Lionsgate | Release Date: March 23, 2012
7.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1829 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,270
Mixed:
365
Negative:
194
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)
7
smijatovJul 22, 2013
While I am no fan of "The Hunger Games" books nor did I really hear about them until the film came out and I took a whole year to actually get to watch the film, I must admit it is quite good. As a matter of fact, I am quite shocked at howWhile I am no fan of "The Hunger Games" books nor did I really hear about them until the film came out and I took a whole year to actually get to watch the film, I must admit it is quite good. As a matter of fact, I am quite shocked at how good it is. In my head it was somewhat of a "Twilight" phenomenon, so I discarded it immediately. However, it was misguided. "The Hunger Games" has an interesting premise, and a rather well thought out idea. The screenplay is well written and it achieves to keep one fully immersed into the film, and provides necessary thrills throughout the entirety of the film. I was so absorbed and intensely connecting with the characters, I got acid reflux from all the tension. Oh, no, I am not joking.

Anyhow, the technicalities of the film need no discussion, really. A film with such a huge budget will make sure to clean up nicely and "The Hunger Games" is no different. The performances were, surprisingly, quite convincing and were not forced. Jennifer Lawrence is pitch-perfect as the leading lady, and all the supporting cast does a good job. I was especially stricken by the emotional connection with, and performance by the young Amandla Stenberg. It is sad we will not be seeing her in the second instalment of the series, but what can one do.

Overall, it was a real pleasure to watch this film. Not only did it deliver unexpected thrills (at least unexpected to me), but it also managed to take the audience into that dystopian world of the future. How dystopic it really is is another question to be asked, especially in light of reality television and its ever-brutal entrance into the real lives of people. Quite often with dubious ethical, moral and taste breaches that leave one baffled.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
StevenFAug 15, 2013
It took a second viewing, well over a year after its initial release, to appreciate The Hunger Games a little more than my original thoughts, I didn't hate it, but I was certainly mountains away from liking it. My ongoing problem with book toIt took a second viewing, well over a year after its initial release, to appreciate The Hunger Games a little more than my original thoughts, I didn't hate it, but I was certainly mountains away from liking it. My ongoing problem with book to film adaptations is the unevenness of it all, it boils down to two simple scenarios, either make a carbon copy of the book, page for page, or simply adapt the story and make it a standalone piece, but the film tries to do both and sacrifices things that could have made it a much better film. A riveting and spellbinding first half hour sets us up in a post-apocalyptic universe where we have 12 districts full of those suffering the consequences of a war years before, and then we have the Capitol, full of the rich and powerful, who hold an annual televised games where the contestants, or "tributes" fight to the death and consist of a male and female from each district.
We are introduced to Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) who reluctantly but lovingly takes the place of her little sister who was originally picked to compete, Jennifer Lawrence brings a distinguished yet hardened approach to the role, her character knows what must be done and will do anything to see it happen, and she also carries quite a skill set as well. She meets Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), the male tribute, and they subsequently form an uneasy alliance in an attempt to survive, because once the games start, only one person shall arise victorious. My biggest problem with the film is how much violence needs to be pushed, but isn't, its subdued and completely backtracking on the point of the film, reaching to a bigger audience, ok, but when a sacrifice like this is made its hard not to feel cheated. There is definitely a severe lack of character development, particularly a young girl who we are really supposed to connect with, but her role in the film is that small we barely have time to blink before she is gone again.
Redeeming qualities of the film are the performances from the main cast, with a very emotional approach from Lawrence while we also have star talent like Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci. There is also excellent cinematography to enjoy, with a shaky technique used so as we are with Katniss throughout her harrowing journey. Its an enjoyable flick for a commanding first half but a second half that simply doesn't deliver, throwing to many big characters at us who ultimately don't get enough screen time, plus the lack of actual violence is truly frustrating, but decent performances and a worthwhile premise should be enough to see it.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
Rox22Oct 21, 2013
To be honest, I avoid this movie thinking it was going to be the next Twilight. Fortunately that is not the case. I have not read the books, nor do I care to so, so I don't have to care if it is as good as the source or not. I thoroughlyTo be honest, I avoid this movie thinking it was going to be the next Twilight. Fortunately that is not the case. I have not read the books, nor do I care to so, so I don't have to care if it is as good as the source or not. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie allot more than I would care to admit publicly.

But I do have my gripes too:

1) What the hell was with all the shaky cam? Were believable practical gore effects too expensive? Seriously, the cinematography was terrible, at least for most of the action sequences. I almost felt like the camera man was having seizures everytime he got excited.
2) The buildup took far too long and really did not do that great a job developing the characters. At least none of the side characters. The main character were OK but could have been better.
3) Far too many conveniences, the narrative does stray from believability at times.

Overall:
Even though it is a clear western copy and paste watered down version of Battle Royale, it's still allot of fun and some great performances from Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson. It wasn't the "chick-flick" I thought it was going to be.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
nickrovertOct 25, 2013
'The Hunger Games' may suffer from a slightly underwhelming main cast (with exception of the stunning Jennifer Lawrence), but it redeems itself through the use of a well-written script, visually stunning effects, well-directed acting, and an'The Hunger Games' may suffer from a slightly underwhelming main cast (with exception of the stunning Jennifer Lawrence), but it redeems itself through the use of a well-written script, visually stunning effects, well-directed acting, and an intriguing premise. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
KaptainHutchinoDec 12, 2013
Great acting and fresh direction make 'The Hunger Games' a great watch, but it can get predictable and sometimes the camera movements get a bit distracting.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
dogboat333Jan 3, 2014
Let me warn you: If you have not read the book you will have no idea what is going on. I watched this with my father, who never read the book, and I had to explain EVERYTHING to him. I, being a fan of the trilogy, thought it was fine.Let me warn you: If you have not read the book you will have no idea what is going on. I watched this with my father, who never read the book, and I had to explain EVERYTHING to him. I, being a fan of the trilogy, thought it was fine. Undeniably flawed, but still a decent flick. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
marcmyworksJan 22, 2014
This film is well written, acted and shot, however the beauty of it seems unnatural with its dark themes. I feel this film (along with the book series) is built more for a 'Harry Potter' audience and is to watered down for it's adult themes.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
jppl1999Apr 12, 2014
Nice film. It makes a nice discourse based on the book's message with an awesome performance from Jennifer Lawrence and a direction and production that worth it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
beingryanjudeSep 2, 2014
The constant comparisons to the novel from which it came are destined to tear down this film--but that's just not fair, it's really quite remarkable. Jennifer Lawrence and her fellow cast members bring this extraordinary tale to life on-screen.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
pierremSep 28, 2014
I don't think a movie aimed for teenage girls can be any better. In this view, 10/10 is deserved. But as an actual film, 7 seems fair to me. Maybe even 8.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
vikesh2206Nov 9, 2014
A solid start to a promising franchise, The Hunger Games thrills with good action sequences and a brilliant performance by Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
TheDarkKnight22Nov 30, 2014
The movie was okay, it was not that interesting in my opinion. I liked the books but the movie did not capture my attention as much as the books. It stayed too focused on the action of the hunger games and i began to lose my attention slowlyThe movie was okay, it was not that interesting in my opinion. I liked the books but the movie did not capture my attention as much as the books. It stayed too focused on the action of the hunger games and i began to lose my attention slowly and by the end of the movie i didn't care about what was happening. it was a well acted and a well scripted movie but most of the scenes were not that interesting to me. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
diogomendesMar 1, 2015
Its somewhat shaky cameras can be compensated by Jennifer Lawrence's all-star performance and its thrilling, emotionally resonant storytelling. One of the few YA films that actually works.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
VinceRocks123May 15, 2015
You know when you watch it a dozen times its not really that bad I think this is the only good book series to be made into a movie trilogy with a female lead

Lots of interesting characters and one gory story I just couldn't resist the urge
You know when you watch it a dozen times its not really that bad I think this is the only good book series to be made into a movie trilogy with a female lead

Lots of interesting characters and one gory story I just couldn't resist the urge to see it

a combination of the olympics with war its just undeniably tense
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
luketeddyJun 26, 2015
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Pretty good for the 1st movie. the one death of rue is one of the saddest deaths In movie history. the plot is that there is this battle royal were 24 kids fight to the death. it's not 100% original ( battle royal & gamer)but it's still a good film over all. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
xDaudexAug 14, 2015
Pros:
Switches traditional gender roles
World building Believable story Cons: Some sections of the story seem rushed, though this is a typical issue when converting a book to a movie The amount of people left at any given time is not
Pros:
Switches traditional gender roles
World building
Believable story

Cons:
Some sections of the story seem rushed, though this is a typical issue when converting a book to a movie
The amount of people left at any given time is not stated as often as it should
Not many of the contestants other than the main ones had any back story
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
grandpajoe6191Aug 25, 2015
"The Hunger Games" is probably one of the very few movies that doesn't get swept over by the teenage fad curse, with a huge thanks to excellent performances from Jennifer Lawrence.
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
7
MovieFan123Sep 21, 2015
When I originally saw The Hunger Games, I was wowed. Beautiful effects and strong acting. However, after recently re watching it I realized there were more problems than meet the eye. The Hunger Games is directed by Gary Ross and staresWhen I originally saw The Hunger Games, I was wowed. Beautiful effects and strong acting. However, after recently re watching it I realized there were more problems than meet the eye. The Hunger Games is directed by Gary Ross and stares Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson and Woody Harrelson. Let's start with the bad. After watching the sequels I realize (and don't hate me for this) Jennifer Lawrence is just not giving as strong a performance as in later films. It's perfectly fine but I wish she gave us a more layered performance in general. Also, there is little development of the supporting characters. We get there name, a general backstory but that's it. Also the main problem in this film is: Shaky Cam. This film's battle scenes have so much shaky cam at some points it's extremely hard to see what's going on. But of course there are good parts. The story is obviously excellent. Woody Harrelson gives a great performance, a mentor who seems crazy but is actually a man who has just lost his way. The visuals are spectacular and there are some true moments of emotion throughout this film. The capitol is beautifully designed with each building going beyond your wildest imaginations. Every possibly cheesy moment in the book is done right for the most part. Overall despite some problems with character development and shaky cam The Hunger Games is well- written well done adaption that opens the series up properly despite not being as good as Catching Fire. This is why I give it a 7/10. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
WrongKlenaNov 16, 2015
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Apesar de ser meio fiel o filme tem uma movimentação de câmeras péssima, uma maior visibilidade do casal falso Peeta e Katniss não bate com a relatada no livro, até mesmo o livro é mais pesado em questões de lutas, que são relatadas como sangrentas, oque não ocorreu no filme. O filme agrada, mas não dá imersão total aos telespectadores na história. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
teddy1984ltNov 27, 2015
Great movie really liked it I'm glad there are going to be sequels because I really want to know where it's going to go. There's one death it the movie that is one of the saddest deaths in a movie I have ever seen.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
CineAutoctonoDec 2, 2015
From book to film , and the fact the fact , the first delivery is the beginning of an adventure without contemplation , and left three reasons for this, first , had not read the book but pleased his story has been amazing , Second The historyFrom book to film , and the fact the fact , the first delivery is the beginning of an adventure without contemplation , and left three reasons for this, first , had not read the book but pleased his story has been amazing , Second The history which Katniss Everdeen volunteered to protect her sister Prim, which died in the last delivery but this character will be in our thoughts , her courage to play to survive, and so will live the rest of the story . Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
EpicLadySpongeJan 3, 2016
It's only a matter of time before this film received the score it should deserve for now. It totally deserve the 7 score for at least now. It'll rise sooner or later.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
NikitaBrandtJan 3, 2016
This is not a successful start of a series of films from the perspective of the director's work. But surely we must pay tribute to the actors, writer (Susan Collins) and set decorator.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
BarneyOnMTJan 5, 2016
WHAT I LIKED: It's a fantastic adaptation of the book that stays true to the excitement and futuristic society - like the pages you read have come to life. It's beautifully shot, gritty and exciting and (like the book) manages to retainWHAT I LIKED: It's a fantastic adaptation of the book that stays true to the excitement and futuristic society - like the pages you read have come to life. It's beautifully shot, gritty and exciting and (like the book) manages to retain interest throughout. This is largely thanks to Jennifer Lawrence who does such an excellent job of bringing Katniss to life.
WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE: It feels a little rushed, and maybe it stays too true to the book to be imaginative?
VERDICT: True Hunger Games fans will be impressed. This is as gripping and visual as the books were - that's a big achievement.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
mcfryFeb 29, 2016
The first third of Hunger Games surprised me genuinely, and it kept its hold on me. I had not expected that this fantasy would convey deep emotion. That, and the great actors, unique soundtrack and consequent art design add a lot to a notThe first third of Hunger Games surprised me genuinely, and it kept its hold on me. I had not expected that this fantasy would convey deep emotion. That, and the great actors, unique soundtrack and consequent art design add a lot to a not quite outworn scenario. I highly enjoyed the beauty and the quality of the film (and also, the overdone references to other genre movies will amuse for some time to come).

Sadly, when the fighting starts, the plot loses important nuances, although the story still motivated me enough to hold out to the end. An accomplishment, but the duration is probably just too long - something I usually don't say because I like a good epic. But in this case, weaknesses of an old plot recipe eat up almost the rest of the movie. That's why I gave 7 - after a captivating start and some precious sequences after that.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
aadityamudharApr 17, 2016
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
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
reviewfrom19842Aug 10, 2016
Pretty good movie even know it has a lot of cons but hads more pros for it to be and good movie............................................................
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
DavidTejadaSep 11, 2016
Em.... It was OK, if you watch The Hunger Games for the first time, you won't be able to follow and understand the story very much. But don't you worry, because it is fun and with special live-actions.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
ZerpnosMar 16, 2017
Kitabı okumadım, filmi de pek izlemeyi düşünmüyordum. Sonradan bir açıp bakayım dedim, zamanı güzel harcadığım bir film oldu. Senaryo olarak orta dereceli bir senaryosu var. Kitabını okuyanlar ve hayranı olanlar tarafından linç edilebilirimKitabı okumadım, filmi de pek izlemeyi düşünmüyordum. Sonradan bir açıp bakayım dedim, zamanı güzel harcadığım bir film oldu. Senaryo olarak orta dereceli bir senaryosu var. Kitabını okuyanlar ve hayranı olanlar tarafından linç edilebilirim belki. Diğer filmleri için meraklanıyorum, onların daha güzel konusu varmış gibi duruyor. İzledikçe göreceğiz bakalım. İyi bir film izleyin. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
spongeswiftJul 5, 2017
Well The Hunger Games is just a good movie. Catnis was a very strong character and usually movies based on books aren't great but The Hunger Games succeeded almost as flawlessly as Harry Potter. It was different from the books but not tooWell The Hunger Games is just a good movie. Catnis was a very strong character and usually movies based on books aren't great but The Hunger Games succeeded almost as flawlessly as Harry Potter. It was different from the books but not too different which was fresh because in my opinion I don't want to pay a ticket to go to a movie just to watch the book. Overall The Hunger Games was a fun adventure but some characters were just downright unlikeable. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
corkyberlinMar 24, 2012
It's tough rating this movie, because there is a lot to like - but it seems so intent on being the first in a series that it just barely stands on its own two feet. Really, I'm afraid that people who haven't read the books aren't going toIt's tough rating this movie, because there is a lot to like - but it seems so intent on being the first in a series that it just barely stands on its own two feet. Really, I'm afraid that people who haven't read the books aren't going to have the first clue about how good this story actually is and I wonder what this movie could have been if they'd allowed it to be it's own story as opposed to just a set up for the profit monster they expect the second and third parts to be. Not to mention, for a story called "The Hunger Games" you'd figure food would be a larger part of the story (as in the book), but there is surprisingly little of anything related to poverty, hunger, or food that contribute so much to who Peeta and Katniss (not to mention district 11's Rue) are as characters.

What's the like? Jennifer Lawrence, Stanley Tucci, and seeing how the games are run.
What's to hate? Really underdeveloped characters, poor pacing really hampers emotionally significant moments, and the camera work is at times amateurish.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
6
mugslangleyMar 25, 2012
I haven't read any of the books, but had heard good things about them and the film, so decided to take the plunge and watch it. I don't think it did a good job of setting up a back story for new comers, as all there really was, was the shortI haven't read any of the books, but had heard good things about them and the film, so decided to take the plunge and watch it. I don't think it did a good job of setting up a back story for new comers, as all there really was, was the short film during the initial tribute selection and the occasional flashback, which didn't go into much detail.

Once in the Capital, and the build up to and in the arena is where it got a lot more enjoyable. The action/ survival sequences were really well done, and made you feel more for the individual characters, but I couldn't help but want for more of a Battle Royale type 'only one survivor' story.

Overall it was a fun film to watch and I'll probably end up watching the trilogy as they come out, and read the books at some point too.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
6
RokosaurosMar 26, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I have read the entire Hunger Games series and had been looking forward to the movie immensely. I was disappointed at how normal the movie was. Don't get me wrong, the movie was good. But it certainly did not do the book justice due to several flaws. Firstly, the character development was rather weak especially the relationship between Peeta and Katniss. I believe that more effort and time could have been spent to show Peeta's love towards Katniss and also, why Katniss had no choice but to love him back during the course of the game. In terms of summarization of the story, I thought the script writer did a good job at taking important parts from the story so that the audience who did not read the book could get a general idea at what the movie was about. However, too many small details were left out. I find it irritating that the hovercraft did not appear to pick up dead bodies especially in Rue's scene. Even more so, President Snow was not depicted constantly licking his mouth. This and many other lack small details ruined the expectation, fun and excitement for the fans of the series. Meanwhile, I find scenes where most of the conversation occurs mainly in monologue rather boring. The actors can and have acted well, but many scenes of slow and quiet talking bore me out instead of making me feel what the characters were feeling at that time. I cannot imagine how it would be like for non book readers. Perhaps, the worst part is that the entire movie did not pick up sufficient pace to get the audience to enjoy the action scenes around the second half of the movie. It gave a rather monotonous atmosphere throughout the movie save for some exciting scenes.

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

P.S Haymitch was an **** in this movie. He sounds retarded with the cowboy accent.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
ctothMar 26, 2012
The Hunger Games? Well to me they were a mixture of an amazing storyline but had terrible execution. I think the romance was pushed to hard, and although there was phenomenal acting parts, a lot of it was a big slab of cheese. I would giveThe Hunger Games? Well to me they were a mixture of an amazing storyline but had terrible execution. I think the romance was pushed to hard, and although there was phenomenal acting parts, a lot of it was a big slab of cheese. I would give anywhere from a 6.0 to an 8.0 I think there downfall was the execution and the seemingly forced romance. In other words, it reminded me of Captain America with Chris Evans. All in all, a little less than satisfactory. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
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
6
ArchalolApr 1, 2012
While the background story and universe of this movie are compelling enough, the actual plot of the movie left me with a few unanswered questions. Action scenes and special effects were decent at best, and the ending felt too easy andWhile the background story and universe of this movie are compelling enough, the actual plot of the movie left me with a few unanswered questions. Action scenes and special effects were decent at best, and the ending felt too easy and rushed. The characters are thin as cardboard and their motivations never become clear. I also feel the creators could have done more with the psychological consequences of mortal kid combat than the occasional random outburst into tears. In the end, it's not a bad movie, it's decent enough to recommend it to anyone, but don't expect a top notch action film. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
KoalabrownieApr 3, 2012
I saw the movie before reading the book, my main desire to read the book was a lack of satisfaction with the movie and having read and seen both I think I understand why. The main problem with the movie adaptation is a lack of emotionalI saw the movie before reading the book, my main desire to read the book was a lack of satisfaction with the movie and having read and seen both I think I understand why. The main problem with the movie adaptation is a lack of emotional connection to the characters, I found it difficult to care about the characters because there simply was not much depth to them. In the book Katniss shows a certain vulnerability, particularly before the games, that is simply not conveyed in the film. She's confused, she's distrustful of Peeta, etcetera. She's essentially both scared and conflicted but putting on a brave face, and in the film the only sense I got was "brave face" with no depth behind it. This is a problem because the audience cannot relate to her to the level that is necessary. I think the movie could have used more close ups of her face, and maybe just more pantomime sort of acting, show us how she feels through her face, let us see her thinking, see the glimmer of fear and the grabbing hold of resolve. Instead she's stone-faced the whole time, and she does things without the audience seeing in her face the reason for her doing those things. The best part of the movie is the 5 minutes or so leading up to, and directly following the start of the game. Because we see her scared, and the start of the games has a very non-graphic but visceral feel to it but everything that follows is just not that interesting. The actor cast as peeta was also a poor choice. Myself and my company simply did not care for him as a character. The movie also shows a lot of behind the scenes footage, showing Seam when the games are being broadcast, showing the gamemakers, etcetera. None of this really adds to the movie. Sometimes it explains what's going on, or is a substitute for Katniss's own thoughts in the novel but the scenes are just not that compelling. Watching people manipulate computers is never that compelling. And while they give reason for things happening, they don't explain the mechanism for things happening and in that regard they do a disservice because my suspension of disbelief was torn a few times. Overall the movie had a lot of potential, but we as the audience simply don't care because we aren't given characters that we can care about. If the movie focused more on Katniss, showed the great depth of her emotion and her inner conflict, we would see her as more of a person and would relate to her struggle a lot more. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
ShadowBlazer400Apr 5, 2012
A lot of hype and little substance to back up what should be a very intelligent thriller. While hardly mindless fun, the film misses a number of opportunities to really build the world leaving non readers confused and uninterested. It's notA lot of hype and little substance to back up what should be a very intelligent thriller. While hardly mindless fun, the film misses a number of opportunities to really build the world leaving non readers confused and uninterested. It's not really until the battles that you might become remotely engaged in what's going on but even that's a stretch. The first half of the movie flies by with little background about why the Hunger Games are done the way they are, why there was an uprising to begin with and who these people in the Capitol are and their motivations for watching children slaughter each other on live TV.

The characters are strikingly bland and undeveloped and the relationship is just thrown in there to appeal to Twilight Fans. We don't know much about our main character other than she comes from a Coal Mining town and her father died somehow. (presumably in an accident or something). Her mother is a zoned out space cadet leaving Kat to care for her sister or something. The constant shaking of the camera is distracting and downright obnoxious, the first half of the movie I kept saying "hold the camera still." It's so tiring seeing shaking camera under the BS reason of "causing confusion" especially in a film that's supposed to be about the gravity of this sick and twisted game. I can't tell who's killed and I can't find my self caring. I don't know who anyone is or why they matter. The saving grass is an impressive score by James Newton Howard who actually managed to make an interesting music score this time. The film gives enough substance to make it interesting and worth checking out the future sequels but still leaves a lot to be desired. The characters are boring, the story is rushed, there's no exposition or reason for anyone to care. Bring a motion sickness bag if you are prone to an upset stomach.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
EastonReviewsApr 11, 2012
The Hunger Games is, a decent movie, I could say. It starts with Katniss, you fanboys know her, right? Well she is a dull character that has no reason for the audience to want her to win. As that continues, the plot expands, and the plot isThe Hunger Games is, a decent movie, I could say. It starts with Katniss, you fanboys know her, right? Well she is a dull character that has no reason for the audience to want her to win. As that continues, the plot expands, and the plot is great. Should keep viewers interested in this clever, expanding plot; despite it's simularities to "Most Dangerous Game". Anyways, Peeta, is another dull character. In fact, all the characters are. I can name a list of films that had begter characters. But then, I feel how the film was overall. In the end, it's an okay film, perhaps for the better than for the worse. I recommend this film, overall. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
The-SillyAkApr 14, 2012
I didnt like this movie to much.
It was boring to me.
The concept behind it was retarded.
Who has kids killing other kids?
Straight from the start you just knew how it was going to turn out.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
ernis_vApr 21, 2012
I expected more graphical violence - it plainly seems that they made the movie less violent, so kids could come to see it, and they would make more money. I really enjoyed the performance by the cast and the production value - you could feelI expected more graphical violence - it plainly seems that they made the movie less violent, so kids could come to see it, and they would make more money. I really enjoyed the performance by the cast and the production value - you could feel the fear in the air for the first hour and a half of the movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
critic1915May 25, 2012
I am like a lot of the movie goers and many of the "want to see this film" viewers who hasn't even read the book. I saw all of the Harry Potter films, and yet, I still didn't read those books either. My point here is that we should rememberI am like a lot of the movie goers and many of the "want to see this film" viewers who hasn't even read the book. I saw all of the Harry Potter films, and yet, I still didn't read those books either. My point here is that we should remember that a good amount of the viewers of this movie hasn't read the book and solely came to watch it for its entertainment purpose. I am one of those people. Prior to the movie, I knew the jest of what it was about. Pretty simple story, really: The movie is set in the future where a boy and a girl is chosen randomly from each district in the nation to fight to the death, all while the nation is watching it on television. The viewers of this movie follow Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) in district 12.
The cast itself was well chosen. I have seen Josh Hutcherson in a couple of movies prior to this film and I find it interesting how he has grown into this more mature character. I have seen Katniss Everdeen before as well and I wasn't surprised to see her portray this tough and almost what seemed angry character in this film. The plot was kind of bland for me. It was well done, but for me the story seemed to repeat itself with challenges. The challenges were either nature related or it had to deal with betrayal. The climax of the film, now that I think of it, was hard to find. I knew there was a point to where the end of the movie had to soon be over, but I also remember wondering when the movie was. It was hard to pick out the climax
The action sequences were good and they kept my attention. I have to point out that the movie set designs were really well done. You could tell that this movie was set on the future based off of the costuming and the set design. Overall, the problem that I had with this movie was that it just seemed that everything seemed too cliche. Many of the conflicts, the dialogue, the characters...they have all been used before in many other movies. I felt like I had read the book before and I knew what was going to happen. Was I disappointed with this film? No. This is kind of what I expected out of it. A lot of young readers created a lot of build up for a movie that based itself off of the book that they read. Media, previews, gossip...it all created build up for something that just turned out good in the end- not great. Luckily, I knew what the movie was about before I saw it, sot that I wouldn't have been too disappointed.
This was a movie worth watching and I may watch it once or twice again when the time arrives randomly, but I feel as though this movie will be forgotten.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Beast73Jun 13, 2012
Read the book before watching this film, it will help you to understand everything better. The film is ok and Woody Harrelson is good in it. Its not violent enough and i appreciate the certification but it would have hit home more if it wasRead the book before watching this film, it will help you to understand everything better. The film is ok and Woody Harrelson is good in it. Its not violent enough and i appreciate the certification but it would have hit home more if it was more explicit violence-wise. My tip is to watch Battle Royale instead, its a simiar plot but a much better film. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
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
6
marooom5Aug 6, 2012
LO MEJOR....Jennifer Lawrence y Gary Ross que apuesta por un enérgico entretenimiento para contrarrestar tanto romance cursi en el que se suele caer en este tipo de films.
LO PEOR.... la dirección artística (dada por su
LO MEJOR....Jennifer Lawrence y Gary Ross que apuesta por un enérgico entretenimiento para contrarrestar tanto romance cursi en el que se suele caer en este tipo de films.
LO PEOR.... la dirección artística (dada por su escaso presupuesto) y lo light que resulta la película para una historia de estas características.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
White_InsaneAug 19, 2012
The movie itself isn't that bad but the story wasn't in my opinion told good.
I did not read the book but during the movie I felt constantly like something is missing and that lasted through entire movie. The end confirmed that something is
The movie itself isn't that bad but the story wasn't in my opinion told good.
I did not read the book but during the movie I felt constantly like something is missing and that lasted through entire movie. The end confirmed that something is missing because the ending gave the vibe of something unfinished. Overall I would also like to add that movie could've lasted for 30-40 minutes shorter and with better storytelling.
Expand
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
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
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
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
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
6
2ndfloorMar 10, 2013
The movie Gladiator felt real. You got the feeling that the gladiators were going to fight to their death: they were peeing before the gates opened up, they were silent, etc... The people in The Hunger Games might as well have been at aThe movie Gladiator felt real. You got the feeling that the gladiators were going to fight to their death: they were peeing before the gates opened up, they were silent, etc... The people in The Hunger Games might as well have been at a party. They showed no sense of worry or that they were about to fight each other for their lives. Maybe the younger ones might have wondered what was going on even!

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

I wanted to see the audience (in the film) cheering on the kills, like in Gladiator. I wanted to be shocked and scared at the end. Having two main characters survive at the end (and both return home) gave me the sense that the movie was about youth surviving, not youth being killed.
Expand
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
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
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
6
IamthejuanNov 28, 2013
Ok; honestly, I didn't see this originally because it didn't look interesting to me. But everyone hyped it up, and now with all the "catching fire" buzz I decided to check out the first one to see if I was wrong. The 6 rating is to be fair toOk; honestly, I didn't see this originally because it didn't look interesting to me. But everyone hyped it up, and now with all the "catching fire" buzz I decided to check out the first one to see if I was wrong. The 6 rating is to be fair to the actors, who did a great job with a ridiculous script. The premise of the movie is unbelievable, while the parallels with reality are too subtle and underdeveloped. It is like half action movie, half Alice in Wonderland (the strange Tim Burton one), and it doesn't work-- at least, not for me. I have heard the books are better; well that is usually true, but if the book is based on the same premise-- a futuristic society hosting gladiator events between children --I would probably find it equally ridiculous. Expand
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
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
HighPriestesaMay 18, 2014
It's kinda nice and watchable. Background story is great. But it lacks depth. Some moments are really weird and not in a good way ... The costume design is awesome, very creative!
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
FilmwritingmindJan 3, 2015
I loved the film on its initial release. Rewatching it,, the plot is straightfoward. It's 21st century "Running Man", for the teens. Unreality television being parodied. What makes the film interesting in the world, Jennifer Lawrence as theI loved the film on its initial release. Rewatching it,, the plot is straightfoward. It's 21st century "Running Man", for the teens. Unreality television being parodied. What makes the film interesting in the world, Jennifer Lawrence as the " rising star." Expand
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
HotelCentralDec 30, 2017
The first hour of the film is preamble to the actual "games" and the costumes we're treated to at "The Capital" seem straight out of Terry Gilliam's comic dystopian film Brazil. There's nothing in the movie to indicate that anyone involvedThe first hour of the film is preamble to the actual "games" and the costumes we're treated to at "The Capital" seem straight out of Terry Gilliam's comic dystopian film Brazil. There's nothing in the movie to indicate that anyone involved in the production knows the first thing about bushcraft. Heck, it isn't even clear if the action in the woods is real or the creation of some "Matrix"-like computer system which permits the show-runners of the Games to call up beasts and fireworks at the touch of a console key.

Then there's the matter of the justification for holding the games. Is it a punishment for a rebellion or a patriotic exercise? What exactly is the motivation for the participants? Maybe you have to read the books to get it.

All in all, the film struck me as a young adult production and in contrast to many reviews I thought it slow, superficial, and short on story. The acting was fine but the cast had so little to work with I wouldn't recommend the film to any except diehard fans of the novels and to them I would say don't expect much.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
joehezziApr 3, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The start of the film was very promising, setting up the film well. It showed the relationships between characters brilliantly for the short amount of time there was to do that in. The relationship between Catniss and her sister,Prim, was particularly well done, and you could at least see that there was some sort of history between Catniss and her mother. The only thing that could of been explained much better in the introduction was the absence of the father. The other thing that was done well was the history of the country Panem. Although many readers of the book might have felt disappointed with it, I felt that it showed us just enough so that we weren't clueless about it's history and it didn't drag on too much.

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

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

But one thing that I do give The Hunger Games credit for is it's ability not to bore you. It could very easily be one of the most boring films of all time as although the book is very good it has parts where there is not so much action. The director managed to not cut these parts out put curve round them. Another thing I credit this film with is it's 50/50 chesiness. They've done it perfectly. While not making it to dark and unhollywoody they've also made it not too "Disney". The bit that really proved my point is the bit where there about to eat the berry (Yes it would of been better if they had eaten the berry but come on that's not going to happen) and instead of making it all dramatic and and making the gamemaker say in slow motion with crappy music, "Nooooooooo...wait. You win. We are the bad guys and we have lost", the gamemaker splutters as though really panicked and with no cheesy music, "Wait, wait, ur... both of you can win" which made the whole cinema laugh and really redeemed the film for me. All I can say about this film to sum it up is that it's better than Twilight, go and see it if you want and that I'm not eagerly awaiting the sequel at all.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
KMrhinoApr 5, 2012
Mediocre movie adaptation from a great book. I read the book and was looking forward to seeing it come to life. I really loved the capital scenes and the arena: just what I pictured. I also pictured the casting of Haymitch, Cinna and KatnessMediocre movie adaptation from a great book. I read the book and was looking forward to seeing it come to life. I really loved the capital scenes and the arena: just what I pictured. I also pictured the casting of Haymitch, Cinna and Katness but Josh cast as Peeta just wasnt as i pictured. The character development was the biggest flaw i felt from the movie. I got nothing from Katniss or Peeta. I didnt believe that Peeta had a deep love for Katniss. Nor did they go in any detail about Katniss' past. Haymitch isnt a drunk nor did they tell much about his back story or his role in the story. It really just seemed like they left out alot of detail from the books, assuming that the viewers already read the books. This created some plot holes, and really the movie should be separate from the book. Its not the best movie ever like some uber fans say. A good rent. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
GygaaApr 6, 2012
It had a few interesting ideas, unfortunately it was let down by a confused, forced love-story seemingly aimed at the Twilight audience. The action scenes had potential yet because the film was a 12a it was barely allowed to explore them,It had a few interesting ideas, unfortunately it was let down by a confused, forced love-story seemingly aimed at the Twilight audience. The action scenes had potential yet because the film was a 12a it was barely allowed to explore them, resorting to jumpy cuts from certain fights to give the impression of brutality. Before the Hunger Games themselves, the film was heading in the right direction, however once we arrive at the big event, what takes place is at times nonsensical.
At the end of the day, the film falls prey to the same issue that most book to film adaptations face, there's simply not enough screen time to explore the story in-depth.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
PCgamr12Apr 6, 2012
Yes, I have read the books. Maybe I'm a little biased, but this movie was disappointing. Yes, it was entertaining. Yes, most of the acting is done well. But, that doesn't excuse all the stuff they cut out. It wasn't even that they cut outYes, I have read the books. Maybe I'm a little biased, but this movie was disappointing. Yes, it was entertaining. Yes, most of the acting is done well. But, that doesn't excuse all the stuff they cut out. It wasn't even that they cut out important stuff, they just SHORTENED important stuff. There was not enough time spent developing the relationships between the characters. There was especially not enough time spent developing Katniss and Rue. Same thing with Katniss and Peeta. Another problem is that this movie assumes that you read the book, so it doesn't bother to explain a lot of stuff. Overall, it was entertaining, but I will NOT be buying this when it comes out on DVD. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
cwbradyApr 6, 2012
I was expecting more. Also kids killing kids did not sit well with me. I guess I'm okay with that. The day I am okay with that I need to see a psychiatrist.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
OverrwatcherApr 6, 2012
NOTE: IF YOU HAVE READ THE BOOK: MAKE THIS A 7/10. TL;DR THE MOVIE WOULD'VE BEEN POTENTIAL FOR BEST PICTURE BUT IT IS RUINED BY ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE PACING AND CHARACTER/WORLD DEVELOPMENT. The acting is superb (Especially Woody Harrelson asNOTE: IF YOU HAVE READ THE BOOK: MAKE THIS A 7/10. TL;DR THE MOVIE WOULD'VE BEEN POTENTIAL FOR BEST PICTURE BUT IT IS RUINED BY ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE PACING AND CHARACTER/WORLD DEVELOPMENT. The acting is superb (Especially Woody Harrelson as Haymitch) the visuals/audio stunning, and it follows rather well with the book. It paints an excellent image from the book. So why does it have a 5/10? Two reasons: Pacing and Character/World Development. The pacing was absolute crap. So crap it brings the score down by 2 points. With the 2 1/2 hours of the film, some scenes were uselessly prolonged (ESPECIALLY THE BEGINNING. The book had a long beginning, but it used it to explain the story), and could've been used to develop and explain the story. Character/World Development? For those who haven't read the book, this movie will be very confusing. It doesn't explain the purpose of the Districts, who most of the people are, the reasons behind the actions done, and generally what's going on. Who was that old guy with the big white beard? President Snow. Who was that guy with the strange stubble beard? Seneca Crane, the Head Gamemaker. Who was that cat at the beginning? Buttercup, one of Prim's pets, who only tolerates Katniss. Why is it called the "Hunger" games? Because most of the districts are in poverty, and many people starve to death. The winner of the Hunger Games get out of that poverty, and the district gets some extra food. What happened to District 13? It was destroyed by the Capitol during the Dark Days of the rebellion (No, this isn't a spoiler. This is backstory known by all the characters), as a demonstration of the Capitol's power and because it's possible to live without graphite. If you just watched the film without reading the book, you wouldn't know any of that stuff. So much potential ruined. sigh Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Wolfland09Apr 8, 2012
This movie was a good but lacking adaptation of a great book. There are significant shortenings and unnecessary switches to make this movie PG 13. I understand the fact that in order to achieve significant revenue this movie had to beThis movie was a good but lacking adaptation of a great book. There are significant shortenings and unnecessary switches to make this movie PG 13. I understand the fact that in order to achieve significant revenue this movie had to be adaptable to a larger audience but it ripped the core of the story. i sutil recomendar watching it, but You WILL need to fill the gaps by reading the book. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
magnianhkApr 8, 2012
The movie is just as shallow as the book. There's little depth, zero character development, and the technology that The Capitol exudes is entirely unbelievable. 1. Shaking-camera approach was the wrong choice. The director was going forThe movie is just as shallow as the book. There's little depth, zero character development, and the technology that The Capitol exudes is entirely unbelievable. 1. Shaking-camera approach was the wrong choice. The director was going for that voyeuristic, narrow-perspective, suspenseful feeling but it just ends up giving the viewer a headache. I found myself squinting at the screen for the first half of the movie (shakiness seems to absolve once the tributes arrive in the arena), and I found myself rubbing my eyes more than paying attention.

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

3. Just to have a third item... all of those tributes sure are GOOD LOOKING for being so poor. And why weren't there any fat tributes? One last thing: If these Hunger Games have been going on for close to 75 years, wouldn't every district by now train their tributes?
Expand
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
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
5
EddyMacApr 15, 2012
success does not imply quality. while you can't argue the fact that The Hunger Games is a box office success, the film itself is quite a let down. as with many teen novels that are adapted to film, the film displays a fundamentally poorlysuccess does not imply quality. while you can't argue the fact that The Hunger Games is a box office success, the film itself is quite a let down. as with many teen novels that are adapted to film, the film displays a fundamentally poorly thought out execution. The plot is under developed, almost implying knowledge that can only be know from reading the book, an example of which is the relationship of the primary character (Katniss) with her Mother. The characters are underdeveloped and the plot lacks appeal. If you don't enjoy picking apart films, then you should enjoy it regardless of what anyone has to say. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
PJPazApr 19, 2012
First of all, this is a 2-Dramamine movie - one of those films, like "The Hurt Locker" where the camera operator shakes it around on purpose, most likely to convince you that it's a dramatic scene. The result neither increases the tension norFirst of all, this is a 2-Dramamine movie - one of those films, like "The Hurt Locker" where the camera operator shakes it around on purpose, most likely to convince you that it's a dramatic scene. The result neither increases the tension nor settles the stomach. It does, however, draw attention to itself, reminding you that there's a guy/woman holding a camera and that we're watching a movie. Aside from that, and aside from the usual "Let's get to know the contestants before we kill them" format (in fairness, quite unavoidable if it's to remain true to the book), this isn't a bad action movie. We all know how much the book owes to Shirley Jackson ("The Lottery"), but then we all know how JK Rowlings borrowed liberally. I don't begrudge them that. I'm just hoping they hold the damn camera still in the next movie. Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
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
5
JackAttackMay 17, 2012
To be completely honest The Hunger Games did nothing for me. Yes i've read the book, Yes I loved the book, Yes I watched the movie, In fact twice. Most scenes in the movie can't even be compared to the Book. Maybe it's because this is theTo be completely honest The Hunger Games did nothing for me. Yes i've read the book, Yes I loved the book, Yes I watched the movie, In fact twice. Most scenes in the movie can't even be compared to the Book. Maybe it's because this is the first time where I've read the book before the movie, if thats the case I will be very disappointed in the hobbit. Anyway, I rate this movie a 5, merely for the greatness of the book, not the movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
TylahedrasMay 20, 2012
I found hunger games the book to be quite enjoyable but this movie does little to take the interesting universe and make it into a compelling film. Pacing is off with the movie being either too much action or too much silently looking offI found hunger games the book to be quite enjoyable but this movie does little to take the interesting universe and make it into a compelling film. Pacing is off with the movie being either too much action or too much silently looking off into the distance. The main character is supposed to be a great thinker and strategist, but there is no attempt to display her cleverness, she's just mute most of the time. The action which does occur suffers from lazy "shaky cam" shots. And the sets and characters are all far to clean and precise to feel real. It's like watching a stage drama put on at your local park. Still the saving grace is the source material which still manages to save the whole production to some degree by taking place in such a strange compelling world. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
dedasMay 23, 2012
I went to see this movie with my girlfriend and it seemed to me as if this is some sort of predictable cliche story. Don't get me wrong It's OK movie if you are not interesting in something that's brain challenging. It's like watching SFI went to see this movie with my girlfriend and it seemed to me as if this is some sort of predictable cliche story. Don't get me wrong It's OK movie if you are not interesting in something that's brain challenging. It's like watching SF movie without science and fiction in it, you know that story is hollow and impossible to happen in real life, but who cares if you have couple of hours of spare time to waste. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
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
5
snazzyjuiceJul 19, 2012
It was a good movie with an amazing performance by Jennifer Lawrence and terrific costume design. But every movie has it's flaws and with this one: the fans.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews