The Hunger Games [Archive]

BumbleBee

03-23-12, 09:36 AM

http://www.usmagazine.com/uploads/assets/articles/50638-the-hunger-games-mania-tweet-us-your-pics/1332285217_hunger-games-article.jpg
THE HUNGER GAMES
(2012)

When books are written an author targets one audience and one audience alone. They don't expect their novels to be transformed, scripted and forged into a completely unique, brilliant and breathtaking adaption of their works. While it's an honor, it's also a tremendously difficult task that any director takes upon themselves when they make the choice to create a film out of something so magnificent and of something with such a large and loyal fanbase.
It's been done before with Harry Potter, and now, it's been done again with the Hunger Games.

The Hunger Games is an adaption of the first book in a trilogy. This tremendous task is taken on by Gary Ross the director of this unique story of the struggles of the future, the corruption of the Government and the hardship that many may face, given the circumstances pan out in a similar fashion. To simplify the story of the Hunger Games without giving too much away, audiences find themselves in an almost refuge-like camp districts (of which there are Twelve). From each of these districts, the Capitol selects a boy and girl to fight to the death on live television. Ultimately, a regular occurring event that many muse over and bet upon. This time however, Katniss Everdeen (played by Jeniffer Lawrence), a young girl from district twelve volunteers to take her younger sister's place for the latest match. What horrors will she face along the way however, she doesn't know.

The story is quite simplistic. In it's own right it's unique and unlike anything we've seen in theaters before, but when you're sitting in the theater and watching - you know that you're going to be in for a merciless show. Young teens are going to have to take up arms and fend for their lives - otherwise - death is all that awaits them. While the story is fairly accurate (from what I heard from book readers I attended with) there is a lot that's missed or cropped from the end product of The Hunger Games. While it's got the meat of the story, it's missing the apple sauce to go with it.

It takes about half-an-hour to really get into it. However, it's essential that this half-an-hour is given for the development of the characters that audiences are going to want to survive. That audiences are going to cheer for and actually worry about given the moment that they find themselves in a situation which could mean life or death. As this is the case, the character development in this film is excellent. You're actually drawn to certain individuals and actually care when they're going up against the odds. Some characters you may only be introduced to personally for a minute or so, but somehow, you still feel linked to them - even when they're not as significant as Katniss.

The directing in this film is excellent. The set choices and the destinations that the film is set within are somehow dreary and uncomfortable, but at the same time, beautiful and cinematic. The film is never a drag and you're not casting a glance down at your watch ever five minutes to see how long the scenes been going for because it doesn't seem to fit. Everything that's been filmed, created and assigned throughout the adaption is essential to creating the exciting adventure that The Hunger Games is. Director Gary Ross makes sure to drill home the message of how powerful hope can be, as well as how overpowering fear can be in the very same respect. The idea that fear, however, is always something that can be overcome - for better or worse.

Performances in the film are excellent. Jennifer Lawrence had me a little concerned when she first appeared on screen and I wasn't sure if she'd be able to carry the film - however - her acting abilities blossomed like no other and I'd go as far as saying she'd one of the most talented young females in Hollywood at the moment. She has a way of connecting with an audience emotionally, through her sadness and happiness as well as her relief and freight. A perfect choice for the lead role. Josh Hutcherson plays Peeta Mellark, co-starring alongside Lawrence. Hutcherson is immensely talented, and he is able to convey that through his acting in this film. While before he might have just been "that kid that was in all those Disney movies", now he's actually starting to branch away from all that to shape himself as a performer. Once more, his display and connection to his character was phenomenal. Minor cast members including Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks put in stunning performances as well, further carrying this movie in every regard.

While many are still unpleased with the minor rating it received, Gary Ross does his best to display all the bloody, gruesome violence in a way that doesn't risk the film being pushed out of the desired rating. While it isn't as bloody as many would've hoped - it isn't absent of blood and gore. The suggestiveness of what is happening and the distinct splatters of blood and the reckless camera work makes for just as good a show as extensive blood works would have.

The film isn't without its flaws and it's certainly lengthy with an abrupt ending, considering the fact that there are another two films to follow, but The Hunger Games makes for a good watch and a nice night out at the movies. It's exciting, new and thrilling in every respect and showcases some talent that we haven't seen nearly enough of in the past few years.

http://www.movieforums.com/images/popcorn/4box.gif

cinemaafficionado

03-23-12, 11:05 AM

Nice review, still can't imagine standing in line to see a movie but then again I won't stand in line to eat at a restaurant.

BumbleBee

03-23-12, 08:29 PM

Glad that I didn't have to either. Had a day off and managed to step right on in at two in the afternoon. Maybe six or seven people sitting in with us. It was great! XD

gandalf26

03-24-12, 08:10 PM

Enjoyed it but it ain't Battle Royale, not even close.

Lawrence was excellent in the lead.

I think Battle Royale did a much better job at letting you know what's going on, keeping up with different people/groups where they are etc. No clear explanation of the rules/boundaries.

Perhaps took a little too long to get into the actual games.

Didn't like the beginning of the games where are the weapons/food are fought over straight away. Losing 9-10 of the 24 straight away. Bit silly to have groups of 2 from every district yet only 1 can win.

7/10

Tyler1

03-25-12, 12:27 AM

Oh, I forgot about the awful use of shaky cam especially during the action scenes. You really want to see what's going on but the kinetic camerawork is rather distracting. :(

ElmoLovesYou

03-25-12, 01:21 AM

My review (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=799833)

cinemaafficionado

03-25-12, 04:57 AM

I don't understand what the big deal is just like didn't understand what the big deal was over Twilight but my guess would be that it's targeting the largest audience sub-group and thus is commercialy very viable for the studios.

honeykid

03-25-12, 09:37 AM

That's the ticket, CA. Apparently, the books are a big deal in the young adult market. With that, you can only imagine how many tickets it'll sell.

akatemple

03-25-12, 09:51 AM

I must be really out of things or just getting old because up until this movie was being made I had never heard of The Hunger Games.

genesis_pig

03-25-12, 10:01 AM

I must be really out of things or just getting old because up until this movie was being made I had never heard of The Hunger Games.

Don't worry, same here.

SamsoniteDelilah

03-25-12, 05:17 PM

lol I can't figure out how to delete the post, which was really not a review, just discussion.

Powderfinger

03-25-12, 07:54 PM

I'm going to see it this weekend. I hope it meets expectations, what I'm hearing.

ElmoLovesYou

03-25-12, 08:36 PM

lol I can't figure out how to delete the post, which was really not a review, just discussion.

Why would you want to delete his post? Besides, he is discussing what he felt about the film which in turn is his review. Which is quite good.

Nausicaä

03-26-12, 11:24 AM

For those who have seen it - how much of the film is shaky camera work?

thracian dawg

03-26-12, 12:48 PM

Most of the action scenes. The actors don't have enough martial arts skills to make their fights believable or realistic, so I think the director is using the shaky cam to hide that fact from the audience.

The biggest boner in the film?

The scene with genetically altered wasps. You'd think ... if they were on the ground, looking up at her in the tree, they'd notice a wasp's nest the size of a small dog house just above her head. Or at least, she'd hear them buzzing.

ivo

03-26-12, 05:53 PM

I will probably watch this movie.

filmgirlinterrupted

03-26-12, 06:30 PM

**DISCLAIMER** I didn't read any of the books. What I'm about to say comes strictly from a movie-watching perspective.

What I enjoyed...

Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen. My god, this young woman can act. She was incredible. Emotionally intense, magnetic, and ethereal...a job well done. Lawrence's Katniss was reminiscent of Ree, her character in "Winter's Bone" - the poor, back-country girl with a fire that burns inside of her. Her performance as Katniss was just as damn good.
The entire supporting adult cast: Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci, Toby Jones, Lenny Kravitz, Woody Harrelson, and Donald Sutherland; all did a great job in their supporting roles.
The Reaping scene. This was my favorite scene for two reasons: a) it effectively established the cruelty of The Capitol and prepared you for the Game, and b) because it was the exact moment when I fell in love with Katniss and became sympathetic to her plight. I think that this scene was perhaps the most important in the whole movie, and it was well-written and well-acted.

What I didn't enjoy...

The young adult/tween supporting cast: Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), Prim (Willow Shields), Cato (Alexander Ludwig), Rue (Amandla Stenberg), the list goes on and on. Basically, every other "child" in the Game except for Katniss was boring and I had zero interest in them. I guess I was hoping for stronger character development amongst the Tributes.
The Peeta/Katniss relationship. The writers didn't handle this very well, IMO. It was unclear throughout the entire movie if Katniss had true feelings for Peeta, or if she was just playing along per Haymitch's recommendation (young romantic love will get you sponsors, etc). Just one sentence from Katniss would have been enough, for example, "I'm sorry, I'm going along with this for the sponsors, I don't really love you." Or SOMETHING along those lines so that I'm not feeling awkward and uncomfortable during their kissing scene!
The virtual dog beast things. OK, this was some "Twilight: New Moon" bulls*it. Those computer-generated dogs looked AWFUL and they weren't even terrifying. They looked like pitbulls on 'roids. Just poorly crafted and a weird scene that felt so out of place.
Peeta's RANDOM CAMOUFLAGE MAKEUP. This bothered me A LOT. How the hell did Peeta find time in the middle of the Game to create a custom camouflage mask that SOMEHOW blended in perfectly with a rock that he JUST SO HAPPENED to find in the middle of woods?!?!?! It was a HORRIBLE scene that made no sense.

Overall, I'd say...

"The Hunger Games" was entertaining enough to be worth the $8.00. Jennifer Lawrence was amazing and carried the entire film. The movie was an effective showcase of a futuristic dystopian society, with its sweeping scenes of The Capitol and the desolate landscape of District 12. About half-way through, when the Game begins, the movie starts to lose its way. Poorly-written dialogue and action scenes that are chopped to bits contributed to the movie's downfall. In addition, the movie ends abruptly, (obviously to set it up for a sequel) with numerous loose ends left behind.

I'll give it 3.5

mastermetal777

03-30-12, 05:48 AM

Here's my review of The Hunger Games.

The country of Panem seems to enjoy blood and gore at the expense of small children and teens. Every year in this futuristic country—planted on the ruins of the U.S.A. no less—the Capitol of Panem decides to hold an annual Hunger Games as punishment for a massive uprising that lead to the destruction of District 13, the leaders of the rebellion. This is an arena duel in which twenty-four “tributes”, one boy and one girl from each of the twelve districts, must fight to the death in order to win. Last one standing wins great riches, simple as that. While not the first to come up with this kind of idea, the book’s author Suzanne Collins has created a unique twist on the idea, and Director Gary Ross (Pleasantville, Seabiscuit) has beautifully adapted it to the big screen.

The premise stated above is the entire plot of this film. It centers around a girl named Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence). Katniss is a girl in District 12, the poorest district. She is a fifteen year old hunter who gathers food outside the outer fence in order to keep her family alive. She hunts with her friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth), who’s been her best friend and guide for a few years. Both actors play their part superbly, with Lawrence giving the audience the same incredible depth and range she showed in X-Men: First Class. Her portrayal of Katniss is dead-on, bringing the tough yet loving fighter to life throughout the whole show. Hemsworth does an admirable job too, considering the short screen time he’s given.

On the day of the games, Katniss’s sister Prim (Willow Shields) is selected for the games in a scene that captures the hopelessness and cruelty of the actual games, with not one dreary face missed. Fearing for her sister’s life, Katniss volunteers so that Prim would live, knowing full and well the consequences of participating in the blood sport. Joining her is Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), the baker’s son. Hutcherson, too, shows great power in his role, giving the timid Peeta a strength the audience can identify with almost immediately.

Assisting them are Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), the perky District 12 team leader, Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), a past winner who’s glued to his flask, and Cinna (Lenny Kravitz), the stylist—because the tributes must look great before they’re bathed in blood. Each helps the two from District 12 as much as they can in order to make them appeal to the audience about to watch the games.

The film itself is excellently paced, especially for its length of two hours and twenty minutes. Not one moment is wasted, and few give the audience any peace of mind. I found myself chewing on my fingers more than my popcorn watching this flick, it was that suspenseful. Even the moments that set up the games themselves held the collective breath of the audience, with little time to catch it in between.

The rest of the cast is well-acted as well, with one of the tributes giving an intense and frightening performance as a vicious competitor wanting nothing more than to shed a lot of blood. Not bad considering she only had five minutes to deliver such a powerhouse scene. Another tribute, a pre-teen girl with no room in her heart for violence, helps Katniss out and delivers one of the more emotional scenes in the film. No tribute, announcer, or President is spared a lousy actor or actress, and the film benefits greatly from that choice.

By the time the actual games come around though, the film gives us a bit of a mixed bag. While subtle scenes deliver chills and shocks, the action suffers from overzealous and shaky camera work that barely keeps up with the action and gore (which is toned down a bit from the source material). The director isn’t known for shooting action films, however, so this is a forgivable offense for the time being. The rest of the event is shot beautifully and executed in such a way that many scenes feel grand without them needing to be.

It’s not a completely faithful adaptation, mind you. The novel is told in Katniss’s single point of view, while the film gives us the behind-the-scenes look from the view of the Capitol, the audience, and even some of the other tributes. This is the strength the film has over the novel, where the movie-goer experiences this social drama going on, this underlying focus on the lust for media violence the film seems to throw at us from all angles, both subtle and in-your-face. It does take away a few scenes with Katniss that fans of the novel might cringe about, but none of them are too glaring to even consider.

A lot of loose ends get created in the process, however, which obviously set up for the sequel, Catching Fire. Also, some of the CGI effects, such as the tracker-jackers and the Hulk dogs the gamemakers send out, are done rather poorly, and distract from the very realistic portrayal of this fictional universe. The Peeta/Katniss romance does seem a bit cheesy at times (as shows in the writing on occasion), but at the same time is touching and not too overdone like in many teen dramas.

Overall, this is a flawed, yet faithful adaptation to a well-written and highly popular novel series that will see no end in the near future. The shaky camera during the action might take away the suspense factor a bit and the CGI is distracting, but the overall feel of the film overshadows everything else, from the great score, the great acting all across the board, and the social message it tries to deliver.

Rating: 3 out of 4 stars

filmgirlinterrupted

03-30-12, 03:58 PM

Nice review, mastermetal777 :up:

lundy1026

04-01-12, 06:50 PM

Nice reviews guys.

In my opinion it wasn't all it was hyped up to be. It was really good, prob makes my top 100 list (most likely in 80s or 90s), but it wasn't as amazing as I thought it was going to be. Thats probably why I was semi-dissapointed because I thought it was going to be a modern day classic but it didn;t hold that majestity in my eyes. I did think the chemistry between Katniss and Peeta was truely believable. I liked all the action (they could have done better death scenes- it seemed like they just dropped off like flies). Now I gotta rent the books!

I give 4/5 stars.

TheUsualSuspect

04-04-12, 03:29 AM

The Hunger Games

It's incredibly hard not to compare this film to Battle Royale, I hate to do so, but the similarities are there and unfortunately for The Hunger Games, Battle Royale did it better. In the end, I did like it, but I can't help but feel that it was a lot of build up, with a mediocre delivery of the most important aspect of the film. They talk about how deadly the games are, how it's a fight for survival, but I never really felt that danger. I really do hate comparing it to Battle Royale, but that had a sense of danger. Battle Royale felt deadly, the characters seemed like they've been through hell, you felt sad to see characters die, here, not so much. The most deadly part was the bloodbath that occurred when characters ran to their weapons, then it seemed to be an autopilot. I might be the only one to say this, but this would actually work better as a television show. That way we can feel how devastating these games are, how long they are, how deadly they are. The film does not get this point across, at least not to me.

Jennifer Lawrence was good in the lead role of Katniss, the only volunteer for the games. She shows how brave and heroic a female character can be (you suck Bella). She kicks more ass than any other character. That's another downfall, none of the other kids are really memorable. I wanted something unique for each kid to be memorable, but if they didn't speak a line, they were basically ghosts. There are 24 kids, with the exception of the obvious (Lawrence, Hutcherson, the "villain" kid, and the little black girl) everyone else fades away. I'm not asking for screen time to be dedicated to each one, but make some of them memorable. I knew who the redhead was because she had red hair, that's it. Again, Battle Royale did this right. They had the tech guys, the evil guy, the medical girls, the crazy girl, the romantics, the hero, etc. The smallest detail is enough to make someone in the background memorable. I had no idea who was dying.

The supporting characters are poorly written, specifically Hutherson's character Peeta. Hell, Liam Hemsworth's character Gale does absolutely nothing in the film except brood about Katniss, and yet one little scene where he grabs her little sister to take to her mother screams more about his character than anything Peeta does. Banks, Kravitz and Harrelson all serve to make Katniss all that she can be. Harrelson has some backstory to him, he won a previous game and has since become an alcoholic.

I hope more of the world is explored in the follow up films. They barely scratch the surface here, just the basics are given, which is really all we need for the first one, but I was hoping for a bit more of this world to be shown, specifically the Districts. I actually thought that all three books were about the games and that's what the films would be about. So when they wrapped up the game, I thought to myself, where are they going to go from here? But I suspect there will be some uprising and new characters introduced. As a stand lone flick, The Hunger Games works. It doesn't really leave you wanting to go deeper into the story, but it does tell the story it needs to tell and leaves it in a bow for you. It may not be a nice little bow, but it's enough.

The detractors of the film are many, like the love between Katniss and Peeta. It's never really explained if she does love him or if she is only doing it for the show and to survive. I suspect the latter will eventually turn into the former, but as of right now, the film does not make this clear. The shaky camera work distracts as well. Even when no action is taking place, we are all over the screen, making it hard to connect to those speaking. The film is also a tad lengthy, which can be bothersome to some, running at two hours and twenty minutes.

Despite those nitpicks, the film is entertaining. I guess I just expected a bit more from it, hearing rave reviews and it making millions. The training sequences are exciting and the initial build up, mainly the countdown, to the actual games is thrilling. As I said, I did like the film, I just had to point out those problems. As a film targeted towards teens, I recommend it.and fell a bit short, expect a lot of shaky camera work and the film is a bit lengthy, but entertaining enough.

3.5

ElmoLovesYou

04-04-12, 03:22 PM

Sedai

04-04-12, 03:34 PM

I agree with the muppet....

filmgirlinterrupted

04-04-12, 03:51 PM

The supporting characters are poorly written, specifically Hutherson's character Peeta. Hell, Liam Hemsworth's character Gale does absolutely nothing in the film except brood about Katniss, and yet one little scene where he grabs her little sister to take to her mother screams more about his character than anything Peeta does.

The detractors of the film are many, like the love between Katniss and Peeta. It's never really explained if she does love him or if she is only doing it for the show and to survive. I suspect the latter will eventually turn into the former, but as of right now, the film does not make this clear.

Yup. These were 2 of my biggest complaints also.

gandalf26

04-04-12, 06:10 PM

Even though both The Hunger Games and Battle Royale deal with the subject of trying to kill one another, that is about the only similarity they have. I personally don't see why people keep calling The Hunger Games the "America's Battle Royale" or "Battle Royale 2012"... etc. Battle Royale was a complete and totally different movie.

That isn't really true though is it. They are not merely trying to kill each other. There are plenty of movies for that.

Both films feature groups of school age children fighting to the last boy/girl alive in an enclosed space with an assortment of weapons and a time limit. There are not really many other films like this at all.

In your words to say that Hunger Games and Battle Royale are complete and totally different movies just isn't the case.

Of course the film's outside of the "Games" or "Battle" are different but surely you cant be surprised that people are comparing the two.

The Hunger Games is "America's Battle Royale".

ElmoLovesYou

04-04-12, 08:04 PM

Both films feature groups of school age children fighting to the last boy/girl alive in an enclosed space with an assortment of weapons and a time limit.

Like I said, the only similarity between the two.

filmgirlinterrupted

04-04-12, 09:07 PM

http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/elfgrove/20367407220/1/tumblr_m1odxolLC71qgn0jd

At their core, the stories are the same. It's little details that separate them :D

TheUsualSuspect

04-04-12, 10:32 PM

Why do people say Zombieland is America's Shaun of the Dead? It's what people do.

I was reminded very much of Battle Royale. Kids teaming up together to hunt others, the dead ones being announced to the remaining survivors. Two people "in love?" surviving. Kids given random weapons. The need to survive off the land, etc.

I'm only comparing the two in the review because they do have the same basic core similarities and in my opinion Battle Royale did it better.

wintertriangles

04-05-12, 01:47 AM

I was reminded very much of Battle Royale. Gets teaming up together to hunt others, the dead ones being announced to the remaining survivors. Two people "in love?" surviving. Kids given random weapons. The need to survive off the land, etc.

I'm only comparing the two in the review because they do have the same basic core similarities and in my opinion Battle Royale did it better.This this this thisssss and also there's lots more minor details that are the same including people watching. The only difference I can see between the two films is the students in BR have squinty eyes and in HG there's more vague focus on the rich.

I'll still download HG but I can't imagine giving money to something so clearly lifted from something else.

The Prestige

04-05-12, 01:56 PM

Think i'll just buy the ultimate edition of the original Battle Royale instead.

Sedai

04-05-12, 03:16 PM

Why? The films aren't really alike. I mean, there's a sort of arena with kids fighting in it, but that is where the similarities end. I took The Hunger Games to be more about the society surrounding the games and establishing the protagonist for the series, and not the games themselves, which made it more interesting to me as far as subtext was concerned. Hunger Games didn't spend the entire film sort of knocking off each kid, horror movie style, which BR does, which is sort of obvious and sophomoric if you think about it.

That said, Hunger Games is sophomoric in its own ways...

TheUsualSuspect

04-05-12, 03:29 PM

Elements within the game are what made the similarities apparent, for the reasons I stated earlier. So yes, the films are alike, enough to compare. I don't normally like comparing films, because I think they should be reviewed on their own merits, but when a film resembles another so much, it's hard not to.

Yes, the stories are different, but neither one is about the games more than the other. One just happens to take place in the games longer than the other. The Hunger Games is all build up TO the games, whereas Battle Royale is more concerned with the fight for survival IN the game. To say that the two aren't similar just because one sets up a series is inane to me. Yes, we can all agree that Hunger Games sets up the protagonist for the next instalments, but is that enough to set it apart?

If two superhero movies came out, which had the hero locked in an arena, where they both do the same things and the outcome is the same, you would say there are different just because one deals with outside the arena more than the other? I disagree.

FilmMeister

04-06-12, 10:52 PM

I have recently seen the film The Hunger games and I'm just gonna go
ahead and say it. I think that I've found a frontrunner for best film of the year.

Now I know that I may be over exaggerating on this; but his is in my consideration a perfectly good film. Perfect writing, perfect acting, perfect direction just perfect

Basically it goes like this; it's the future, the US has been transformed into the country of panem. it is divided into 12 districts and every year an event called the hunger games which is used as entertainment for the citizens of the capitol, while also reminding the citizens of the districts their place. This follows two "tributes' from the 12th district Katniss Everdeen(played by Jennifer lawrence) and Petta melark(played by Josh Hutcherson) as they prepare to fight for their lives.

Like I said earlier, I think that this film is perfectly executed and here's what I mean

The acting is phenominal. three performances in particular that I thought were great were Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen, Josh Hutcherson as Petta Melark, and Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy. Hutcherson and Lawrence have a great chemistry with each other and it really shows and both do excellent in their respective roles. Woody Harrelson was hilarious in his role and I wouldn't be suprised if he got an oscar nomination for it

The directing and production design is very nicely done. I've heard many people complain about the "shaky cam" but me I think that only added to it because I felt like I was actually there with them and I loved the sets and costumes they looked very cool

The writing is also very nice and the pacing is good too. We spend the first half of the movie getting to know the characters and building up for the actual games which are pretty intense and will have you on the edge of your seat.

Overall, The Hunger Games is the best film that I have seen so far this year, And i would definantly recomend it to be seen a second time. Nothing much else to say except great movie give it a watch.

I give it a perfect 5 stars out of 5
This is Taylor Hudson reminding everyone that if it's movies you want it's me you need

wintertriangles

04-07-12, 12:07 AM

This is Taylor Hudson reminding everyone that if it's movies you want it's me you needMan, if it's movies we want its movies we need. WHERE DID YOU GET THIS LINE IT IS NONSENSICAL

FilmMeister

04-07-12, 06:20 PM

well I'm a movie critic and many people listen to movie critics so....

TheUsualSuspect

04-08-12, 07:19 PM

You get paid to write about movies? How can I get that job????

tipjar

04-10-12, 12:19 AM

filmgirlinterrupted

04-10-12, 08:44 PM

Overall, The Hunger Games is the best film that I have seen so far this year, And i would definantly recomend it to be seen a second time. Nothing much else to say except great movie give it a watch.

It's cool that you're so enthusiastic about the movie and all, but SERIOUSLY. If this is the "best film" you've seen so far this year, you must not be seeing many movies...

And I assume you're probably young, between 14 and 18, since your favorite movie is "Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2"...

I'd suggest you work on your composition and sentence structure some more. Being a "film critic" is about more than just giving your opinion in a few short sentences. Go online and read some reviews from established critics, like Roger Ebert, Peter Travers, or Leonard Maltin. These critics write with superior skill, while maintaining their own personal style.

Just some constructive criticism, pal.

dadgumblah

04-15-12, 09:38 PM

I'll start off by saying that I've read all three of "The Hunger Games" books, and for those wondering about certain things that were left hanging, they will be answered over the course of the next two movies, or at least should be if the movies are as faithful to the book as this one.

The Hunger Games as a movie works fine and is very faithful to the book, with only minor changes already mentioned. The whole supporting cast is great but it's Jennifer Lawrence's film all the way. She continues to build on the promise shown by Winter's Bone and in my opinion, will be a major force in acting for years to come.

I had no problem with the shaky camera in the film, in fact, so little problem that I really didn't even notice it. I was just caught up in the action itself, I guess. The CGI elements mentioned that occur towards the end didn't bother me, I guess mainly because they occur at night and are not lingered on enough to look fake to me. So no problem for me there.

I was happy with this adaptation and look forward to the next two.

Powderfinger

04-16-12, 09:57 AM

3.5

Good, but not great.

TheGirlWhoHadAllTheLuck x

04-24-12, 04:28 PM

The detractors of the film are many, like the love between Katniss and Peeta. It's never really explained if she does love him or if she is only doing it for the show and to survive. I suspect the latter will eventually turn into the former, but as of right now, the film does not make this clear.[/rating]

I think the ambiguity works. It would have been more trite and unrealistic if it had simply been portrayed as "true love".

Pyro Tramp

04-24-12, 04:50 PM

The Hunger Games

I was aware of the similarities to Battle Royale but decided to put them aside and give this a go. Would rather have watched BR again. Was a competently made film with some good production sets but pretty dull and devoid of redeeming features. The urge to make it appeal to the young teen demographic harms any potential of showing the 'horror' of the situation with a low rating and focus seems to shift to an undeveloped love triangle of puppy dog eyes. The delivery of the concept was pretty uneven, they don't seem to have a consistent idea of what the 'Games' wanted to achieve in terms of lead Katniss' surviving and/or giving a good show. The characterisation of her was too preoccupied with making her morally likeable and avoiding make her commit to any cold blooding in the 'Game', using pop up deux ex characters to resolve any situations where she would need to use violence. Then worst of all, the conclude the 'Game' with a ridiculous shark jumping moment of magicking monster dogs out of the ground which sealed my low opinion on it.

2

The Prestige

04-24-12, 07:50 PM

[i]

The urge to make it appeal to the young teen demographic harms any potential of showing the 'horror' of the situation with a low rating and focus seems to shift to an undeveloped love triangle of puppy dog eyes.

2

This.

That's why i've never understood the whole 12A certificate rating when applied to the horror genre. If you want to emphasise the nastiness of a situation, then you need a certain amount violence to show that.

I won't be seeing this anytime soon.

TheGirlWhoHadAllTheLuck x

04-25-12, 09:58 AM

This.

That's why i've never understood the whole 12A certificate rating when applied to the horror genre. If you want to emphasise the nastiness of a situation, then you need a certain amount violence to show that.

I won't be seeing this anytime soon.

The Hunger Games doesn't really fit into that genre.

Pyro Tramp

04-25-12, 02:35 PM

It may not be a horror be strict definition but the situation is certainly horrific and they don't do enough to emphasise that. It was too Disney, lacking enough threat to make the premise work. The psychological development of the characters was not existent, surviving the games and any ramifications of the inevitable mental damage was superseded by a love triangle.

wintertriangles

04-25-12, 02:56 PM

I'm so glad I didn't pay for this

lundy1026

04-25-12, 03:17 PM

All I gotta say was I felt like a perv pedo thinking Peeta was so frikkin' adorable! LOL he's 19 and I'm 22 so its not that sick that I kind of fell in love with his character... BUT my little sister is 18 and in my eyes her and her friends are still little kids, thus making Hutcherson a little kid in my eyes LMAO. Anyways tho, great movie. I didnt read the books so I dont have a comparison but the movie was great. Kept me interested all through and now I cant wait for the new movies to come up and see where the story goes.

Godoggo

08-22-12, 02:42 AM

kXnPunk

08-22-12, 02:57 AM

Still can't wait to see it.

Justin

08-22-12, 02:05 PM

Here's mine, for whatever its worth.

-------

On buses, in stores, and in libraries, you’ve seen them being read. The Hunger Games is becoming something of a phenomenon. Like Twilight, it is manufactured primarily for young adults (or YA) and does its best to deal with ‘serious’ subjects. But this is precisely where I find both of them to be disturbing and completely unnecessary. The Hunger Games, for those uninitiated, is about a post-apocalyptic future where adolescents and teenagers are pitted against each other for a battle to the death. Indeed, Battle Royale did it before, but there’s a big different between what the latter did and what The Hunger Games is doing right now. In the case of The Hunger Games, we have an author and filmmaker who are seeking to sell this pasteurized, ironed out science-fiction world, where all of the real disturbing nature of what’s actually happening has been cleaned up and removed so it can be sold easily and digested by young adults and 20-somethings alike.

Katniss Everdeen, played by Jennifer Lawrence (blander than she’s ever been before), lives in complete poverty in a district ominously named District-12. She resides in a future-world named Panem, what was once North America. She does her best to take care of her mother and younger sister with the use of her terrific hunting and marksmanship with a bow—and like in all futuristic societies, there’s an overbearing, almost totalitarian regime that does their best to keep all of the districts in line and impoverished. The Capitol— the hub of the rich and well-off— host an event called The Hunger Games. It’s an annual event that brings together all of the districts, as two contestants are selected from each one. Katniss’ younger sister is chosen, but in order to save her from the games, Katniss nominates herself instead.

Director Gary Ross gives the film a gritty, handheld aesthetic that works for the most part, considering the rugged, earthy tones while in District-12. And the world is indeed very believable, especially the districts. But the problems are the cast of characters we have here. Katniss, indeed, is a strong female protagonist. However, she proves herself to be completely without personality, right alongside everyone else. A majority of the contestants in The Hunger Games event prove themselves to be faceless, nameless people merely set in place for the kill. One of the best examples is the band of one- dimensional, ‘evil’ teenagers. Cato (Alexander Ludwig) is the alpha-male leader by default. They are never given much sympathy. In fact, they are almost completely deranged. And yes, there are several others characters whose names they share with people of the Ancient Roman Empire—as if the symbolism wasn’t heavy-handed enough.

It doesn’t get much better. Katniss slowly falls for her fellow District-12 member, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), who loves her dearly. This is where it starts to show its teeny-bopper roots. Unbelievable and underdeveloped, the romance works as only a gimmicky way for us to show some sympathy towards the two. It could have benefited from some extra breathing room for the characters to bond. There’s barely any time for that. The Hunger Games does flow well, though. It moves at a brisk pace despite the long running time (142 minutes). It does commit a few faults, which include numerous deus ex machina. Katniss, of course, is miraculously saved time and time again by the author/screenwriter rather than her own skills and abilities.

Okay, well, I’ll admit, I’m being very harsh towards it. It’s not a bad film—it’s well-made and the sense of foreboding and suspense are certainly there. It also shows some signs of intelligence. Katniss illustrates her warm-hearted nature by refusing to kill, and when she finally does, she expresses her anguish by attempting to wash the blood from her hands. Does this make up for the rest of the bloodshed? What about all of the other teenagers who were needlessly killed, manipulated and discarded for no reason? Katniss expresses her sadness when a loving, sweet character dies—but what about everyone else? Gary Ross and Suzanne Collins, as good as their intentions may be, created a film that exploits and relishes in the fight to the death of innocent kids. And I realized, as I looked around the theater and as the ‘games began’, that people were— ironically enough—excited about seeing the bloodshed. This can’t have been what they wanted, right?

2

Gabrielle947

08-31-12, 08:38 AM

The ending was too mainstream and boring but overall the movie was interesting and entertaining.Just the thing is,that one day I saw it,and the next day I just forgot it. :D Nothing special but a good entertainment.I gave it a 7/10.

cherylsturgill

09-04-12, 04:36 AM

The movie is quite interesting and nice to watch so its still fine for me but I'll still go for Battle Royale

TheGirlWhoHadAllTheLuck x

09-04-12, 03:51 PM

It's more of a sort of Scouts/Girl Guides type games than violent gladiatorial games.

GrahamBlake1984

09-13-12, 06:33 PM

I read the book first, before seeing the movie in the cinema, and was a little disappointed with how the violence was completely toned down, amongst other things. I have just watched it again as it has just been released on DVD, and I was quite a bit more disappointed. Watching it again was a bigger let down that watching it the first time.

samjosh

09-18-12, 03:13 PM

What I enjoyed...

Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen. My god, this young woman can act. She was incredible. Emotionally intense, magnetic, and ethereal...a job well done. Lawrence's Katniss was reminiscent of Ree, her character in "Winter's Bone" - the poor, back-country girl with a fire that burns inside of her. Her performance as Katniss was just as damn good.
The entire supporting adult cast: Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci, Toby Jones, Lenny Kravitz, Woody Harrelson, and Donald Sutherland; all did a great job in their supporting roles.
The Reaping scene. This was my favorite scene for two reasons: a) it effectively established the cruelty of The Capitol and prepared you for the Game, and b) because it was the exact moment when I fell in love with Katniss and became sympathetic to her plight. I think that this scene was perhaps the most important in the whole movie, and it was well-written and well-acted.

Totally my same view on the Likes. Someone other than Josh Hutcherson would have done better in the role of Peeta. Josh was just like wood - pathetic! Rest of the cast was good like Isabelle Fuhrman...

Waiting eagerly for the next part.. :)

ani45

09-29-12, 02:41 PM

it leave's a deep emotional impact, which tempt you to watch it once more.

can Jennifer Lawrence will be next Meryl Streep?

Yoda

09-29-12, 02:47 PM

I don't think anyone will can be.

mastermetal777

09-29-12, 02:52 PM

Jennifer Lawrence might be a good actress, but nobody has even come close to being the next Meryl Streep. I mean, dear God, the woman is one of the few true acting chameleons out there. Lawrence is good, don't get me wrong - I see here moving on to great stuff - but there's only one Meryl Streep.

ani45

10-03-12, 12:45 PM

Do you really praise the work of Garry Ross?

Trustedreviewer

03-14-13, 07:36 AM

I was really suprised how much I enjoyed this film as I didn't feel it was for my demographic. I wrote a review on my blog The Trusted Reviewer-I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

0rainbow01

03-22-13, 04:28 PM

OMG this movie is great! Jannefer Lawrence is very talanted, and Josh Hutcherson is great actor, i love this movie!

Lucas

09-02-13, 07:16 PM

This movie is the definition of the word "meh". I know I'm beating a dead horse but Battle Royale was literally a thousand times better.

pau_p1

09-03-13, 03:10 AM

well yeah Battle Royale is indeed better but the Hunger Games has its own charm.. and it is less brutal more fit to younger audience...

Lau190195

10-29-13, 01:03 PM

The Hunger Games is an American science fiction adventure film directed by Cary Ross, featuring Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson.

The story takes place in a nation known as Panem, which is in North America. The Capitol controls Panem that is divided in 12 districts. Every year, a lottery selects two people of a different gender between the ages of 12 and 18, from each district who will have to take part in the Hunger Games. In this televised battle, the participants must fight to the death until only one is left alive. The games are organised in an outdoor arena for the Capitol’s amusement and as a reminder of the districts’ failed rebellion. Katniss Everdeen is a 16-year-old girl living with her mother and younger sister in the poorest district of Panem. When her younger sister Primrose is choosen for the Games, Katniss volunteers to compete in her place, and joins Peeta, a former schoolmate.

The cast does a good job and Jennifer Lawrence is extraordinary as Katniss, she is a natural talent. The film is very realistic due to the many ultra-close-up techniques. There are some truly exciting moments, especially during the Games. They are bloody and violent, but the romance between Peeta and Katniss shines in the awful surrounding; I like the fact that this film is a fantastic adaption of the book. There are some plot deviations but the most important parts stay true.

To sum up, this is a real masterpiece. I would recommend this movie to everyone, although some scenes are violent.

Miss Vicky

10-29-13, 01:13 PM

To sum up, this is a real masterpiece.

:suspicious:

Lucas

10-29-13, 03:17 PM

"To sum up, this is a real masterpiece"

Hahahahaahahahaah No way jose. It's horrifically mediocre. It's fine to like it, but calling it a masterpiece is beyond dumb.

loveelfic

10-30-13, 02:08 PM

First, I was not really fond of the fact that young people have to die in an arena for the pleasure of rich and heartless people. But finally, Hunger games exceeds this bloody game to depict a battle for freedom, personified by the brave Katniss. We can't stay indifferent in front of the injustices of Panem and we are involved in the course of the story in the fighting of this young girl.

As I have read the books, I can't have a neutral opinion of the film (it's [almost] always less good than the paper version) but I can say that they have made a great work, the director as the actors. And I'm looking forward seeing the second !