Lionsgate | Release Date: March 23, 2012
7.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1788 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,242
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)
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
5
kewlgeek555May 21, 2013
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 complicatedThe 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
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
4
MonkinsaneJun 12, 2013
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 timeVery 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. Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
6
DocMidnyteAug 9, 2012
A refreshingly grim and realistic premise for an American film meant for teens. Disney it ain't and that's a strength. The weakness? Way, way too much fidelity to the source material. The first hour and a half is ponderous and keeps repeatingA refreshingly grim and realistic premise for an American film meant for teens. Disney it ain't and that's a strength. The weakness? Way, way too much fidelity to the source material. The first hour and a half is ponderous and keeps repeating plot and character points that may have been useful in the novel, but really drag the movie down at least when it pertains to the villainous characters. They are portrayed without an ounce of balance or empathy! As an artistic choice, it's fine, but then someone should have taken some liberties with the script to assure that we weren't treated to endless scenes of Tucci and company being wretched and evil. It got old very quickly. Casting was mostly well done. Rue worked for me and I believe was a true artistic choice especially in Katniss' final acts for her. Lawrence was much, much better in this role than in anything she has done before. It's the first time I've seen her reveal herself in her acting. She worked for me and the nuances of the premise made me feel like I was not watching something put out there to make the kids "feel empowered" which is 90% of teen film. To be commended. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
dthompNov 28, 2013
Despite not really enjoying this film, I am still going to give it a slightly positive rating. My reasoning for this is that it is actually a decent film, however my opinion on it has been altered as I read the books first. The books has inDespite not really enjoying this film, I am still going to give it a slightly positive rating. My reasoning for this is that it is actually a decent film, however my opinion on it has been altered as I read the books first. The books has in depth politics and lots of violence and excitement. The film left a lot of the politics and violence out to make it watchable for the younger ages, which subsequently created a cheesy, not brilliantly written film. If they had 'juiced it up' a bit and made it a 15, I'm sure I would have enjoyed it a lot more.
I would recommend this film if you have not read the book, if you have steer clear of it.
Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
5
VastWastrelApr 1, 2012
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 anSure, 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
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
5
MuffinrexAug 16, 2013
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 areWhen 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
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
5
DodgerApr 28, 2012
This was a very average movie. Too much drawn out story and not enough action. I also kept comparing it in my head to battle royale which made it seem even worse despite the age of battle royale. I was also left in no state of worry for theThis 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. Expand
9 of 16 users found this helpful97
All this user's reviews
6
evanrmMar 24, 2012
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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
4
CriticalStateMay 17, 2012
The Hunger Games is unoriginal and uninspiring, one of the strangest hyped movies I have seen in years. I was completely underwhelmed when I saw it. The story itself is cliche, the same futurist group of unfortunate souls forced to fightThe 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
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
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
4
LutharoMar 24, 2012
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 thatI 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
7 of 16 users found this helpful79
All this user's reviews
5
ripvanbuttsteakMar 23, 2012
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
7 of 19 users found this helpful712
All this user's reviews
5
wendy0Mar 23, 2012
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.
10 of 31 users found this helpful1021
All this user's reviews
5
gupet90Mar 23, 2012
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 aI'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
3 of 14 users found this helpful311
All this user's reviews
4
sobaka770Mar 25, 2012
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
1 of 8 users found this helpful17
All this user's reviews
6
DANEgerMar 23, 2012
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'sStunningly 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 Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
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
6
canadianrugbyMar 25, 2012
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 violenceHere 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
hailtothevictorMar 25, 2012
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 adoredThis 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
f0llyMar 26, 2012
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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
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
5
FelonMar 26, 2012
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. JoshJennifer 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
HwakMar 27, 2012
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, theThis 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
westhMar 28, 2012
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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
808StarMar 29, 2012
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 atThe 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
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
4
krizbits000Mar 30, 2012
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 isDisappointed. 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. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
BizmalMar 30, 2012
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.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
5
retroanglesMar 31, 2012
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 willHaving 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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
FreddyDMar 31, 2012
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
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews