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)

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)

I didn't expect anything at all, and yet the film surprised me quite a bit. Anyone who starts talking about artificial romance completely missed the point and reading their reviews is a waste of time because they won't be objective. Hunger Games is a game, or rather a romance only on the surface, just like society today (or most of it), which this film criticises in a rather sophisticated way. It starts with the same system as the Hunger Games (a tribute to wars), through pathetic wishes for happiness, appalling (intentionally, for God's sake!) costumes, so criticising the film for that is probably the same as being upset that you're not hungry anymore after eating. As far as philosophy is concerned, I don't really have anything to criticise. Technically, the film is quite decent (the visuals of the city, the sets, etc.). The only slight issue arises during the actual game. Some things seemed a bit half-hearted and sometimes the viewer gets lost in what is meant to be taken seriously and what is just a wink. I won't dwell on the handheld camera, nor the quite inconsistent action scenes (sometimes naturalistic, other times "veiled"). Gary Ross seems be a much more captivating storyteller and philosopher than a technician and director of action scenes. I mustn't forget Jennifer Lawrence, who shines as the modern-day heroine and will one day replace Kate Beckinsale, Milla Jovovich, and other tough chicks, and she to be a much better actress too. Hunger Games is definitely not for classics and narrow minds. I don't quite understand the huge profits because I expected most people would not appreciate the content (which I assume has happened), but apparently, that doesn't prevent it from being a film experience, although perhaps a slightly different one. (04/02/2012)

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. (03/23/2012)

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)