Hunger Games

There was a great deal of hype and fuss when The Hunger Games came out as a film and perhaps I should have known I was not target audience because up till then I had never heard of the book series (or indeed that a film was being made). Although with the usual hoopla that goes with any large film, quite a few critics I respect gave it surprisingly good reviews and I decided I would check it out at some point as it seemed to offer more than just a copy of Battle Royale for American teenagers. With all the fuss (and teenage audience) I was very happy to let it go by in the cinemas and instead I waited for the DVD.

The film offers a lot of potential and this potential is evident from the start because it sets out its stall to be many things. Firstly there is plenty of room for satire by virtue of this exaggerated futuristic world where this annual murder is presented as both entertainment and also as a way of punishing the masses and keeping them in their place while those with the power enjoy the best of life. Secondly there is the opportunity to draw the audience into being a viewer of this very thing and then confronting us with the horror of what it really means so that there is at least a part of us questioning what we're finding entertaining. I wasn't looking for this to be some incredibly dark film that spits out an audience full of self-loathing and introspection, but I did expect it to be intelligent and impacting on some level to make it stand out from being just a teen-friendly adventure story.

The film itself surprised me by falling far short of what it could have been and squandering or ignoring most of the things of the potential it had. In terms of the satire, it never convinced me of the world it had created – it seemed unnecessarily excessive and didn't have enough truth to it to make me believe. I got the impression that it wasn't particularly interested in making the world function as a real place either – just that it was on screen was enough. As a place for commentary or digs at real things, it wasn't that it picked easy targets or easy shots, it was more a matter of it not really having much interest in saying anything beyond a few very basic things. This is a problem not only because it wasted potential but also because the first hour or so of this film is entirely in this world.

The second hour is within the games itself and as such it does have dramatic moments as one would expect (it is after all, an expensive Hollywood thriller), however these are fewer than I would have liked and also a lot less impacting – I watched most of it with a removal that I shouldn't have had. The delivery of children violently murdering other is only horrifying in regards how sanitised and unhorrific it is. I wasn't looking for it to be really gory or to revel in the blood, but it certainly should not have been something that I watch without any reaction. This lack of horror (even just emotional horror) leaves the game as a rather hollow affair which eventually turns into a standard thriller where we root for the "good" kids over the "bad" kids, even though it would have been stronger to have not drawn that very easy line.

The performances are mostly solid even though the majority have little to work with. Lawrence is a good actress and she adds a weight to her character tat doesn't seem to come from anywhere but her. I liked her throughout – even terrible "fire" special effects seemed unable to make her look bad. The supporting cast aren't able to bring as much as her to the table – even though there are plenty of big names here. The majority of the other children are carefully cast and given exits from the story that befits the easy-road approach to the plot.

I wasn't sure what to expect from this film but I was surprised to find that the words sanitised, safe and standard were the ones that kept going through my mind considering I was watching a globally successful satire that uses the murder of children by other children as its core plot. As it is The Hunger Games comes off as a lot of ideas that have been done better elsewhere and any teeth it may have had are all smoothed down and buffed into a consumer friendly product that will undoubtedly become a smash franchise – my only hope is that the next film can deliver some of its promise and not just churn out something as safe, generic and frankly unmemorable as this one.

This is not so much a review, everything has already been said in the other postings, but rather my experience with this movie and book.

OK, look, I'm probably old enough to be the grandfather of most of the people submitting reviews to this movie. I am not into the teen age drivel that seems to be everywhere you look these days but .....

I first heard about the story when the book came out. It seemed you couldn't turn around without hearing it being discussed everywhere. The enormous hype made me mildly curious, but not so curious that I wanted to read the book. Fast forward several years: the book had been out, the movie hade been out, the DVD had been out and only then did I accidentally stumble across the DVD at the library. I could check it out for free and if I didn't like it I could turn it off after ten minutes ... so, why not?

I immediately found myself captivated by the beautiful cinematography and background theme and despite the over-the-top and ridiculous costumes and makeup of the people in The Capitol I decided to continue watching. I was drawn deeper and deeper into the story and the characters and after about a fourth of the way through I knew I was hooked. The acting, starting with Jennifer Lawrence, was exceptionally good. I have to go through about 25 movies before I find one that I can say I absolutely loved ... this was a 25er.

To finish my story: unbelievably, when I returned the DVD to the library, on a table in the lobby of the library where they sold used books cheaply, I found a mint condition copy of the book (the big paperback format) for fifty cents. I grabbed it. I began reading the book when I got home and couldn't put it down even though I already knew the story. Collins' writing style was as captivating as her story and the very few differences between the movie and the book were not worth mentioning. Actually, I thought the movie version of the ending was better (just couldn't imagine Rue as a werewolf).

I now own, and have seen and read, all of the books and movies of the franchise and consider them among some of the best entertainment of my life. SO it seems the old adage is wrong because you really CAN teach an old dog new tricks. Other young adult movies came out after 'The Hunger Games' which tried to capitalize on the same type of theme and they, by comparison, have failed miserably in my estimation.

Seeing the "Hunger Games" series gain so much recognition is difficult to fathom; especially when it's more or less a blatant copy of "Battle Royale", a Japanese novel (1996), movie (2000), and manga (2000-2005). I've read the entire series of "Hunger Games" (2008), and not only is the writing style bland, but the plot is exceedingly unoriginal and not 'unique' like many of you are claiming it to be. Like the "Battle Royale" manga, "Hunger Games" includes love triangles, a group of teenagers randomly chosen (BR: by class HG: by district), plans to overthrow authority, teens given weapons and forced into a death match, a pair working together to undermine the game with the help of an older mentor who had previously won the game, both female and male main leads, a corrupted government, signal fires and bird calls, a reality TV show program (which IS in the English adaption of the manga (2006) for the series unlike many of you have known), and the list goes on and on. Evidence of these unconcealed similarities can be found on various Internet articles (whose writers I sincerely thank). I urge you to go right now and read the manga or novel of Battle Royale online so that you can compare the two series. The author of "Hunger Games" blatantly claimed (*cough* lied *cough) that she supposedly never even knew of "Battle Royale", so you can't use 'inspiration' as an excuse anymore. Instead, she blurted out nonsense about Roman mythology and the Iraq war since she doesn't want to admit her source of inspiration is a contemporary. How convenient for her own success since "Battle Royale" is a Japanese series that isn't well known in North America. She basically made an American-version of the series that contains less gruesome content and involves districts in place of school classes. Even if she truly did not know about "Battle Royale" or mysteriously forgot about it in the back of her mind, it is still part of an author's job to confirm the originality of his or her own to-be published works through researching. I'm posting this all of over the web so that "Battle Royale" can at least receive some acknowledgment that the "Hunger Games" author denied. Sure enough, both series also share resemblances with "The Lord of the Flies" and "The Running Man". However, unlike the HR author, the BR author has not denied this inspiration. Moreover, the "Hunger Games" is more like a rip-off of "Battle Royale" than an inspiration since the majority of the plot elements are nearly identical. There's a fine line between the words 'inspiration' and 'copy', and "Hunger Games" has extended far past it. There are also many popular American series that were inspired by Japanese series such as "The Matrix" from "Ghost in the Shell", however they rightfully gave credit for the 'original' series… unlike a certain someone. I sincerely apologize if I seem rash with my word choice, but it's so aggravating that Suzanne Collins had dare stated that she wasn't inspired by "Battle Royale" when she clearly was. What's more contemptible is that she's getting not only famous from her rip-off, but she's also obtaining vast amounts of money from it. But hey, that's how reality works, right? Therefore, I don't care if this is marked as spam or hauled with negative comments from "Hunger Game" fanatics. As long as it reveals to some people the credit "Battle Royale" genuinely deserves, then I'm satisfied. Nonetheless, the movie's portrayal of "Hunger Games" is quite exceptional in comparison to other movies adapted from books, which is why I am rating this 2/10 instead of 1/10.

Overall it is great to see the novel brought to life on the big-screen. First of all, kudos to the actors - each does a marvelous job with their roles. Harrelson, Lawrence, Hutchinson, Tucci, Banks and the rest of the cast - they all nail their characters and do them honor.

The heart of the story is intact, unfortunately there are many significant elements from the novel entirely missing, or changed to the point they lose the depth of meaning they were intended to have. Unlike some of the sub-plot and story elements left out of the Potter and LOTR series, these missing and adulterated items matter greatly, and lessen the quality of the movie. I will give the producers credit for building Seneca Crane's role in an effective way that answers many questions for those that have not read the books.

Finally - production values. You will suffer significant eyestrain after 2.5 hours of glaring close-ups. All of the action is shot so close and is so muddled it is almost impossible to determine what is happening. The chariot display is shown either to close or too far away, and in both cases so fast that the impact of the glorious entrance and introduction of the tributes is lost. The CG shots (thankfully there are few of them) look like leftovers from a Syfy channel production. This may be the worst big-budget production to hit the big screen in years. Although Ross worked well with the actors, he did not handle the action epic elements well at all. The cinematography is atrocious and the whole production looks cheap.

You will enjoy the movie, but you will also wish for the grand and respectful care-taking that was given the Potter and Lord of the Rings franchises.

The hunger game is a game that everyone is not willing to participate in.

In this killing game with no humanity, no rules, and no shame, the purpose of the game is just to make people forget to resist and lose their humanity.

One of the most important rules of the hunger game is: only one survives.

This man returned Yijin to the "privilege, wealth, reputation, prosperity" that the poor compatriots in his hometown envied.

Every game, everyone will watch. In the process of watching, everyone is immersed in it.

At this moment there must be countless ideas in their hearts. But under the guns of the army and under the huge screen, there is no way to show ideas.

Paying attention to the game itself is the only correct expression.

What is suppressed is human nature Many people expressed their desire to live according to their own wishes, and they did not want to be a pawn at their disposal. They are normal human beings with thoughts, humanity and desires, not desperate hunting machines.

It's just that in the end, either look at the distance or choose to die. A certain area can't stand it, it's a riot. They were greeted by repression, slaughter, bloodbath, and company.

In the game, the last deceased thinks he understands the rules of the game before dying and thinks the winner is the default. In fact, the outcome of the game does not matter to the president.

This supreme commander doesn't care who the dead person is or whoever wins. The only thing he was afraid of was surprise, surprise, and people 's emotions beyond control, their yearning for silencer, and their resistance to bondage.