The Hunger Games

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.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

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.

__________________

I agree with the muppet....

__________________

Yup. These were 2 of my biggest complaints also.

__________________

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".

Like I said, the only similarity between the two.

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

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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

Man, if it's movies we want its movies we need. WHERE DID YOU GET THIS LINE IT IS NONSENSICAL

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

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

I have a hard time believing that you're a movie critic, what with all the blatant spelling errors, and use of adjectives like "cool."

As to the movie however, I had a really hard time enjoying it. Similar to others' complaints, my main complaint was the lack of character development throughout the movie. They didn't really explain much other than the fact that Katinnis is from district 12. The director did pretty well to make sure that the movie stayed true to the books, but in my opinion, he failed to add any sort of extra flare or creativity to it. All in all, the film was okay. The pacing wasn't terrible, and the acting was somewhat decent. 3/5

__________________
Props if you can guess what movie my avatar is from.

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.

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.

__________________
"Miss Jean Louise, Mr. Arthur Radley."

Good, but not great.