The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games is another of those interesting fantasy book series that got adapted into a Hollywood movie. I was quite reluctant to see this. Even though I like fantasy films very much, I never know what to expect from them, and what I’ve seen lately was mostly so mediocre that it made me sad. But in the end, I made time for The Hunger Games one Sunday afternoon. I chose Sunday because the film has almost three hours. A film of this length must inevitably have some balls to grab my attention and keep me from falling asleep. The first half an hour was an introduction to the fantasy world in question. There was nothing much going on, but it served its purpose. Nevertheless, at the moment the titular hunger games kicked off, I started to enjoy the movie very much. I found the premise really intriguing, and the way this movie was shot is also not exactly ordinary. The story is quite realistic, with a lot of food for thought. And I must say that even though I felt kind of skeptical about this fantasy world at first, over time I grew fond of it and I began to wonder what the creators – and the source book – have in store for us next time. So yes, I must say that there is something about this world. The execution is also well-done, so the remaining two and half hours passed in the blink of an eye. I was satisfied with the result, and now I’m curious about the sequel. (12/13/2013)

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. (03/22/2012)

The plot roller coaster, which greatly enhances the desire to read a book, but also works as a surprising teenage hit until the very last minute. The characters are precise, 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 part goes deeper into the interaction between the main characters, I will be fully thrilled. Those who mock the partial resemblance to Orwell or Truman Show have not understood that there is a slightly different metaphor here. Katniss Everdeen for the win. P.S.: I became friends with the book practically instantly, and after reading the entire saga, I would give Suzanne Collins almost anything. Just for the record. (04/08/2012)

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% (06/11/2013)

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)