The Hunger Games

2

RicochetPhoenixApr 28, 2013

Shameful ripoff of "Battle Royale," and much lower in quality. It's Battle Royale for "the Twilight crowd." The acting was stale, the action was bland, and there wasn't any reason given to me to really care about anything going on. TheShameful ripoff of "Battle Royale," and much lower in quality. It's Battle Royale for "the Twilight crowd." The acting was stale, the action was bland, and there wasn't any reason given to me to really care about anything going on. The author of the books claims to have never heard of Battle Royale, and that's a laugh!… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

2

HiMomMar 31, 2012

In The Hunger Games, it's the theatre-goers who lose their lunch. I only really watched the first third of this movie, the rest of it I had motion sickness so bad I could only really listen. I've never gotten sick from a movie before, andIn The Hunger Games, it's the theatre-goers who lose their lunch. I only really watched the first third of this movie, the rest of it I had motion sickness so bad I could only really listen. I've never gotten sick from a movie before, and it is an experience I hope never to repeat.

Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson gave very entertaining performances as always. Elizabeth Banks should have given this movie a pass as she is unrecognizable and adds nothing to the story.

The subject matter is simply awful: a society that thinks it's entertaining to watch children murder each other. I won't be seeing the sequels.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

2

BrolbasaurApr 15, 2012

Not worth seeing at all. I only saw it because while planning to see 21 Jump Street (which is rated R) and having already been standing at the ticket booth, I found out my friend was still 16, and The Hunger Games was the only otherNot worth seeing at all. I only saw it because while planning to see 21 Jump Street (which is rated R) and having already been standing at the ticket booth, I found out my friend was still 16, and The Hunger Games was the only other interesting looking movie playing. I was with 2 friends, and none of us enjoyed it, mostly because it was painfully long, the plot was dull and slow-paced, and the character development was horrible, with useless characters and unnatural character relationships, that would have only made sense if you've read the book. On top of that, the cinematography was awful. The camera was constantly shaking, which made it look very unprofessional as a film. And the fight scenes were painful to watch because they were so poorly done. Bad camera work + bad fight scene choreography = severe motion sickness. And to add to that, the music never fit, especially during the fight scenes. In fact, the music was lazily written, with more focus on ridiculous audio effects rather than the actual musical aspect of it. And one more thing: Editors have no reason to tone the color down throughout the entire movie just to give it a slightly darker feeling. Be more creative. In conclusion, we would have had a much better experience had we seen 21 Jump Street instead of this over-hyped, lazily put together piece of crap.… Expand

12 of 20 users found this helpful128

All this user's reviews

2

XaghowMay 18, 2012

This movie is horrible compared to the book.
This movie is so overrated and liked by all the teen-twilight fans.
So stupid, but whatever....
The movie is horrible

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

blacksunAug 21, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. After all the hype I finally saw it, and, well, don't beleive the hype. First of all it absolutely drags on, scene after scene, developing very slowly. To it's credit, it is spending time on character development, which can sometimes be rare in movies today. But, there's so many un-necessarry shots and long cuts that one can easily see how the films 2 and a half hour length could be shortened. All this build up finally leads to the actual "games" and then the film starts to pick up a bit. The main problem I had with the film though, is that it seems to always be hinting at a deeper, more devious plot-line, that simply never manifests. For example, there are 3 or 4 bizarrely out of place "flashbacks" to previous scenes. This devices suggests that "hey, that scene was important, remember it, because you will need to when we tie in the sub-plot." But, finally, in the end, you come to discover that there is no sub plot. It's all just meat and potatoes action move schlock, dumbed down and amped up for the American movie viewing masses. Those flashbacks? It's like the director is saying "Hey, stay with us, Stay awake! I know this film is long and boring, but try to remember what's happening!" It's a slap in the face and an insult to intelligence. Finally, in the end, you succumb to the fact that the film is mostly a love story, but, you may be holding out hope for a big "stick it to the man" moment where the tyrants of the film get their come-uppance, (And also delivering a sub-text on the American government and politics), but nope, we are robbed of that as well. They just go home. This is a film engineered for the teenage Twilight crowd, not adults, and definitely not lovers of intellectual fiction or science fiction. The hype these days...… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

2

MALificAug 22, 2012

A poor rip-off of Battle Royale. I'm pretty sure the book is interesting, but this movie was a gross disaster. A bunch of unexplained cut-scene, poorly constructed story, illogical actions. Very disapointed and I really don't see why peopleA poor rip-off of Battle Royale. I'm pretty sure the book is interesting, but this movie was a gross disaster. A bunch of unexplained cut-scene, poorly constructed story, illogical actions. Very disapointed and I really don't see why people like this?… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

calcipherFeb 15, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. "It all makes sense if you read the book". Well, I guess it's time to put a warning label on the DVD cover about that, because this movie makes no sense. At all. I really hope the books are better thought and better written than this movie, that can be described only as garbage on garbage on garbage that the viewer is forced to swallow. Plot holes, unanswered questions, non-sense, "The Hunger Games" has them all. During the movie you'll find yourself simply asking two kind of questions: "Are they really that stupid?" and "What the hell?". Some examples? Here we go, but I doubt I'll have enough typing space. --The participants make teams. Yes, you read that correctly: they make TEAMS. For like an hour you're told only one of them can survive but, yeah, they make teams. You could understand that behaviour from the kind-hearted Katniss, but, wait, it gets better: the BAD GUYS make teams. And they sleep together. Of course, no one of them thinks about slaughtering all of his teammates during the night to win the games, because, yes, they are that stupid. --You managed to get all the food supplies? It would be a good idea to surround them with two dozens land mines, just in case the good girl wants to blow them and starve you to death. Yes, they are that stupid. --The good girl climbs a tree while chased by a bunch of bad guys? No problem, since no one of that uber-skilled teen assassins is able to climb a tree aswell. Again, it gets better: she kills one by throwing an hive full of killer bees on them while they're sleeping (somehow the bees can tell the good guys from the bad ones). --At one point she's about to be killed, but the bad guy is kind enough to wait, go close and confess all of his murders, so the not-so-good-but-not-that-bad girl can get revenge. Oh, it gets even better: she kills only the bad guy and spares Katniss, since she somehow forgot (again) only one of them can win.--On the "What the hell?" category: when short on participants, they "summon" two giant rabid dogs through a computer. No explanation whatsoever, they just click a couple of times, make a 3D drawing and...here we go, giant dogs. Also, these dogs are like 6 feet high, but can't jump over a 4 1/2 feet high roof, otherwise the good girl would've died. --The baker-guy manages to disguise himself as a rock. And he's damn good at it, but...wait. What tools did he use? And when? No explanation. --The end would have been a great comedy moment if I hadn't payed real money to see it. It goes like this: "We changed the rules of the game, you both win. No, wait, it was a joke, the rules stay the same, one of you have to die. Wait... What? Are you killing yourselves? For real? Nononono! Wait! Wait! We change the rules, ok, we change the rules. You both win, long life to the Hunger Games!". I mean, are you serious? Are you f***ing serious? These games go on for like a century and no one, never ever thought you can simply cheat by threatening to kill yourselves as the last survivors? Again: are they really *that stupid*? And these overpowered, totalitarian organizers never ever thought about this *little flaw*? They have to be tricked by a couple of teenagers to realize their idiocy? --These are just some of the pearls you'll find in this movie, let alone the poor acting of everyone, including Woody Harrelson that was probably *really* drunk during all the shoots. If "The Hunger Games" was a movie from Mel Brooks, it would've been a round 10 in comedy. Don't waste your money on this rubbish.… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

2

Shift857Nov 19, 2013

Poor movie. It should have been more than one part per book. There was no character development at all and bad casting. There were numerous mistakes in the movie aswell as taking one idea from the book and basing the entire population of thePoor movie. It should have been more than one part per book. There was no character development at all and bad casting. There were numerous mistakes in the movie aswell as taking one idea from the book and basing the entire population of the capitol on it. Not only that, but it's being completely marketed for the 8-12 crowd, with action figures and card games. The cast was horrible. The 17 year old gale was played by 22 year old Liam Hemsworth, and 16 year old Katniss by 22 year old Jennifer Lawrence. You know a high hyped movie was bad when it's already on netflix. Hopefully they don't screw up Catching fire, and the casting looks not that bad.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

2

LordEpicalDec 21, 2013

I have found the movie has bad acting, the animations are not realistic and the plot was very bad. The scenes looked very 'bright and happy', so did the soldiers uniforms, also, is it just me or does everyone have clothes always look good asI have found the movie has bad acting, the animations are not realistic and the plot was very bad. The scenes looked very 'bright and happy', so did the soldiers uniforms, also, is it just me or does everyone have clothes always look good as new and the characters have minimal amounts of dirt on them too?

In the movie story things that are extremely unlikely happened then something else extremely unlikely happened to make it follow the book.

All that said, I am definitely not going to watch the sequels.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

DenebKaitosMar 30, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The story: brutal story about teens killing each other. This was not the problem I had with the movie. The problem I had with the movie was the cinematography, or lack of it. I could not stand the very poor camera work. The director was constantly zooming in, panning up, zooming out, it became annoying. The "fight" scenes were a blur. You could not tell who was fighting what. They even had to resort to a cannon sounding to make sense of who died and who lived. Then there is the whole problem with the arena itself. The way the movie ended involved a Deus Ex Machina that ruined the entire premise. I will not go into detail beyond saying that if the cities had this technology available to them, why are they resorting to killing kids to keep the peace. I would avoid this movie, the plot is predictable, and the cinemtography is terrible. While I sat watching the film, I wondered how the director, or maybe its the author, would handle "good" kids killing "bad" kids, and it ended up turning out how I thought it would. As far as racist viewers worried about casting, I do not know why people complain about that crap. The issue I had is that the author, or director, chose the black community to be the ones rioting. That seems very racist to me, but I guess people are somehow comforted over that.… Expand

4 of 9 users found this helpful45

All this user's reviews

1

namelessMar 24, 2012

If you are a teenage girl, you will love this movie. Everyone else over 25 you might as well wait for the 3rd installment to see if they make it better. The main actress is great but the plot is so thin and predictabile. I can't believe I wasIf you are a teenage girl, you will love this movie. Everyone else over 25 you might as well wait for the 3rd installment to see if they make it better. The main actress is great but the plot is so thin and predictabile. I can't believe I was taken in by all the hype. A big disappointment.… Expand

7 of 21 users found this helpful714

All this user's reviews

1

scorpius952Apr 5, 2012

This movie was absolutely horrible. No story, plot, character depth or development. Most of the actors looked as though they already knew the movie was bad and just phoned in their performances. Gary Ross should never be allowed to directThis movie was absolutely horrible. No story, plot, character depth or development. Most of the actors looked as though they already knew the movie was bad and just phoned in their performances. Gary Ross should never be allowed to direct anything ever again. The camera work was so horrible I suffered dizziness and nausea through the entire film. Barely anything was explained in the movie, so if you never read the book, you were kept completely in the dark about what was supposed to be going on. Gary Ross only knows how to do 2 shots. Extreme unfocused closeup, and extreme focused closeup. All of the backdrops and costumes were completely wasted since you could never see a whole person. You were only allowed to see someone's eye here, or mouth there. The most baffling thing about this movie are all of the good reviews I see from the critics. But that just goes to show you that they are never right when it comes to judging a movie. This was the second movie I have ever walked out on (the first being Battlefield Earth) and demanded my money back. As long as teenage girls dominate the box office, we will be forced to see shallow, superficial, emotionless drivel.… Expand

13 of 27 users found this helpful1314

All this user's reviews

1

Geoffory2Mar 25, 2012

This movie sucked. Most overrated film of the year. it is du;; and boring, there is no back story. The games it self its repetitive and dull and the shaky hand filming made me vomit. What a waste of 2.3 hours. I only gave it a one becauseThis movie sucked. Most overrated film of the year. it is du;; and boring, there is no back story. The games it self its repetitive and dull and the shaky hand filming made me vomit. What a waste of 2.3 hours. I only gave it a one because Stanley Tucci was good in it.… Expand

10 of 20 users found this helpful1010

All this user's reviews

1

sinadoomNov 21, 2013

A cliché, predictable, boring, eventless and poorly presented movie. It borrows age-old tricks from video games and does them poorly. Absolutely nothing to see here.

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

1

TheBopokippoMar 25, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie is just awful. There are many terrible aspects and you SHOULD NOT waste your time if you have or have not read the books.

1. Camera work is awful. Everything is shaking so bad in every action scene and every partially moving scene (anything that is not a static conversation) you see random blurs of faces and quickly and poorly cut sections of the movie. 2. Music: Very often, there is no music when there really should be and it just ruins the whole atmosphere. The music at the beginning of the Cornucopia scene is nill and the atmosphere is wrong. You would expect fast paced drumbeats with screams and punches and such... Instead, you get a stupid buzzing noise as the camera shakes to death as you hear no screams and this goes for like 2 minutes... -_-

3. Story: Extremely shallow character development and tons of things completely uncomprehendable by non-book readers.… Expand

10 of 17 users found this helpful107

All this user's reviews

1

shoupi22Mar 29, 2012

The movie was not as expected.Too Long Too Boring Too Predictable.The character or Peeta is not clear as for the feeling of Gale and Katniss.It's far too long and much inferior to the ferocious Japanese Battle Royale.The books were aimed atThe movie was not as expected.Too Long Too Boring Too Predictable.The character or Peeta is not clear as for the feeling of Gale and Katniss.It's far too long and much inferior to the ferocious Japanese Battle Royale.The books were aimed at young women, I think the filmmakers have been terrified at making anything too violent.… Expand

6 of 12 users found this helpful66

All this user's reviews

1

MovieCricketApr 10, 2012

I'm wondering: how original is the premise? An post-apocalyptic world where live televised fights-to-the-death keep the populous' blood lust satisfied? Eh. Series 7: The Contenders did it way before, but not with Hunger Games' budget. PlusI'm wondering: how original is the premise? An post-apocalyptic world where live televised fights-to-the-death keep the populous' blood lust satisfied? Eh. Series 7: The Contenders did it way before, but not with Hunger Games' budget. Plus there's Running Man, the Road Warrior, and earlier, 1984. If the world ever becomes a world like the Hunger Games, I'd protest in the streets and risk dying in a Tiananmen square movement. Orwell wrote a better satire on society's need for bloodlust and authoritarianism, because he details a lot of what happened in the world before it got fragmented into superstates. There's no such luck with Suzanne Collins. I don't think Suzanne Collins or the film-makers have enough imagination or storytelling skills to give us the big picture of Panem or the characters should have. They're just waving their fingers at us tsk-tsking us for watching too much reality TV, that one day will lead to televised murder. Does Collins give her characters enough depth that they rebel against an insane society that has degraded to televised murder? Why do they go along with it? Like I said, I'd stand my ground and risk my life for freedom and autonomy before I'd let what happened in Pan Em happen to us.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

1

lossincasaApr 25, 2012

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Outdated special effects, unwatchable shaky camera style in the action scenes, strange choice of actress for the lead role (an almost too pretty well... developed woman to play the role of a malnourished - more like starved to death in the book- sixteen year old slum-girl. Terrible dialogue and character development, unrealistic depiction of the future with people wearing outdated 18th century costumes while possessing incredible, almost magical technology that could create something out of nothing. One of the biggest rip offs I have ever seen in my life. They have taken the story of the Battle Royale and abused it in the worst possible manner, throwing all the violence out the window or with the above mentioned shaky camera technique toned down to an absolute blur. For many actual minutes I couldn't see anything on the big screen and many of my friends had made similar complaints. A colossal waste of my money but I suppose at the same time a great cash in for the clever people behind this whole charade. This is definitely not a kids movie and it barely qualifies as adult one also.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

1

dollarhydeNov 21, 2015

Hollywood PG-13 version of ''Battle Royale'' full of meaningless dialogues, uninteresting characters in ridiculous costumes and a script so bad it's only comparable to "Twilight".

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

BIGSTEWDec 11, 2013

The Hunger Games can be summed up like this: the good is heavily outweighed by the bad. Only fans of the books should view it to see if they can get an ounce of satisfaction from the film adaptation. For everyone else, don't waste your time.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

th3assassassinSep 18, 2013

The hungry games are bad and i think its bad becos there was no hungrany and there was none games so i dont get way it was calld hte hugnry games and all off the charenters wasnt hungry adn they dint want to kill echother because they aerThe hungry games are bad and i think its bad becos there was no hungrany and there was none games so i dont get way it was calld hte hugnry games and all off the charenters wasnt hungry adn they dint want to kill echother because they aer winmps so thay shud kill thamsalfs with a 360noscope… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

oliviagilesDec 11, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Hunger Games was written by American novelist, Suzanne Collins and was published and released in autumn 2008. The breathtaking book is about a girl in a poor District with The Hunger Games in the capitol once a year to fight until death. When her sister is taken out to do this challenge, what will Katniss do to save her sister?
Gary Ross, 56, an American director, writer and author who wrote and directed this appalling version of an amazing book. He took the feeling out of the words Collins wrote and should be ashamed of himself.
It was released in the UK in March 2012 and the total box office amount was £457,295,652. Many people, including myself, were clearly disappointed as we wanted to get the feeling we got with Collins’ books but instead I sat through a poor version with terrible acting.
A man coming out of the cinema said “They couldn’t act. Stone faced, that’s what they were”. If I were Suzanne Collins I would feel utterly embarrassed to say that was based on a book I wrote.
Jennifer Lawrence, 22, is a beautiful and talented actress but i felt her part was extremely flat but, of course, i put the blame on Gary Ross as he was responsible.
The script was forced, terrible and completely horrendous! It made me cringe! Some of the memorable lines from the movie were taken from the book but having them being read aloud instead of reading them in your head ruined the experience. As well as the terrible script, there were also technical difficulties like when the camera would jerk and everyone in the screening room would feel suspense but Ross was building up to nothing. I am not an expert in special effects but to me, it looked like a student in primary school doing it for the first time and hoping for the best! It was an attempt to be serious but they failed miserably.
With a budget of £51.6m, they should’ve hired a decent camera-man as to not make the whole film look like a school play!
Overall, I give this despicable mess of a movie 0.5 of a star because they based it on an excellent book and I recommend you reading the book!… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

0

solutions10Mar 29, 2012

In the least surprising cash-in in the history of anything ever, The Hunger Games took its already film-ready premise which had already borrowed from Battle Royale, glossed it up pretty, removed any and all significance from the originalIn the least surprising cash-in in the history of anything ever, The Hunger Games took its already film-ready premise which had already borrowed from Battle Royale, glossed it up pretty, removed any and all significance from the original novels to satisfy the teen crowd, deconstructed every single character and made new ones to fit a film that was supposed to be horrifying more than anything else, naturally made Katniss attractive instead of being the poverty-stricken malnourished slum-girl she was in the novel, made all the guys beefcakes, gave everyone unspeakable combat skills when they should have next-to-none, when the entire point was to throw random kids into an arena and told to kill each other, and basically turned it into exactly what it was supposed to be: A cash-in, without exception. All significance is gone, and respecting the origins of the novel isn't even considered here. Disappointing beyond words? Definitely. But an obvious way to market it as an arena battle to the death involving children? Checkmate. Anyone who read the first novel knew quickly that this was going to be turned into a film, and it was going to be a sure-fire cashflow frenzy with the right style and marketing. Done and done. For anyone who doesn't care for anything the book stood for or even knows to begin with, here you go: A generic action flick with a few twists that are comically predictable, all done in perfect PG-13 format--ironically still being about desperate kids picked out of a raffle murdering each other with sharp objects. But if you've read the novels, you knew exactly what they were doing the instant you saw the official movie poster, and you can at least avoid some of the despair because you knew it had been coming all along.… Expand

9 of 16 users found this helpful97

All this user's reviews

0

lilkillpappyApr 4, 2012

Severely over rated. Acting was horrible, the heart of the book was not there, emotional aspects were not emotional because they were rushed and forced, and full of really bad acting. They emphasized the people fighting against the governmentSeverely over rated. Acting was horrible, the heart of the book was not there, emotional aspects were not emotional because they were rushed and forced, and full of really bad acting. They emphasized the people fighting against the government part of the story, but they gave us a sappy ending that had nothing to do with the people or the oppressive government. This film simply had no soul, despite having more than enough inspiration from the book they some how destroyed it for the typical short attention span of American viewers. And for people saying the lead actress did a good job of acting, just ask your self how many facial expressions she actually used. She did them well, but she only had like 4. Just like that actress in the twilight series, once you watch another movie from the series you will see how incredible low her range is. The same 4 expressions over and over again will get pretty boring.… Expand

8 of 15 users found this helpful87

All this user's reviews

0

DigitalkidAug 14, 2012

Dumbest and senseless movie ever! Some people, dressed like a gay freak show, taking some lowlifes's children for a gladiator's fights to make them (lowlifes) calm?! Only a tiny example of stupidity.

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

0

SchnippshlyApr 9, 2012

I expected a ripoff of Battle Royale to at least be almost slightly 1% as interesting as Battle Royale, but instead I got into the theater and watched this boring piece of crap garbage for two hours. What a waste of time. People who likedI expected a ripoff of Battle Royale to at least be almost slightly 1% as interesting as Battle Royale, but instead I got into the theater and watched this boring piece of crap garbage for two hours. What a waste of time. People who liked this movie are either stupid or lying. Transformers 2 was a better movie because, in spite of horrible writing (which The Hunger Games is 100% full of), there was still a lot of action (which The Hunger Games has 0% of). With a bad plot and bad dialogue and bad everything story-wise and then two hours of boring non-action on top of that, what is even the point of this movie? Do not watch this. Obviously you will anyway and you will pretend you liked it because everyone told you to.… Expand

7 of 12 users found this helpful75

All this user's reviews

0

MikefromAngusAug 16, 2012

Lets mix "the running man" with the tv show "Survivor" target the audience for "teenagers" but lets make it as violent as possible. Thats the end result for this movie. The movie is not orginal, boring, NOT real, the characters act as ifLets mix "the running man" with the tv show "Survivor" target the audience for "teenagers" but lets make it as violent as possible. Thats the end result for this movie. The movie is not orginal, boring, NOT real, the characters act as if they were on a tv show and their lives werent not in danger. They formed "Alliances" when the whole idea was the strongest person survives? give me a break! AVOID this movie at all costs!… Expand

3 of 6 users found this helpful33

All this user's reviews

0

LJHayesApr 4, 2014

Seriously, **** this film. It is awful. I'm not going into detail because it would take hours for me to go over everything that makes this thing unwatchable. Suffice to say it's just a senseless story driven by insufferably irritatingSeriously, **** this film. It is awful. I'm not going into detail because it would take hours for me to go over everything that makes this thing unwatchable. Suffice to say it's just a senseless story driven by insufferably irritating characters and a string of convenient plot devices that sporadically fade in and out of relevance. If you want a film about a brutal death match, watch battle royale. If you want a film about ridiculous angst ridden teenage romance, watch twilight. If you want a film that tries to include a death match and a convoluted teenage romance and fails at both, watch the hunger games.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

0

The_BoyMar 25, 2012

One of the worst movies I have ever seen.. The only reason I watched it was because we got to the movie theater late and it was the only thing playing.. Out-dated special effects, a story that left a lot to be desired and a weak ending..One of the worst movies I have ever seen.. The only reason I watched it was because we got to the movie theater late and it was the only thing playing.. Out-dated special effects, a story that left a lot to be desired and a weak ending.. Don't waste your money on this garbage… Expand

7 of 17 users found this helpful710

All this user's reviews

0

hootisAug 24, 2012

So my previous review was about why this movie was bad as a film, like poor/very bad(characterization, setting or general surreal atmosphere was just not serious/believable at all and this was put forth with no explanation, costumes of peopleSo my previous review was about why this movie was bad as a film, like poor/very bad(characterization, setting or general surreal atmosphere was just not serious/believable at all and this was put forth with no explanation, costumes of people especially soldiers, storyline and I want to say game play but this isn't a video game; I guess the closest thing would be the way the story worked itself out was pathetic).
However this was based on the idea that this was a genuine story, which it is not. This book and film are both completely based on Battle Royal and this film brings absolutely nothing new to this type of storyline. Also, Battle Royal actually had gore while simultaneously making a good film in every way this movie failed it succeeded. If Battle Royal was in English, I bet he could sue on copy right in this day and age but that's another story....… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

0

diehard-gamerMay 30, 2012

Have I missed something, or is 'Hunger Games' in essence the same film as 'Battle Royale'.

The Battle Royale. metacritic summary says 'Summary: Battle Royale is a violent epic about an innocent group of Junior High students forced by theHave I missed something, or is 'Hunger Games' in essence the same film as 'Battle Royale'.

The Battle Royale. metacritic summary says 'Summary: Battle Royale is a violent epic about an innocent group of Junior High students forced by the government to hunt and kill their classmates for sport.'. And for 'Hunger Games' summary 'the evil Capitol of the nation of Panem forces each of its twelve districts to send a teenage boy and girl to compete'.

Is it a remake, or just a rip off?… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

0

FabbioDornellasJan 22, 2014

This film is just a copy of Battle Royale, it's plagiarism. There's nothing new here, there's nothing stunning or amazing it's just a film to take your money and is a big hollywood fail.

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

0

theofficeMar 30, 2012

I don't blame the books. I haven't read them but just looking at wikipedia the overarching story as a lot of rich material to draw from. This movie just will have none of it. It was poorly written. Poorly acted (the lead girl was good butI don't blame the books. I haven't read them but just looking at wikipedia the overarching story as a lot of rich material to draw from. This movie just will have none of it. It was poorly written. Poorly acted (the lead girl was good but that was pretty much it). None of the backstory was explored. Just a bad movie plane and simple. The movie is really about a 3/10 but I'm giving it a 0 because of others voting it up. Basically the movie is totally overhyped. It really isn't good at all. Characters have no back story besides the 2 leads and they expect us to connect to other characters when something happens to them? Literally characters are introduced for 5 minutes and we are supposed to feel sad when they die? Ha. If the point of the games is to kill everyone else then why would these people form teams? Why would they sleep all at the same time? Why did one not wake up to betray the others silently. Just far far too many plot holes.… Expand

15 of 31 users found this helpful1516

All this user's reviews

0

Machine2musicMay 8, 2012

Hot garbage. Thought this movie was gonna be the PG-13 version of "Battle Royale". Instead it's just another dumb twilight esc movie. No thanks Hollywood, you can keep your tweenie movies to yourself.

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

0

Scamp4553Oct 9, 2013

I really do not get all of the appeal behind The Hunger Games. This is similar to The Twilight Saga, not that both franchises are the exact same, but they're both highly overrated franchises that are geared mostly towards teenagers. The onlyI really do not get all of the appeal behind The Hunger Games. This is similar to The Twilight Saga, not that both franchises are the exact same, but they're both highly overrated franchises that are geared mostly towards teenagers. The only difference is that The Hunger Games tries to appeal to all demographics, but just ends up being REALLY obnoxious--- once you see the poster for this movie 1000 times. The one with Katniss on it. This is one of the most ANNOYING movie posters, if not THE most annoying movie poster I have ever seen. It's everywhere, even when the second movie is about to be released. Sorry, but The Hunger Games will not be as memorable as Star Wars or Lord of the Rings. It's just another adult-novel-turned-to-movie-aimed-for-teenagers.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

0

Nostalgic9tailsJul 16, 2013

First off, I neither liked this film nor the books. The entire concept was taken directly from Battle Royale and has just interjected elements from The Lord of The Flies. There are several ways that the character of Katniss is just a bland,First off, I neither liked this film nor the books. The entire concept was taken directly from Battle Royale and has just interjected elements from The Lord of The Flies. There are several ways that the character of Katniss is just a bland, sociopathic male-stand-in who does everything wrong and seems to get out alive. Peeta is creepy. No question. How he tries to make Katniss act like she's in love with him for the better of the viewers and how he admitted to nearly stalking her in both the film and book. Gale and Prim are useless characters who, if they were removed, the story would still be the same. Haymich isn't alcoholic at all, he's an occasional drunk, and I'm ready to stand up to that point with anyone who wants to protest. I don't want this review to run long with everything that's wrong with this, because there aren't enough characters here to rightly explain. But what I hate the most is the sheer fact that such a large bandwagon has been made for this film/book. There are other alternatives out there that do it so much better than this. Just because millions of people like something doesn't make it as good as everyone praises it to be.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

0

Heimskringla91Apr 14, 2013

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It's hard for me to understand why so many people thought this movie was well done. I read the first book (mainly because my girlfriend really wanted me to, especially before the movie) and I have to say I'm really glad I did. Although, even if I didn't read the book, the movie is horrible regardless. My favorite character Haymitch never did any of the things that I liked him for in the book. I never cared for Rue as I did in the book, quite frankly I did not care when she died in the movie. When the familiars (the name escapes me) came on screen of the dead tributes, they were awkward dog creatures that did not resemble their former selves. Thresh never did anything. The casting was off as certain characters did not look like how they were portrayed in the book (I know it cannot be perfect but you can make it close). The chariot scene with the fire dress was uninspired. Cinna had no emotion and seemed to really not care for Katniss. The shotty camera work that just shook every time an action scene happened. The fact that Pita didn't lose a leg. This movie is just wrong. It's just bad. Aside from completely ruining the book, the movie alone just is not good. Nothing about it was entertaining especially since I've read the book and know that everything was done so horribly wrong. My girlfriend who is a huge fan of the series (collects everything she can) also hated the movie. We were both sitting in the theater, dumbstruck as people clapped and cheered for a movie that destroyed what the books created. In retrospect I'm sure more than half the people in the movie hadn't read the books but the fact that the author stood behind this, I'll be sure to skip out on anything she does again. Not to mention the fact that I saw Battle Royale which came out before the Hunger Games books and movie and watching that you realize how much is ripped off. Right down to where they have two winners. I'm rambling now but geez, looking up at 831 positive reviews, really? Gah!… Expand

2 of 7 users found this helpful25

All this user's reviews

0

SEROJDec 2, 2015

This is one of the worst movies i've ever seen! Typical plot, pathetic story, horrible acting and decent action! I haven't read the books but i bet they can't be worse than this garbage i watched!

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

0

LinusBeagleMar 8, 2014

This was an unwatchable, tedious, ass-numbing, bore of a movie; not worthy of even “made for TV” status. The acting was stilted and wooden; Jennifer Lawrence is creepy looking and unattractive. Honestly the whole thing was a mess from startThis was an unwatchable, tedious, ass-numbing, bore of a movie; not worthy of even “made for TV” status. The acting was stilted and wooden; Jennifer Lawrence is creepy looking and unattractive. Honestly the whole thing was a mess from start to finish. Save your money and opt out of the remaining movies now; doubtful they will get any better.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

0

Toten79Jul 28, 2020

I started to watch this film. 10 minutes into it, the chick with the bow started to pley bad-ass in the woods... yawn. But when the model guy approched, that was it for me: another Twilight, chick-flick, SWJ female empowerment movie. No, thanks...

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

The Hunger Games

User Reviews