Hunger Games

The Hunger Games is ought to be the next big thing like Harry Potter, except it already started in a darker and more serious tone than any other young adult fantasy book films. The film did a good job executing its grit and thrills. Decent directing and amazing performances. The filmmakers did a fantastic job bringing Suzanne Collins' book to life. It's not the usual kind of blockbuster that focuses to its loudness. It's a film with moving drama and has its suspense.

It's pretty easy to understand everything about this story and its world. We get to know most of it and the entire film is intriguing and undeniably entertaining. The cast brings most of it to life. Jennifer Lawrence is simply fantastic as Katniss. Josh Hutcherson is okay but does not tie with Lawrence. Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Wes Bentley, Donald Sutherland, and Stanley Tucci didn't get a lot of screen time but they were good to their roles.

The movie is great in suspense and drama. It doesn't have a lot of score which makes it moving and compelling. The moments of Katniss in the arena are stirring. Thrilling music score is a great effect to these sequences. Unlike our blockbusters these days, the film doesn't focus too much to the CGI and the explosions. There isn't really much explosions here. Surprisingly, the filmmakers aren't lazy to create a non-CGI set(except the chariots). There is, of course, still CGI here but not as excessive as our modern blockbusters. The action is pretty good with the shaky camera. It's nicely shot gives enough momentum and excitement. Most people complain to that though. Lastly, the production design is beyond decent.

The Hunger Games is thrilling and solid enough. Decent filmmaking made it spectacular. It's amazing and intriguing enough to start a big series. It succeeds to become a solid and one and not a lackluster like Twilight or I Am Number Four. I don't know what else to say about it, but it's silent, gritty, and compelling.

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.

Thrilling,Engaging and entertaining dystopian action sci-fiction flick. Really liked the visuals and all the action scenes. This is the real deal of Drama and action. Screenplay,costumes and make up all are decent. Especially the make up and movie sets are very beautiful and elegant which make the people from novel come to life. Now,considering the novel,this movie adaption misses a few things i wanted to see on screen. One is I expected it to be more violent on screen with a R Rating but they made PG-13 Stuff, i don't know why,to make more money i guess. That shaky cinematography too. some of the important messages had been cut down. These things really disappoint me because i loved the novel and wanted it to be more precise. other than that it is good popcorn entertainer. Loved Jennifer Lawrence though. Acting is far far better than that Kristen-NO-Expression-Stewart. Not only Jennifer but all the actors did their job very good. Now looking forward to sequels.Hope they will be better.

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.

There's almost nothing to say about a movie like The Hunger Games -- it's been so worked to death to be a successful blockbuster that all of its edges, the things that make a film good or bad, have disappeared. It just exists as a spectacle, a finished product that defies any critical lens.

I could go on about the particulars of the adaptation -- the ridiculousness of the entire Capital setting, or the sometimes disorienting shakycam work, or the great cast of adults patiently playing supporting characters -- or the source material -- the gestures at social commentary, the way that the story protects Katniss from ever having to morally sully herself -- but they all seem to be beside the point. Look. The movie has the things that happened in the book, but in a movie, competently shot and acted, with absolutely no risks taken. If you liked the book, or want to learn what this whole Hunger Games thing is about without having to read the book, you'll probably like this. It's a digestible film, even an enjoyable one, but in the end it's not really interesting or memorable. But to be fair, it wasn't meant to be.