The Hunger Games

Unpretentious and ego-laden entertainment for a teen audience that doesn't give a damn about what Battle Royale is and how much the success of a great theme depends on all other aspects of filmmaking. The Hunger Games is not that badly made, it has a few bright moments and above all it boasts an excellent Jennifer Lawrence, who in the Japanese original was sorely missed in the flood of Asian faces, but regardless of how good and fun it is, this nothing more than another overblown bubble under the Hollywood banner, which, although it ensures prestige and money, can also overshadow even the best subject with a wave of pathos and American heroism. While Battle Royale was a bold and creative satire that couldn't be taken entirely seriously, The Hunger Games pretends to be a modern stylized sci-fi with a serious idea of a totalitarian future, but its potential ends exactly where it begins: with the premise. The film holds together really only thanks to the believable and very pleasant chemistry between the two leading actors. I’m certainly not disappointed, but that's only because I expected a similar result in advance. 60% (10/06/2013)

I didn't expect anything at all, and yet the film surprised me quite a bit. Anyone who starts talking about artificial romance completely missed the point and reading their reviews is a waste of time because they won't be objective. Hunger Games is a game, or rather a romance only on the surface, just like society today (or most of it), which this film criticises in a rather sophisticated way. It starts with the same system as the Hunger Games (a tribute to wars), through pathetic wishes for happiness, appalling (intentionally, for God's sake!) costumes, so criticising the film for that is probably the same as being upset that you're not hungry anymore after eating. As far as philosophy is concerned, I don't really have anything to criticise. Technically, the film is quite decent (the visuals of the city, the sets, etc.). The only slight issue arises during the actual game. Some things seemed a bit half-hearted and sometimes the viewer gets lost in what is meant to be taken seriously and what is just a wink. I won't dwell on the handheld camera, nor the quite inconsistent action scenes (sometimes naturalistic, other times "veiled"). Gary Ross seems be a much more captivating storyteller and philosopher than a technician and director of action scenes. I mustn't forget Jennifer Lawrence, who shines as the modern-day heroine and will one day replace Kate Beckinsale, Milla Jovovich, and other tough chicks, and she to be a much better actress too. Hunger Games is definitely not for classics and narrow minds. I don't quite understand the huge profits because I expected most people would not appreciate the content (which I assume has happened), but apparently, that doesn't prevent it from being a film experience, although perhaps a slightly different one. (02/04/2012)

The only thing worth anything in this film, its theme, has already been filmed in an original, energetic way as a provocative satire in Battle Royale. The American version, striving to be a serious and riveting thriller with a romantic storyline, is indigestibly lengthy, clichéd and uses makeup and costumes like from "2001: A Space Travesty 2" with Adam Sandler. I’m giving it the second star for the pleasantly sober acting of the two main characters, who are the only elements of the film that don’t seem like a bad joke. (23/03/2012)

Twilight for fifteen year-old intellectuals, and I don’t mean it as bad as it may sound. Hunger Games is for the same age group as that other rubbish, but at least it tries (and in the book maybe successfully, I don’t know, can’t judge, didn’t read it) to deliver some social criticism, it’s also about a lot more than whether some unstable idiot will take a vampire or a werewolf as her lover, and the motivations of the protagonists are much deeper. As an undemanding blockbuster, it’s pretty good, it looks quite nice (given the low budget), and the art design of the Capitol and its inhabitants was captivating. The most interesting themes, though, are only sketched out, but maybe the upcoming sequels will manage to complete them, I’m curious. What bothered me the most was the unrealistic behaviour of the characters in the Arena and the fact that I didn’t understand at all how the institution of the Hunger Games is supposed to help the Capitol rule the other regions. The film is not great by any means, but it was decent fun. Jennifer Lawrence is brilliant. 7/10 (28/03/2012)

A slightly above average film that could have been more. Maybe it's because I haven't read the books, but I kept feeling like I needed to know more about the world in which The Hunger Games takes place in order to believe that such a thing was really possible. That's why I had trouble accepting the idea that there's been a killing contest for 74 years, the purpose of which is, among other things, to pacify the population, and that people have accepted it and somehow it works. Sci-fi or not, the world in which a story takes place should simply be believable. However, I have to give The Hunger Games credit for its fine cast (except that the main antagonist should not have been such a similar type as the main male protagonist, I kept getting them mixed up), the nice pacing that made the two hours and something pass pretty quickly, and James Newton Howard's score. Directionally, however, it was no miracle, and I don't think I'll remember any of the scenes – hopefully the next installments will turn out better in that respect at least, since Francis Lawrence has been placed at the helm. (02/08/2020)