer has not read the book, the characters and their relationships with each other is shallow and confusing. ThisThe movie left a lot to be desired and did not do the book justice. Character development in the movie was weak and if a viewer has not read the book, the characters and their relationships with each other is shallow and confusing. This confusion is clear when reading reviews by people who admit to not reading the books. In particular the relationship between Catniss and her family needs to be expanded upon and built upon so we can understand the relationship between Rue and Catniss and the tragedy of the circumstances they are put into. The relationship between Peeta and Catniss is also confusing and shallow, sanitizing the internal conflict felt by them. And finally we get to Haymitch, who is a shadow of the character he was in the book. Expand
33 of 70 users found this helpful3337
All this user's reviews
3
LessMar 23, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Having read the books numerous times, the movie is lacking is so many ways. Scenes were redacted which I understand you have to keep the film lengthen under consideration but do not add scenes that have no mention or relevance into the movie. Also, the time lines are important in this film. You are building up to something. When you leave so much out how do you have that reference for later films. You do not get to connect with Katniss and Peeta in the film like you do in the books. I blame the SIGNIFICANT shortening of the cave scenes. The whole last 30 minutes of the film was horrible. Adding the extra fighting in the last scene did not add any value but took away from the film. Had the last Cornucopia scene been left as originally written, it would have made for a much more dramatic conclusion and wrap of the film. Expand
17 of 37 users found this helpful1720
All this user's reviews
3
MarkMusicMar 19, 2013
Not worth it. Please, I read the book for school and decided to check out the movie. My God that was terrible almost as terrible as Avatar. I fell asleep 3 times. The book was filled with action but this movie wasn't. Acting was good that'sNot worth it. Please, I read the book for school and decided to check out the movie. My God that was terrible almost as terrible as Avatar. I fell asleep 3 times. The book was filled with action but this movie wasn't. Acting was good that's why I gave it a three. If you want to be entertained you would have a better chance watching the book cover then this. The book cover was more interesting then the movie. Avoid movies like this and you will be happy. You want my advice, watch Spring Breakers. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
0
Scamp4553Oct 9, 2013
I really do not get all of the appeal behind The Hunger Games. This is similar to The Twilight Saga, not that both franchises are the exact same, but they're both highly overrated franchises that are geared mostly towards teenagers. The onlyI really do not get all of the appeal behind The Hunger Games. This is similar to The Twilight Saga, not that both franchises are the exact same, but they're both highly overrated franchises that are geared mostly towards teenagers. The only difference is that The Hunger Games tries to appeal to all demographics, but just ends up being REALLY obnoxious--- once you see the poster for this movie 1000 times. The one with Katniss on it. This is one of the most ANNOYING movie posters, if not THE most annoying movie poster I have ever seen. It's everywhere, even when the second movie is about to be released. Sorry, but The Hunger Games will not be as memorable as Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. It's just another adult-novel-turned-to-movie-aimed-for-teenagers. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
1
sinadoomNov 21, 2013
A cliché, predictable, boring, eventless and poorly presented movie. It borrows age-old tricks from video games and does them poorly. Absolutely nothing to see here.
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
0
FabbioDornellasJan 22, 2014
This film is just a copy of Battle Royale, it's plagiarism. There's nothing new here, there's nothing stunning or amazing it's just a film to take your money and is a big hollywood fail.
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
3
iAGRNov 26, 2012
Admittedly, I was already tired to begin with when I started watching this movie (which resulted in me falling asleep halfway and missing around 60% of the awful movie). Either way, I don't understand the hype about this movie. It wasn't goodAdmittedly, I was already tired to begin with when I started watching this movie (which resulted in me falling asleep halfway and missing around 60% of the awful movie). Either way, I don't understand the hype about this movie. It wasn't good at all, it was terrible. Terrible actors, terrible everything. I don't recommend this for anyone to watch. The only reason I'm rating it 3, is to be fair. But seriously though, it was awful. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
2
Shift857Nov 19, 2013
Poor movie. It should have been more than one part per book. There was no character development at all and bad casting. There were numerous mistakes in the movie aswell as taking one idea from the book and basing the entire population of thePoor movie. It should have been more than one part per book. There was no character development at all and bad casting. There were numerous mistakes in the movie aswell as taking one idea from the book and basing the entire population of the capitol on it. Not only that, but it's being completely marketed for the 8-12 crowd, with action figures and card games. The cast was horrible. The 17 year old gale was played by 22 year old Liam Hemsworth, and 16 year old Katniss by 22 year old Jennifer Lawrence. You know a high hyped movie was bad when it's already on netflix. Hopefully they don't screw up Catching fire, and the casting looks not that bad. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
0
LinusBeagleMar 8, 2014
This was an unwatchable, tedious, ass-numbing, bore of a movie; not worthy of even “made for TV” status. The acting was stilted and wooden; Jennifer Lawrence is creepy looking and unattractive. Honestly the whole thing was a mess from startThis was an unwatchable, tedious, ass-numbing, bore of a movie; not worthy of even “made for TV” status. The acting was stilted and wooden; Jennifer Lawrence is creepy looking and unattractive. Honestly the whole thing was a mess from start to finish. Save your money and opt out of the remaining movies now; doubtful they will get any better. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
0
LJHayesApr 4, 2014
Seriously, **** this film. It is awful. I'm not going into detail because it would take hours for me to go over everything that makes this thing unwatchable. Suffice to say it's just a senseless story driven by insufferably irritatingSeriously, **** this film. It is awful. I'm not going into detail because it would take hours for me to go over everything that makes this thing unwatchable. Suffice to say it's just a senseless story driven by insufferably irritating characters and a string of convenient plot devices that sporadically fade in and out of relevance. If you want a film about a brutal death match, watch battle royale. If you want a film about ridiculous angst ridden teenage romance, watch twilight. If you want a film that tries to include a death match and a convoluted teenage romance and fails at both, watch the hunger games. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
2
RicochetPhoenixApr 28, 2013
Shameful ripoff of "Battle Royale," and much lower in quality. It's Battle Royale for "the Twilight crowd." The acting was stale, the action was bland, and there wasn't any reason given to me to really care about anything going on. TheShameful ripoff of "Battle Royale," and much lower in quality. It's Battle Royale for "the Twilight crowd." The acting was stale, the action was bland, and there wasn't any reason given to me to really care about anything going on. The author of the books claims to have never heard of Battle Royale, and that's a laugh! Expand
4 of 5 users found this helpful41
All this user's reviews
3
saulotApr 16, 2012
This is a movie about a brutal gladator like event for people who don't like violence and like sparkly vampires. This is book i simply a short story called "the lottery" merged with a far supiorior Movie called battle royale. The lead actorThis is a movie about a brutal gladator like event for people who don't like violence and like sparkly vampires. This is book i simply a short story called "the lottery" merged with a far supiorior Movie called battle royale. The lead actor "whos a hunter" does inane things like sit in a sunny clearing and run around in a blue blazer in the forest while shes supposed to be in a life and death game. Totally unrealistic and the combat was poor. Expand
13 of 17 users found this helpful134
All this user's reviews
2
calcipherFeb 15, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. "It all makes sense if you read the book". Well, I guess it's time to put a warning label on the DVD cover about that, because this movie makes no sense. At all. I really hope the books are better thought and better written than this movie, that can be described only as garbage on garbage on garbage that the viewer is forced to swallow. Plot holes, unanswered questions, non-sense, "The Hunger Games" has them all. During the movie you'll find yourself simply asking two kind of questions: "Are they really that stupid?" and "What the hell?". Some examples? Here we go, but I doubt I'll have enough typing space. --The participants make teams. Yes, you read that correctly: they make TEAMS. For like an hour you're told only one of them can survive but, yeah, they make teams. You could understand that behaviour from the kind-hearted Katniss, but, wait, it gets better: the BAD GUYS make teams. And they sleep together. Of course, no one of them thinks about slaughtering all of his teammates during the night to win the games, because, yes, they are that stupid. --You managed to get all the food supplies? It would be a good idea to surround them with two dozens land mines, just in case the good girl wants to blow them and starve you to death. Yes, they are that stupid. --The good girl climbs a tree while chased by a bunch of bad guys? No problem, since no one of that uber-skilled teen assassins is able to climb a tree aswell. Again, it gets better: she kills one by throwing an hive full of killer bees on them while they're sleeping (somehow the bees can tell the good guys from the bad ones). --At one point she's about to be killed, but the bad guy is kind enough to wait, go close and confess all of his murders, so the not-so-good-but-not-that-bad girl can get revenge. Oh, it gets even better: she kills only the bad guy and spares Katniss, since she somehow forgot (again) only one of them can win.--On the "What the hell?" category: when short on participants, they "summon" two giant rabid dogs through a computer. No explanation whatsoever, they just click a couple of times, make a 3D drawing and...here we go, giant dogs. Also, these dogs are like 6 feet high, but can't jump over a 4 1/2 feet high roof, otherwise the good girl would've died. --The baker-guy manages to disguise himself as a rock. And he's damn good at it, but...wait. What tools did he use? And when? No explanation. --The end would have been a great comedy moment if I hadn't payed real money to see it. It goes like this: "We changed the rules of the game, you both win. No, wait, it was a joke, the rules stay the same, one of you have to die. Wait... What? Are you killing yourselves? For real? Nononono! Wait! Wait! We change the rules, ok, we change the rules. You both win, long life to the Hunger Games!". I mean, are you serious? Are you f***ing serious? These games go on for like a century and no one, never ever thought you can simply cheat by threatening to kill yourselves as the last survivors? Again: are they really *that stupid*? And these overpowered, totalitarian organizers never ever thought about this *little flaw*? They have to be tricked by a couple of teenagers to realize their idiocy? --These are just some of the pearls you'll find in this movie, let alone the poor acting of everyone, including Woody Harrelson that was probably *really* drunk during all the shoots. If "The Hunger Games" was a movie from Mel Brooks, it would've been a round 10 in comedy. Don't waste your money on this rubbish. Expand
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
1
MovieCricketApr 10, 2012
I'm wondering: how original is the premise? An post-apocalyptic world where live televised fights-to-the-death keep the populous' blood lust satisfied? Eh. Series 7: The Contenders did it way before, but not with Hunger Games' budget. PlusI'm wondering: how original is the premise? An post-apocalyptic world where live televised fights-to-the-death keep the populous' blood lust satisfied? Eh. Series 7: The Contenders did it way before, but not with Hunger Games' budget. Plus there's Running Man, the Road Warrior, and earlier, 1984. If the world ever becomes a world like the Hunger Games, I'd protest in the streets and risk dying in a Tiananmen square movement. Orwell wrote a better satire on society's need for bloodlust and authoritarianism, because he details a lot of what happened in the world before it got fragmented into superstates. There's no such luck with Suzanne Collins. I don't think Suzanne Collins or the film-makers have enough imagination or storytelling skills to give us the big picture of Panem or the characters should have. They're just waving their fingers at us tsk-tsking us for watching too much reality TV, that one day will lead to televised murder. Does Collins give her characters enough depth that they rebel against an insane society that has degraded to televised murder? Why do they go along with it? Like I said, I'd stand my ground and risk my life for freedom and autonomy before I'd let what happened in Pan Em happen to us. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
0
SchnippshlyApr 9, 2012
I expected a ripoff of Battle Royale to at least be almost slightly 1% as interesting as Battle Royale, but instead I got into the theater and watched this boring piece of crap garbage for two hours. What a waste of time. People who likedI expected a ripoff of Battle Royale to at least be almost slightly 1% as interesting as Battle Royale, but instead I got into the theater and watched this boring piece of crap garbage for two hours. What a waste of time. People who liked this movie are either stupid or lying. Transformers 2 was a better movie because, in spite of horrible writing (which The Hunger Games is 100% full of), there was still a lot of action (which The Hunger Games has 0% of). With a bad plot and bad dialogue and bad everything story-wise and then two hours of boring non-action on top of that, what is even the point of this movie? Do not watch this. Obviously you will anyway and you will pretend you liked it because everyone told you to. Expand
7 of 11 users found this helpful74
All this user's reviews
1
TheBopokippoMar 25, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie is just awful. There are many terrible aspects and you SHOULD NOT waste your time if you have or have not read the books.

1. Camera work is awful. Everything is shaking so bad in every action scene and every partially moving scene (anything that is not a static conversation) you see random blurs of faces and quickly and poorly cut sections of the movie. 2. Music: Very often, there is no music when there really should be and it just ruins the whole atmosphere. The music at the beginning of the Cornucopia scene is nill and the atmosphere is wrong. You would expect fast paced drumbeats with screams and punches and such... Instead, you get a stupid buzzing noise as the camera shakes to death as you hear no screams and this goes for like 2 minutes... -_-

3. Story: Extremely shallow character development and tons of things completely uncomprehendable by non-book readers.
Expand
10 of 16 users found this helpful106
All this user's reviews
2
BrolbasaurApr 15, 2012
Not worth seeing at all. I only saw it because while planning to see 21 Jump Street (which is rated R) and having already been standing at the ticket booth, I found out my friend was still 16, and The Hunger Games was the only otherNot worth seeing at all. I only saw it because while planning to see 21 Jump Street (which is rated R) and having already been standing at the ticket booth, I found out my friend was still 16, and The Hunger Games was the only other interesting looking movie playing. I was with 2 friends, and none of us enjoyed it, mostly because it was painfully long, the plot was dull and slow-paced, and the character development was horrible, with useless characters and unnatural character relationships, that would have only made sense if you've read the book. On top of that, the cinematography was awful. The camera was constantly shaking, which made it look very unprofessional as a film. And the fight scenes were painful to watch because they were so poorly done. Bad camera work + bad fight scene choreography = severe motion sickness. And to add to that, the music never fit, especially during the fight scenes. In fact, the music was lazily written, with more focus on ridiculous audio effects rather than the actual musical aspect of it. And one more thing: Editors have no reason to tone the color down throughout the entire movie just to give it a slightly darker feeling. Be more creative. In conclusion, we would have had a much better experience had we seen 21 Jump Street instead of this over-hyped, lazily put together piece of crap. Expand
11 of 18 users found this helpful117
All this user's reviews
0
solutions10Mar 29, 2012
In the least surprising cash-in in the history of anything ever, The Hunger Games took its already film-ready premise which had already borrowed from Battle Royale, glossed it up pretty, removed any and all significance from the originalIn the least surprising cash-in in the history of anything ever, The Hunger Games took its already film-ready premise which had already borrowed from Battle Royale, glossed it up pretty, removed any and all significance from the original novels to satisfy the teen crowd, deconstructed every single character and made new ones to fit a film that was supposed to be horrifying more than anything else, naturally made Katniss attractive instead of being the poverty-stricken malnourished slum-girl she was in the novel, made all the guys beefcakes, gave everyone unspeakable combat skills when they should have next-to-none, when the entire point was to throw random kids into an arena and told to kill each other, and basically turned it into exactly what it was supposed to be: A cash-in, without exception. All significance is gone, and respecting the origins of the novel isn't even considered here. Disappointing beyond words? Definitely. But an obvious way to market it as an arena battle to the death involving children? Checkmate. Anyone who read the first novel knew quickly that this was going to be turned into a film, and it was going to be a sure-fire cashflow frenzy with the right style and marketing. Done and done. For anyone who doesn't care for anything the book stood for or even knows to begin with, here you go: A generic action flick with a few twists that are comically predictable, all done in perfect PG-13 format--ironically still being about desperate kids picked out of a raffle murdering each other with sharp objects. But if you've read the novels, you knew exactly what they were doing the instant you saw the official movie poster, and you can at least avoid some of the despair because you knew it had been coming all along. Expand
9 of 15 users found this helpful96
All this user's reviews
0
MikefromAngusAug 16, 2012
Lets mix "the running man" with the tv show "Survivor" target the audience for "teenagers" but lets make it as violent as possible. Thats the end result for this movie. The movie is not orginal, boring, NOT real, the characters act as ifLets mix "the running man" with the tv show "Survivor" target the audience for "teenagers" but lets make it as violent as possible. Thats the end result for this movie. The movie is not orginal, boring, NOT real, the characters act as if they were on a tv show and their lives werent not in danger. They formed "Alliances" when the whole idea was the strongest person survives? give me a break! AVOID this movie at all costs! Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
0
lilkillpappyApr 4, 2012
Severely over rated. Acting was horrible, the heart of the book was not there, emotional aspects were not emotional because they were rushed and forced, and full of really bad acting. They emphasized the people fighting against the governmentSeverely over rated. Acting was horrible, the heart of the book was not there, emotional aspects were not emotional because they were rushed and forced, and full of really bad acting. They emphasized the people fighting against the government part of the story, but they gave us a sappy ending that had nothing to do with the people or the oppressive government. This film simply had no soul, despite having more than enough inspiration from the book they some how destroyed it for the typical short attention span of American viewers. And for people saying the lead actress did a good job of acting, just ask your self how many facial expressions she actually used. She did them well, but she only had like 4. Just like that actress in the twilight series, once you watch another movie from the series you will see how incredible low her range is. The same 4 expressions over and over again will get pretty boring. Collapse
8 of 14 users found this helpful86
All this user's reviews
3
moviemadmanApr 10, 2012
i was so looking forward to watching this movie. I seen all of the amazing reviews and i hoped for the best... but i was so wrong... the book was soo much better the movie its scary.... i really dont know how people think the movie was soi was so looking forward to watching this movie. I seen all of the amazing reviews and i hoped for the best... but i was so wrong... the book was soo much better the movie its scary.... i really dont know how people think the movie was so good.... i sat there wathing and thinking, wheres the part where haymitch fell of the stage... or where haymitch sent katniss the sleeping medicine so she could go to the cornucopia... and the red head avox girl and thats just a few parts they were missing... the book has soo much detail... in the book... you get to read how katniss is feeling about everything and how the events that just happened... decide her next decision.... im not a personal lover of romance in films... but in the book the "romance" between katniss and petta makes the plot soo much better... but in the film its all broken up and i cant make sence of what has happened.... i hate the fact that the directors have made this into a movie for kids... the book is for adults...there is a lot of viloence and scenes that are for older viewers but the DIRECTOR wants everyone to love this movie... but in my opinion he got it soo wrong... i just hope they dont make the same mistakes if they are ALLOWED to make the second book... which is also a great read
i recommened to everyone who thinks that this movie is the best thing since slice bread... to read the book and you will instantly see the flaws and how bad the the movie truely is
Expand
4 of 7 users found this helpful43
All this user's reviews
1
shoupi22Mar 29, 2012
The movie was not as expected.Too Long Too Boring Too Predictable.The character or Peeta is not clear as for the feeling of Gale and Katniss.It's far too long and much inferior to the ferocious Japanese Battle Royale.The books were aimed atThe movie was not as expected.Too Long Too Boring Too Predictable.The character or Peeta is not clear as for the feeling of Gale and Katniss.It's far too long and much inferior to the ferocious Japanese Battle Royale.The books were aimed at young women, I think the filmmakers have been terrified at making anything too violent. Expand
6 of 11 users found this helpful65
All this user's reviews
1
Geoffory2Mar 25, 2012
This movie sucked. Most overrated film of the year. it is du;; and boring, there is no back story. The games it self its repetitive and dull and the shaky hand filming made me vomit. What a waste of 2.3 hours. I only gave it a one becauseThis movie sucked. Most overrated film of the year. it is du;; and boring, there is no back story. The games it self its repetitive and dull and the shaky hand filming made me vomit. What a waste of 2.3 hours. I only gave it a one because Stanley Tucci was good in it. Expand
10 of 19 users found this helpful109
All this user's reviews
3
UnclearImageMar 28, 2012
As a stand alone movie it's fine, as a copy of the book it's terrible- as a loosely based off the book video it's... decent at best. Take the wonderful story from the book, shred it down to the barest parts and turn it into a copy ofAs a stand alone movie it's fine, as a copy of the book it's terrible- as a loosely based off the book video it's... decent at best. Take the wonderful story from the book, shred it down to the barest parts and turn it into a copy of Twilight- you now have 'The hunger games' "movie"

There's nothing, no survival in the woods, no horrible mental wrestling of survival vs. humanity no insight, the barest of character development, a incredibly shortened timeline and complete disregard for the book's story about half way through the movie.

I'm glad to see The Hunger Games put into a visual medium, I'm dissapointed to see it so gutted, I consider this a failure for the first movie.
Expand
6 of 12 users found this helpful66
All this user's reviews
3
TheKolkerMar 26, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The movie is a very hasty and premature summary of the book. It lags a lot of the memorable highlights of the book, and adding to it, is the stupid re-writing of the scene where Katniss gets the Mockinjay-pendant. The acting was very sleazy too, and amateurish. As a movie on it's own, it was shot beautifully. But as a interpretation of the book, it just doesn't cut it. Expand
5 of 10 users found this helpful55
All this user's reviews
3
jdicksteihnApr 21, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A lot of hype for a very lazy Hollywood movie. It falls especially flat once the Hunger Games begin. It seems that the director and all the actors didn't take the premise very seriously: that these are young children being forced to fight to the death with only one victor allowed. At times it felt more like revenge of the nerds where the dumb jocks band together to pick on the weaker kids. The stronger, Aryan-looking kids, go around seeking out Katniss with a joyous, kind of partying attitude. Have these teenagers somehow forgotten that only one person can survive? That at any moment the people they are next to have every reason to murder them in order to save themselves? One of them has no problems taking a nap while the others wait for Katniss to come down off the tree. And they laugh and flirt and play like school just got let out. And time after time the kids let others escape, sometimes for no reason at all. One large Black teen kills a young girl, as she is fighting with Katniss, then looks at Katniss and says something to the effect of "I'll let you go this time", for no reason. Has he forgotten that one way or another he will have to kill her to survive? Why wait to kill her too? Especially in the midst of bloodlust after killing someone else? This is his own life which is at stake, but you'd never guess from how he behaves. They just didn't take the premise seriously enough for me to take it seriously as an audience member. For a movie with this kind of budget and marketing machine, there is no excuse for such laziness. This made me want to watch Blade Runner, a Sci-Fi movie in which the director took care of the details. Expand
3 of 6 users found this helpful33
All this user's reviews
0
hootisAug 24, 2012
So my previous review was about why this movie was bad as a film, like poor/very bad(characterization, setting or general surreal atmosphere was just not serious/believable at all and this was put forth with no explanation, costumes of peopleSo my previous review was about why this movie was bad as a film, like poor/very bad(characterization, setting or general surreal atmosphere was just not serious/believable at all and this was put forth with no explanation, costumes of people especially soldiers, storyline and I want to say game play but this isn't a video game; I guess the closest thing would be the way the story worked itself out was pathetic).
However this was based on the idea that this was a genuine story, which it is not. This book and film are both completely based on Battle Royal and this film brings absolutely nothing new to this type of storyline. Also, Battle Royal actually had gore while simultaneously making a good film in every way this movie failed it succeeded. If Battle Royal was in English, I bet he could sue on copy right in this day and age but that's another story....
Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
0
Nostalgic9tailsJul 16, 2013
First off, I neither liked this film nor the books. The entire concept was taken directly from Battle Royale and has just interjected elements from The Lord of The Flies. There are several ways that the character of Katniss is just a bland,First off, I neither liked this film nor the books. The entire concept was taken directly from Battle Royale and has just interjected elements from The Lord of The Flies. There are several ways that the character of Katniss is just a bland, sociopathic male-stand-in who does everything wrong and seems to get out alive. Peeta is creepy. No question. How he tries to make Katniss act like she's in love with him for the better of the viewers and how he admitted to nearly stalking her in both the film and book. Gale and Prim are useless characters who, if they were removed, the story would still be the same. Haymich isn't alcoholic at all, he's an occasional drunk, and I'm ready to stand up to that point with anyone who wants to protest. I don't want this review to run long with everything that's wrong with this, because there aren't enough characters here to rightly explain. But what I hate the most is the sheer fact that such a large bandwagon has been made for this film/book. There are other alternatives out there that do it so much better than this. Just because millions of people like something doesn't make it as good as everyone praises it to be. Expand
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
1
lossincasaApr 25, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Outdated special effects, unwatchable shaky camera style in the action scenes, strange choice of actress for the lead role (an almost too pretty well... developed woman to play the role of a malnourished - more like starved to death in the book- sixteen year old slum-girl. Terrible dialogue and character development, unrealistic depiction of the future with people wearing outdated 18th century costumes while possessing incredible, almost magical technology that could create something out of nothing. One of the biggest rip offs I have ever seen in my life. They have taken the story of the Battle Royale and abused it in the worst possible manner, throwing all the violence out the window or with the above mentioned shaky camera technique toned down to an absolute blur. For many actual minutes I couldn't see anything on the big screen and many of my friends had made similar complaints. A colossal waste of my money but I suppose at the same time a great cash in for the clever people behind this whole charade. This is definitely not a kids movie and it barely qualifies as adult one also. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews