The Hunger Games (2012)'s comments

Do you want to let us know what you think? Just login, after which you will be redirected back here and you can leave your comments.

sureup

What a shallow movie. Absolutely nothing was believable, and they waste the first 1 hour to build up absolutely no proper characters. Every character feels super rushed and pointless. All the action is shaky cam and most of the deaths are totally uneventful... Also the two main characters don't even mention the fact that he tried to help the others kill her? There are so many stupid and nonsensical moments.

Junk movie made for young teenage girls who enjoy trash movies regularly...

11 years 4 months ago

Apdiddy

Not really a good movie, barely OK. Tries to be Battle Royale and fails, tries to look like Malick and fails, presents itself like The Fifth Element but lacks the overall tension and craziness. I expected it to be a social commentary but it didn't even try. A stylish yet bland movie if that's even possible. Donald Sutherland is the only best part of the movie and Jennifer Lawrence is charismatic enough despite the lackluster movie.

11 years 8 months ago

backeby

Didn't like it. Flat acting and flat story with a stupid ending. It was dull.

11 years 8 months ago

themini

This movie takes an hour before anything happens, but fails to develop any meaningful attachment to the characters in the meantime. Worse of all, the game was not even that good! I am disappointed.

10 years 10 months ago

ChrisReynolds

Decent enough film, with some effective and tense action scenes. The acting is quite broad by some of the supporting players, but Jennifer Lawrence in the lead role is excellent. Downsides are an underveloped future society that never seems very believable, the unnecessary length of the film (the Hunger Games themselves don't start till exactly half-way through), and an unoriginal plot that was done much better by "Battle Royale", and even "The Running Man".

11 years 3 months ago

the3rdman

Very mediocre. Battle Royale lite. Or The Running Man with kids and taking itself too seriously.

11 years 8 months ago

gerryt

Nothing new or original, reminds me strongly of Battle Royal (2000). Seems an American remake with a sci-fi touch.

12 years 1 month ago

frankqb

Not without merit, but ultimately lacking in the tension and interplay between a sense of humanity and survival that made the book so great. Strong performances from the major stars, perhaps save Hutcherson as Peeta. The great Stanley Tucci seems wasted in his role which, here, is relegated to chief expositioner. Not something to rush out to see. A rental will do you fine if you must see it.

12 years 1 month ago

cg

I don't really understand the reason people like this movie. 90% of the cast is forgettable, they put a kid in just to touch the audience (though she lasted so little that the dog in "I am legend" was even more touching than her). And I think it missed the opportunity to touch political argoments. It looked to me like a movie for teenagers who think of it as a movie for grown ups...
It could have been better if it wasn't so pretentious, which is the reason why I enjoyed Battle Royale a lot more

9 years 11 months ago

Dennisvaniersel

Overhyped and pretty boring to be fair. The actual world behind the story interested me more throughout the story, than the film itself.

10 years 8 months ago

Hellbent Exodus

The Hunger Games is what you get when you combine two great action movies like The Running Man and First Blood and turn it into a ladies' movie.

11 years ago

HyliaFischer

Doesn't hold up to his potential imho. Watch "Battle Royale" instead which has the same plot, but does it so much better.

11 years 2 months ago

I-M-Pulsive

The Hunger Games: It was an enjoyable film. Although I blame Hollywood for getting around every possible painful part in the film and turn it into a cliche. They've merely made it a westernized, down-gored, less good version of the japanese Battle Royale.

I don't know if this is the fault of the writer of these books or the director of the movie. But I do know it's a shame that the plot went this way.

11 years 6 months ago

aniforprez

cliched, predictable and aimed squarely at the tween and teen female audience. i, as a male 21 year old, see absolutely no reason this needed to be as popular as it did. it's not a bad movie but it's most definitely not a great one. the premise is utterly ridiculous and i cannot seem to be able to relate to the whole situation of districts and games. suffers terribly from pacing issues. the whole movie was way longer than it needed to be and a lot of the first half need not have been there at all. also i am not a fan of this type of editing and the slow pace of the first half really made the jump cuts and the multiple camera angles really noticeable though this happens less as the movie actually goes to the hunger games. not having read the books i cannot compare to the source. a decent watch for its target audience but for veteran movie buffs like me, i'd rather you not have any expectations before watching this.

11 years 6 months ago

Metalmidget

Wow, that was probably the worst film adaptation i've seen in years! Really disappointing. They missed so many good things from the book. Because of this the movie seemed a little off at some points. There was no emotion put into this movie, and Jennifer Lawrence might have reached a Kirsten Steward-kinda bad. Woody Harrelson was a good Haymitch though.

11 years 7 months ago