SOUND OFF

Sound Off: Gary Ross' 'The Hunger Games' - So What Did You Think?

by
March 23, 2012

The Hunger Games Sound Off

Now that you've seen it, what did you think? May the Odds be Ever in your Favor. It's finally here, the movie that fans of Suzanne Collins' book series have been waiting for, The Hunger Games. Starring Jennifer Lawrence as the girl from District 12, Katniss, who ignites a fire in Panem when she battles 23 other young tributes at the Hunger Games, including Peeta, played by Josh Hutcherson, from her own District. So how is Gary Ross' adaptation of this post-apocalyptic sci-fi story? Is it as good as everyone is saying, or even better? Once you've seen it, post a comment with your own thoughts on The Hunger Games.

"Katniss Everdeen - the girl on fire!" I really love this movie, genuinely love it. It took a second viewing for it to really hit me, but I love it, I love what Gary Ross has created, the delicately sci-fi world he plays in, the subtleties and nuances, yet the gritty, stark realism of it all. I love how it starts off and just picks up and moves—I wouldn't say quickly considering how long it is—but it definitely takes on you an adventure with Katniss and doesn't ever let up until then end—even at the end it still doesn't let up, and I'm already excited to see the next one. Jennifer Lawrence is fantastic, Elizabeth Banks is adorable, Stanley Tucci is the best talk show host I think I've ever seen in a sci-fi (except for Ruby Rhod, of course), Lenny Kravitz is a wonderful Cinna, Woody Harrelson is a fun, drunk mentor who I hope we see more of. Everything about it was great.

A few of my favorites: Josh Hutcherson, my goodness is he underrated, I thought he was outstanding in this. Sure, that cave stuff was campy, but I think he did the best he could to play what he was supposed to, it's his arc and transformation and the character he plays overall that impressed me the most. However, I really loved the epic feeling Gary Ross builds with the post-apocalyptic world around them, with that one riot scene after Rue and the three finger salute, that was the moment that made me think "holy crap yes, this is amazing!" It had a brief Lord of the Rings feel, that this one girl from District 12 could change the world, just by being who she was. That's the moment that secured my love for this, and I can't wait to see it again.

What did you think of The Hunger Games? One of the best sci-fi movies of the year, or worst? We will remove any comments that indicate you have not seen the movie, as this area is meant to discuss the film only once you have seen it and can talk about your thoughts. Please keep the comments civilized!

Find more posts in Discuss, SciFi, Sound Off

Discover more on ZergNet:

  • Jericho
    i loved it until the end, im sorry but i felt it could have been a little better... but here is hoping for a sequel......
    • Brager77
      There is a sequel. The movies are based off a trilogy of books. The next one is due out sometime next year (correct me if im wrong) and it will be called Catching Fire.
      • http://twitter.com/LogoTweetz Logo
        2013 is correct. But there might be 4 movies total, instead of 3 like the books.
        • Jericho
          of course its four movies, nobody does a third book in one movie and gets away with it...i think.......
          • Brager77
            I know... what were we thinking... that maybe this one would be normal? No, thats a dumb thought now, cmon....
          • Chip_Tha_Ripper
            Third book one movie: LOTR Return of the king.
          • Chip_Tha_Ripper
            Also the harry potter third book. Hahahahah.
          • http://twitter.com/dsjj251 Derrick
            this is a actually in response to Chip_tha_ripper " Third book one movie: LOTR Return of the king. " It was long enough to split into 4 movies. 
          • Jericho
            i never watched LOTR3 so i forgot about it
    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1628084941 Jeremy Ponniah
      Nah I LOVED the ending- it was wasn't predictable, which I liked, it gave us what we want but not in the way we wanted it. And it brought the focus back to the government and the ultimate significance of the Hunger Games in the first place. There is so much they could do in a sequel and I'm just so excited for it.
    • gabby
      it was not supposed to end that way, in the book it doesnt end like that  I was disappointed by it also! 
  • Badascansanta
    Absolutely awful and unimaginative adaptation of a great novel.  I was hugely disappointed.
    • Capiseric
      My wife was threatening to get up and walk out, while I just sat and laughed as the movie got as far away from the book as the new Snow White movie is from the fairy tale version. Characters, sleeping syrup, plot and key phrases left out. Stupid notes added with the parachutes. Terrible movie. But I did get to take my wife out on a date. So I guess it's okay
  • aissa
    Loved it even more than the book. Was very happy to see parents and their kids seeing the movie together. What a great film to spark discussions!
    • Kfitz1981
      What discussions? How a bunch of kids die because reality tv took off in popularity? At least lord of the flies has subtext. Completly shallow and heartless
      • http://www.facebook.com/dominic.dps Dominic Simpson
        I seriously doubt you ever read the books or even understood much of what President Snow spoke of when he mentioned to the Game Maker to contain it.
      • earthlingdave
        Actually there is quite a bit to discuss... the dehumanizing nature of fascism, the glorification of violence and the consequences of it, class warfare and inequity, the violence of the mob mentality... Oh, and mutant dogs...
        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PXU24C4M6X353J6KKR7CC3USEA GG
          you hit the nail right on the head: after all: isn't this what we are facing more and more in society today...class warfare has already begun, and the mob mentality is also raising it's ugly head...why is it, that history always repeats itself without fail...will people EVER GET IT?
      • Dimplesbe9
        I completely agree...  I had a very difficult time watching it... it was horrible.  
  • Jackson
    Only flaw I found was the sub-par cgi of the city scenes. It can definitely be attributed to the limited budget, which will most certainly be incrementally bigger for the rest of the series, but it definitely let me down in that aspect.
    • One wonders
      85 million is a cheesy budget? They could have spent it on a better Peetah. Not happy with the casting of this Josh H.
      • Kiakaya
         Have you read the books??? His name is spelt Peeta not Peetah. Josh H. has been in more movies than any of the other cast main actors so I wouldn't complain.
        • fazha
           It's easy to make a typo in comments. I wouldn't spend much time focusing on spelling. Everyone will have their own opinions about casting; it's a very subjective thing. I for one did not like Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, but I'm sure there are lots of people who will disagree.
          • GregDinskisk
             (Like me. Then again, I am completely biased due to my love of him.)
          • Lizziedefrancesca
            That's why you read the books! You can make up your own versions of characters on your own. I think they did a great job. You can criticize their looks all you want but I thought every actor portrayed their character perfectly.
      • Snasher7
        i think josh h was perfect for peeta, hes not too big of a guy, but hes stern. hes able to protect but still be sweet
  • Lecrazy
    The book was better, no contest. The movie was great, but it lacked the raw emotion and perspective of Suzanne Collins' writing. They left out quite a bit (the ending wasn't anywhere near as good as the book), but the changes were understandable. Jennifer Lawrence was great, and I was pleasantly surprised by Josh Hutcherson's performance. I wasn't really feeling Woody Harrelson or Liam Hemsworth, but they did an adequate job. All in all, I'd recommend reading the books first. The movie is great as an adaptation of the novel, but not so good as a stand alone film. Oh, and if you go, be sure to bring tissues. There were at least three parts I choked up at, and I never cry during movies.
    • Livi<3 THG!
      I know exactly how you feel. They said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Peeta's leg..... he was supossed to have it REPLACED!! And the ending was no where near as good as the books.... but the movie was still wonderful... just wish theyput more emotion into it...
  • Brucelee321
    GREAT MOVIE, no bad language.  (There were actually two school buses of children watching the movie debute.)  This is a MUST SEE for anyone who loves action and adventure.  There were adults behind me crying during a couple of the scenes ("Rue").  The movie ends with an obvious lead up to a fight between Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth for Jennifer Lawrence in the sequal.  Donald Southerland is a classic actor..., I didn't know he was still alive!  This MOVIE IS BIG!!! 
  • Crenious1
    The movie had no emotion, my whole mindest or seeing the movie was to see how they handled the rue death. But it was like she was an afterthought. Katniss didn't connect with anyone emotionally the whole movie except for prim in the beginning. I will see the other movies in my head only by re-reading the books. It's the same as twilight I guess the book was just way better.
    • Danny
      Then I don't think you understood the Katniss from the books, because her strenght relies on been able to remain calm under the awful circumstances, she has to be able to deattach herself in order to do not loose herself... An Twilight is just bad writting 
    • Chris Amaya
      GEEZ thanks for the spoiler alert! :p jk jk
    • http://twitter.com/danbullock Dan B
       Ha, yeah, that's the point of Katniss really! Which means, she's got the character spot on.
    • Marylee_86
      In the books it said that she had to act indifferent and detached so that the people controlling the games wouldn't use her feelings against her.
  • Mich
    I enjoyed the feel of the movie for the most part. I was a little disappointed that the Capitol citizens weren't more over the top. I loved the riot scene that was added after the salute. The only truly jarring thing to me was the piddly little fence that  surrounded District 12, it was way more imposing in the book.
  • Gk Redchocolate
    It was the best movie that i have ever seen that was based off of a book. The ening was a little off, to a certain point, but i can honestly say, best movie in a long while
    • Craig
       You need to see more adaptations.
    • Angry Chief
       you say that with John Carter still playing in theaters?
    • earthlingdave
      Check out The Godfather...
  • Kathy
    What was the director thinking? the cheap bumpy camera scenes in the beginning was so amateur, i had to look away, the camera was like watching a child filming.  It made me nauseated to the core to watch the filming of some scenes.  The action scenes were unreconizable, too fast, the highlighted cave scene showed no emotion and chemistry between the actors.  What happened to the ending?  No torn Katniss in the ship freaking out over Peeta's near death state.  Where is his loss of leg injury, that sets his character for the second book and third.  Major things missed.  The worse is the filming, scenes unfocused, painful to watch. So unbelievably disappointed. The actors were astonishing believable, if you didnt read the books, you would miss the personalities of all the actors, because they were poorly portrayed. Please please, beg James Cameron to film the next two movies.
    • Mai
      Kathy...I didn't think anyone else felt this way. I was dizzy the first 15-20 min of the movie, and i looked around to see if anyone else felt this way--but didnt appear so. I was also disappointed about how they introduce the mocking jay pin, Madge (although plays a small role) is still a big part in the books, especially the meaning behind it. They also didn't introduce her team of stylist or makeup team who play a huge role in the next books. We also never met the Avox girl...I understand to explain it all may have made the movie way too long, but I did not think it was a good.
      • Ghoagland2000
        I went home sick and a migraine with all the shakyness of the camera.I hope the next movie isn't this way.I was looking forward to seeing this movie but went and got sick in its place.Dissapointed.
      • AINYC Film
        This film lacked basic film language. There were, literally, no establishing shots in the ENTIRE FILM. (Few exceptions, however not enough to paint a picture of this universe) This is basic film school 101. If it was a stylistic choice, it was a poor decision on the part of the director and DP. Example - My question to you, where was President Snow? Sure he was in a garden. A garden where?  Thank you, Kathy, for bringing up the true failure of this film. There is an army of people who agree with you. 
    • racquetman
       Finally I found someone who looked at the movie objectively instead of emotionally.  As said, the whole sequence at district 12 was like a bad "found footage" film - terrible camera work, constantly changing focus, and nauseating visuals.  The bigger the screen, the worse it is and I saw it on an IMAX screen.  I have never seen anything like this in a movie before - it was almost unwatchable.  Overall the movie was watered down compared to the book to get the PG-13 rating.  Yes, the fighting scenes were a joke as mentioned. I expect this with large fighting scenes with many participants, but this was one-on-one fighting and it was just a blurred mess.  That is just being cheap and lazy from a movie that everyone knew was going to do big money.  Looks like maximizing profits was the objective.   The movie never took the time to establish any relationships between the characters, so any emotion the film tried to evoke was pointless because there was no foundation for it. In the end, it sure wasn't great but it wasn't awful, although stylistically you could argue the latter.  Disappointing is the right word I think.  
    • Temeriti
      LOL @ the James Cameron thing - I said the EXACT same thing as my hubby and I walked outta the movie. "90 million dollars, they shoulda gotten James Cameron."
    • Fizbin
       Seriously. The shaky cam was my worst problem with this movie. Ok, I can understand it in a fight scene (it'll still make me want to puke, but I can at least understand that it's supposed to show action I can't possibly follow.) It's when they insist on using shaky cam for a scene with two people, sitting in a field, having a conversation... Come on people! We get a close-up of him saying something. She responds. Quick pan over! He's talking again, pan back! Oh no, now she's talking again! It reminded me of a Benny Hill skit. My favorite description of the movie has got to be "The Running Man meets The Lord of the Flies on the Truman Show... with a shaky cam." But I did at least enjoy the parts that didn't make me want to puke. I'd say it was worth the $6 matinee price and I'm grateful they didn't insist on doing it in 3D.
    • Matt Cain
      Gary Ross said it was intentionally done to make us feel Katniss' perspective (or something) - uhm I don't remember the book mentioning she suffered from epileptic seizures. This shaky method of filming is really ruining movies for me. I just didn't like coming out of the theater with a headache and I know I wasn't the only one. I feel bad for the actors having to train hard for the action scenes only to become blurs on screen. The blonde duel between Peeta and Cato was totally indistinguishable. On other note, the Capitol Guards costume was horrendous (really? - with a $90M budget that's all they could come up with?). I don't think James Cameron would be a good idea for films with so many young actors though. Yes he is a good visionary but he is notorious for being very difficult to work with. Selfish, cruel, dictatorial, temperamental are some of the words I've read to describe him. Since Ross is definitely doing the next movie I hope he knows alot of people weren't too crazy about his experiment with the "shaky" approach. 
  • McSlitty
    The movie was good, I thought the chemistry between Katniss and Peeta was lacking in the movie.  One of the problems with bringing the book to the big screen is that the book told a fantastic tale from the beginning to end, there was so little to edit out, yet the story had to be compressed in a 2 hour movie.  I would rate it a B or B+.   
    • kryton
      In all fairness, there *shouldn't* be too much chemistry between Katniss and Peeta right now, because Katniss is deliberately keeping him at an arm's length and "faking it" for the benefit of the cameras and their survival. She does not return his affections at the moment. She cares about him, but not in *that way* – not yet. I thought Jennifer portrayed Katniss's romantic ambivalence quite well, although obviously, there's no possible way to make it as clear as it is in the book.
      • Temeriti
        Ummm...but the whole "them playing up a romance for sponsors and viewers' entertainment" was COMPLETELY left out, and that's MAJOR. Huge. Colossal even.
        • http://twitter.com/JordanScott53 Jordan Scott
          Except that it wasn't, sure it wasn't as developed, but it was there.
        • Jericho
          then why does it sound so stupid?...I'm sorry but now I'm liking what i saw of the movie more and more as I'm hearing about the stuff they left out....
      • McSlitty
         I'm not talking about romantic chemistry, I'm referring to the overall relationship between the two, from the train ride into the Capitol to feeling betrayed when she thought he sided with the Careers.  I didn't feel a connection with Katniss, Peeta, nor Gale; whereas, the relationship between Haymitch, Cinna, and Katniss was covered better.  Maybe if they had allowed Katniss to narrate parts of the movie, the relationships would have been reflected better.  I do agree that it was hard to fit all the book into the movie, and I did enjoy the added scenes with Seneca Crane and Pres. Snow. 
    • AK
      I have to agree with you. I thought overall that the movie was good, it left out what it could without creating huge plot holes for people who hadn't read the books. But the the main complaint I hade was that I didn't find Peeta and Katniss's "love" in the arena believable at all - and it is suppose to be so believable that it causes them to act rashly at the end rather than calculated (whatever it really might be). At best I would say they were fond of eachother. The berry scene lacked the urgency I felt the end had and more detail/time should have been spent on creating the peeta/katniss love illusion. Obviously the violence was toned down - but i've expected that as they need the pg-13 rating without offending the younger audience and parents of those kids. (although the bond movies manage to be violent enough but a hair under R - wish they had done that) Overall - 3.5 out of 5 - but I'm looking forward to see how they approach the next movie.
  • Joe
    Loved it! Wonderful movie
  • J50_52
    I took my daughter to a midnight showing and was pleasantly surprised at the story and the acting.  I have not read the book and was not sure what to expect after having been a bit disappointed by the Twilight series.   I agree with Kathy about the videography.  It looked like a poorly filmed backyard birthday party complete with bumps and jostles.  It got in the way of my enjoyment of the story.  I second the motion to get Cameron to do the sequel; or at least someone that can hire a smooth cinematographer.    
  • Zai_mindmastr
    The movie was amazing. I haven't read the book and I have no plans. But I totally love the movie. I would watch it again.
  • Scorpio
    It is surprising so much hype is created around this violent movie (Hunger Games). Could not stand to watch even half of it. It is a mindless fiction full of violence and outright creepy. It is a shame people are celebrating this bag of shit and parents allow their kids to watch such insanity. When will we get real...
    • Traveler
      Are you serious or just trolling? The books are a critique of our culture. Not a celebration of violence and fame. You should read it before you judge it. 
    • Angela
      I really have a hard time with people who don't get it. You're so quick to climb up on your soap box and pontificate about how dreadful the violence is.  Back up out of the trees, take a look at the forest--and you just might learn a thing or two.   This movie, clearly--makes a statement against violence and warns us all--that we are becoming desensitized to the violence that we see on television.  We're reminded that real people become objects once they're on television--getting divorced, getting pregnant as a teen, or even getting murdered.  It becomes passive entertainment for the masses--and that's what is really dreadful.The movie also makes big statements against war--and how it victimizes and exploits common folk and enriches those at the top.  There's also a message of hope--that one person can spark change and topple the most horrifying and powerful systems.  The Hunger Games warns us about being desensitized to violence on a personal scale (watching it on television) and on a grander scale (war).  THG shows us what can happen if human beings become accustomed to violence as entertainment and to perpetual war.  I have really grown weary of people who can't think anymore.  I can understand someone not liking the movie.  That's fine.  However, please spare me another, "Oh it's children killing children and I cannot bear the thought!"  Please, use your heart and your mind to really THINK about what this movie means and says.  This movie does not glorify violence.  Violence, war and the leaders who perpetuate these actions--are clearly the villains in the Hunger Games.    Katniss, the heroine, stands up to the entire system that is fueling and perpetuating the violence and oppression--simply by being her authentic self.  
      • Suzanne
        Well said.  I, too, am sick of people harping on the "kids killing kids" thing and wish people would see the bigger picture.  Thank you for your thoughtful response.
    • Charleneo57
      sorry but what you just said was the real bag of shit , look it's not even violent! have you seen saw now thats violent this dosent even actually show them hurting eachother most of the time it switches camera angles just before , it only hints. If im honest if you had to stop watching it just because of a couple of hinted tiny violent bits why don't you keep to movies that have not even a tiny bit of action or violence in .... i heard the muppets have a new movie , or will that be too violent for you?
    • earthlingdave
      I agree with the other comments, you don't seem to understand the difference between critique and celebration. Hostel is a movie that celebrates violence, Hunger Games, not so much...
  • Maansson
    Hooray, finally someone who isn't head over heels uncritically in love with this movie. I've had it up to here with glowing reviews and everyone jumping on the "amazing" bandwagon. I went to see the movie expecting nothing, as I haven't read the books. But being a sci-fi buff, I was completely openminded and hoping for the best. It didn't take me more than a few minutes to become really annoyed at the pretentious, constantly shaking camera work. I mean come on, how hard is it to show a close up of a person or an item in someones hand, without having to shake the image so violently, that you can't focus on what's in the frame. I can somewhat accept it as a "clever" way of obscuring the violence since it's apparently such a big deal with kids killing kids these days, but it was completely overdone everywhere else in the movie. The simple task of Katniss pulling back her bow and aiming it at an animal, was inexplicably intercut to smithereens between more than 10 different shaky shots of her from every angle. Like a really bad music video made by a director without any sense of orientation. Why this overkill of annoying shakiness? By mid movie you could predict every time the next shaky 'bender' was approaching - and every time the action heated up to somewhat interesting, it was reduced to an incoherent blur, where you had no chance of following who did what to who? I'm sorry, but I left the theater feeling as if I had just watched the worst movie of all time. Not even Jennifer Lawrence's good acting or the occasional sweeping sci-fi vistas can make up for more than two hours of crappy camera work. And don't get me started on the flawed logic in many scenes. Worst example: Let's go blow up the supplies to annoy the boys... oh, never mind. Apparently - for some odd reason - they've mined their own supplies, so we can just set them off. Easy peasy. WTF?? And absolutely no setup as to what society we are in, other than some vague suggestions later in the story. It's just too quick'n easy hack work. This whole thing is so poorly executed, shot and edited, that I have a hard time believing thsi is the same guy, that gave us Pleasantville and Seabiscuit??
    • Guest
      I haven't seen the movie yet, but it doesn't seem to be anything like the book once you get down to the details, for instance, the book is in the first person so everything that happens without her has been added by Lionsgate, including that weird uprising in 11 that I'm told happens, and in the book, the Careers hadn't mined their own supplies, the mines were around it in such a way that they wouldn't set off a chain reaction if someone stepped on one, and Katniss gets rid of it with three arrows that knock down bags of food onto the mines, setting enough of them off at once that most of the supplies is destroyed, and the boy who designed the trap is killed by Cato for is mistake, although in the movie, I've heard that it blows up from the inside, which makes no sense.  The cave scenes are supposed to be very different, which I doubt is an improvement since everyone says they're terrible in the movie, the ending fight with Cato is changed, and Katniss and Peeta's relationship is  supposed to be a little off, along with katniss's personality.  Basically, if it's as bad as it appears to be, from reading between the lines of the positive reviews, please don't judge us "Hunger Games" fans based on it, I'm guessing I'm only going to like it out of devotion to the text, not this film, which looks pretty bad and doesn't appear to set up the rest of the adaptations.
      • Bekka
        The uprising in the districts does happen in the time frame of the first book, she just doesn't know about it until the second book.
        • Wgoodyear10
          The uprising in 11 happens after they leave on the victory tour...
    • Brianna
      I agree the shakiness at the beginning is annoying. However, if you've read the books, which it is obvious you haven't.. you would know that the story is entirely too detailed for them to put it all in a 2 and a half hour movie. Also, they didn't just "mine their own supplies". If you jump off the lift that takes you into the arena before time is called, you will blow up because there are mines there. They placed their supplies in the middle... to set a trap. I understand there's no way you could have known, because obviously they didn't place that specific information into the movie.. but damn, you have to read this to fully appreciate it. I mean, it's not uncommon knowledge that the books are always way better than the movies.  Get real. 
      • quazimotto
        Wow, someone makes an opinion based on a movie they saw and you tell them they "have to read the books to appreciate it" and then to "get real"? Because the books are always better anyway? Then why bother making a movie? Especially if you have to "read the books to appreciate it"?
        • NotAFan
          ...so you can go out and purchase the books (production of the books have quadrupled) shooting the author into insant popularity/fame (as in Twilight/Stephanie Meyers).  Never heard of either before the movie hypes.
          • NotAFan
            correction:  I meant "instant".
        • Jericho
          that sounds stupid anyways....
  • rjginther
    The shaky can made my wife Ind I sick, but beyond that it was OK. We both loved the book series.
  • Mattsride97
    This was a bit of a letdown. I can give it a B- at best. Shaky cam/ unimaginative looking shots/never really cared about any of the characters except Katniss. I actually checked my watch twice during the film. Going to see The Raid tomorrow ,hopefully that will deliver the goods.
  • Shekletona
    It was amazing. Unbelievable. I would see it ten times again. Bravo!
  • Ryan
    I go to the movies to be entertained. Its that simple. And I truly was, saw it, loved it. Well done Gary Ross, some people are being way over critical. Sounds more like showing off to be honest, people need to relax. If you didnt like the movie fine...dont go ON and ON.
    • HazedMind
      well the reason people go on and on is because they like to justify why or why not they didnt like it, some people need substance, sorry we're not all as simple as you.
      • Brianna
        I like what I like. Suck a dick.
      • Ace
         Doesn't matter.  No one cares about your opinion.
        • Justin
          Nor do they care about your's.
          • Temeriti
            Obviously we all care or we wouldn't have read this far down the page. ;)
          • Jericho
            I LIKE PIE!!!!!!
  • Hilaria1955
    Loved it. It stayed pretty true to the book, just a few minor differences. My complaint is about the very choppy cinematography. My husband and a friend had the same complaint. Loved Jennifer Lawrence and thought she was perfect for the role. Same with Cinna.
    • Craig
       The cinematography was likewise my biggest complaint. Unnecessary shaky cam and too many close-ups. Not enough to ruin the movie, but enough to be annoying.
    • Muriel
      Really? Kravitz? Ugh, I thought he was horrible. He was like a plank of wood; poor Lawrence had to act opposite of THAT? No connection at all between those two, especially with how important that relationship was in the book. My friend even found him creepily sexual. O_o They really could've found so many others to play the part of Cinna with probably a better outcome. Why Kravitz? I have no idea.
      • Tha_leader1
        LOL! Quit hating on Kravitz. He's sexy and goodlookin'! The only thing good about this film! So I got jungle fever! Oww!
  • Adamlee 0219
    What I don't understand is how Suzanne Collins and the producers of THE HUNGER GAMES aren't being sued by the author and producers of the 1999 Japanese film, BATTLE ROYALE, which has the identical premise of a totalitarian government exploiting teenagers as entertainment by forcing them into deathmatch?!
    • happy camper
      and i bet the next part of the film involves the kids fighting back against the government who then sends new kids to go kill them. Again a rip off of BR2. ive never read anything about the 2nd part but i bet its not to far off from that.
      • Adamlee 0219
        I think Koushun Takami ( creator of BATTLE ROYALE ) needs to go hire the attorneys that Art Buchwald used when Eddie Murphy and John Landis ripped off Buchwald's idea for COMING TO AMERICA.
    • quazimotto
      No sh*t. Absurdly blatent rip-off. What's just as shameful is the plagiarism doesn't even carry over into the movie. Where's the violence? Oh I forgot, we want kids killing kids to be a movie the whole family can enjoy.  Another obvious Hollywood money grab (Prometheus is sounding like one as well with the PG-13 rating being institued by Fox, dumb f*cks may as well have not even made the movie. Definitely wait for the extended R-rated BD release).  Battle Royale > Hunger Crap any day.
    • Tha_leader1
      I don't understand it either. It's a blatant rip-off of someone else' work! The only thing I do like about this movie is Lenny Kravitz is in it! Sexy and good lookin! Owww! Lawrence was lucky to be playin' opposite this rock god!
  • Craig
    I thought it was alright. Great performances but the narrative was a little weak (felt like the movie started too abruptly) and the camera work was pretty shoddy.
  • Nolansucks
    Hey have any of you people read or seen "Battle Royale"?  If you have the reaction my wife had to "Battle Royale" AFTER reading "The Hunger Games" you will think -- oh my gosh, "Battle Royale" ripped off "The Hunger Games."  The problem is "Battle Royale" came out first.  Fans of the novels try to protect their religion by taking one of three positions 1) Pretending there is no influence 2) Acknowledging that there is an influence 3) But pretending that both are different saturations of the same hue.   The first positions seem to lack credibility, so they usually go for strategy three and pretend that they are apples and oranges.   The problem is that under copyright law, the analogy of apples and oranges breaks down.   In the end, we are talking intellectual property rights and the sad part is that no matter how much of a fan you are of the series, the author of "The Hunger Games" created a blatant rip off of "Battle Royale."  Her defense is to pretend there is a long history of stories in mythology with the same conceit -- the idea of a nationalized gladitorial games in which contestants battle to the death and which is televised.  This indeed has been true from stories like "The Running Man" to "Death Race 2000."  But "Battle Royale" distinguished itself specifically by applying the conceit to a group of teens (part "Robocop" part "Lord of the Flies").   The author wanted to take a stab at reality TV and mediated violence, and depict a fascistic regime using the latest in video technology to destroy the teens that ultimately helped to shape video culture.  As such, the teenagers in "Battle Royale" become unwitting victims of their own aesthetics, which the State finds threatening and ultimately co-opts in order to diminish the threat.  "The Hunger Games" merely is the story that Suzanne Collins wished "Battle Royale" would have been if she had written it.  So although she changes themes here and there, the inherent structure is left intact.  And this is exactly what copy right law seeks to protect.   In the end, "The Hunger Games" is like the Japanese State in "Battle Royale" -- a monolithic entity that has appropriated the aesthetics of its threat so that it can neutralize it and ultimately supplant it with its own pathetic simulation.   Suzanne Collins is the worst form of simulacra.
    • http://twitter.com/ConcreteLogic Jim Dime
      "Her defense is to pretend there is a long history of stories in mythology with the same conceit -- the idea of a nationalized gladitorial games in which contestants battle to the death and which is televised. This indeed has been true from stories like "The Running Man" to "Death Race 2000."  But "Battle Royale" distinguished itself specifically by applying the conceit to a group of teens." My god you people are ridiculous.  So it's ok to make another deadly reality show movie, but Battle Royal has a lock on the teen age bracket?  There IS a long history of stories with the same conceit,  down to the totalitarian government using the competition as a tool against its people.  In fact Stephen King's 'The Long Walk' also involves teens.  The concept is not all that hard to arrive at.  It's also not particularly original.  Certainly not original enough to have any kind of copyright claim.
      • quazimotto
        Maybe try watching Battle Royale before making such an "informed" opinion. My gawd. Ri-dick-ulous.
        • http://twitter.com/ConcreteLogic Jim Dime
          I have.  What's your point?
          • karl
             loved both films. haven't read either book. Hunger Games copies many of the same elements as Battle Royal. a list of similarities would fill this page. it would be respectful to acknowledge that it was source material for both.
          • http://twitter.com/ConcreteLogic Jim Dime
            Elements that are shared by numerous other works.  As I said, neither is particularly novel in concept or structure.  Just because one followed the other does not mean one influenced the other.  I think it's likely a convergent evolution.  
    • Ted Kennedy
      what?
  • Stockjonebills
    Saw it tonight and I don't get all the fuss. I found the movie to be average at best. Kind of boring at times. Also the love interest that grows just is not believable at all.
    • Teacherkid
       Read the books. It's not supposed to be.
      • AK
        False - it is suppose to be believable even though much of it is an act. The point is that people should think it's believable - the main problem  I had with the movie.
    • READTHEBOOK
      It is not supposed to be believable because she doesn't love him. READ THE BOOKS.
  • Filmfan4948578374
    I still am shocked at the hype for this movie. The trailer looks so awful. I guess just book fans are watching it?
    • Stockjonebills
      That all it can be. Its definitely less kiddy and corny than Twilight, but I think it has that Twilight type of hype about it. Its not that great. In fact, I would recommend it as a wait and rent.
      • dgeet
        I read the books and i hate reading books, there is something honest and intriguing about the book where it isnt close to twilight in the sense of a love story because there practically is none but I get what you mean about the hype of the movie, i wish it was compared to harry potter rather than twilight now
  • http://twitter.com/danbullock Dan B
    I did something I don't always do, I read the book before seeing the film. I have to say that it is very impressive but also a take on Battle Royale - in a very minor sense - and a comment on modern media and the limits of society, moving towards what is acceptable and what isn't? Jennifer Lawrence is spot on as Katniss, I think they've under-used a few characters and also it wasn't as dark as I think it could have been. It's a very good start but the 4/5 star reviews out there - for me - are a bit overblown. I can tell you one thing though, it's a million miles better than Twilight at highlighting reality and strength in character.
  • http://twitter.com/jamieneish Jamie Neish
    Here's my review of The Hunger Games - http://emptyscreens.com/2012/03/23/review-the-hunger-games-2012/
  • Oatska
    A lot of people have a lot to say, so I'll keep this short. I enjoyed the film. The story gives us someone for whom to care in a circumstance of Fight to The Death, an arena game in a post-apocalyptic, dystopic future. This scenario has been done previously, but this one, in my opinion, has been handled in the best fashion, in terms of story and characters. Directing-wise, though, I believe Gary Ross could have done more. He missed out on seeing how epic this movie could have been, and rushed through certain scenes, while downplaying the dramatic effect of others, such as the coherence of the riot, the rapidity of the bloodbath on that first day, the way the tributes were presented in those chariots, and how quietly Sutherland left the control center. Simple; have him walk down a dark corridor, headed to the camera, with light behind him, subduing shadows over his face: how much easier can it be to foreshadow his coming antagonism? Not to mention, for those of you who have yet to read the book, read up the list of differences listed in Wikipedia. You'll be astonished as to how many of them could easily have been kept in the film and were changed for absolutely no valid reason. It's a good movie; I enjoyed it, and it captured the story, but I felt this could have been much more epic, much more grand than what it actually is. Ross had the ability to lay out a classic and upgrade his name in Hollywood- he didn't.
  • Rocker Girl24
    I loved the movie BUT I will say they left so much important stuff out. The medicine for peeta was a shot and she was bleeding so heavily on the books she barely gave him the shot before he died. Her burns were her hands and entire right calf, Cinna told them to hold hands, the whole cave scene is cut so short that you never get to see the love triangle unfold. She cries a little over Rue but she does not hystrecially cry. At the end, where was the Peeta and Katniss Face off?? And the desperation in that scene? Also the whole end went too fast. I understand they can't put it all in but they did leave out some very important parts.
  • Rocker Girl24
    Also the actors were spot on!!! I loved them and they are why I loved the movie!
  • Nefertiti
    This movie took a really great idea and demolished it will the Nickelodeon, meets Lady Laga, Nikki Minaj, and marie Antoinette concept. I almost thought it was a joke when I first began watching. It's never good when your watching something where the intention is for it to be serious, but you feel like laughing. Jennifer Lawrence did an excellent job even though she, as well as all of the characters, were very underdeveloped in the movie. Not only that, they never made me believe Catness could survive in the game. The questions I had were many including, why was the mother resentful off the youngest daughter? What was the nature of the relationship with catness and the boy from the beginning. Were they in love? Why do people in the future dress like it's Halloween? Why was the leader so non compassionate about the killing of children. Would have been nice to get a short speech from him about why his opinions were so strong on the matter. Why wasn't the rival of the districts ever show to make it clear why they were so competitive? Why were none of the competitors characters ever developed? Was Peeta a traitor in the beginning or did he have a plan? She never questions his intent so in the end how can an audience want to see either  of them live? How did Peeta get the products to make himself look like a tree? The dialogue in the script was terrible from start to finish. I really want to know how this project got green lit with all of the holes and unexplained moments. From a technical standpoint, anyone watching will need dramamine because the cinematographer who apparently thought he was being "creative", did some of the worst camera work I have ever seen in my life. My head was hurting from all the movement. This is not to say that movement couldn't have worked, but this was just a dizzy mess. The film had a couple of good moments but as a whole, it was far from good. 
    • Stockjonebills
      I agree. So much of this seemed rushed and it felt unbelievable. I never felt the main character was really was capable of surviving. I never read the book's but I can imagine that they rushed the story a lot.
    • http://profile.yahoo.com/6CSGXQXATYEMJJGQG44KQCASVY aaronl
       You have to watch between the lines. It wasn't that the leader was so non compassionate to the killing of kids. You have to remember this is a reality tv show. The reason for that was to symbolize and show people how reality tv has gotten so ridiculous over the times. People become objects for human entertainment. Exhibit A- Jersey Shore. They party , fight, get trashed and waste their life away, whatever. Exhibit B- Teen Mom. People getting pregnant at such a young age is so glamorized. You get the drift? =]
  • Charleneo57
    i loved it , it kept me on the edge of my seat , made me cry a little and i was so captivated by it i literally jumped back two seats behind when the dog thingy jumped out
  • Grafspeegrc
    Paid $9 to see a 3 minute film ..... because that is all you could see based on shaky camera .... Gary Ross what a moron.
  • Chrisrodriguez02
    If you havent read the book then shut up. This is one of the most true to form adaptations there has been in a while. Yes there were flaws, yes there was points missing but the emotion, the energy the key points where there. Lets us all remember that the author of the books was also the screenwritter with Gary Ross. Again yes would I have like more, but for a movie which we all know isnt going to be as good as the book, it was excellent. 
    • Hollih
      The fact that the author was also the screenwriter is what makes me wonder why she did such a hatchet job on her own book.  Pick the most important scenes in the book and then really make us understand what's going on!  Make us love the characters.  I truly don't know how anyone who hasn't read the books even makes sense of this movie.  So disappointing.  Some of you keep saying that Katniss really didn't have any feelings for Peeta yet.  If that's the case then why did she flip out when they took Peeta from her at the end on the hovercraft?  That's when you realize that she does have feelings for him and we never got to see that on the screen.  I will go and see the next two movies, but I really hope they do a better job of making us feel something for the characters.  I did like how they added the scenes of Seneca Crane in the movie.  It was a nice addition to actually flesh him out and see how he died.
    • Temeriti
      True to form...so you read the book, but obviously didn't retain. Gotcha.
    • redskulllives
       not excellent at all, this film could have been much more but all we got was a tragedy
  • Gutterflowr3
    Disappointed! The movie left out emotional elements. It touched upon the scenes that were supposed to be intense and left them weak and quickly passed over them. For example, the cave scene was incredibly awkward. Josh is this tiny Peeta that can't act and Jennifer plays Latniss but looks older than him and much taller than him. Overall, Josh sucked as peeta.. Peeta is supposed to be this big strong guy with a good heart. Instead, Josh makes him look like a 12 year old wuss.. He didn't have a charisma to play peeta. Ugh!!
    • Stockjonebills
      Yeah the whole Peeta character was very confusing to me. He never came of as a strong powerful guy with a big heart. He came off as a pretty frail and fearful person. 
      • Tracylee2681
        I completely agree.  That was the biggest disappointment for me.  I absolutely love Peeta, my favorite from the books, and they completely ruined his character. He's very boyish and weak and the bond between him and Katniss isn't even touched on.  
  • Mediocrityisthenewgenius
    I feel that if they had just put a little more effort into Katniss’s inner narrative we would’ve looked past what they had to leave out.www.mediocrityisthenewgenius.com
  • redskulllives
    DISAPPOINTMENT  :(
  • mchun
     I was so excited when the movie just started off and was like "on the edge of my seat".But after a few shaky scenes, I totally buried myself back in the seat to see clearly what's going on. The part of preparing in Capital is good, but when the game actually starts... it's just not as remarkable as the book.Not excited at all,except when the dog comes out.
  • Gost
    i just came back from the cinema, woah that sure as hell was one of the worst blockbusters in recent memory :) no suspense, action scenes were lame, i won't even mention the shaky camera,.. the whole story was bad and totally predictable imo. supporting cast was great however(woody,toby,stanley,elizabeth and even lenny kravitz). i won't be seeing other parts cuz it obviously develops into some lame love-triangle, right ? that's why everyone is comparing this to twilight eh ? i honestly think this was a really bad stand alone film and i certainly cant understand how could any adult film lover think of this as a good film :(
    • Stockjonebills
      You said it. No "adult" film lover can take this film seriously. It was an average movie hyped by a book following.
    • Itance7
       I have to agree with you in some regards lots of happenstance and lots of wtf just happened moments. However I do understand the motive for the shaky camera work, it's hard to show kids killing kids and keep your PG-13 rating.
  • Madex
    Ru Paul's Truman Show was unwatchable, worst character development, worst camera work and by far the worst editing in a film ever. 
  • http://www.facebook.com/Tyban Tyler Bannock
    Without acknowledging the movie is a rip off from Battle Royale and Running Man the movie falls short of the book. It contained none of the emotion from the book. But all the twihards are gonna freak out and go see this movie anyway and it will make millions and millions of dollars.
  • Stockjonebills
    I'm sure if you read the books a lot of you appreciate the characters and story better. With that said, watching it simply as someone going to see a good movie, it was not a great movie at all. A lot of the story seemed rushed. Most of all the characters were not believable. I never was given the sense that Katniss was able to win the games. The whole hint that maybe there really was something between Katniss and  Peeta. In fact, the movie made me dislike Peeta. He was like a meaningless character.
  • Naiarules
    The hunger games was incredible. I loved it so much!!!!! -Naia Nolan-
  • Adam Lubicz
    Exceeded my expectations.
  • HG2012
    why are people saying "they could'nt sell me that katniss could actually win the games"?? umm thats the freaking point she is'nt a fighter she is a 16 year old girl who just hunts for food to feed her family she is'nt a trained killer many times in the book she felt the odds were not in her favor and felt like she was gonna get killed at any time she is'nt suppose to be freaking rambo
  • Tracylee2681
    I also felt like there was a lack of chemistry between Katniss and Peeta.  I liked the actor who played Peeta, but I felt like they down played his character too much.  I absolutely love Peeta and I felt like in the movie you really aren't able to get to know his character well enough.  There wasn't enough of them together to show how much they bond and rely on each other emotionally.  I also felt like it was a bit rushed.  All of the time was spent in the capital and the games only lasted a couple of days.  I also felt like the ending was extremely rushed.  As a whole, I felt like, as far as book adaptations go, this one followed the story well.  But, when you love a book this much it is hard to let go when it is not exactly as you invision it.  You have to go in expecting it to not be perfectly done.  I was mostly just disappointed with their portrayal of Peeta.  He is such a strong and mature character and felt like they made him appear very boyish and a bit weak.  I truly hope they show more depth in his character in the second movie.
  • Race Bannon
    i thought it was lame as hell.. it was battle royale meets nickelodeon and twilight.  It was made for 10 yr old girls.  So i mean, of course there is going to be a massive audience even if it sucks.  Just like twilight, probably some of the worst directing/ acting ever put on film, but it still makes 100's of millions because there's a massive audience of young girls that, for some reason, think it's good.  
    • Buzzfunk
      Thats exactly what the previews already look like. Glad I didnt fall for the hype. It always had that "twilight" vibe for me, minus the vampires. 
  • Matt Heart
    I would totally go down on Josh Hutcherson
  • ur_babys_daddy
    Im hungry for more! You see what I did? I took the word "hunger"....and ....yeah I know..I need to swallow the berries.
  • Ryanstud8
    loved it it was awesome!!!
  • C.Murder
    This whole franchise is a rip off of Battle Royale. A great film that is hard R, the way a movie about a bunch of kids forced to kill each other SHOULD be. It doesn't sell out like this piece of shit franchise. BATTLE ROYALE....go rent it kiddies.
  • Tempus
        Enough! I had to vent that after all the comments. I am sick and tired of people talking about a film without learning about its source. And they also don't take the hint that paying tribute to story doesn't have to be exactly like playing to peoples' want of a film.If you think this is a rip off go to the author and ask them yourselves cowards/haters.   As for the actual film on hand, it has its pros and cons in its display. But do not ignore that the author worked with the director (an uncommon endeavour in cinema). Its pros were that is was very accurate to the book and that story shown was in line with its source. Also a voice over of the main characters thought was not done so people wouldn't want her to shut up (her character has a flood of thoughts throughtout the book as it is a first person story).    Its cons of course are a series of small events not shown which may be due to time constrains of the films length. No flashback of girl captured by capitol and later seen as an Avox. No major daughter who gives her the mockingjay pin (both minor characters). Yes there are plot holes of missing story elements but they are not shown to allow the film to maintain pacing.   A good adaption of the book which is among the few that is backed by its author. By no means a masterpiece but not low quality in portayal. Good film that does not warrent the flack it gets. In my books 8.5 out of 10.  
  • toan
     Man.... kinda disappointed, they cut out too many good stuff from the book... I guess the PG-13 play a huge role on how the film was shot. This film should have been a rate-R movie....
  • fazha
     I enjoyed the movie more than I did the book, it was that good. I had a few problems with the first book: the future they set out didn't seem all that believable, and the 'star crossed lovers' thing they cooked up to manipulate the audience seemed forced, and designed just to make some plot decisions work. The movie didn't change things that much but it didn't seem as rediculous. I think it was because the film elevated the subject matter. It was well filmed, well acted, and the sound design was brilliant. The way they used silence to punctuate the dramatic scenes like the rush to the cornucopia was particularily effective, and the death scene with Rue affected me more than it did in the book. I can't say that about many flim to book adaptations. Hunger Games definitely took their queue from the last few Harry Potter films in how to adapt a Young Adult book for a mature and discerning audience. Makes me really hopeful for the sequels. This film is the Anti-Twilight.
  • Rfjag51
    I think the silent parts could have been used to narrate the story to give better understanding, for those who haven't read the books. But having said that, I/we thought the acting was very good, keeping with the personalities of the the book. And after having done a little research on Lionsgate, I've discovered, despite there being 3 books, there will be 3 more films between now & 2018.
  • Danielalatina
    Such a beautiful movie and the books are the same. My respects to this triology
  • Animal
    I haven't read the books, but I watched the movie and let me tell you.... it wasn't very good.  The shaky camera was awful. Jennifer Lawrence was great, but overall casting sucked. No character development, and the plot was shallow. This movie has discouraged me from reading the books.
  • Animal
    One minute Peeta is helping the others hunt down Katniss, the next they're making out in a cave. She never even asks him about it. The more I think about it, the more this movie sucked. For those of you who have read the books.... stop trying to convince yourself this movie was good, and see it for what it was. A bad movie.
    • kryton
      I would hardly call Katniss's single, contrived kiss "making out". She didn't WANT to kiss him. Haymitch told her to do it in order to sell their fake romance to the people watching – all in an effort to be liked by the viewers, so they could receive sponsor gifts... to stay alive.  "The more I think about it"? Hmm, sounds to me like you didn't think too much about this movie at all...
  • http://www.quanahblogs.com/ Quanah
    My kids are going today. I await their verdict.
  • Bebn58
    Ive never read the books so I went into this blind. I enjoyed it overall but I dont really see what all the hype was about.
  • Bblossomhoney
    Hunger Games left me starving. Mix up in a motion movie blender  1 part Gladiators, 2 parts Nazi movement, & 3 parts Survival all occurring on Halloween and you get Hunger Games. At least the idea of love still exist in spite of the disjointed purpose of this movie.  
  • One Way Boulevard productions
    This movie was amazing beginning to end I loved. So far my favorite movie of 2012. I really hope the sequels will be equally as good as this one. This was just a great movie.
  • Animal
    Anyone who thinks this movie was "great" or "amazing" is an idiot.
  • Wookie
    Overall this is definitely a movie worth seeing. I think it important to point out that I haven't read the books so my review is strictly just on the film. I loved the world that Gary has shown us and that way it is done. This really goes into the physiological ramifications of children and teenagers preparing to kill one another. On a filmmmaker level I loved the way the deaths were handled the camera work, sound design, and cuts. By not showing us the deaths strait on in a gory way they made them more meaningful and scary to watch and we just knew that we didn't want to see what was going on.  Things I didn't like. I wanted Kat's killings not to be all circumstantial or reactionary. I wanted her to actually have to go out a seek a killing. I wanted the story to test the audiences allegiance to Kat and for her to go through her own discovery if she can possibly even be a good person after these games. Atleast when she killed the boy that through a spree at the little girl we should have seen how it affected her to kill. Also I found Peta to actually be a very weak character and they messed up the one moment where he could have proven that they can change him and that he still will be him as he puts it. At the end he should have taken one of Kat's arrows and killed himself. In his death proving that he owns his own destiny. Also I would much rather have Kat deal with being changed but all the deaths instead of this love triangle it seems we're going to have to deal with. Regardless great film this shows that main-stream hollywood can still make good films when the right heads are put together        
    • Vectis
      For reading from someone who hasn't read the books its refreshing to find a honest review without trying to butcher the film. I will say that there are too many people wanting the violence and not understanding this story is not about favoring or justifying violence.   It doesn't matter whether it is in all gory details or not; Death is death no matter how you change the view. And much of Kat's motivations are survival for her families sake, and she does not desire to kill anyone just becuase she could. Peeta was a weaker character for a reason; he doesn't care whether or not he lives or dies. Thats why at the end he quickly told her to kill him so she would still be the victor. A character that is that willing to die needed to be overshadowed so people wouldn't attach to them in the film. For all those complaining about shaky camera moves watch Cloverfield and rant at that. Also past midway in the story the shaky camera movements are to display the effects of the bugs venom affecting Kat's body (you should have known that). I grow weary of having to tell people what actually happened in the movie, almost should say the whole movie. Thanks all for me. Vectis
  • http://www.facebook.com/robohh Rob O'Sullivan
    I was not particularly impressed with it. Throughout the movie I kept thinking to myself "I've already seen this movie before some 20 years ago... It was called 'The Running Man' and it had Arnold Schwarzenegger kicking all sorts of ass and was ten times better."  Between the shaky, tightly-zoomed-in-faux-action cinematography (which was HORRIBLE), the abundantly contrived plot with convenient solutions to every tough situation just handed to the main characters, the characters themselves with their two-dimensional personalities, the ridiculously manipulated Truman Show-like atmosphere and a lot of stale acting which left me unable to find any real empathy for the main characters and their plight, The Hunger Games is purely a stinker of a movie.  It's obviously aimed at a Twilight-loving teenybopper crowd and could have been so much better than it were. Having read reviews prior to seeing the film that claim it is very loyal to the novel on which it is based makes me fear for the condition of what passes for literature in this current generation. The Hunger Games is nothing more than a shallow mash-up of re-hashed premises that breathe stale air into a limp carcass of contrived stortytelling.  Five Stars out of Ten.
  • Anonymous
    I couldn't get past the casting of Katniss.  Jennifer Lawrence was all wrong.  Katniss is supposed to be thin, quick and nimble with wild air about her.  Jennifer was much too mature and refined to play Katniss, though she did bring the intensity.  It just wasn't believable that she could run and climb like Katniss was supposed to do.  The scene where the kids are chasing her and she climbs a tree was just stupid.  She was as big as the rest of them!  If she could climb it, there was no reason the rest of them couldn't climb it. I also didn't understand why the people in district 12 were wearing clothes from the 1950's.  The microphone at the reaping was also vintage 50's.  That made no sense.
  • cuddlemeugly
    glad home boys super strength came into good use...oh wait never mind...his face painting skills payed off though....
  • Bobby
    I still have a freeking headache from the shaky camera. :(
  • Muriel
    Some of these comments are horrible and highly misinformed, whether or not they were made by a reader of the books. Sigh. Succinctly: I was disappointed in the movie as both a stand-alone film and as an adaptation. It was not a horrible adaptation, mind you, (unlike Golden Compass; I so desperately wanted to see His Dark Materials come to fruition as films), but it was not a great film either. I didn't like some of the camera work or understand why certain moments were cut out/changed. But, I do understand why some parts were reworked or added to the film that were not in the first book. I have a major problem with certain changes, and don't care about others... for the most part, I give Hunger Games a C+ as an adaptation, and a B- as a film. As for all of the Battle Royale comments - that's one of my favorite films, specifically because it is not meant for "younger audiences" and the violence speaks volumes. I'm hoping the next films in the Hunger Games series mature with the (supposed) audience's age, much like Harry Potter (which I never read), because the final book cannot possibly be toned down without compromising the content.
  • Wesls31
    3 best things they did with the film: --The Reaping (I was much more depressed after seeing it in the theaters than reading it in the book) --The start of the Games (the silence with the creepy music and getting thrown into all of that violence was way more intense than the book) --The Mutts (freaked the whole theater out) Obviously in movies things move so much faster than in the book.  My wife kept nuding me saying "that happened way too fast!" but hey..its a movie and screen time is precious.  I felt they didn't use Haymitch to their full potential in the sense of his drunken state. I wasn't as intrigued with Katniss's and Cinna's relationship as it was in the book..but yet again there was not enough screen time (and there never is for a book  to movie adaptation) but for what it was, I think they did a great job.  The violence was just the right amount for a PG-13 movie. Definitely recommend seeing to book readers and non book readers!
  • OK Film
    I haven't read the books, and prefer to see movies before I read the books because I firmly believe you'll never be able to capture a book in a movie and you'll always leave the movie somewhat disappointed. I thought the movie was good, not great, but good. I'll see the sequels as well. I didn't like the shaky scenes at the beginning and I saw it on IMAX. I wouldn't call it amateurish, it just makes it annoying IMO.  So, some of the things that bugged people (as stated above) didn't really bug me.  One thing I thought was missing was any "lengthy" scenes of people watching the games. People talk about not watching the Games so that they may finally get rid of the games, etc., but you don't really see how into the games people from each district really are.  Acting was so-so from some. I like H starting off as a non-caring individual then actually working, lobbying and supporting as a mentor.  Woody wouldn't have been my first choice but he was OK. Most annoying, the people next to me that gave away future parts in the movie because they read the book. Like "oh, this is where Rue dies". Really! WTF?! I finally nicely told them that I hadn't read the book and to keep the dialogue down so they wouldn't give it all away for me.
  • Jim Mc
    The Hunger Games was very well produced and has some fantastic acting talent. There were a couple of things in the movie that could have been better. Maybe the 'girl on file' CGI was a little too cheesy, it made the point, but was a little too cheap looking.   Many people did not like the 'shaky-cam' aspect of the film. Perhaps they have never seen any of the 'Jason Bourne' series, because this was tame compared to some other movies.   One thing that I thought was interesting is a parallel between Katniss (as a person to spark new hope and rebellion) and the unidentified athlete in the '1984' Apple commercial. Both are subtle fighters against a large facist government. The '1984' woman runs well ahead of the guards and swings a large hammer into a central display panel to smash the image of the 'Big Brother'. Katniss uses her position in the Games to idenify with the people back in the Districts and coax them into thinking that powerful rulers of Panem are not doing anything to support or help them.
    • RFabry
       Thank you for the Bourne reference. I've been trying to tell people, but they won't listen.
  • Aaron Nagler
    It was downright awful. Seriously terrible. Unless, of course, acting, directing and production values aren't your cup of tea. Then, it was brilliant.
  • Avery600
    Poorly edited, badly composed shots, ultra cheesy set design, but great story. Jennifer Lawrence, this actress is amazing, seriously, she deserves a fantastic career, this girl. This is one of those movies that rests solely on the shoulder of ONE actor/actress. Now that HUNGER GAMES opens to more than $150 million, surely Lionsgate can afford somebody with better cinematic skills. 
  • Kristin Alexandre
    Really enjoyed talking about the message here with my 18 year old. And my husband and I are both over 60. Good acting and frankly, the story line is not that far out. Jennifer Lawrence was a great choice for the role and I loved the idea of the "districts" and the images of coal miners. I'd love to see Jennifer play my character Neci in the screen adaptation of my book "Nuncio and the Gypsy Girl"   Kristin Alexandre
  • dgeet
    Its funny how people say that it wasnt anything like the book...when the author penned the screenplay. She took away a few things to help set up for the other films to create suspense, that is why they showed district 11 rioting to give a nod of what Katniss is causing even though she is unintentionally doing it. 
  • Popcorn movie
    Yawn..ZZzzz watched it already but I dont know what the fuss all about.  Should have waited for the DVD to come out..boring movie
  • David Banner
    I liked it, but I could have watched it on Blu-Ray. Not being a fan prior to the movie, nor having read the book(s); there's a lot of questions that should have been answered in this movie. Stuff that is hanging in the air in this movie, since there is 2-3 more movies in this series next years. Waiting 2-3 years for the answer is asking alot of it's audience. It doesnt make very good filmmaking. Trying not to spoil or give anything away, but: technology use in the movie. Do you see how this might be strange for someone who does not know the books? Worth a watch, it's a good movie/start to the series.
  • Lee
    It was pretty boring at the start. The avox girl didn't even appear. It's soo different to the books. She didn't even receive the bread from rues district. I was looking forward to the movie But didnt turn out the way I thought. U hav to read the books before the movie otherwise it's boring. Still luv it though
  • Jackmooney9
    The film surprised me of how connected you got to the characters like the Harry Potter books. Also, the action was suspenseful like when the wolf thing jumped out of the trees. ***1/2 out of ****
  • Abbeyinc
    The movie could have been a lot better with only minor changes.  I hated the camera work.  I had to keep looking away from the screen for most of the first half hour.  Some have defended the handheld camera action as a way to tone down the violence.  But the worst of the shakiness, extreme closeups, and focus games, took place at the beginning of the film when people were simply walking and talking.  For the opening scene at the cornucopia it works, for the rest of the film it just made me feel disconnected and a little ill.  The scene where Peeta gives Katniss the bread was stripped of all of its significance and in fact confused the people sitting next to us in the theater.  They could have used Haymich (sp?) to help explain the romance angle better.  Imagine him watching Katniss on screen and saying, "Figure it out Katinss, give the audience what they want." 
  • Disappointed
    They should warn people that it was shot by a child with a smartphone - holy headache! Ruined the movie.
  • Don Unruh
    A bunch of kids get dropped off in the woods and they all try to ambush and kill each other.  That's NOT Science Fiction!!  It's not even a good story.
  • Marc Callado
    I read the trilogy last year and I think this movie was great.  It had a realistic tone watching primarily through the perspective of Katniss.  Nothing was overdone; you get a glimpse of a futuristic setting.  I loved the scene in the car with Peeta, Katniss and Effie.   Peeta's facial expression contrasting with Katniss' numbness and we get to see Effie:Just killed one of them for sure face.  
  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Barbara-Ruiz/100001041625949 Barbara Ruiz
    This is the first movie I've seen in theaters since fast five. Not my choice but I did want to see the movie. I liked it. I never read the books...was going to before the movie but I knew there would be disappointments as there always are when something is based off a book or comic, and many things are. I had some concerns with the plot and a lack of explanation on some things but nothing to turn me away from watching the sequels. I noticed the shaky camera thing right away but I forgot about it in no time. I'm hoping the read the book now.
  • Aamobile02
    I thought it was a boring load off crap. I feel Battle Royal was better even if i had to read it.
  • Jasdt
    not a bad movie but not very memorable. did not get attached to any of the characters.
  • READTHEBOOKS
    I don't know how I feel. I loved parts of it. Some of these comments from people who have not read the books are annoying me. Read the damn books, people.
  • Jromanandson
    Saw The "Hunger Games"  was not impressed!  The movie camera work was ridiculous with all the amateur movements.  There wasn't any development in any of the characters relationships.  I am not clear what people saw in the main character who basically had her butt saved by everyone else, but she saved no one.  She didn't even fire a bow until the end of the games and when what, 4 kids were left.  Obviously, peoples views of what is a great or masterful film have really had the "bar" lowered.  I shouldn't have to read the books to understand or enjoy the development of the characters of the film, that is the directors job and the writer of the screen adaptation.  Lionsgate spent a ton of money marketing this film and started marketing this movie more than a year ago.  The books only sold slightly over 100,000 books after 3-4 years of publication...so how good could the book have been?  They created all of the "hype" from the marketing of this movie.  I guess teen girls like a teen savior type and that automatically justifies a great movie, no matter how corney or believable.  Twilight didn't make 100's of millions of dollars because 15 year old boys went to see it. I thought the movie was o.k. overall, but nothing great or masterful.  From all the hype, I expected a lot more action from the movie and especially the heroine, Katniss, who I found more bland than exciting.  However, Woody Harrelson did do a fine job. 
  • Neoshahampton
    I was very disappointed with the movie. Plain and simple.
  • nathan willard
    The whole movie is incoherent, they picked a handful of critical points in the book water them down trimmed the dialog and mashed it in a blender. There is no character development, no background, no explanation, and the dialog has no context. Why would Thresh say just this time for district 12 without being aware what she did for Rue, if you never read the book this movie will make no sense and if you did read the book then don't bother leaving the bitter taste of this movie in your mouth when the book was much sweeter. The whole movie was more like a trailer for the book, where you get snippets of action and dialogue but not enough to make sense of whats going on.
  • scids
    I saw the movie, without reading the book. 1. So there was a war, a rebellion of sorts, and to make sure it never happens again, the big amazing city will kill 23 children a year. How on Earth does killing their kids once a year stop them from rebelling?? 2. The male from 12, Peety? whatever. He leads the big group of bad ass kids, from districts 1 and 2 straight to Catface (the girl from 12) and then when they meet up later, she's all "it's cool man, we're in love anyways", without ANY repercussions?? 3. "You showed them up, they don't like that.." Woody Harrelson says to Catface at the end, but the big amazing city does absolutely nothing to Catface?!? 4. "Tracker Jackers"... Catface was stung repeatedly by these "ultra deadly" wasps, and she just got a sweet LSD trip. The other girl puffed up like the Michelin Man and died. Cool, you're immune to deadly wasps Catface, good for you. 5. The boy Catface left at home, and the boy (who tried to sell her out and have her killed, but she still loves) who she won with, anyone else having nauseating flashbacks of "Edward is hotter, no, Jacob is hotter"...it's been done people. 6. And finally, my last comment about this atrocious excuse for cinema, the animals at the end...Man Bear Pig. I'm totally cereal.  
  • Pgrasser1
    Gary Ross is a good director but he left out so much stuff like the bread from 11 and there was an uprising in 8 not 11 I can't believe he left out Madge though she was really important
  • buju
    Complete rip-off of BATTLE ROYALE a japanese film....if you haven't seen it your missing out onn life great movie...its realistic because it shows how some would whimper and others turn into physcopaths who kills without out any humanity!!
  • Stellar
    I loved the Hunger Games books. It was one of the most creative, well thought out, suspenseful, and most importantly best written books I have read. That was what confused me the most when the credits rolled in at the end of the movie, when I saw Suzanne's name as the screen play writer, how could a person write such a good book but than write such a terrible screenplay. To shorten this up I hated the Hunger Games movie. I hated the screenplay. I hated the acting. But most of all I hated the Camera work, I payed money to get a headache. I had read the books before so the movie came as an even bigger disappointment, especially since I think that the books are amazing. It also gets me very frustrated when people my age ( I am 13) love the movie because the whole Hunger Games movie isn't real cinema sit just a bunch of adults making a movie to target teenagers so they get millions

FEATURED POSTS

GET MORE NEWS

Subscribe to our feed or daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main profile on twitter:
For the news posts only, follow this acct:
Add our feed to your Feedly: follow us in feedly
Subscribe to me on YouTube for interviews 

POPULAR COMMENTS

NEWEST PODCAST

FACEBOOK + LINKS