The Hunger Games (2012)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Zach B

  
  My history of The Hunger Games goes back before the series became as huge and popular as it is now. Relooking at the novels when they first came to be, I guess I kind of expected it to become as huge as something like the famous Harry Potter series was. But in all actuality, the books… More
  My history of The Hunger Games goes back before the series became as huge and popular as it is now. Relooking at the novels when they first came to be, I guess I kind of expected it to become as huge as something like the famous Harry Potter series was. But in all actuality, the books themselves were okay. They were nothing new, due to the idea of a government program that forced kids to fight one another has already been done in Japan. But this is not a comparison between this film and Battle Royal. This is a review of The Hunger games and my main reaction. Going into this film, I was not expecting something that would win a crap load of awards at the Oscars, but I was looking for something entertaining. The Hunger Games, in short, is entertaining in some areas, gorgeous to look at, but pretty much bland in every other area. This is a disappointment because I was hoping for this film to be oh so much more. But, with how Hollywood is turning out films, I guess not every wish for film can come true. The first thing I noticed was how the acting was played out. Okay, I understand that this is aimed towards teens, but come on: can we get some better actors in here? Just because a film is aimed at teens does not mean that the acting has to be mediocre. In fact, the only actor that was memorable was Woody Harrelson as Haymitch (the drunk winner of a previous game). He just steals the show in every frame he is in and is just fun to watch. I just love how he has that attitude where he acts like he does not care, but in reality he does. In fact, I kind of wished that the film centered on his character. For Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), I do not know what I was expecting but I felt under whelmed with her performance. I guess I was hoping for some more emotion other than emotionless and worry. With the circumstances she endures, I would of expected a wider range of emotion. But for what she shows, itâ(TM)s okay. Not something I will remember, but there you have it. The cinematography and effects along with the set designs are breathtaking to look at. Watching the film, I was left wondering if the art director was having a laugh at how to design the capitol, the costume manager for the fantastic outfits everyone wears (LOVED Effieâ(TM)s outfits), and the cinematographer for how this film was shot. All of that alone makes this film watch-able and enjoyable. Deep down, I was hoping that this film could launch something as power and impacting as Harry Potter did (in order to bring respect and honor to adaptations and young adult literature). While this did do leagues better than the Twilight films, I feel that the future films will sink down to bearable. I hope to God I am wrong, but as a stand alone film, The Hunger Games is alright. Not really something I would watch again, but something that would be good to just pass time when needed.

• MisterYoda ?

  
  three stars

• E.J. B

  
  Aside from a few story changes that don't really affect the overall outcome of the narrative, the film adaptation of Suzanne Collins' brilliant novel, The Hunger Games, captures the political and social undertones while making a fast paced sci-fi action picture that… More
  Aside from a few story changes that don't really affect the overall outcome of the narrative, the film adaptation of Suzanne Collins' brilliant novel, The Hunger Games, captures the political and social undertones while making a fast paced sci-fi action picture that doesn't exploit the idea of kids being trapped in an arena to fight to the death. Director Gary Ross knows what he's doing. It helps that he had Ms. Collins as a co-writer and producer to help him accurately portray the novel in the way she envisioned it. That doesn't necessarily make for a good film; The Hunger Games is a great film because of its pacing, its focus, the performances, and the way the film skims over the violence of the novels for a more accurate portrayal of a nation that governs its people through fear and fascism. Front and centre to all this is Katniss Everdeen, the young heroine played by Jennifer Lawrence. Lawrence may be a bit old for the part, but she understands every little conscious and subconscious motive of her character. Just the slightest look from her communicates an entire page of inner monologue from her character in the book. Equally great are her romantic supporting characters, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and Gale (Liam Hemsworth). The focus is not on them, but their limited screen presence adds to the complexity of the story and Katniss' plight. Woody Harrelson deserves a best supporting actor nod for his work as the always drunk but very smart Haymitch Abernathy. And the ever great Donald Sutherland portrays President Snow as the ideal villain who will have a very big roll in the films to come. The film has a more epic focus than the novel, which focused solely around Katniss. It would have been too difficult and too shallow to make a film that satirizes reality tv without multiple perspectives. Ross and Co. remarkably succeed in adding new scenes and finding new ways of communicating all the things that happen apart from Katniss, making the nation of Panem seem as believable and real as the danger in which these children have been forced to be in. The summer has started early, and The Hunger Games sets the bar astonishingly high for this year's blockbusters. This is a film with intelligence that understands that films work when the action and effects serve the story, not the other way around.

• Sophie B

  
  Having not read the books, I was pretty reluctant to join the over-hype of the film and only saw it in the cinema by chance but I can say I'm honestly so thankful that I saw it. It's a great and involving film with plenty of brilliant young actors on board. There really… More
  Having not read the books, I was pretty reluctant to join the over-hype of the film and only saw it in the cinema by chance but I can say I'm honestly so thankful that I saw it. It's a great and involving film with plenty of brilliant young actors on board. There really isn't much I can fault about this, but I'm being picky so it really bugged me that it's very similar to the Japanese Battle Royale (even though the author of the books claimed to have never heard of it), so for me it lost a bit of credibility. Also, Lawrence did do a brilliant performance, however as others have noted she doesn't look the starving girl living to survive which broke the realism of the film but other than that I can't really complain. A great film.

• First L

  
  "The Hunger Games" (for those of you who don't know) is, like Harry Potter or Twilight, a book (or series of books) aimed at young adults which has been made into an extraordinarily profitable film. While films like this are typically geared towards the adolescent fans… More
  "The Hunger Games" (for those of you who don't know) is, like Harry Potter or Twilight, a book (or series of books) aimed at young adults which has been made into an extraordinarily profitable film. While films like this are typically geared towards the adolescent fans of the books, it's always interesting for the outsider (mainly me) to see if a coherent (or even watchable for that matter) film can be made from the source material. The film "The Hunger Games" definitely has it's quirks, the very idea of a 'hunger games' seems like it would be counter-productive to any fascist regime's goals, but overall, it's a surprisingly entertaining bit of B-movie sci-fi. The story revolves around a girl named Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), who has volunteered to take her sister's place in the Hunger Games after her sister wins the draft lottery to represent their district (there are 12 districts and each one picks one boy and one girl to represent them). At the Hunger Games, these kids will fight to the death, and the winner will be crowned the victor of the hunger games and will be some sort of a hero or something I guess. There have been seventy four of these hunger games, which began as some sort of penance or tribute the 12 districts must show after some sort of failed rebellion (or something). I'm not really sure, the point is, the kids all fight. Katniss is an expert tracker and bow hunter and is picked as an odds on early favorite. The male counterpart from her district (Josh Hutcherson), may not have her outdoors savvy, but he learns to use the media to garner favor. You see, the Hunger Games are as much about winning fans from the upper classes as they are about surviving and killing. The more support you get from rich patrons, the better your chances of survival will become. It's sort of like 'American Idol' meets 'Deathrace 2000'. While there is a lot of fun in The Hunger Games, and a lot to root for, the overall package isn't very well developed. The film draws heavily from Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" and it's dystopian society, but it lacks impetus. A seventy five year old tradition of murder and suicide has to be kept going by something other than fear and intimidation. The people participating have to actually believe in it, or else it's doomed from the get go. There is some very brief lip service paid to the notion that the hunger games are a source of pride for the participating districts, but really all that's shown onscreen is public dissent. Using these games as a means of quelling the masses is pretty ineffective both in conception and in execution. Really, why are the hunger games accepted for 75 years? Why aren't the people in power, with their godlike technological power more sympathetic to the demands of the people who produce their raw materials? How can they be so blithely unaware their master plan is so ineffectual? Maybe I'm putting too much thought into something that's meant only as disposeable entertainment (both the movie and the plot device within). As I said before, the film was entertaining (albeit a little cheesy), but as a mirror held up to society's evils, it's a bit under-developed and perhaps even a little naive.

• Cynthia S

  
  I have read all the books in this series, and I absolutely loved them. This movie was not NEARLY as compelling as the books, in my opinion..but it was good, and well done. There were some people left out completely, which made them have to rewrite some important scenes. For example,… More
  I have read all the books in this series, and I absolutely loved them. This movie was not NEARLY as compelling as the books, in my opinion..but it was good, and well done. There were some people left out completely, which made them have to rewrite some important scenes. For example, how she acquired the Mockingjay pin. That is completely different, and made me go "huh?". But. all in all, they did a decent job with a rather unique concept film. I am very interested to see how they work the rest of the books....

• Sam B

  
  Pretty faithful to the novel and well-acted by both Lawrence and Hutcherson (and his stupid jawline), The Hunger Games is fun and well-paced, though the atrociously cheesy dialogue from Collins' books become glaringly painful on the screen. Also, with so many characters, the… More
  Pretty faithful to the novel and well-acted by both Lawrence and Hutcherson (and his stupid jawline), The Hunger Games is fun and well-paced, though the atrociously cheesy dialogue from Collins' books become glaringly painful on the screen. Also, with so many characters, the movie struggles to make you care about any of them other than Katniss.

• Mark H

  
  Screenwriters understand that what makes science fiction ultimately succeed isn't a lot of special effects and pyrotechnics, it's fascinating characters. The fact that the games don't actually start until past the halfway point wasn't a problem for me. This… More
  Screenwriters understand that what makes science fiction ultimately succeed isn't a lot of special effects and pyrotechnics, it's fascinating characters. The fact that the games don't actually start until past the halfway point wasn't a problem for me. This concerns a loss of innocence, not which child can throw a knife better. Jennifer Lawrence is star Katniss Everdeen. Not only does she embody her tough, athletic skills but she projects a vulnerability that is incredibly affecting. Lawrence is believable as our young heroine even when she is up against competitors that are stronger and more physically imposing like Cato from District 2. Matching her is fellow tribute player from District 12, Peeta Mellark, portrayed by Josh Hutcherson. Their relationship is touching. It grounds the picture and we genuinely care about them. Also of note is Rue, a tiny bird-like girl with a lot of heart. Her friendship with Katniss provides one of several engaging plot points. The Hunger Games is always exciting, never boring. Despite the familiar trappings, director Gary Ross infuses the story with a style and excitement that not only benefits the original novel, it improves upon it. Katniss Everdeen is a protagonist we can love and champion. She's at the center of a swift and rousing drama. It's telling that given the 142 minute running time, I was surprisingly prepared for a longer movie. That's how involved I was.

• Daniel M

  
  For all the bile and boredom caused by awards season, few things fill a seasoned film fan with more dread than the first blockbuster of 'the long summer'. The first studio tent-pole of a calendar year can set the tone for the whole period between this year's Oscar party… More
  For all the bile and boredom caused by awards season, few things fill a seasoned film fan with more dread than the first blockbuster of 'the long summer'. The first studio tent-pole of a calendar year can set the tone for the whole period between this year's Oscar party finishing and next year's nominations starting. If that film is bad (worse still, if it's bad and takes money) it can send so-called true film fans running for the hills, going into hibernation to save up for something with an ounce of brains. Fortunately, this year is different - at least so far. The Hunger Games, billed as Lord of the Flies for the Twilight generation, has been hyped to the gills like so many of its competitors. The targeted media campaign and huge buzz surrounding the trailers could have resulted in the kind of abject disappointment caused by the majority of modern blockbusters. In fact, it's a really great film, joining the company of Source Code and Inception as one of the best blockbusters of recent times. Both the novel and film of The Hunger Games have their roots in dystopian science fiction, something which is clearly brought out in Gary Ross' visual decisions. The film is replete with references to other science fiction and fantasy films which have addressed issues surrounding the possible morality of television, the role of children in society, and how advanced societies have reduced and compartmentalised violence, turning a genuine external threat into a form of entertainment. Many critics have compared this to Battle Royale, Kinji Fukasaku's ultra-violent swan song in which hundreds of Japanese schoolchildren are conscripted into a government game and brutally murder each other. While Ross and author Suzanne Collins have not acknowledged Battle Royale as an influence, its gruesome updating of Lord of the Flies is in the back of all The Hunger Games' moral dilemmas. This time around the threat is not nuclear annihilation, nor internal civil unrest: it is the need to reduce violence down to entertainment, using children to pacify and galvanise the masses to prevent history repeating itself. The visuals of The Hunger Games are like a catalogue of science fiction references. The long sections in the woods, with Katniss and Peeta teaming up and joining forces, recall the middle section of Logan's Run where Logan and Jessica stumble outside the city walls and discover the ruins of their ancestors. The policemen and riot gear are similar aesthetically to those in Soylent Green, while the rubber cat-suits worn at the presentation of the tributes are a possible nod to the X-Men series. There are other references on show too from outside of science fiction. The opening scene, in which children from Sector 12 are lined up to face the Reaping, is eerily close to the long scenes in Schindler's List where the Jews are registered by the German authorities. The fashions in the Capitol, particularly in the costumes worn by Elizabeth Banks, are somewhere between the Flesh Fair from A.I., the films of Tim Burton and the most bizarre offerings of London Fashion Week. There is a grotesquely gothic feel to many of the characters which have the darker aspects of Burton written all over them. Under normal circumstances, being able to spot so many such references, and with such ease, would lead to disappointment. They would create a feeling of over-familiarity, a sense that the film was deeply derivative, and that its eye-catching visuals were simply an ineffective distraction from the lack of anything new. But with The Hunger Games this is not the case, and there are two good reasons for this. Firstly, it is refreshing to find a modern-day blockbuster which genuinely understands science fiction, and which is trying to present a dystopian, 1970s story with a modern sheen. Much like James Watkins on The Woman in Black, Gary Ross clearly has great knowledge and affection for these kinds of stories, and believes crucially that they have validity for modern audiences. His creative decisions draw from the sci-fi well very deeply, but with every decision he wants his audience to think, offering them familiarity not as a form of comfort but as a platform for further examination. Secondly, The Hunger Games uses all these tropes and motifs to tell an interesting story to great effect. The film examines the ethics of reality television, drawing on works like Shock Treatment, The Running Man and especially My Little Eye, which argued that reality TV is essentially the new pornography. The harrowing plight of the young protagonists is set against the backdrop of a society based on extreme inequality and voyeuristic hedonism. The Capitol parties at the expense of those in the Hunger Games, making huge amounts of money while the little people are either murdered or left to starve. The film is brilliant at exploring manipulation, again contrasting the internal game theory of the tributes with the outside tampering of the rules. The world outside The Hunger Games is one of flamboyance and excess, with the Games' producers exhibiting as ruthless a drive for ratings as Faye Dunaway's character in Network. They introduce new obstacles whenever audiences get bored, resulting to firebombing the forest and unleashing tigers with no consideration for the competitors. This atmosphere of the rules constantly changing is reflected in the characters' psychology. Peeta states ahead of the Games that "whatever happens, I still want to be me" - but as soon as he enters the arena, he forms an alliance with three of his rivals in order to track down and kill Katniss. Katniss likewise finds herself pandering to her audience, flaunting her flaming dress on the chat show to get sponsors and agreeing to 'fall in love' with Peeta. The romance between them is intentionally forced, so that we are unsure whether it is tactical or genuine emotion. There has been some controversy over the classification of the film, with much discussion over what may or may not have been omitted to get a 12A. Regardless of what may have been lost, the film is incredibly brutal, with scenes that would be troubling at any level. Ross' rapid handheld camerawork means that the bloody deaths are not shown in as much detail as would be allowed at 15. But even with the evasive camerawork and sparing levels of blood, this is definitely top-end 12A. The Hunger Games is impressive for balancing both the shock of its subject matter and the attractive aura of its visual landscape. Certain images in the film are amazingly cool, such as Katniss and Peeta riding into the Capitol in a chariot with flames coming off their clothing. But there are at least as many images which are disturbing, shocking or repulsive, for all the right reasons. The death of Rue is deeply traumatic, interrupting the thrill of the chase to remind us how grim things really are. The film is anchored by the tremendous central performance of Jennifer Lawrence. Having excelled in Winter's Bone two years ago, this is the performance that cements her as one of the best young actors in Hollywood. She has grace, grit and immense charisma, creating a character that may come to be regarded as this generation's Lieutenant Ripley. She is capably supported by a career-best Elizabeth Banks, a compellingly irascible Woody Harrelson, a shimmering Stanley Tucci and a wonderfully slimy Toby Jones. The Hunger Games is one of the best films of 2012 and perhaps the best blockbuster since Inception. It's clearly not the most visually distinctive film ever made, and the familiarity of its references may put some viewers off. But for the most part it is an impressive demonstration of how good mainstream sci-fi can be when it is made by people who understand both the genre and the fans. There is plenty to chew on in this chilling and thrilling film, and I am genuinely looking forward to the sequel.

• Dan S

  
  An impressive, clever, entertaining take on politics, culture, and youth, and how in a futuristic society where an oppressive government holds a "Hunger Games" tournament where a boy and girl chosen from each of the twelve districts fight to the death until only one of them… More
  An impressive, clever, entertaining take on politics, culture, and youth, and how in a futuristic society where an oppressive government holds a "Hunger Games" tournament where a boy and girl chosen from each of the twelve districts fight to the death until only one of them is left. Skilled archer girl Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) volunteers for her sister who is selected in a drawing, while shy and sensitive Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) are chosen to represent one of the districts. While the direction nor screenplay possesses the appropriate amount of violence to really drive home the primary message it is trying to drive home (something "Battle Royale", which contains a similar plot structure, does and some), this is still a highly stylized, never uninteresting popcorn flick which works despite its faults. Lawrence, once again like she was in her Oscar-nominated turn in "Winter's Bone" (her character in this movie seems very similar to that of her's in 'Bone'), is convincing in the lead role, while Hutcherson accomplishes his part with flying colors. Sure, it could be a little more meaner and blunt, its major downfall, but for the audience it is geared towards, I can understand why director Gary Ross decided to cut back on the violence a bit. It holds back his film from potential greatness, but it still drives home its points reasonably well.

• Alice S

  
  I definitely went in with too high of expectations. The first act is nigh perfect in setting up dystopian Appalachia: the shaky handicam shots of miners going to work, raggedly clad children, and weary villagers preparing for the Reaping. Even… More
  I definitely went in with too high of expectations. The first act is nigh perfect in setting up dystopian Appalachia: the shaky handicam shots of miners going to work, raggedly clad children, and weary villagers preparing for the Reaping. Even dull-as-a-box-of-rocks-in-The-Last-Song, Liam Hemsworth, infuses Gale with levity as well as wistful longing for love and escape. I especially love the reaction shots of the mother after she says something kind to Katniss, but Katniss just deflects the kindness onto Prim - showing the strained relationship between mother and eldest daughter. The film spends so much time with the exposition that the next two acts are rushed and ill-developed, specifically Peeta's history and motivations. The bread-in-the-rain scene is shown quite a few times, but it's always the same. They could have elongated the memory to bolster its significance - shown the severity of Katniss' starvation, shown Peeta's intention of burning the bread so that he could throw it to Katniss, shown how that act of kindness saved her and her family's life. Peeta's bravery and loyalty doesn't come through, nor does Katniss' complicated but necessary duplicity. In re the former, they could have shown Peeta actually fighting off Cato after the tracker jacker attack so that unfamiliar audiences wouldn't just think he's a milquetoast pretty boy. In re the latter, there could have been more reaction shots of Gale and the spectators, maybe taunting him about the romance or reassuring him that Katniss is just faking it. The costumes are glorious, and the settings are lush. All the actors are spot-on (although the actors who play Cato, Marvel, and Peeta all look too similar). Stanley Tucci is adorable and lively as the host. Amandla Stenberg's one perfect tear is perfect. J.Law covers all the bases from stalwart fierceness to pained vulnerability.

• Left J

  
  "A social commentary adapted to a fantastic vision." There's something about this movie that makes me like it more than I should. I don't know what... but I know it's there. I've never read the books so when I saw it I had no idea what to expect.… More
  "A social commentary adapted to a fantastic vision." There's something about this movie that makes me like it more than I should. I don't know what... but I know it's there. I've never read the books so when I saw it I had no idea what to expect. Fortunately for me I was pleased with the product and it's like it became one of my guilty pleasure movies. The Hunger Games strives away from the usual and synthesizes elements that are rarely common in movies like these. The story serves as an open letter to not only hope, dedication, love and bravery but also to the general revolt of the unfortunate. It's almost like a social commentary adapted to a fantastic vision. The story follows Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), a pair from the same poor district, as they enter in this life and death contest where only one could survive it and provide joy to those at home. As they leave their district and are taken to the arena, they are treated like gladiators receiving plenty of food, sweets, drinks, a very nice suite and even a "stylist" named Cinna (Lenny Kravitz) who would take care of their image during the tournament. On top of that, they also get a mentor, a former winner of the tournament from the same district by the name of Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson) who's job is to serve as a guide and adviser regarding the competition inside the arena. The story is shaped up pretty well and gets really intriguing avoiding plastic cliches. It's emotional when it needs to, cold when it has to deliver that sense of brutality and even political when you have behind the curtain scenes of the games. The main characters are tridimensional and force you to root for them. The dynamics of their relationship is too gentle at times and slippy but it still serves as a good emotional arch. The other characters are pretty typical. Vanguardist looks and fastidious behaviors in a world which seems to be dominated by the assertive and pretentious upper class. There's a honest balance between the moments with a high grade of emotion and the thrilling and suspenseful ones. The games are a combination of fast paced action and the slow paced process of a deer hunting. A moment that could seem to flow so hard could turn to be a run for life at any moment under unexpected circumstances. There are some issues though with these scenes but the fault is on the direction and not as much on the writing. What impressed me the most was not the story but the acting which is extremely good for a movie like this. Besides Jennifer Lawrence who's wonderful to watch although not the Oscar-worthy performance everyone was hyping it to be, you have all these wonderful colored characters like the slick and preposterous TV host Caesar Flickerman played by the talent Stanley Tucci. You have the euphuistic escort Effie Trinket played by Elizabeth Banks, the drunk mentor played by Woody Harrelson, and then you have Wes Bentley playing Seneca Crane which is the Head Gamemaker of this particular edition of The Hunger Games. Surprising acting that exceeded my expectations. Getting back to the movie's issues in directing I could simply say that the movie could have looked much much better. It seemed rushed and unfinished. A lot of poor choices in the use of shaky-cam when you didn't need to use it at all especially if you're so bad with it. A lot of poor choices in editing... going from fast handled shaky cams to really wide shots or areal shots of irrelevant scenes to me is the definition of a messy editing. Now I know that they had a much smaller time to finish this movie but that's not an excuse to me. On top of that, you have some really horrible CGI. The green screen was screaming at me the entire time. There is this great idea of using natural lightning for the scenes inside either the district or the island itself and artificial lightning for the scenes which included the rich and glossy preparations for the competition but this idea was poorly executed as well. Technically, everything about this film could have been better except the costumes, make-up, and the wonderful score by James Newton Howard, one of my favorites composers of all time. With the good and the bad together, The Hunger Games is a refreshing movie with well-developed story and characters, surprisingly great acting, and with a good mixture of suspense, action, and drama. It's not the "masterpiece" some are claiming it to be but It is a movie you will enjoy nonetheless and you will appreciate the effort put to make it different than all the other clicheic typical similar project. Storyline/Dialogue: 8.0 Acting: 8.0 Technical Execution: 7.1 Replay Value: 8.0 ====================== Overall: 7.8

• Jennifer X

  
  Very much enjoyed the Hollywood spectacle of it all. It's femininely empowering without portraying the heroine as too rambunctiously masculine, while at the same time very conscious of the audience's level of commitment. I like Jennifer Lawrence immensely. She is made of… More
  Very much enjoyed the Hollywood spectacle of it all. It's femininely empowering without portraying the heroine as too rambunctiously masculine, while at the same time very conscious of the audience's level of commitment. I like Jennifer Lawrence immensely. She is made of really earthy stuff, not unlike Ingrid Bergman. Yeah, the movie is not that deep but ... nowadays, what is?

• Paulo G

  
  An adaptation that lived up to the expectations of its source novel. The Hunger Games is powerfully acted by its cast, paving way to its thrills and slow-paced violence that's founded by the momentum of portrayed emotions and suited visuals.

• J P

  
  Eh...it was okay. There was a lot of stuff I did not like. This movie is definitely overrated, I won't argue that. The movie starts out TOO fast. I read some of the book, so I knew who the characters were and everything, but it translated to screen horribly. Gale was barely… More
  Eh...it was okay. There was a lot of stuff I did not like. This movie is definitely overrated, I won't argue that. The movie starts out TOO fast. I read some of the book, so I knew who the characters were and everything, but it translated to screen horribly. Gale was barely introduced to the audience and if you haven't read the book, you probably don't even know the relationship between him and Katniss. Their relationship is implied on screen, but if you're not paying attention you'd miss it completely. Everything started too fast. You weren't properly introduced to the characters at all. The only characters that you knew for sure were Katniss and Peeta. The rest of them weren't developed enough for you to care about them. The scene where Katniss volunteers as tribute should have been a really tragic, gut-wrenching scene because her little precious sister is going to be in a brutal reality game show where she will probably die...but it wasn't gut wrenching at all. I was completely emotionless. "Primrose Everdeen....Wait who is that again? Oh yeah, it's that one girl's sister...riiiiiight." It wasn't really as tragic as it should have been. They started the movie too fast, so when scenes like this come around, nobody really cares. The acting was amazing though. Jennifer Lawrence was actually really awesome. I was surprised by how good she was. I thought people were exaggerating how good her performance was, but no. It is exactly as good as they say. She was fabulous. Josh Hutcherson was really good too. I never thought of him as a good actor, but he was really awesome in this too. In fact, all the supporting actors were really intense. They all played their roles really well. The camera shake in this movie was DREADFUL. I understand the purpose was to shake the camera violently so that the violence wasn't as graphic, but seriously. Let's not give everyone a seizure, shall we? Like okay, you can protect the little children from violence that will go watch the movie, but can you TRY to make it so that the older kids don't get a headache and can actually kind of tell what is happening? It was obnoxious. Terrible camera work. You don't need to shake the camera. I don't care what kind of artsy approach the director was trying to take, shaking the camera like a baby that won't stop crying is a serious rip off. It was supposed to be a violent movie-- it can still be a little violent and not suffer from Epilepsy. I did enjoy the movie. I thought it was intense and had some awesome acting, but the adaptation was a little weak. The book was much better. I feel like the emotions and intensity of the book were sadly lost in the film.

• Lorenzo v

  
  <i>"May the odds be ever in your favor"</i> Set in a future where the Capitol selects a boy and girl from the twelve districts to fight to the death on live television, Katniss Everdeen volunteers to take her younger sister's place for the latest match.… More
  <i>"May the odds be ever in your favor"</i> Set in a future where the Capitol selects a boy and girl from the twelve districts to fight to the death on live television, Katniss Everdeen volunteers to take her younger sister's place for the latest match. <center><font size=+2 face="Century Schoolbook"><b><u>REVIEW</u></b></font></center> Following the "Potter" and "Twilight" transpositions of a series of young adult novels into a sequence of money-spinning movies, the gap in the market has surely been filled by "The Hunger Games", the first of three books from Suzanne Collins and the first of four films planned for the new franchise. Set in the near future in a land once called North America and now named Panem, the games are an excessively grandiose and violent version of reality television in which 12 impoverished Districts are required annually to select at random one boy and one girl aged 12 to 18 who will fight to the death, leaving only one survivor, simply for the entertainment of the pampered citizens of the Capitol. There are many other films that have deployed a similar theme, the one that comes most to my mind being "Rollerball" in 1975, but this version is created with panache and appeal with a mix of splendid sets, outrageous costumes, sustained tension, and a (barely) sufficient degree of violence. At the heart of the novel and the movie is the selfless, brave and resourceful 16 year old Katniss Everdeen - the first name comes from a plant and the second from a character in a Thomas Hardy book. She is wonderfully acted by Jennifer Lawrence who was so brilliant in "Winter's Bone" and is clearly set for stardom. Josh Hutcherson is winsome enough as Peeta, the other District 12 "tribute", and there are some colourful adult support roles from the likes of Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci. For me as an adult viewer, the only real problem was the violence - or lack of it. In order to secure a PG13 rating, the amount of gore had to be contained, but this takes the edge off what should be a horrific set of encounters and certainly "Rollerball" hit much, much harder on this score.

• moon r

  
  You take the plot of the warhorse reality show, Survivor, only you make the contestants younger ("... but that'd make 'em only kids ...!" you got it) and kick up the ante a notch, make it to the death, and that gives you this movie: a film about a reality TV show.… More
  You take the plot of the warhorse reality show, Survivor, only you make the contestants younger ("... but that'd make 'em only kids ...!" you got it) and kick up the ante a notch, make it to the death, and that gives you this movie: a film about a reality TV show. In this the first installment, we meet our plunky (and I mean that literally) heroine. Strictly fer kids.

• Christopher H

  
  A tad overhyped but an amazing movie nonetheless. What I really like about this film is it takes it's time to develop both the main characters and the kids that are forced to participate in the barbaric Hunger Games. The cast is extremely well-rounded and the audience can feel… More
  A tad overhyped but an amazing movie nonetheless. What I really like about this film is it takes it's time to develop both the main characters and the kids that are forced to participate in the barbaric Hunger Games. The cast is extremely well-rounded and the audience can feel the passion each actor is putting into each of their own respective roles. Jennifer Lawrence nails the character of Katniss, the film's protagonist, who manages to capture the strong-willed courageousness and smarts of Katniss from the book. Josh Hutcherson, who plays Peeta Mellark, delivers a good amount of credibility to the role that makes Peeta a compelling companion to Katniss. The film is also filled with wonderful supporting roles from Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci, and the always awesome Woody Harrelson. The film also provides an interesting universe and I give a lot of credit to the production team in bringing the books settings like District 12 and The Capitol to compelling life. Despite being two and half hours in length, the movie zooms by pretty fast because the raw drama is so engaging and their are some suspense scenes where I really found myself on the edge of my seat. Gary Ross, who worked on films such as "Pleasantville" and "Seabiscuit", has shown a lot of competence in the drama scenes but he is no action director. Some of the action scenes are bogged down by being filmed in an annoying "shaky-cam" style that sometimes renders scenes incomprehensible. Two times I found myself asking my friend what happened during an action scene because the "shaky-cam" made it that much harder to tell what was going on. I also did not really care for the romance angle that film attempts to establish between Katniss and Peeta. Even in the book I was not too convinced, and while I liked that they toned it down in the film, it also serves to make the romance between the two characters seem even less convincing. Fans of the book will be pleased and anybody who has not read the books will probably enjoy it too.

• Nani V

  
  I loved this movie. :)

• William D

  
  "The Hunger Games" should have been a lot better than it was. Its first half-hour is amazing. It introduces you to a bizarre and disturbing future-world, where every year a dozen or so children are dropped into a gigantic park to fight each other to the death. Only one child… More
  "The Hunger Games" should have been a lot better than it was. Its first half-hour is amazing. It introduces you to a bizarre and disturbing future-world, where every year a dozen or so children are dropped into a gigantic park to fight each other to the death. Only one child will be rescued from the park -- the last one alive. The set-up is brilliant and blood-curdling. Thoughtful, interesting things also happen along the way as we watch a group of kids (led by a skilled archer played by Jennifer Lawrence) prepare to join the game. You keep thinking the film is going to turn into a major work of art and deliver deep social commentary. But instead its second half thins out, and one is meant for the most part to lean back and enjoy the game, much the same way the spectators in the movie do! Toward the end, I got the creepy feeling that the spectators sitting beside me in the theater were enjoying the game just as the sick characters in the movie were! This really creeped me out. And this was hardly the intention of the creative team, who are not real artists. Director Gary Ross ("Seabiscuit" -- his previous film was "Seabiscuit," for God's sake) starts out making a scalding social commentary but drifts into making a shallow popcorn movie. What a letdown. There's no denying that "Hunger Games" is entertaining, but it should have been a lot more than that. And it's creepy that a movie about children murdering each other would be entertaining.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings