The Hunger Games

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. (08/04/2012)

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)

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)

It regrettably misses the mark as a social parable and a critique of a reality show (the classic misguided product syndrome: I criticize myself and I’m not aware of it), as a sci-fi hopelessly non-original, toothless as an action film, pubertal dull as a drama... the argument that it is the absolute opposite of Twilight does not stand up - simply because the heroine is "tough and unyielding", that director Ross and especially cinematographer Stern are at a higher level (the raw filming raises it above average), and that the story has a certain deeper subtext - is not enough. The Hunger Games is similarly poser-like dull and harmlessly consumable. I would like to write that this is The Truman Show for teenagers, but the truth is that this is all to which Weir's film is critically defined. If only it worked as "simple entertainment". But it doesn't. Without knowledge of the book, it is confused, unfinished and overwhelmed with obligatory clichés and affected by a very tied up imagination. (21/03/2012)

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. (13/06/2024)