Directed by:
Gary RossCinematography:
Tom SternCast:
Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Elizabeth Banks, Liam Hemsworth, Willow Shields, Leven Rambin, Wes Bentley, Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci, Dayo Okeniyi (more)Plots(1)
In the ruins of the land formerly known as North America, the annual Hunger Games are about to get under way - and 16-year-old contender Katniss Everdeen has only the remotest chance of beating the fearsome odds. Like most of the nation of Panem, Katniss lives in one of twelve enslaved districts, ruled over by a mystery-shrouded Capitol, which after decades of chaos and war, now suppresses the people under the thumb of a harsh yet decadent dictatorship. Every year, on Reaping Day, each of the districts must choose, by lottery or volunteer, one boy and one girl to represent them in the Capitol’s twisted idea of grand entertainment that proves its total control, while also giving the famished populace the faintest ray of hope to hang onto. These are the Hunger Games - an intense gladiatorial competition between 24 adolescent warriors known as Tributes, broadcast live on TV until only one survivor remains... and once Katniss is entered there is no turning back. (Lionsgate Home Entertainment)
(more)Videos (62)
Reviews (16)
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
()
The Hunger Games is another of those interesting fantasy book series that got adapted into a Hollywood movie. I was quite reluctant to see this. Even though I like fantasy films very much, I never know what to expect from them, and what I’ve seen lately was mostly so mediocre that it made me sad. But in the end, I made time for The Hunger Games one Sunday afternoon. I chose Sunday because the film has almost three hours. A film of this length must inevitably have some balls to grab my attention and keep me from falling asleep. The first half an hour was an introduction to the fantasy world in question. There was nothing much going on, but it served its purpose. Nevertheless, at the moment the titular hunger games kicked off, I started to enjoy the movie very much. I found the premise really intriguing, and the way this movie was shot is also not exactly ordinary. The story is quite realistic, with a lot of food for thought. And I must say that even though I felt kind of skeptical about this fantasy world at first, over time I grew fond of it and I began to wonder what the creators – and the source book – have in store for us next time. So yes, I must say that there is something about this world. The execution is also well-done, so the remaining two and half hours passed in the blink of an eye. I was satisfied with the result, and now I’m curious about the sequel.
()
Visually and conceptually repulsive. It's true that after the first half, where farcical fascist harlequins prepare the plebeians for bread and circuses, things improve slightly. However, I still don't understand why Jennifer Lawrence in the second part doesn't have a bump on her forehead, isn't gnawing on rattlesnakes' rattles, or riding a motorcycle among doves. And does she love the young baker or the young Thor? One would hope to accept this factory of sterility, clichés, and silly plot twists as a guilty pleasure, but even that seems unlikely. A telling moment is when the youth head to the "arena," and instead of appearing pale and vomiting or urinating as if landing on Normandy, they act as if they're about to embark on a pioneer camp obstacle course. I kept hoping for Professor Subzero to come in with his goalie stick and smash them like Ron Hextall during moments of mental distress.
()
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.
()
A roller coaster of a plot, which greatly enhances your desire to read a book, but also works as a surprising teenage hit right to the very last minute. The characters are spot-on, the actors amazing, the relationships believable, and despite several seemingly exaggerated scenes towards the end, it's actually hard for me to find any specific criticism. Perhaps if the second installment goes deeper into the interaction between the main characters, I will be fully thrilled. Those who mock the partial resemblance to the works of George Orwell or The Truman Show have failed to grasp that there is a slightly different metaphor here. Katniss Everdeen for the win. P.S.: I fell in love with the book almost instantly, and after reading the entire saga, I would give Suzanne Collins almost anything. Just for the record.
()
Ads