The Hunger Games Reviews

Very good film. Neverread the book but very much enjoyed watching this movie. Great acting by both male and female leads and will watch the other movies, reviewing them when I've finished.

For a movie named the Hunger Games this is quite sappy. Quite graphic in some spots but in a contrived way to maintain the purity of the leading lady. It seemed maintaining this purity/incorruptibility was the main driving force behind the film making it readymade for teenage brains and wallets in subsequent franchises. Yet, I think a more morally ambiguous protagonist would have made for a better film but probably not more box-office. Katniss Everdeen is quite stoic in the beginning but this fades to a faked/heads over heels romantic by the end of the film. This divergence could be a commentary on the perception of the public and private self but in summary it's quite murky especially with the off-beat romantic pairing of the actors. Also, the survival element of the games is quite underwhelming with hard lines of good guys/bads and elites/poors being the only elements drawn. There is no grey area, no deterioration of body and mind. Guess I was hoping for greater moral dilemmas,acting and a overall greater vision of dystopian society while still maintaining a lens on current predicaments. There are definitely a lot of better dystopian films out there that communicate more effectively human nature and where that might lead mankind.

At last, I have seen this flick. Indeed, for some movies like this one, I seriously don't care about the hype and, to be honest, I was actually planning to wait until they released a dvd box with all the installments but since this movie was broadcasted for the first time on Dutch TV, I thought I might as well watch it for free. Eventually, I thought it was a decent watch, even though it was certainly nothing really great. I mean, sure, it was well made and entertaining but it was nothing I hadn't seen before already a couple of times. What I really liked was actually the elistist and decadent society living in the Capitol and, to be honest, I would have rather dropped the whole games thing and have a movie focusing on those guys instead. That’s the whole issue here, even though the concept was pretty awful, those games were in fact the main reason why we all watched the damned thing so there was this rather weird and unsatisfying vibe about them. Still, all in all, it was a decent watch and Jennifer Lawrence really ruled this thing (even though she was way more interesting in the far superior 'Silver Linings Playbook'). To conclude, even though it was far from being a masterpiece, for a young adult book adaptation, it was still pretty good and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

A huge movie with few rewards. Jennifer Lawrence is clearly a star and some of the supporting cast makes it watchable, but too many of cast would benefit from acting lessons.

The Hunger Games is a novel by Suzanne Collins, first published on September 14, 2008. Gary Ross beautifully adapted the novel for the cinema.

Set in a future version of North America, in a nation known as Panem, established in North America after the destruction of the continent's civilization by an unknown apocalyptic event. The nation consists of the wealthy Capitol and twelve surrounding, poorer districts united under the Capitol's control.

As punishment for a previous rebellion against the Capitol, in which a 13th district was destroyed, one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18 from each district are selected by an annual lottery to participate in the Hunger Games, a selection of teenagers from the poorer neighbourhoods are forced to slaughter each other in the woods for the delectation of a TV audience.


The theme might by quite mean, however, quite a thrilling movie, like a relaity show, movie is recommended for the cine lovers.

To be honest, this movie was a tad disappointing. Maybe my expectations were a little too high, or maybe this movie was a bit overrated. It's hard to give an honest review since I read the books but I'll try my best.

The acting in this movie was great with the exception of Lenny Kravitz. His performance was very dull and he didn't fit Cinna so well. Jennifer Lawrence was wonderful and fit the role of Katniss perfectly. She has proven that she can carry a film, I adored her even if her cheeks were way too puffy/big. Elizabeth Banks and Stanley Tucci were wonderful as well, they both nailed the characters. Even little Willow Shields did a great job as Primrose. The Rest of the cast was good but not as good as the people I mentioned.

They captured the story and plot well, not surprised at all since the Author was a screenwriter. They managed to stay true to the book with some minor exceptions here and there(Madge ehem!? Avox Girl?! Prep team?!). I like how they actually added more stuff that wasn't in the book which was President snow having conversations with Seneca.

For the first hour, the events preceding the games I think they nailed perfectly. The Set-up to the games was perfect. with an exception here and there(I was disappointed by the flaming capes, they looked so fake. That was a great opportunity to do something amazing and really WOW the audience but they blew it, my reaction just ended up being Meh.).

While the first hour was perfect, the same cannot be said for the games themselves which was everything after the first hour. The games are suppose to be this exciting, special event but they failed to capture any of this well enough. The game itself wasn't tense like it was in the book, they failed to capture any of that. They should have given Rue more screen time with Katniss during the game. I only felt what I did that moment with Rue was because I read the book. For people who didn't read the book I bet probably didn't care or feel that much. Had the games been as tense and suspenseful like it was in the book, it would have made everything more exciting, entertaining, and better.

I understand that if this film was rated R, this movie would have lost a ton of money as a huge portion of their fan base consists of teenagers. However, had they been truly faithful to the source material this would have been rated R, and it would have added a lot more. It probably would have made the movie better, it would have added more tension and suspense to the games.

The other problem I had with this movie was the shaky cam. I get why he did it, to show everything from Katniss's point of view because the in the book it's told from mostly katniss's thoughts. Had there been voice overs this would have completely ruined the film, so I think what Gary ross did was the right thing. However, he went overboard with the shaking. It makes sense for the games, but there was no need to jerk the camera around while she was walking down a street or having a conversation with someone.

The last thing that bothered me was the chemistry between Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson. I know in the book the romance between them was fake but there was at least some chemistry. In the movie, there was hardly any chemistry which is a problem if we're suppose to buy into the romance.

Last thing, the visuals. Thankfully this movie wasn't in 3D. The visuals, while great, weren't anything first rate or spectacular. The best examples would be the fire capes, and the mutts which they ruined. I also forgot to mention the costume design and art direction. Both were great and deserve recognition when it comes to Oscar time. They managed to do a good job at capturing the wacky styles of the capitol that they described in the book.

Conclusion: Lenny Kravitz was a miscast, his performance was dull. The games weren't as tense or thrilling as they should have been, had it been rated R and they were fully faithful to the book it would have made a difference. The shaky cam was too much at times, they jerked the camera around at moments when it was not necessary too. There wasn't that much chemistry between the leads. Finally while the visuals were good, they were still a notch below first rate. Now to the good stuff. The performances were great with the exception of Kravitz. The first hour leading up to the games was perfect. They managed not to butcher the story and plot. I liked the first person point of view style, it was a good decision rather than having to constantly listen to voice overs, and inner monologues. I also forgot to mention that I thought it was very creative of them to make Caesar Flickerman and Claudius Templesmith do commentary during the games to explain things that Katniss would try and figure out in her head. The Costume designs and art direction were great. this is a great movie and hopefully the next movie will be just as good as this one.

"Katniss Everdeen, the girl on fire!"

The Hunger Games, directed by Gary Ross, is based on the popular novel of the same name. After I saw this film, I actually went out and read the book, and I loved it. Can't say the same thing about the film though. If you've seen something like Battle Royale, then The Hunger Games won't be as amazing as the hype has been setting it up to be. The transition from the book to film is poorly made, and the PG-13 rating has definitely damaged what the film could've been. Fans have called this the next Harry Potter, and with that franchise already finished, The Hunger Games is trying to take it's spot as the beloved novel-to-film franchise. Although it's better than Twilight (I'm gonna get hell for this, but they're not that far apart in quality), this really doesn't have the same charm as Harry Potter.



Sometime in the future in what was once North America, the rulers of a decadent dictatorship force 24 teenagers, 12 boys and 12 girls, from each of the country's 12 enslaved districts, to fight to the death in a protracted contest relayed to the entire country on television. In District 12, 16-year-old Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) volunteers when her young sister Primrose (Willow Shields) is originally chosen, and, together with Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), son of the baker, becomes a 'Tribute', taken to the nation's capital to be groomed and trained for the Hunger Games.



I've been reading The Hunger Games trilogy, and it's an amazing series of books. I hate to say this line, but the book is simply better than the movie. Personally I don't think The Hunger Games works so much as a film. The original book was written in first-person from the viewpoint of Katniss, so the reader would get an insight into every thought that went through her head. There was constant urge for survival in the novel, and that really added tension to it. This is missing in the film, which I guess is necessary. The books also had social commentary on the world of Panem, but there's no attempt to explore this. Instead, the film pushes more for the love triangle, a form of romance that has become quite popular with the whole Team Edward/Team Jacob phenomenon. I do think The Hunger Games has a better love triangle than Twilight - infinitely better. The characters are slightly more likeable, especially Katniss. However, Ross, who co-wrote the screenplay with The Hunger Games author Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray, fail to establish a convincing relationship between Katniss and Peeta. I just didn't buy their romance. I must yet again fall back on the novel and it's first-person writing style, as it allowed the reader to know what Katniss really thought of Peeta.

Although I have huge qualms with the script, there were scenes I just loved, the reaping in particular. This is the moment in which Katniss volunteers as a tribute for the Hunger Games - it's a truly heart-wrenching scene. The writing is perfect, and the utter silence amongst the crowd just adds to the fear and emotional tension. It's a perfect transition from the page to the screen. Also working was spot-on characterisation of Katniss, and the relationship between her mother and Primrose is beautifully realised. Ross still tries to stay true to the book and I respect him for that. He keeps key moments of Katniss' past inter-cut within the film, using the terrific flashbacks, for example the death of her father. The other tributes in the mix also added some great tension to the film, particularly the career tributes who have been training their whole entire lives to compete in the games.



As Katniss, Jennifer Lawrence is perfect. If you get over the fact that she doesn't look 16 at all, you'll realise she embodies the role perfectly. This was very fine casting, and she definitely brings a strong presence to a female role. Lawrence might actually have a future career as a female action star. Josh Hutcherson brought charm to his performance as Peeta, and depicted this brilliantly kind character well. I can't say he and Lawrence shared a great deal of chemistry, but they were able to work competently together. Liam Hemsworth has little screen time as Gale, a close friend of Katniss back at home in District 12. He'll definitely have more to do in the sequel, which is when the love triangle will start to emerge (New Moon, anyone). The players in support are also superb - Woody Harrelson is entertaining as Haymitch, Katniss and Peeta's mentor, Elizabeth Banks has heaps of fun as Effie Trinket, and last but not least, Willow Shields brought a sweet innocence to Primrose that I adored. Among the tributes fighting in the games, no one in particular really stood out apart from Isabelle Fuhrman and Leven Rambin as two female career tributes. Rambin is beautiful and has been well cast as the pretty tribute Glimmer, while Fuhrman just relished her role, playing a sadistically evil character with confidence. It's no surprise she handled this role so well - Fuhrman actually played the evil child in Orphan.

Ross' approach to the action is shocking. He's decided to use the infamous shaky-cam style, and it doesn't help at all. It appeared as if it was used to hide the violence, but I've seen combat with swords and arrows done well with a PG-13 rating (Lord of the Rings in particular). This shooting style doesn't help a lot with the action sequences, which have been shot so poorly that you literally can not tell what is happening on-screen. There was only one action set-piece that I liked. There's a chase sequence during the games where Katniss flees from a growing bushfire. The shaky cam actually adds a sense of speed to the action, and the visual effects are handled well. In fact, the visual effects overall were decent - nothing too special, but convincing. Also, I loved the design of the capital and its inhabitants. The exaggerated look of things captured the mainstream and selfish ways of the Capitol. Though the design is great, it's a shame that it's not done justice by the horrible photography. Even Twilight had better cinematography than this (Yes, I just said that).



Overall, The Hunger Games is an average adaptation of a pretty outstanding book, and considering the hype behind this film, it really isn't that good. While the books are infinitely better than The Twilight Saga, the film only has a slight edge over the sparkling vampires. While Ross directs the drama well, his decision to opt for a handheld look is counter-productive. I'm still looking forward to the sequel, Catching Fire, which will be directed by Francis Lawrence (I Am Legend, Water for Elephants). From his filmography, I see that there's little shaky-cam in his movies, so hopefully the sequel will be more enjoyable to look at.

"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

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.

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