The Hunger Games Reviews

The Hunger Games review

Posted : 1 year ago on 27 April 2012 07:19

this movie is amazing. its just amazing! there arent words to describe how amazing this movie is! cant wait for the rest of them!!!
HAPPY HUNGER GAMES EVERYBODY! and may the odds be ever in your favour!

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Decent, but had the potential to be great

Posted : 1 year ago on 19 April 2012 05:27

"And it was decreed that each year, the 12 districts of Panem should offer up a tribute of one young man and woman between the ages of 12 and 18 to be trained in the art of survival and to be prepared to fight to the death."

With Harry Potter's final instalment having come and gone, and with the Twilight franchise finally preparing to exeunt with its final entry (at least we fucking hope), The Hunger Games is primed to be the start of the next huge cinematic franchise. It's based on Suzanne Collins' novel of the same name; the first in series of books which are exceptionally popular with teenagers due to the story's focus on young love. The franchise is definitely far sturdier than the insufferable Twilight, yet this first Hunger Games instalment comes packaged with its own array of issues. While the picture will almost certainly satiate pre-established fans (who can miraculously keep a straight face when they read such names as Katniss, Haymitch and Peeta), The Hunger Games is merely a decent movie which had the potential to be great.

Set in a post-apocalyptic future, the story takes place in the nation of Panem which is divided into 12 districts of industry. Each year, an event called The Hunger Games takes place, wherein a male and female teenager are randomly selected from each district to be carted away to the Capitol for a week of intense media exposure and training...before they are set loose and forced to kill each other for the nation's entertainment. 24 contestants enter, and there can only be one victor. In District 12, Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) volunteers to compete in the games to keep her little sister (Shields) out of harm's way. Along with her district's male contestant Peeta (Hutcherson), Katniss heads off to the Capitol under the care of mentor Haymitch (Harrelson) and stylist Cinna (Kravitz) who see the young woman as a potential winner due to her superb hunting skills, knowledge of nature and sheer determination. As the slaughtering begins, Katniss finds herself battling tough odds to stay alive as she tussles with sensitive feelings for Peeta.

The entire first hour of The Hunger Games is dedicated to build up; it patiently develops the characters and delves into their problems while establishing this dystopian world and gleefully satirising global media. It's a promising beginning, but unfortunately the titular games fail to live up to this level of excellence. The games are supposed to be concerned with not only surviving against opponents but also battling the harsh elements and struggling for food and water. Unfortunately, the latter components are almost entirely ignored. The characters should be malnourished with cracked lips and pale skin, yet they always look 100% healthy. It lowers the stakes and thus weakens tension, stripping the film of gritty overtones which could have catapulted it to greatness.

Furthermore, even with a hefty 140-minute runtime, at times the script fails to adequately explain itself. For instance, according to the books, Panem is the state of post-war North America, yet the movie never reveals this. As a result, one may erroneously assume that it's part of an alternate country or even another planet entirely. Not to mention, the film never deals with what happens to fallen players. Hovercrafts collected bodies in the book, but the movie entirely omits this detail even though the hovercrafts are actually established in an early scene. Worse, the game's technicians unleash holograms of killer dogs and fireballs that are apparently lethal despite being hologrammatic, and there's no explanation about how they work. The script is quite a mess indeed, although the dialogue is admittedly well-written. And no, the "read the book, it'll make more sense" argument does not apply. That's bullshit. A movie should not require you to do extra homework; it should exist as its own entity, or else it has failed.

To the credit of director Gary Ross, the tone is spot-on; the material was treated with the gravity and seriousness that it needed. And despite ignoring the effects of malnutrition, The Hunger Games is skilfully grounded, eschewing excessive CGI and never going too over-the-top during the action beats (some of which are magnificent). However, the cinematography is unforgivably bad. On top of the camera always shaking for no rhyme or reason to a headache-inducing extent, framing is often slipshod, and the filmmakers consistently violate the 180 degree rule with jarring consequences. Whenever an action scene or a fight takes place, director Ross gives over to spastic camerawork that's meant to instil excitement but is more likely to make you dizzy. Rarely do action films have set-pieces so badly shot and edited that it's impossible to tell who's fighting who, who's winning, and even what sex the assailants are. It seems that this style was employed to avoid capturing graphic violence to secure a PG-13 rating, but simple cutaways are more than sufficient for this task. (Ironically, the shaking camera will make you more nauseous than any amount of violence could.)

If nothing else, the acting in The Hunger Games must be commended. As Katniss, Jennifer Lawrence is pitch-perfect. Katniss is often described as the "anti-Bella Swan" due to how strong and independent she is, and the actress was up to the task of portraying this character for the screen. Lawrence (who was nominated for an Oscar for Winter's Bone) nailed the emotional and dramatic requirements of the role, and she possesses a certain charm and beauty which make her believable as a love interest. Alongside her is Josh Hutcherson as Peeta, and he displays more skill as an actor here than any of the Twilight cast members. It's the supporting cast who steal the show, though. Woody Harrelson is superb fun as mentor Haymitch, while a plucky Elizabeth Banks shows up in bright-coloured wigs and garish make-up as District 12's lively chaperone. Also noteworthy is the immensely likeable Lenny Kravitz, and a scenery-chewing Stanley Tucci who plays the falsely sympathetic host of the Hunger Games telecast. In a smaller role is young Australian Liam Hemsworth, who's pretty forgettable as he has barely 15 minutes of screen-time.

Underneath the violence and romance, The Hunger Games possesses a hint of social commentary; it explores the ridiculous nature of reality television and comments on the exploitation of humans for the sake of entertainment. It additionally comments on the notion of a totalitarian government who use this televised slaughter of innocent kids to silently keep the common people in their place. Then again, such material has already been explored in far better pictures like The Running Man and Battle Royale, thus The Hunger Games really doesn't have anything new to say except that its predecessors were spot-on in their visions of the future. At the end of the day, The Hunger Games boils down to strong acting, reasonable screenwriting and handsome production values that are let down by shoddy camerawork. Plus, the emerging love triangle has Twilight written all over it. Do we have another "Team Edward/Team Jacob" situation on our hands? Dear God...

6.2/10

0 comments, Reply to this entry

The Hunger Games review

Posted : 1 year, 1 month ago on 13 April 2012 02:44

I liked it a lot! The book it's better, but the movie is still great :) A lot of love for Jennifer Lawrence and Wes Bentley ^^ And Josh played the best Peeta that I could ever ask :D

0 comments, Reply to this entry

The Hunger Games review

Posted : 1 year, 1 month ago on 4 April 2012 09:43

Although not that true to the book it was still a very amazing movie. I was glad they didn't turn it into a romance action bockbuster but rather a character driven movie with superb acting. The shakey camera effects actuall help us see the world though katriss's eyes !

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Non-stop entertainment. Bring on the sequels!

Posted : 1 year, 1 month ago on 4 April 2012 05:44

The Hunger Games became an instant hit after its unexpectedly huge critical and box office triumph, but has been known by many as “the new Twilight” and the American remake of 2000 Japanese film Battle Royale. Therefore, expectations were rather mixed due to the rating it received following dialogue that involves the sickening way of teenagers being forced to kill each other in the wilderness by use of weapons for entertainment. On the other hand, this story had pretty much all aspects of where it could become the ultimate fun thrill-ride. So, with this in mind, The Hunger Games manages to avoid becoming a corny, mishandled catastrophe and becomes an intense, emotional and occasionally funny experience that adds hype and pure excitement to the upcoming sequels.


Gary Ross directs not only his first feature since Seabiscuit in 2003 but only his third feature film throughout his directorial career. The Hunger Games really could have been seriously mishandled like the Twilight saga by transforming a dark story into something a lot easier on the eyes that just didn’t work. Miraculously, The Hunger Games amazingly balances as a film that is intense and rather psychologically disturbing to endure, but is worthy of the attention of families and youngsters too. It doesn’t have the vintage characteristics of an action film, but it almost like a sub-genre. Gary Ross collaborates with Billy Ray and the writer of the novel – Suzanne Collins as the trio pen the script and write it very creatively achieving a wide target audience and mixes the genres of drama, thriller and romance into one.


After Jennifer Lawrence’s Academy Award nomination for Best Actress in 2010 film Winter’s Bone and appearing as Raven Darkholme/Mystique in X-Men: The First Class the following year, Lawrence stars in the female leading role as Katniss Everdeen. Whilst we are watching The Hunger Games, we are there alongside Katniss and the other contenders who are feeling corrupted by the government to kill each other on television for entertainment. So, although Lawrence illustrates her beauty in a sense of innocence, she revolutionizes her toughness as she gradually starts to change into someone different. Alongside, Lawrence is popular, former child-actor Josh Hutcherson. He has delivered some very impressive performances in his young career and has starred beside some great actors. Now that he is at that age, Hutcherson’s portrayal of Peeta Mellark perfectly demonstrates the transformation from boy into man. Thus, due to the reception that The Hunger Games has been receiving and the eager anticipation for the sequels, Lawrence and Hutchinson’s role could turn out to be both or best-known individual roles for all time.


Beside these two talented youngsters are a wide range of Hollywood stars. Elizabeth Banks portrays eccentric Effie Trinket, the escort of the District 12 tributes, Donald Sutherland plays President Snow, who although appears laid-back, holds back a sadistic and psychopathic personality. In addition, American Beauty and Ghost Rider actor Wes Bentley portrays Seneca Crane, the Head Gamemaker of 74th Annual Games, Stanley Tucci’s portrayal of Hunger Games television host Caesar Flickerman and Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy, the alcoholic, former Hunger Games winner who becomes Katniss and Peeta’s mentor.


Overall, The Hunger Games is surprisingly a very entertaining, non-stop ride that proves itself as appealing for all audiences. There is an emotional mix of beauty and horror behind it and whilst first experiencing The Hunger Games and entering the Capitol is identically similar to arriving in the extraordinary but magical and colourful worlds, such as the Harry Potter Wizarding World, Narnia, Wonderland and Oz. Now that we have been introduced to the characters, the settings and have experienced the thrills and excitement of Suzanne Collins’ film-adapted novels for the first time, the anticipation will be even higher for upcoming sequels Catching Fire and Mockingjay.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

The Hunger Games review

Posted : 1 year, 1 month ago on 27 March 2012 04:55

i was also very much skeptical. i was afraid that they would not do the books justice. however, i simply loved it. of course there were a few things that i think could've been portrayed better. for example, none of the characters seemed particularly starved. in the book it is emphasized how emaciated they are.
other than a few other little things, i was very much pleased. 9.5/10

0 comments, Reply to this entry

The Hunger Games

Posted : 1 year, 1 month ago on 25 March 2012 04:33

If you think that the dehumanizing, brutally atrocious behavior that is showcased in The Hunger Games seems too far-fetched or like something that would never happen in real life or like something that "only happens in the movies," all I can say is that I envy your blissful optimism. I'm much more cynical of the spirit of the human race, and I don't consider the future depicted in this movie to be all that unlikely. Over the last few years, the mainstream public has become obsessed with watching and relishing reality shows in which human beings expose the ugliest, most foul aspects of their personalities. Audiences take a frightening amount of delight in watching this sort of thing, and The Hunger Games is an indictment of this horrifying fascination. This is a conventional movie - you won't be surprised by any of the motions it goes through, and there are a few occasions in which it takes the easy way out to avoid becoming too dark. But it's elevated in quality by its spot-on social commentary and by a searingly courageous lead performance.

The film takes place at some unspecified point in the distant future (probably not as far away as you'd think), and we're presented with a society in which an elite few are the powerful people who get to bask in all the riches, luxuries and technological advances, whereas the rest of the population has been divided into 12 districts - District 12, in particular, is a grim place that looks like a poor farm town right out of the 1930s. Two kids/teenagers (one male, one female) are selected from each of the 12 districts to take part in the titular games, which are televised for everyone's enjoyment and feature the 24 kids and teenagers being left stranded in the woods and told that they must fight each other to the death until only one of them remains and is thus named the winner of the Hunger Games. This year, the representatives from District 12 are Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson). They're whisked away, but before being thrown directly into the games, they go through a mentoring process. I expected that this meant that the kids would perhaps get some sort of physical training in battle and survival skills, but of course, the makers of the show are more interested in primping these kids up to make them appealing to the public. In fact, that's of vital importance, they're told, because if they happen to be well-liked by the public, they may receive help from "sponsors" which will prove essential to their survival in the game.

All the goading that takes place to encourage Katniss and Peeta to make a good impression before the viewing public in their preliminary interviews feels not unlike what probably happens backstage in your typical American Idol-style reality show in which the contestants give performances and move forward depending on how popular they are with audiences. But once the actual games begin, the situation is more like an extreme version of the dehumanizing challenges that people are subjected to in shows like Survivor, in which people form alliances to get rid of one another and stab each other in the back frequently... except, as I'm sure you'll imagine, the word "stab" can be taken literally in this case. However, The Hunger Games actually exhibits a decent amount of restraint in terms of the amount of graphic violence it depicts. I give the movie credit for doing this, and I'll explain why. First, I disagree with the belief that the film, like so many others of its ilk, toned down the violence exclusively to achieve a PG-13 rating. I believe that The Hunger Games hesitates to show too much graphic violence because it objects to it. The film is a cautionary tale about how people's obsession with comfortably watching other human beings tear each other apart is causing us to devolve as a society, so the last thing the film would want is to become yet another window through which the mainstream public can relish that material by viewing it in all its glory. If you actually found yourself wanting to see more of the violence in this movie, then you're guilty of the same sin at which the film aims its critical arrows, and perhaps you should re-examine your moral compass. Secondly, the truth is that, in order to work effectively as a piece of cinema and to deliver the message it wants to get across, The Hunger Games had no need whatsoever to be more graphic in depicting the harrowing acts that take place here between kids and teenagers. If a 15-year-old boy maims a 10-year-old girl, I don't need to see every detail of that in order to know that it's horrible. I know it's horrible. And I hope you know it, too.

One thing that instantly caught my attention as the "games" got under way was the great potential that this film had to enter dark moral waters. I expected to see scenes in which Katniss, our heroine, would be forced to make incredibly difficult decisions for the sake of her personal survival. On more than one occasion (and with regard to more than one of the supporting characters), I said to myself, "Wow, if there can only be one survivor, then she's gonna have to turn on this person eventually, and considering what we're seeing here, it's gonna be really tough and intense for her to do that once she's faced with the need to do it." Unfortunately, the plot turns are tweaked here on several occasions so that Katniss is never forced to make any difficult moral decisions that would make people lose their sympathy for her. The film is very interested in maintaining its lead character as a totally uncorrupted soul. This has the positive effect of making us consistently root for Katniss, but it also has the negative consequence of making the film lose a fraction of moral complexity which could've made this a truly great motion picture. The film has no qualms showing all the physical and emotional adversity that Katniss experiences on an individual level, but it shies away from forcing her to engage in the kind of heart-wrenching betrayals that could've made this a deeply disturbing and devastating work of cinema.

Jennifer Lawrence's performance oozes a dizzying blend of ferocity and vulnerability. This is the first memorable performance of 2012, and despite the fact that The Hunger Games has its share of very well-known stars, there's never a doubt that this is Lawrence's movie. The 2 hours and 20 minutes that it takes to watch this film hinge entirely on our ability to root for Katniss and to believe in her resolute spirit and in everything that's at stake for her, and Lawrence doesn't lose her grip on the audience for a second. I wasn't as marveled as most people were by Lawrence's Oscar-nominated turn in Winter's Bone, and she had relatively forgettable roles last year in The Beaver and Like Crazy, but with The Hunger Games, I have no doubt about the greatness of her talent. She gets able support from the secondary cast, and it was a particular delight to see Stanley Tucci's grandiose work as the film's resident Ryan Seacrest and Elizabeth Bank's creepily cheerful work as one of the games' organizers.

The plot structure of The Hunger Games may be short on invention, but the film couldn't be more timely in terms of the direction in which its aims its criticism. The film is well aware of the fact that the public craves a cathartic ending in which one person survives, as a way to justify the fact that they just watched a bunch of pointless human-on-human mayhem just for the hell of it, and the film gladly pounces on that during the final act. Not having read the source material, I admit to being highly curious in terms of the path that the story will take next. All I can say for the time being is that, if the subsequent entries manage to be as thoroughly gripping and relevant as this film, and if Lawrence continues bringing her A game, the odds are ever in the franchise's favor. While I recognize the movie's minor shortcomings, it has been a hell of a long time since I've felt glued to my seat in a movie theater for over 2 hours.

7/10

0 comments, Reply to this entry

The Hunger Games review

Posted : 1 year, 1 month ago on 25 March 2012 03:20

I have to admit I was entertained watching this movie and there were a few moments I found "gripping" and "thrilling". However, there was just a couple of items that bugged me. One will be a spoiler so I won't say it and the other was the camera direction during some of the action scenes. I can't stand that shaky in your face fast movement shot. Bugs the hell out of me and it's not needed at all. Overall it was a good watch though but I'm not really caught up in this World, which is good. I just saved myself a shit load of money from useless merchandise.

0 comments, Reply to this entry

Review of The Hunger Games

Posted : 1 year, 1 month ago on 25 March 2012 12:12

I am no Hunger Games nerd. That is to say, I read the books, but I am not obsessed by them. I didn't even liked the second two that much. I did, however, like the first book in the series. Quite a bit actually. So, it came as a surprise to me when I enjoyed the movie even more than the book.

In case you have, somehow, missed reading the book(s), The Hunger Games is an annual event that occurs in a not-so-future-future time, when one girl and boy from each district (24 children in all) is randomly selected to battle to the death in a glamorous and ferocious televised event. Katniss volunteers as a tribute when her younger sister, Prim, is selected to be in the Hunger Games. Now Katniss must somehow survive the treacheries of the Hunger Games, and show the Capitol she is no pawn in their game.

The Hunger Games is, as one would expect, extremely intense. Children heartlessly killing each other to survive. And it's goes beyond shooting from afar. Combat occurs within tripping distance. Slashing of knives, snapping of necks, all these duels between children between the ages of 12 and 18.

But The Hunger Games is PG-13 (as opposed to R), so the violence is portrayed in a way, in which you don't see much of the actual killing. You just know what is implied. The camera is placed at strategic angles so that you may see some blood and the attack, but not the knife or the ax digging into the child's flesh. Actually, it's all very tame, considering the subject. I'm not the kind of person that can watch a lot of gore, so this was perfectly fine with me.

Now that I've got all that boring stuff regarding the violence out of the way, I can start sharing my opinion on the film: As of now, The Hunger Games is the best movie I've seen this year.

There were two points in the movie in which I ALMOST cried. I held back tears, for certain. And it wasn't easy. The Hunger Games is very emotional.

The camera is very shaky. The movie often feels like a found-footage film. At first, the shaky camera irritated me. But within 10 minutes, I had become so connected with the movie, that I didn't even notice the camera.

In the first half (before the actual games begin), there is a decent amount of humor. This is not a comedy, so don't expect to be in stitches, but there are some mild laughs. Almost all of these come from the Capitol's lightheartedness towards the Hunger Games. They laugh and joke about it. It is important to them, but they don't give a second thought about the 23 people who will die as a result.

The casting is marvelous. Everyone does a wonderful job portraying their characters. Before seeing the movie, I was a bit skeptical at some of the actor choices, but all the doubt washed away as each character appeared on screen.

Also, the makeup and costumes are incredible. They're so ridiculously silly looking (intentionally), and it just feels perfect. Truly well done.

The score is equally wonderful. The music is powerful, and during the games, adds invaluable amounts of tension. Hats off to the composers.

The action is tense. Your pulse will most certainly quicken. In addition to other competitors, there are tracker jackers (genetically engineered wasps), dog-like wolves, and fire. Lots of fire. There are plenty of plot twists that will certainly shock those who haven't read the book.

This movie is emotional, tense, and overall, wonderful. I do have a few minor nitpicks, specifically regarding character interaction.

Cinna doesn't get enough screen time. We just don't feel the relationship between him and Katniss like we did in the book. President Snow doesn't seem quite as menacing as he is in the book, though he's evil enough.

Also, the romance portion of the film is disappointingly cheesy. Teenage girls in the audience certainly fell for it, but I often rolled my eyes.

Also, the ending isn't a true ending. We get a hook for a sequel. It's not so much a cliffhanger, it's just a "To be continued." I didn't mind too much, and fans of the book won't either, but I suspect there will be some who will be irritated by this.

The Hunger Games has a few flaws, but in the end, it's the best film of the year so far. Fantastic story, lots of emotion, good action, believable acting, superb score, amazing makeup and costumes, need I go on? Simply put, The Hunger Games is a must see. I was originally uninterested in the sequels, but this movie was so good, I may rethink skipping them.

May the odds ever be in your favor, and happy Hunger Games!


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Rousing Science Fiction

Posted : 1 year, 1 month ago on 24 March 2012 04:23

Gary Ross' fourth feature portrays young adult writer Suzanne Collins' vision of the future. But this future does not bring flying cars, super-advanced robots or time travel. Instead it brings 'The Hunger Games,' a horrific celebration of totalitarianism and fear where twenty-four boys and girls (between the ages of twelve and eighteen) from twelve districts are brought to a large arena to fight to the death.

Sounds an awful lot like "Battle Royale," a 2000 Japanese film with a similar premise. However, "The Hunger Games" exceeds in acting, character development, and substance over what was somewhat an underdeveloped bloodbath (albeit a creative one.) Although this film pushes the PG-13 rating it has nowhere near the level of violence as "Battle Royale" and should be okay for kids over a certain age.

The heart of this story is Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence,) who is forced to care for her beloved younger sister Primrose (talented newcomer Willow Shields) when her father gets blown up in a mining explosion and her mother falls into a deep depression. Her back-story bears some similarities to Lawrence's role in the rural thriller "Winter's Bone" back in 2000, but "The Hunger Games" is glossier, more action-packed, and goes in a completely different direction.

This year's Hunger Games, Katniss knows that her sensitive twelve-year-old sister, due to her age has been placed in the drawing only a few times and statistically has a smaller chance of getting picked. To her horror, however, Primrose is drawn, and Katniss, knowing her sister doesn't stand a chance, volunteers to fight in her place.

After leaving her potential love interest Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth) and placing Primrose in the questionable care of her mother, Katniss heads by train to the capital, where she is introduced briefly to a luxurious lifestyle before being offered up in the arena like a sheep for the slaughter. The other kid from her district, Peeta Mellark, has harbored a crush on her for many years, which makes the circumstances of the situation even harder.

Jennifer Lawrence is, at twenty-one, five years too old for the role, but her talent shines through, and her Katniss is a character to be appriciated. Her relationship with Peeta moved a little quicker than I would have liked, as after a crucial plot development they are hanging over each other like lovesick puppy dogs. Their friendship is more ambiguous and conflicted in the book as well.

The other actors are good, including Stanley Tucci, Amanda Stenberg, and Woody Harrelson as drunken former child contestant Haymitch Abernathy. Tucci (despite not having as juicy a role as he did in "The Lovely Bones," is good, and his portrayal of gaudy, grinning talk-show host Caesar Flickerman is a disturbingly on-target depiction of the fakeness and pomp and circumstance of reality TV.

The Muttations were well done. One of my main concerns about the movie adaptation was that they wouldn't be able to translate them onto the screen without becoming corny, and although they were not as horrifying as they were in the book (functioning instead as vicious, kinda-cute mastiff-looking creatures,) the special effects people pulled them off.

"The Hunger Games" is very much worth a ticket to the theater, although I would not recommend it to young or sensitive children. It is exciting, rousing science fiction with a message, and Katniss is a strong character worth rooting for.



0 comments, Reply to this entry