Lionsgate | Release Date: March 23, 2012
7.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1790 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,244
Mixed:
356
Negative:
190
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
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