Screen Rant’s Ben Kendrick reviews The Hunger Games
Following the conclusion of the Harry Potter and Twilight book series, which wrapped-up in 2007 and 2008 respectively, Suzanne Collins’ The Hunger Games became the next “big thing” for young adult fiction readers. However, much like the darker themes presented in the later Harry Potter installments, The Hunger Games explores some especially heavy material – making it a go-to book series for not just young adults, but plenty of readers who also enjoy deeper literary offerings. As a result, it’s no surprise that The Hunger Games film adaptation has, for some time, been one of the most anticipated movie events of 2012 – setting records for pre-release ticket sales and opening weekend sold-out shows.
That said, does writer/director Gary Ross (Seabiscuit and Pleasantville – not to mention writing credits on Big, Dave, and Mr. Baseball) ultimately deliver a Hunger Games film adaptation that accurately transports fan-favorite characters and events onto the big screen – as well as offering up an entertaining movie experience for audience members who haven’t bothered with the books?
Despite a few hiccups that come with distilling a 350 page book (told in first person) into a two hour and twenty minute film, The Hunger Games is not only a solid adaptation of the source material – it succeeds at covering a copious amount of backstory, while at the same time delivering some genuinely entertaining (and at times, thrilling) moments, even for those who are still unfamiliar with the book series. The Hungers Games books are jam-packed with supporting characters and in-depth mythos – and so is the film adaptation (at times to a fault).
The basic story takes place in a dystopian future where the Capitol rules over the country of Panem (in what used to be North America) – and uses “The Hunger Games” to suppress the surrounding districts. Each year, the Capitol randomly selects one girl and boy from each of the twelve districts to participate in the Hunger Games – where the 24 “tribute” children fight to the death until only one remains.
Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) in 'The Hunger Games'
When young Primrose Everdeen is chosen as tribute at the District 12 “reaping,” her big sister, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), volunteers to fight in her place. Katniss is joined by fellow District 12 tribute, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), a strong but insecure baker’s son, and the two embark on a (one way?) trip to the Capitol to face off against the other district tributes (as well as one another). However, with guidance from District 12 resident (and previous Hunger Games winner) Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), stylist Cinna (Lenny Kravitz), and chaperone Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), Katniss and Peeta quickly discover that to survive the games they’ll need more than just fast feet and good aim.
The central storyline from the books remains intact for the film adaptation, as Katniss attempts to make sense of her situation – both in terms of attempting to survive the Hunger Games (inside and outside of the arena), as well as the difference between illustrious Capitol life and the stark poverty she experienced back home in District 12. Katniss requires a lot from Lawrence (both physically and emotionally) and, as usual, the actress delivers a good, nuanced performance. While the role isn’t likely to get her another “Best Actress” nomination at the Oscars, she does more with this genre piece than most of her peers might have attempted (just as she did with Mystique in X-Men: First Class).
There’s little doubt that some moviegoers will dismiss The Hunger Games as the next Twilight saga – in terms of the quality of the acting and production values. However, as we addressed in our article detailing “5 Facts About ‘The Hunger Games’ Movie for Those Who Haven’t Read the Books,” Ross actually lined up a lot of top-tier acting talent (up-and-comers as well as Hollywood veterans) to ground the horrific events depicted in The Hunger Games with believable (and meaningful) performances. Hutcherson (as fellow tribute Peeta) also succeeds in keeping up with Lawrence – presenting one of the more interesting characters in the film (even with a pink-haired Elizabeth Banks and drunk Woody Harrelson running around); Hutcherson also delivers during a pair of especially contemplative moments.
Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mellark in 'The Hunger Games'
Unfortunately, even Peeta isn’t safe from the book-to-film adaptation process – as many side characters are left entirely undeveloped or presented with somewhat muddled motivations. The scope of the film leaves some character actions and motivations a bit vague, which will cause non-fans to leave the theater with a mixed impression of who they are. In the case of Peeta, despite a full character arc that works on the surface level, his in-arena motivations aren’t nearly as cohesive (or as interesting) as they are in the source material. In addition, the “Mockingjay,” which has major thematic importance (not to mention practical application) in the book series goes almost entirely undeveloped in the film, and despite a lot of onscreen time that’s spent on the subject, doesn’t ever come full-circle. These aren’t just “adaptation” nitpicks, in terms of what is shown on screen – the film leaves plotholes that could be confusing for general audiences (given the time that was spent setting them up).
Similarly, with one or two exceptions, the non-District 12 tributes are mostly just blank caricatures that leave next-to-no emotional impact as either victims or villains. Obviously, with 24 tributes, not to mention a number of non-Games side characters, it would be hard to get to know everyone (a lot of the kids are throwaways in the book); however, as a film (as opposed to a book – where Katniss is limited to first person), the experience could have benefited from a bit more time spent with a few other tributes – so that as they attempt to slaughter (or help) Katniss, they’d have more impact than just the immediate onscreen action. It’s a tricky balance, and though the director succeeds overall, there are times when The Hunger Games seems more concerned with building up the larger world in preparation for a sequel, than fully serving some of the moments and characters featured in the current installment. That said, Ross does succeed in utilizing the film medium for the better, such as when he makes up for the lack of Katniss’ internal thoughts by smartly implementing external sources for much needed exposition (via the game announcers and production team).
District 1 and 2 Tributes: Clove, Cato, Marvel, and Glimmer
It needs to be said that some moviegoers – those expecting an epic action movie experience – may also find that the film drags (especially in Act 2), given the lengthy run time. Anyone interested in the series mythos will be sated by seeing book characters re-imagined on the big screen, but prior to the actual Hunger Games, there are very few (read: zero) large-scale action pieces to break up all the world-building and exposition. Patient moviegoers will enjoy plenty of intriguing character drama, but there’s no doubt that the film (like the books) relies heavily on the back end to hit its action quota. Ultimately, action fans may still be underwhelmed by the actual Games themselves.
Quick, frantic cuts probably helped the film maintain a PG-13 rating, given all the teenagers that die on camera, but as a result, the film is short on captivating battle choreography or epic one-on-one confrontations. Instead of large-scale action set pieces, The Hunger Games movie presents a story about Katniss surviving (and often hiding) – not outright hunting down her fellow tributes – and because of that, the Games portion (despite loads of tense moments) could prove to be underwhelming. In the end, the film is better off for the restraint that Ross employs – since it keeps the focus on Katniss and her plight (not over-the-top CGI explosions) – but it will limit the entertainment value of the onscreen action for some moviegoers.
As the first installment in what will be a four-part film series (based on a three-part book series), Ross has done a solid job establishing the series’ major players, as well as the ins and outs of Panem society. Ultimately the director crams a lot of quality content into the film’s two-hour twenty-minute runtime – though some plot threads, scenes, and characters are underserved by the movie’s conclusion. While The Hunger Games is not a non-stop fight-to-the-death action film, it succeeds at being something even more interesting – a fascinating and disturbing (not to mention tense) character drama that successfully captures the core themes of the book.
If you’re still on the fence about The Hunger Games, check out the trailer below:
-
Loading ...-
For an in-depth discussion of the film by the Screen Rant team check out our Hunger Games episode of the SR Underground podcast.
If you want to discuss details about the film without worrying about spoiling it for those who haven’t seen it, please head over to our Hunger Games Spoiler Discussion!
Follow me on Twitter @benkendrick - and let us know what you thought of the film below.
The Hunger Games is rated PG-13 for intense violent thematic material and disturbing images – all involving teens. Now playing in theaters.
Our Rating:
4 out of 5
(Excellent)
Ryan Reynolds Drops Out of 'Highlander' Reboot 
No Loki in 'Avengers 2' 
'Man of Steel' Director & Writer on What Has to Happen in 'Man of Steel 2' 
'Man of Steel' Ending Controversy 
I just got back from seeing this horrible movie. I am a fan of the books; I was just as excited to see this as everyone else. The acting of below par I hated the actress if you can call her an actress that played Rue. I remember a well written pseudo love story right. That is missing from the movie. All that spinning made me sick. I wish this could be remade with a better cast and better writers. I did not expect the movie to just like the book but I at least wanted the same story. I am a fan of the LOTR books and the movie was just as good not the same but good. I guess it is fun for the mindless and dim-witted.
teslatek…
You DO realize that by insulting all of us who did enjoy this film for absolutely no reason, you’re making yourself look stupid, don’t you? Hmmm, maybe you’re just too mindless and dim-witted…?
Oh, and Nikola Tesla was a brilliant man; PLEASE, do not insult his memory by naming your online identity after him.
I agree with Teslatek, entirely. I’ll also add this: Please hold the camera still, at least once, in the first 25 minutes. I had to get up and leave for a little while. This movie was OK. It could have been much better. With such a great book as the foundation, I think of it mostly as a lost oppurtunity to make an excellent movie.
And as for archaeon: ? I didn’t see any insults to those who enjoyed the movie. You (ironic name calling omitted) are taking offense at nothing other than a different opinion.
This is where he insulted all who enjoyed the film: “I guess it is fun for the mindless and dim-witted.” HIS LAST LINE. Actually, I’m perfectly fine with the two of you having a different opinion than I. You didn’t like it…thought it was bad? Fine–not a problem. Just because I and others DID like the film does NOT mean there is anything wrong with us. Teslatek is the one who did not fairly allow for a difference of opinion.
I don’t get motion sickness of any sort, so the camera work served as an effective presentation device for my time viewing the film. I thought the acting and set pieces were excellent and that the film stayed true to the essence of the novel, even with the alterations.
Oh, and what is meant by “(ironic name calling omitted)”? I did not CALL him anything. I DID say he was acting like or would seem to be stupid because he had pointlessly insulted others.
Can you please calm down? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and by attacking the people who posted above you are making yourself look even less intelligent then you calm that they are. I for one think that they could have done so much better then what they did, that being said it wasn’t the worst book to movie i have ever seen. I am a stickler for detail and did not like how much they omitted that could have been easily added. That being said that is my own opinion and respect those who liked the movie.
I noticed that a lot was omitted, I expected it I suppose. To be honest, some things turned out better than I expected. Jennifer Lawrence has a reputation these days, so I knew she would be pretty good, but she actually floored me with her performance. The way that she trembled before entering the arena, the way that she offered herself as a tribute to save her sister, the way that she gave in to despair when Rue died, etc. All of them were moments that were entertaining in the book, and sad, but in the movie they were downright tragic and extremely potent. At least, to me.
Also, Archaeon was a little excited in his initial response to teslatek, sure. I too don’t think it’s accurate to say that the film is “fun for the mindless and dimwitted”. Not liking the film is fine, the problem arises when people are criticized for their like/dislike of a movie. That’s how it came off, and some overcompensation took place. Be that as it may, I think Archaeon’s done a decent job at settling down and explaining himself in a more civil manner. It’s not fair to only point out the mistakes of one person, especially when s/he is trying to clear things up.
UrbanGiraffe…
Where did you get any indication I was in the slightest bit stressed about the above comments? I simply responded to those who made initial comments and/or responded to me…appropriately, in point of fact.
Did you even bother to read that I was the one saying differing opinions are fine and good? Read teslatek’s comment. Think before you post rubbish.
I believe that everyone should voice what they thing as far as the movie and books go,,,,, I do not believe however any name calling is worth anyone’s time…. We all can agree there should have been more detail to the movies,,, not that ppl that loved the movies being stupid,, there not stupid at all maybe they caught something’s in the movie that us readers didnt, because we were so mad that the most important parts of the book was left out. But for someone who hasn’t read the books I can see why it would be a good movie, they have nothing to reference to…. Just saying.
Rachel…
For someone who HAS read the books, it was STILL a great film.
Just saying.
Maybe you should read the books and then watch the stupid movie. Cause if you read the books then there’s no way you would view this movie as any thing but bad…….. The books are far more better then the movie….. The movie left the book slashed!!!!! So maybe you shouldn’t talk to ppl on here like that..
Rachel…
I read the books, then watched the fantastic film. It held true to the essence of the novels. Admittedly, the book was better than the movie…as is usually the case.
@teslatek I have to agree- big fan of the books, for people who have not read the books, this is going to be a great movie, but yes, the way the director kept the shots zoomed in sucked and made me feel like I should be further away from the screen to keep from getting sick. I really wish he would have “panned out” in several shots so we could get a full view of the set, and maybe he could have used a tripod to keep the camera steady. All in all, the movie was good. And wow- wish they would have somehow kept the Mockingjay pin coming from Madge in the movie. Its a big reason in the books why its such a rebellious symbol. and Peeta’s leg?? really? hmm – oh well. Happy Hunger Games! And may the odds be ever in your favor!
Someone who has read a book and fallen in love with it will NEVER be satisfied with any movie adaptation. Movies are made for people to watch and enjoy. Books are written for someone to lose themselves in and become the characters in the book. This will never translate well.
I loved the following books: Harry Potter, Twilight, Interview w/a Vampire, Queen of the Damned, Sookie Stackhouse books, tons of stephen king books, vampire diaries, the secrest circle.
Was I 100% satisfied with any of the movies and/or tv shows made from these books? No way. I go into the movie knowing that it will never live up to the book, it’s a given.
That is why when I heard they were making a film version of The Hunger Games, I decided not to read the book. I wanted to enjoy the movie for what it was, a movie.
I watched the movie yesterday and I don’t think readers give non readers enough credit. We can pick up on things without having to be told every little detail. I knew that District 11 rebelled because Rue was killed and they weren’t happy about that (I lost it at that point and needed tons of tissue). I understood that Katniss was conflicted between Peeta and Gale, you could see it without having to be told.
As a non-reader, I thought the movie was really good, and I didn’t feel lost for even a minute. Sometimes you just need to step back and enjoy the movie for what’s it meant to be, a movie.
“I knew that District 11 rebelled because Rue was killed and they weren’t happy about that (I lost it at that point and needed tons of tissue). I understood that Katniss was conflicted between Peeta and Gale, you could see it without having to be told.”
This exact paragraph you wrote actually highlighted how the movie didn’t capture the book. *spoiler ahead for non-reader*
The 1st district to rebelled was district 8, not 11. Whatever action happened on 11 was after that, and on book 2.
Katniss wasn’t conflicted, everything to here was just an act to gained sponsor for the game. She wasn’t really in love with Peeta, and still unsure about Gale. The only ppl that actually fell in love was only Peeta, and he was devastated to know that KAtniss was just pretending at the very end of book 1.
so in my opinion, your understanding of the movie was false, deviated, not true to the book. I really don’t blame you, it’s normal for the non-reader. The movie didn’t captured the very essence of the book. Yes, it was pretty entertaining, but i totally get why avid readers were disappointed with the movie. Everything in the movie were just one dimensional, good enough for general audience, but lost on the book readers.
everything to her*
Agreed!!!!!!!!!! Couldn’t have put it better my self… Totlay lost the readers, and might not have many to see the next movies.
Guys, I suggest not revealing such aspects of the movie that would spoil the experience for those who haven’t seen it yet; that’s what the Spoilers Discussion thread is for.
However, what Amber LeShell has posted is correct, although I wouldn’t read it if I haven’t seen the movie yet. A good example of what, I’m assuming Amber is a female, she is saying would be the 2009 movie Star Trek. I have a lot of knowledge of Trek cannon and noticed a number of things the writers got wrong in the movie. Although I enjoyed the movie, I can understand why a Trekkie or Trekker would not like it. In HG, I never read the books (in fact I had never heard of HG), and I had numerous questions that the movie did not answer but I still enjoyed it. Could it have been better? Sure but I wouldn’t call it a complete failure.
This is entirely my opinion:
As someone who did read the books and see the movie, I don’t feel it’s at all uncommon, nor unacceptable, to be let down by the movie adaptation. Yes, we know that books are generally better than their film counterparts. Does this mean it’s ok to plan on it? I wouldn’t say so, no.
The movie wasn’t bad, but I couldn’t possibly refer to it as good. It felt like a flat, hollow shell of a story. I’m assuming this is due to the fact that the story was written as more of an internal piece, which could be extremely difficult to translate into a movie. So add narration. Even just a little bit could have helped.
I truly hope the additional volumes in the series are filmed in a less “handycam” fashion. I don’t get motion sickness, and I thoroughly enjoyed Cloverfield (a film shot entirely handheld), but portions of this film were ridiculous. A little of that style goes a long way, so hopefully, since the tributes are more seasoned in the future stories, the filming crew will invest in video rigs and skip out on the camera whipping.
Overall – not what I expected, but could have certainly been worse. Hopefully the additional movies will be stronger.
‘The Hunger Games’ Review: Empty and incomplete
http://www.mi7.co/2012/03/hunger-games-review-empty-and.html
I absolutely loved the books. The story was good; everything about it was good. I was really excited about the film adaption and couldn’t wait to see it. the day before i went i read some of the reviews and was worried. Alot of people on this website really hated it. After i saw it i couldn’t understand why they hated it. Sure they missed out on a couple of things, but for crying out loud who cares what color the cat is when its on screen for a fraction of a second or how she got the mockingjay thing. I liked it and people who don’t obviously can’t just enjoy something and really, the director and writers did their best so show some respect for their attempt to please you fans and really do a good job.
P.s.
people, they can’t make it 100% to the book. the book is mostly thoughts and is in 1st person. If they were to make it completely to the book not only would it be 4 to 5 hours, but also it wouldn’t make any sense. People who don’t read the books wouldn’t be able to understand it at all. they needed to condense it into a 2 1/2 hour movie and change dialogue and cut scenes (like the styalists) to make it into a watchable movie. I’ll admit some of the movie i was a bit dissapointed with but as a whole a very good adaptation of the book. SO STOP NITPICKING ABOUT STUPID LITTLE DETAILS AND JUST ENJOY IT. THEY SPENT A LOT OF TIME MONEY AND TEARS TO MAKE THIS FOR YOUR ENTERTAINMENT AND WHAT DO YOU DO? YOU NITPICK AND CRITIZE ABOUT THE STUPID COLOR OF THE CAT. Most critics really enjoyed it and so did i 4 out of 5 stars
I think we have every right to criticize and nitpick when you consider that the movie makers and actors are making millions of dollars. If you spent $30 on a sweater and it started to unravel when you got home, wouldn’t you demand for your money back. Difference is, you can’t return the experience of watching a movie, so as consumers, we have every right to be critical if we don’t feel the product delivered.
Just watched movie and finished the book. although I like both of them, I would like to point out the movie did add a bit of background to the book and end of the story much clear than the book. The book was like a halfway love story been cut off some how as the movie make it more like a war game with a damp of love and blood. I guess the story itself was just to close the the reality to me.
post spoiler, jerk! i liked the movie , though i never read the books. it is also much easier to cram details into a book than a movie because there isnt restrictions like a running time and you cant have people constantly talking to themselves. i liked the slow parts as it built the leads quite nicely. i was fine with the lack of action too, not everything needs to explode.
While(in most cases) the book is better then the movie and usually the movie is beat down by all the critics, i for one found the movie good. I respect all dislikers of the movie, but not the haters of the movie. (FYI there’s a difference, haters expect way too much and 1 mistake could set them off). The movie caught what i loved about the books and put it on the big screen. “OH, well Katniss’s hair isn’t red like it was told in the book.” Sry man, nobody gives a Sh##. The movie overall in my opinion was great and you haters are spoiled and expect way too much of a masterpeice that was crammed into a 2 1/2 hour running time. Enyoy life haters, because to be honest, nobody likes you. As for the dislikers, I see where the movie went wrong at times and i understand that.
.. There were a LOT of big/important differences?!
there was yet there wasnt its hardly noticeable
Very very true…. The movie left out very important things that the book had in detail…. Don’t see how they will make the next movie go when it might not be under stood due to the lost of important facts in the first movie were left out.
I think I’m going to stop reading Screen Rant because they don’t monitor the comments section. I’ve had so many movies based off book series spoiled for me. Even though there are some great articles on this site it just isn’t worth it.
SR created the Spoilers Discussion thread so that the movie can be discussed by people who actually saw it. For some reason, posters want to discuss aspects of the movie here instead of on that other thread. I wouldn’t blame SR for that.
Never heard of the books, watched the movie last night.
Interesting movie, but why do they mix children from the ages of about 12? to around 16-17? (clearly the junger ones do not stand a chance). Children killing children is a delicate topic, I think they did a very good job by blurring the killing scenes with shakey cams…though this can not be said to be working for the first part of the movie, less shaking would have been better and I was always hoping for a steady shot to relax a bit.
The end of the movie builds up to something big (i have not read the books), e.g. a sort of revolution of the whole system, you can feel the tension. Therefore I will read all three books soon.
Considering the lower end budget (around 78mil) I think they did a good job, actors were “ok”….Lenny did not make an impression on me and I was glad to see that woody did not play the usual “funny/stupid” character he usually does.
The budget for the sequels will surely be upped….let’s hope they will not use the money on too many special effects of some sort. btw., I did not get the “dogs” part….where did they come from (Star Trek holodeck, security disabled?).
behave, you are welcome to leave Screenrant or maybe you might just read the review and not the comments….up to you. actually I thought u already left.
I say screw those who don’t read the books and make the movie for the real fans (those who read). There are still plenty of us out there to make it worthwhile. Maybe this will help increase literacy.
I second this
Or maybe the movie will get people interested in reading the books? Also, producers care about money, not whether a viewer has read the book the movie is based on.
as an adult reader, i read the book[s] and thought, “meh. doesn’t live up to the hype.”
saw the movie and thought, “who gave this imbecile $100 million to make a film?” stanley tucci & elizabeth banks are the only reason to see this shaky-cam mess. the leads are great but the visual conceit that’s supposed to support them is so overwrought that it works against them. lawrence CAN carry a serious movie (see “Winter’s Bone”); here she’s got almost nothing to work with — obvious love interests, a trite stab at maternal ties, and an opaque disaster of a family.
the writers had the ‘snooze’ button on when concocting the screen adaptation. lazy writing, single-note direction — lousy film.
gonna get a ton of hate responses for this, i’m sure. but, honestly, if it weren’t titled, “The Hunger Games” would you really be this pumped up for this film?
Iike the book better
I saw the Hunger Games and it’s not bad although everytime Effie Trinket was on screen all I could think was “SOMEBODY PLEASE SHOOT HER”. Also Warner Brothers should take note. You can have A female hero without her being an air head or A hard hearted b***h
I try not to read reviews before I see a movie so that it doesn’t sway my judgement or give me too much info before seeing it. I just wish that there was some sort of warning that if you get motion sickness you shouldn’t see the movie because the camera is very shaking, and the in and out of focus didn’t help either. Or at least pass out dramamine as you walk in the theater. I felt like I was going to vomit for the first half of the movie, and that it made the rest of the movie not so enjoyable. From what I did see, I liked. Hopefully the next movie will not be so bouncy, or else I’ll be waiting for it to come out on cable…
I devoured these books but thought the movie lacked depth. I understand the need to edit and the concept of artistic liberty, but the movie failed to establish the credibility of several characters which were fundamental in the books.
The actors were good but the camera was very shaky, it looks like the director of photography was trying too hard to be edgy. I wished there was more of everything: more training interactions, more of life in the Seam, more of Gale and Katniss hunting together. Hopefully, there will be an extended cut on Blu-ray, adding 45 minutes like the Lord of the Rings films.
I loved the movie but you really need to read the book to understand the movie, like my father who went to it with me didn’t know Gale’s name after the movie. My only complaint is there really wasn’t enough Gale to understand his and Katniss’s realationship
I’ve read the books and thought It was meh, and I honestly don’t think that BECAUSE I’ve read the books. Not a complete disaster, not nearly as good as it could have been. I think narration would’ve been a better way to go. You can fit in more about the characters, especially Katniss, with narration. We would’ve been able to understand specifically how she feels about Gale and Peeta instead of having to try and interpret her facial expressions. I didn’t like the glimpses into the Gamemaker’s booth as well as his talks with Snow. The point of a first person book is so you get a story that’s told from a single point of view, but is in turn told with great detail. Showing Gamemaker’s and Snow’s world just convoluted it. Also. I don’t know WHY some people liked the chaotic, mess that was the shooting of the action scenes of the movie. My friend liked it, I hated it. It’s a cheap way to film. I get that they want it to feel confusing, but you don’t have to MAKE it confusing to make it FEEL confusing. And as a final thought, the actor that played Peeta made me throw up inside my mouth a little bit. So bad. But I did think that Jennifer Lawrence was great as Katniss. Overall this movie was just really mediocre. I suggest a different director for the next one; one that actually has actually shot action well, who can give us a more of a thrill ride with decent character drama woven in between. Frankly, I was bored through most of this movie.
I went into this movie with high hopes. I came out of it wishing I had spent 11.50$ on some good food and hot chocolate. Succinctly, the introduction was good, bringing in the main character well, establishing the premise and all that. But towards the middle, I was either looking at my friend’s reactions, fighting the urge to scream profanities at the screen or stifling a yawn. The action scenes did nothing to remedy that, it was too blurry, far too much blood (I love gory movies but the blood just didn’t seem to fit well) and stale to say the least. As the movie creeped to a close there were some good romance scenes, I was the only one out of 10 or so people that found them good. The ending was mediocre at best. The book was great, I stole a quick glance through a couple of chapters and couldn’t put it down, the movie’s condensed plot however was either too quick in some places or too lengthy in others. It was obvious that the movie was made for kids, it was also plainly obvious that the directors wanted to cash in on the teen audiences. Which they did. All in all, a movie I wouldn’t recommend.
I personally didnt enjoy the film. I didn’t feel for the characters,the camera work was awful, the effects were tacky and the sound was dreadful. Despite this though (and i don’t wanna sound blood thirsty here) i admired the brutality of the film and wasn’t expecting it to be quite so brutal for the age restriction. I know its probably been said before but i prefer Battle Royale.
I went to the midnight showing, and left feeling disappointed and underwhelmed. I kept hearing the actors & director say that it stayed true to the book, so I suppose I was expecting it to be, well, exactly like the book. Which, it is not.
I decided to see the movie again with the intention of judging it as a stand alone piece, and enjoyed it so much more. As many of you have mentioned, they cannot include everything that was in the book.
Though I understand his reasons for down playing the violence (not wanting to be like the capitol, maintaining a PG-13 rating), I felt that the games did not feel like that much of a struggle to survive for Katniss, nor did I feel that the foundation for Katniss’ & Peeta’s (and Rue’s) relationship was sufficiently established. And the mutts…oh, what to say about the mutts…just, that it was a missed opportunity to blow away audiences.
Overall I did like this movie, I just hope there are lots of goodies, such as an extended director’s cut on the dvd for us hard core fans.
I read all the books and frankly very little “based on a best seller book” translate well to screen – I thing the Harry Potter series did the best of all adaptations. This movie is being marketed as a “tween” adventure series because the tween market is extremely lucrative. I saw the movie over the weekend and it was definitely a toned down version of the book becuase its impossible to squeeze all the character development in 2 hours and 20 minutes. The movie was designed for those who never read the books by providing a “history” of how the Hunger Games came to be. Also let’s face it this is a bleak horror movie,children are chosen then prepped for slaughter for entertainment – to keep the Pg-13 rating – they have to “suggest” the savage slaughters of the kids by blurry camera moves and fast clips of bloody children falling to the ground dead. Jennifer Lawrence did a fantastic job as Katniss especially the scene just before the games where you just see her hands shaking and you can tell by her facial expression the combination of dread and determination – it was a emotionally disturbing moment.
Excruciating! The photography was horrendous! I was so nauseous from the jumpy distorted camera action that I was literally sick to my stomach by the end of the movie. What a waste of $10.00.
Okay, I wrote a whole review for this, and screenrant claims I’m not allowed to comment? Anyway, I’ll save you the trouble:
2 stars. Almost as bad as Twilight. Go watch Harry Potter. The end.
I saved you money. Your welcome.
You’re welcome *, I meant.
ABOUT THE MOVIE: Have not read any of the books. Just saw the film recently. I noticed several things others have surely noticed. Lack of characterization. The children are one-dimensional, that is, we know little or nothing about them. The less one knows the easier to accept their film-deaths. I learned nothing about the story’s heroine except that she hunts and has a family and is a bit head-strong. The rich look like clowns in their costumes and hairstyles. The kids although they are supposed to be familiar with the process of the games in question, from having watched them on tv, look greatly confused, their eyes darting about startled by goings on as if they’d never seen the show at all. Or was that fear in their eyes? Perhaps I am wrong since the direction was sloppy and uninspired. ABOUT REAL LIFE: I saw parents come in with their children into the theatre, to watch what is essentially a snuff film for kids, based on snuff books for children. Children killing children and we are allowing our children to read about and watch this stuff. It should be Rated X, or perhaps we need a new category, Rated NEFAC. NEVER EVER FOR ANY CHILD. My parents took me to see “Deliverance” as a child and I was never the same. I saw the “Excorcist” on television and my fears were never the same. Poor poor parents. What you have waiting for you in your futures will not be pretty. Hollywood is inspiring future murderers.