Reviews & Ratings for
The Hunger Games More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 2 of 164:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Index

1632 reviews in total

---

140 out of 202 people found the following review useful:
If I wrote a paper at my college like Suzanne Collins wrote this book, I'd be expelled for plagiarism, 26 March 2012

Author: effigia777 from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Plot of The Hunger Games: an authoritarian government keeps the public from rebelling by holding "games" wherein children are selected by lottery and forced to kill each other until only one remains while the rest of the country watches for entertainment. the but some of the kids don't want to play the game so they band together to try to find a way out without killing those they care about.

Plot of Battle Royale: an authoritarian government keeps the public from rebelling by holding "games" wherein children are selected by lottery and forced to kill each other until only one remains while the rest of the country watches for entertainment. the but some of the kids don't want to play the game so they band together to try to find a way out without killing those they care about.

Difference? Battle Royale came out nearly a decade before The Hunger Games. I call this an example of where IMDb should allow a 0 star rating because the actual movie doesn't even matter, what matters is that it's uncreative, plagaristic s**t.

---

128 out of 190 people found the following review useful:
Everybody cheer the state sponsored child murders!, 26 March 2012

Author: Girish Winchester

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Three things first: (A)-Read the review and think about it first. (B)-I'm a guy! Haven't read the books, but I now want to. (C)-Please stop shouting 'Team Peeta/Gale, bitch' everywhere!

In "The Hunger Games", a futuristic oppressive upper class society sets 24 children in a battle to fight against each other to the death every year. There are 12 districts and each district randomly selects one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18 as tributes to enter the Hunger Games as a way to keep the districts in check and keep any signs of uprising at bay. The strong, sure-footed hunter, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), in a first of its kind, volunteers to be a tribute in place of her little sister in the games.

The huge success of "The Hunger Games" should be attributed to the awesome marketing and the apparent title of being the next "Twilight" when it comes to its money making ability in the teen-fantasy genre. The camera-work is just fine, save for the jerk motions when somebody is being killed. You won't feel any nausea if you are used to Greengrass's style of cinematography. The acting from Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks and Josh Hutcherson were great. Where the movie falls apart is in the second act when the contestants are inside the arena. Say what you may, at least "Battle Royale" provided a highly definitive motive for the kids to become killers, didn't glorify the regime and didn't hold back. Of course, since this movie is PG-13, there's relatively no bloodshed on screen and I can overlook that aspect. What kept nagging me throughout the whole movie is, the kids in "The Hunger Games" have no motive to kill each other! Sure somebody should win. But it never explains why they would pick up arms and go kill someone instead of letting nature run its course as Woody Harrelson's Haymitch Abernathy character explained earlier.

The only ones with any kind of character development are Katniss and Peeta. All the others, save for the little black girl and Isabelle Fuhrman barely get to talk in the movie. We have the standard white hunk and his gang of cliché cronies who are the 'villains' and must be brought down. They smirk and take pleasure in killing others while our leads don't get their hands dirty, at all. Peeta, as far as we could see doesn't kill anybody while Katniss killed one guy in self defense trying to save the little black girl. Even the main 'villain' is killed off by cgi animals instead of our leads. So by the end of the movie, our leads are relatively guilt free and their actions in the arena doesn't affect them much. Also they never showed any of the parents being affected by watching their children kill others or being killed brutally.

For a movie where 'hunger' is the main context, the children who come from ravaged, starved homes seem to adapt to the rich lifestyles quite quickly and they are barely starved even during the games. The social commentary completely fails in every aspect. Here we have a world that is like ours, which attempts to market every atrocious thing in a shiny package for the audiences. It was just touched upon and I felt like the writers were afraid of exploiting that storyline. They wanted to tell the story of a totalitarian regime, but ended up ditching it in favor of pleasing the masses. For all its talk of female empowerment, the movie panders to the audience who love Gale/Peeta including cheesy scenes which never come off as true. The Katniss we grew up liking in the movie wouldn't have kissed Peeta at that moment, unless of course it was a ploy to make the 'star-crossed lovers' notion work for the sponsors in the movie, which was never quite clear.

I was in fact, highly excited to see "The Hunger Games". But in its attempt to appease the masses and thereby glossing over the disturbing (yet intriguing) social commentary, "The Hunger Games" does the most heinous act any movie could do. The system which we are supposed to loathe and be disgusted by, is cheered and celebrated by the movie by virtue of making the deaths of the children in the games inconsequential by making them caricatures and inserting a convoluted love story even in the most vicarious of situations, set to pander to the teens who will go weak in the knees and forget about the immoral world this movie is actually set in. By refusing to look directly at its own story and by instead fashioning a convenient morality out of its murderous sporting event, it lets the audience off the hook and even encourages them to enjoy the blood-sport as 'entertainment'.

3/10

---

85 out of 112 people found the following review useful:
Terrible, waste of time., 31 March 2012

Author: Moonmax from United Kingdom

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I talked to my friend when we left the cinema, she said "best film I've ever seen, kept my interest throughout and not once did I check the time". I was looking at her, wondering what strange drug she might have taken prior to the screening, then a day later I talk to another friend and she says exactly the same thing. So, it made me think about my judgement, alas I decided to see it a second time, just to see if I was being biased and let the whole teenage love tripe cloud my judgement...I wasn't.

Let's start with the one thing that I absolutely hated about this film, and most people too from what I gathered: the camera work. Was the cameraman drunk the whole time, or did the director deliberately want to give us headaches? I don't know, but oh lord it was distracting as hell to watch, it never stays still throughout the whole opening sequence, it wasn't even needed as it wasn't portraying any sort of effect. I think the director shot one scene and thought, "hey that looks pretty cool, let's do it through the whole movie", only reason I can think of.

During the very first fight scene, I couldn't tell who was killing who. It was: close up, sword, person on ground, close up, sword, person running, sword, close up, knife, person attacking, yellow blur, green blur, more swords. I had NO idea what was going on. What is up with this new style of filmmaking? So much blur and no actual action. The reason I loved "300", or "Kick- Ass" was because the action was there, you can actually see what was going on, and quite frankly it was bad-ass. Here though...just blurs and flashes of swords and close ups. This is VERY evident in the final fight scene, where you sit there trying to figure out what the hell is going on.

Next up, there was no real sense of survival, they say that "Many contestants die of natural causes", but there was no sense of dehydration, starvation or anything really. They all looked very alive and just ran through the movie like nothing was happening. The only sense of survival they did pose was when characters got injured, other than that, nothing, no real element of fear or survival.

The other thing that bothered me was how stupid the characters were, she's climbed up a tree, "Oh I know, let's camp underneath her", why not burn the damn thing down? Or when they "strategically" place mines around their camp supplies, when a single trigger of a mine sent all their things sky high...really, how god damn stupid do you have to be? They also appear to be deaf, when Rue screams out for help, near the actual camp site, only one character comes to investigate, the others don't even suspect anything when he doesn't return. They simply hang around for 10 minutes, as Rue dies for an atrociously long 10 minutes, which completely slowed the film down.

Then the love story kicked in, and I suddenly completely hated it. I expected her in the end to say "I don't like you at all, I just wanted to keep us both alive", but no that didn't happen. They actually do fall in love, and the pace of the film begins to drag, the cliché romance begins to kick in. A kiss leads to the guy saying "Now I really can't let you go", even though he's dying and she's trying to save him? So they spend another night in the cave? Generally, after Rue dies, practically nothing happens, maybe I counted one encounter. Then the dogs get released, who look like dogs with gorilla faces, the main characters manage to completely out run them, even though Peeta's leg had only just healed, how could he possibly run like that? How could they generally outrun more than one creature with four legs? This is where that horrible final fight scene happens. This is where predictability becomes a problem, there was a game changer towards the end of the film that two can survive instead of one, it was ludicrously obvious that they were going to change it at the end, and she should have seen it coming a mile away. They stuck to the extremely stupid love storyline, and in the process creating a love triangle with Liam Hemsworth's character, who they always cut back to whenever Peeta and Katniss kissed...starting to sound like a film I know (Twilight).

Which leads to the next problem, which was that the film was far too predictable. I guessed more than 90% of the events before they even happened, such as her firing an arrow at the spectators, into an apple, to draw their attention.

This movie was clearly a money making scheme, they wanted to draw as much of an audience as possible, hence the PG-13, or 12A rating it has been given. And it's evidently clear too. If they stuck to the book, which I heard was very brutal, and had a lot more survival elements, then I would have probably enjoyed the film. Besides, this film is a rip off of a famous Japanese film "Battle Royale", Hollywood enjoy stealing film ideas. And yes, since the idea was presented 12 years ago, I do really think the author of the book took the idea and changed a few elements in order to create something new. Basically, stick to Battle Royale and avoid this movie.

Oh and no one can explain to me exactly why the kids have to fight in the first place, in Battle Royale it's obvious, but here...I have absolutely no idea why keeping your family from starvation leads to being thrown into a battle arena. It generally makes no sense to me.

---

88 out of 122 people found the following review useful:
Didn't read the book - but ugh, 1 April 2012

Author: rrc-2 from edmonton, ab

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If you are going to make a movie about children being forced to kill each other for the enjoyment of the public, I would think that the tone one would reach for would be something more along the lines of Shindler's List or at least a tone of some satirical value. And you would think that the angst, fear, disgust and overall awfulness for the main characters would be a focal point. You would think the blood lust of the watching masses would form a visceral sense of at least moderate horror that would serve as a backdrop to all of this. And most of all you would think that children, even children raised to expect that they might someday have to enter a tournament like this, would struggle with a conflict between fear, innocence, longing for some sense of decency and trying to sort through the confusion to survive.

It is something of a stretch to imagine a society in which everyone loves seeing children murder each other. That in itself is a plot line the brings a distorted feeling with it. The movie tries to hide that, or at least neglects to even attempt to address that, by layering this movie in and American Idol feeling. There is no sense of outrage. There is hardly a whiff of the sense of all of this in the time we spend with the characters. They are wooden and whitewashed. The most we get in the way of a sense of their overarching dilemma is a few shallow feeling comments and silent looks of stoic concern.

The movie seems to present the material in this fashion to make us forget that we are watching children kill each other. It is as though we are watching running man - only with 8 year olds. Who doesn't want to watch a movie where adorable little boys and girls snap each other necks? Or dogs run them down and eat them alive...?

If a movie like this is to be done it cannot avoid the moral content without seeming shallow and absently depraved. That is this movie. The core is not attempted. It is like red tails meets running man.

I found it absent, vapid and obviously lacking in any real value. It was also a little sick because it didn't even bother for tone whilst presenting the viewer with a mind bending plot.

In short, wooden acting, shallow presentation and not at all smart.

---

100 out of 148 people found the following review useful:
What A Let Down!, 25 March 2012

Author: summer-love10 from United States

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I was looking forward to this movie for months and have read through the books going on 3 times. The movie started out decent enough and it looked promising. First problem I had was that hunger did not seem be a huge issue, the characters seemed so pleasant not starving. Now I knew that Madge was not going to be in the movie but there were some details that went with her story that really would've helped explain and put more emotion into the story. Oh well I could have dealt with that but it all started getting shaky when they got on the train. The first scene in the train did not happen in the book.Then The train ride was OK. Not exactly how I imagined but I'm still hoping it will start to get going. Well Haymitch all the sudden sobers up and gets responsible and starts being nice to Katniss. Um... Did I miss something because I read in the book that Haymitch was always sloppy drunk and used sarcasm to communicate with Katniss because that how she operated. She and Haymitch had unspoken understandings later on in the arena (which BTW are sent with a little note instead of her thoughts). The "fire" if that's what you even want to call it, that was suppose to engulf Katniss' wardrobe was the lamest excuse for fire I have ever seen. It looked like a cheap production trick. Let me just take a moment and say I cannot believe they spent 100 million dollars on this because they don't have anything to show for it.

Anyways, my next HUGE issue with this movie was that the characters weren't developed at all! I felt no connection to any of them at all and I wasn't pulling for anyone the entire time. The movie didn't suck me into a futuristic society that was so bent on keeping control over all the districts that they produced a hunger games for entertainment. It didn't show me how destitute and hungry the inhabitants were, it didn't show the true horror of the games. It was like reading the inside flap of a book. I felt like I was watching a true kid's version of this story and that does not do it justice! On the games, the Cornucopia was the dumbest thing I've ever seen and what was with all the suit case looking items??? Stuff was supposed to be hanging off the Cornucopia not in a huge neat pile in front of it. Katniss does not get splattered with the blood of a boy tribute for the backpack but Clove chases her and she runs into Foxface (not in book). Katniss in the arena lasted all of like 20 minutes. There was not true terror about it all .. there was no desperation.. no near-death experience for Katniss. No folks, she doesn't get dehydrated in the movie.Oh when Katniss gets burned she throws herself into the lake and here come Cato an the careers and they are like "look there she is! let's get her! Yeah!let's get her!" It was like watching bullies at school not kids trying to kill each other. You know if the subject matter is too adult for kids make rated "R" don't water down such an awesome story! If they had to be so politically correct as to not offend anyone on the subject matter why even bother making a movie.

When Cato and careers see smoke they leave a kid behind (doesn't happen in the book) Foxface somehow sneaks directly behind him and stills food without him knowing. Katniss blows up supplies does NOT lose her hearing or have a bloody ear. Cato just puts his hands on the kids face and twists it sounds cool it wasn't.

Rue initiates the alliance in the movie. They spend like 5 seconds getting to know each other and then Rue's death (which Katniss proceeds to get her out of the net before she has a spear thrown into her)then Katniss cries uncontrollably for like 10 minutes.

Peeta did not get blood poisoning. He barely was scratched. His medicine was a cream not a syringe. Katniss did not pass out with her injury she "shared" Peeta's cream. UGH. typing this makes me sick. The cave scene lasted all of 2 seconds.

Muttations aren't anything like the book describes they looked like over-sized dogs. Peeta doesn't hobble the Cornucopia cause his leg is all better. Cato is already on it when they get there and they fight on top.. Cato talks nonstop for 5 minutes katniss finally shoots. Then 2 seconds later she shoots an arrow and kills him so much for listening to him all night. Yes this is gruesome stuff yes it is horrible but horrible things happen every day and we publicize them! Don't tell me we can't make a movie and not put violence in it.It's so much more than kids killing kids yes this is awful but it's about the capitol and its control over the people and the dictatorship.

I do not recommend this movie just re-read the books instead of going to the theater and wasting your money which BTW is all the producers of this movie wanted they made no real effort to make this a true adaption from book to film . I wish Jerry Bruckheimer or James Cameron could have gotten a hold of this title. I hope someone will re-make it somewhere down the road and have the guts to make it as real as it was in the books.

---

99 out of 147 people found the following review useful:
How did this movie start with 100% at Rotten Tomatoes?! Was it a scam?, 28 March 2012

Author: almirr from Canada

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

SPOILERS FOR MULTIPLE MOVIES INSIDE.

In the middle of the movie, the most emotional moment, I turned to the right in my row and noticed a woman crying. Within just one minute that turned into several people, herself included, laughing out loud. I've never experienced this before in my life and I think it summarizes really well just how pointless and poorly done this movie is.

In The Running Man (1987) convicts chase each other to death for entertainment of masses. As far as I remember they were all death row inmates and the justification was they were dead already, so we might as well turn their sentences into entertainment. At least one of the contestants was wrongly convicted and fights the game itself.

In Gladiator (2000) fighting to death was based on historical facts. In addition to that the main character was resigned to death because his family was killed by a ruthless psycho ruler. He used the game, which he is forced into anyway, to get to him.

Now we have The Hunger Games. A group of completely innocent kids, one of which was 10 or even younger, are forced to fight to the death. The ruling class is totally thrilled, while the poor subjects watch the live broadcast in hope their kids would come out alive. We are thrown right in the middle of that and the movie does not care to explain to the audience just how a human society managed to degrade to such level as to make gladiator games seem like innocent play. All we know there was a war, and in order to maintain peace we have these Hunger Games which mainly serve as intimidation by the ruling class, but also as American Idol-type entertainment.

Problem #1: The movie ignores the reality of human nature. "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities" - Mark Twain. Hunger Games attempts to break this rule and it either fails miserably or the audiences are so desensitized that the movie creators did not feel the need to sweat basing the fiction on human nature and realities. Are we really that desensitized? Judging by the praises for this movie, it sure seems tat way. No contestant seemed depressed or try to escape the system, which is what you would expect in such situation. They switch from "I hope they don't pick me" to "ok, how do I win this thing" with equal emotion and mental adjustment to when I change socks. They even quickly start to enjoy the pre-game show.

Problem #2: Even cruel games have rules that can't be changed in the middle of a game. Hunger Games simply does not have any rules in contrast to its own premise of iron-fist control. At one point Katniss is forced back into the game with deadly fireballs on top of a forest fire which she would have to escape to survive. They are literally shooting to kill her, and I am thinking "isn't the forest fire enough to convince her to move on?" The fireballs were completely irrational and unnecessary. They only seemed to place a check mark in front of "this movie has explosions." Then, the control decides to change the rule from "only one can win" to "two can win" and then back to "one can win" once there was only two left. Then it changes that rule again to "two can win" because the game faced an outcome with no winners. This was probably done with the intention to intensify the suspense, but it made the game itself weak and even more pointless than I was willing to swallow. This actually prevented me from forgetting about the impossibly fantastic premise and getting into the game.

In addition to these 2 philosophical problems, Hunger Games is cinematically mediocre at best. It only does special effects well but nowadays that's a given. Acting reminded me of Terra Nova TV series. In fact the entire movie kind of resembled an episode of Terra Nova. There is only one main character in the movie and the rest are extras. They did not really invest much in the development of supporting roles. Even Katniss was a barely developed role. The boy she is in love with plays no role whatsoever. The boy that has a crush on her is an extra with a crush. I know his character is a supporting role, but it is so poorly developed and acted that I refuse to accept him as one. The makeup and costumes are just plain bizarre. Again, if the movie invested a little bit in the history of how it all came to be.

To summarize, I will mention another peculiar thing about this move. It feels like an open frankensteining from other movies. This new creation feels like all these moves crammed together in a limited amount of time: Acting and settings: Terra Nova TV series or a Star Trek Next Generation feature film. The Capitol city: Alice in Wonderland. The control center: Avatar. The arena and script: Gladiator and The Running Man with a hint of Truman Show. - Story development and dialogue: The Last Airbender (the shameless failure by M. Nigh Shyamalan)

---

105 out of 163 people found the following review useful:
Very, very disappointing, 27 March 2012

Author: benderangelika

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This is actually my first review here. I just have to say something about this movie. I was really excited to see it, because it sounded like such a good story and I've been hearing people talk about it all the time.

First of all, I was bored to DEATH during this movie. The scenes seemed so long sometimes and everything in this movie sort of got me annoyed. Poor characters, lame and cheesy lines, stupid teenager love story - that I could not believe until the end because I thought she liked the other guy back in her town whatsoever - the cast was –well- was mediocre, battle scenes blurred, background of the plot was not explained properly(I did not read the books). I only caught a glimpse at why it's actually called 'hunger games'; however no one seemed to starve – EVER.

I was looking forward to the battle scenes but they made them so quick and blurry and f*** up (sorry), that even those were boring and annoying. Also annoying: the 'hero' does not even make use of her 'strength' the bow thing but instead hides in trees and only kills people when she absolutely needs to - of course. It's a teenage movie and why should she kills someone? You don't kill people, kids - even if your life depends on it.

I'm rambling because I am still so upset that I paid 10 euro to see this crappy movie. I enjoyed absolutely nothing about this movie and I don't understand why other people like it so much.

So: do not go see this movie, if you haven't already. It's a waste of time.

---

114 out of 186 people found the following review useful:
Battle Royale with cheese, 9 April 2012

Author: Jack` Harding from United Kingdom

In a cinematic world of re-makes, re-imaginings and full-blown copies, it's inevitable to see a movie like The Hunger Games wallow in the limelight and hysteria of mainstream banality and post-Potter hunger simply because it's there. Adapted from Suzanne Collins' trilogy of teen- friendly novels, The Hunger Games looks set to follow in the well-off footsteps of Harry Potter and the soon-to-cease Twilight as the next big-money, low-brow saga for the GCSE bound masses.

This moderately engaging adaptation of Collins' first novel plays like a pre-teen spin on Battle Royale. Director Gary Ross shoots for a futurist-retro sense of uprising, endurance and wonder and in the eyes and minds of 11 year-olds, he's on target. There's plenty to behold, but little to absorb. Despite all efforts, The Hunger Games is starved of a character or scenario to really care about.

A hyped-up, cheesy and dumbed down treatise on human nature, spirit, freedom and TV culture, this is a badly-acted, action-crammed movie built on a much explored prophecy that's been residing in both literature and film for years; a nightmare dystopia in which society is slave to a tyrannical regime. But what do you know; there's a rebellion on the cards. And guess what? It's only lead by an unlikely yet inspiring hero. The Hunger Games is nothing new, then, but hold your horses; pitting 24 kids against one another in a game of death on a top-secret island is an original idea that's sure to evoke sympathy, shock and compassion. Isn't it? Well, maybe, but not if you know your films; not if you've seen Battle Royale.

A bloody slice of social satire with shock and awe to spare, Battle Royale was by no means the first to offer up a glimpse into an oppressive fictional world where people are forced to fight to the death. Sparticus, Running Man and even Gladiator all touched upon on this idea of enslaved cock-fighting for the "greater good" and fun of a bent society.

Suzanne Collins' tale may not be a rip-off of Battle Royale, but it is a blatant source. In director Ross' big screen retooling, The Hunger Games is set in a far from terrifying, post-war America whose totalitarian government get their kicks from a legislation born out of the ashes of World War III; each of the country's 12 districts are to offer up one young girl and boy every year to slog it out on live TV in a last-kid-standing tournament set on a virtual island. This; a sacrificial homage to a nation's thirst for blood and conflict. A punishment for an early, post war rebellion. A tribute to state power; The Hunger Games.

The film follows Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), a steadfast teen who puts her life on the line when she volunteers to replace her younger sister in the upcoming games. What follows is a predictable tale of heroism and self-sacrifice as Katniss and clunky love interest Peeta (a wooden Josh Hutcherson) are wined, dined, trained and then hurled into a giant lion's den full of determined, blood-thirsty brats who are there to win, to kill. Will Katniss and Peeta fall in love? Will they both make it out alive? If not, will one of them be the victor? Do you care?

The Hunger Games is a self-assured, self-important piece of profit-reaping cinema whose potentially bleak and barbaric set-up cannot be realised through on screen peril, atmosphere, gore and violence due to its mild target audience. Alas, there is a lot of hand-held camera-work and rapid editing to cover up the scuffles, scraps, impact and blood. It doesn't work. Over-hyped and overdone; turns out it doesn't take much to tailor a totalitarian future concept for the modern-day youths; just strip it of all depth, complexity and darkness, throw in some weapons, some fire, a bit of romance and some heartthrobs and you'll be laughing all the way to the bank.

---

67 out of 96 people found the following review useful:
derivative and boring, 1 April 2012

Author: Ajtlawyer from Richland, WA

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I've never read the books but went to an afternoon screening to see what the fuss was about. "The Hunger Games" I felt was a complete bore. The story unwinds in an excruciatingly slow manner and you really have no emotional connection with the characters. The plot-line itself---people of a dystopian future being made to fight to the death on TV has been done to death (no pun) and done with more wit an imagination in "The Running Man" for instance. The gladiator story is told much better in real gladiator movies like "Gladiator" and "Spartacus" which are both hugely better than "The Hunger Games".

For an action movie it feels like days go by before there is any real action. The "name" actors like Stanley Tucci, Wes Bentley and Donald Sutherland seem to be as bored as the viewer is with this material. The unknown actors playing the competitors are wooden. When there is action it is usually with such herky-jerky camera work that you can barely follow what is happening. And there are some gaping plot holes. SPOILER ALERT the heroine is treed by the others who will just wait her out to get hungry and come down. And of course they snooze instead. The "simulated" monster animals that can actually devour people? Most of the competitors are killed off camera? Come on. . .

---

70 out of 105 people found the following review useful:
Pure nonsense, 31 March 2012

Author: neofita from Poland

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The movie is so bad I cannot even decide what to pick to begin with. Everything was wrong in it. Possibly one thing was good in the movie - that it finally ended. Although I heard they plan to make a whole franchise out of it. Back to the bad sides - the film is nonsense in every aspect - the very idea of holding people under control by forcing their kids to kill each other? What the...? The Capitol so rich and so big, yet all its residents being free people. Where are all servants, all people who provide services? In districts? But hey, someone needs to clean those streets or polish toilets. In the film only people seen in the Capitol are gay-like citizens and soldiers. Next, premise is set as if the film is a teen flick. Yet, it has quite disturbing idea behind - teens killing each other in picturesque fashion. Another thing - couple of kids teaming up to kill other kids, while there could be only one winner (putting aside slight change just before the end with 2 possible winners). Also, acting of young actors is wooden as hell. Last thing that comes to my mind - advancement of the Capitol is sick - cameras in every tree and creating(?) beasts and whatnot with some fancy interfaces in headquarters...What the...? Where are boundaries of their capabilities? And yet they have mines... for coal? Really guys, I wish I hadn't spent my money for this crap.

---

---

Page 2 of 164:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	External reviews	Parents Guide
Official site	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user reviews	Your vote history