The Hunger Games

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. (06/13/2024)

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%. (01/31/2022)

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. (08/02/2020)

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. (03/21/2012)

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 (03/28/2012)