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)VOD (3)
Plots(1)
Inspired by the best-selling young-adult novel by author Suzanne Collins, The Hunger Games tells the dark tale of a 16-year-old girl named Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), who is selected to compete in a vicious televised tournament in which 24 teenagers from a post-apocalyptic society are selected to fight to the death for the entertainment of the masses. Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth co-star. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (62)
Reviews (16)
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%
()
The Hunger Games, or dystopia for teenagers, utilizes the concept of fighting in an arena, which has been used many times in literature and film. You shouldn't expect any deeper psychology or convincing portrayal of society, but who would expect that from a Hollywood production of this kind anyway? The level of violence is adjusted to the target audience, so anyone expecting uncompromising, gritty action will inevitably be disappointed. However, considering the target segment of the audience, the film works decently on an emotional level, skillfully playing with sentiment, and the relationship triangle between the adolescent protagonists is relatively solid. The cast greatly helps the film, with young stars led by the charismatic Jennifer Lawrence delivering their performances reliably. On the other hand, the depiction of the social elite from the Capitol feels cliché, resembling an unwanted parody of American television show business mixed with a drug-induced trip by a film costume designer. Although I am far from being the target audience, I would probably lean towards giving the film 3 stars, if it weren't for the chaotic editing that significantly drags down the film, especially in the more action-packed scenes. Overall impression: 45%.
()
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.
()
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.
()
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.
()
Ads