IMDb > The Hunger Games (2012) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
The Hunger Games
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
The Hunger Games More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 16 of 196: [Prev][11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [Next]
Index 1957 reviews in total 

33 out of 55 people found the following review useful:

Lacking depth

2/10
Author: julie-norwood
26 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I have only read 4 chapters of the first book and of those 4 chapters, they missed quite a bit in my opinion. First of all I think Liam should have definitely played Peeta, they describe him as "towering over" Katniss. The actor that played Peeta seemed weak and short. Also Woody mentions over and over in the movie that they need to get sponsors - yet they show none of these "sponsors" HE actually "sends" medicine to Katniss. That made no sense, maybe that will be clarified in the books? Half way through it dragged for about 45 mins, which had me thinking.. okay.. when is something going to happen. Then the mastermind of the games "create" these vicious dogs out of no where to attack them? That was weird and anti climatic at the end. Then they decide to just kill them selves because the rules change? really? that was lame and was lacking any depth whatsoever. Then the movie abruptly just ends. yes I am sure this is for the sequel but they could have let something for us..

Was the above review useful to you?

36 out of 61 people found the following review useful:

Quite possibly the worst movie ever made

1/10
Author: JoeyGreen from United States
1 April 2012

Never was I more convinced H.L. Mencken was right when he said, "Never underestimate the stupidity of the American people." Here's living proof: a 7.8 rating! for a steaming pile of poop. You people who gave this crappy movie a high rating confirm my worst fears, i.e., American film=goers can't possibly be any dumber. The ONLY reason I went to see this movie was because I liked director Gary Ross's work in "Seabiscuit," which was an enjoyable and well-crafted film featuring fine actors and a wonderful true story. In THG, Ross has lousy source material to work with, true, but also his deft directorial ability is largely absent here as he caves into CGI, an ever-shaky camera and truly pathetic actors. The entire plot was preposterous from beginning to end and so predictable as to make me root for our "hero" and "heroine" to eat the berries and finally be done with it. But no, there has to be a sequel, doesn't there?

It's pointless to try to critique this film because those "who get it" clearly are either on delusion-inducing drugs or have the I.Q. of a fence post.

Finally, what's happened to Stanley Tucci, who has done some good work in film but lately is playing queer roles, starting with Devil Wears Prada. A good paycheck no doubt but he'll never be taken again as a serious actor.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

America's BATTLE ROYALE Clone

1/10
Author: Mahmood-Buttrumps from Avinashi, Coimbatore DT., Tamilnadu, India.
3 March 2015

When I saw the trailer for THG, like many others I thought, "Oh, Battle Royale is getting an American adaptation." Then I learned it was unrelated, just a possible ripoff. So I stayed away, figured it can't be that good if it's not an original idea.

It was, and I learned a lesson here. Let the courts and BR author/filmmakers and THG author/filmmakers decide if damages were done, and enjoy a good movie. I haven't even heard of any legal action being taken, so if the BR people aren't bothered, why should we be? If THG fans like the idea, they have another movie to watch (also the WWE film starring Stone Cold Steve Austin, The Condemned, was based on BR) and likewise if BR fans want yet another BR type movie, they can watch THG. No reason to fret over the business side.

Nihil novi sub sole. (Latin: There is nothing new under the sun. That is, truly original ideas are copied by weak-minded people of lesser talent. )

Enjoy... or don't.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

An unfortunately lackluster remake of a modern masterpiece

2/10
Author: Pwincess-ChocOw-Viet from United Kingdom
10 October 2014

It should not come to anyone's surprise that Gary Ross's Hunger Games was received with predominantly negative reviews. Kinji Fukasaku's 2000 original has been a prime example of recent Asian films that have transcended the language barrier to reach both international success and cult-like reverence, leaving many fans critical about the possibility of a Hollywood remake that could do justice to the source material. Whilst the reviews have been harsh, it is not just the scorned fans that are to blame.

When The Hunger Games is taken at face value, momentarily forgetting the masterpiece it adapted, there are several redeeming features that can be pointed out. First and foremost, it is impressive that a film about some of the most silenced taboos of the Western world could be made in the first place. Leaving the plot (and the surprise twists it entails) largely intact might have been necessary to give the film a fighting chance of being accepted, it is bold nonetheless. Furthermore, Jennifer Lawrence portrays Shuya Nanahara's transformation into a female well, and her believability in both the action and the dramatic sequences is adequate.

However, despite the general degree of faithfulness to the original film, Suzanne Collins felt it necessary to add 20 minutes of extra exposition. This addition has been detrimental of the finished feature. Many lovers of the Japanese original would agree that is the ambiguity of the protagonists' and antagonist's morals, memories and actions that resulted in the incredible emotional impact of the film - all of which has been lost in explanation. What we are left with are slight caricatures, hollow and empty, all of whom cannot capture the visceral emotions that loaded every scene of the original with a dominant sense of significance.

All in all, it is impossible not to conclude that the original has not been surpassed in any significant way.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Crap..

1/10
Author: JamezOrion from Sweden
24 May 2014

This is pure commercial violence entertainment for kids or people that are not able to appreciate or understand anything else then American movies that are absolutely free from trying to understand this world in a deeper level. The characters are completely blank and impossible to figure out what's in their minds, the whole idea is boring and stupid. I just don't know how this film could have a Metascore of 67 (2014-05-24), the reviewers here are uneducated and with no sense of what art and truth is. These kind of films should not have been made, it is just poisoning our world in every way, mentally and environmentally. The minimum length for reviews is 10 lines of text. The minimum length for reviews is 10 lines of text. The minimum length for reviews is 10 lines of text.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

One of the worst films i have ever seen. Absolutely sick!

1/10
Author: viperkillertt from United States
5 May 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First, like many, I have not read the books. From watching the movie, I don't believe I ever will. This movie was one of the most disgusting films I have ever seen. So many people have been praising it so much, I expected much more. From the previews, it sounded like the movie was about 24 people who were selected to be murdered by each other in a televised event. I could not believe this was for real. I expected some sort of amazing adventure and all of them are saved and they somehow change the world. Nope, it is exactly what was shown in the advertisements. Not one thing was surprising! So i just simply do not understand why Americans go and watch this. Are humans this desensitized that they have no problem watching the slaughter of others? What is the draw? I really wish i had not seen it, it brought be nothing positive. When i was told by young and old people how amazing the movie was, it perked my interest. My girlfriend also got excited and she was the main reason i went to see it. We both sat there in disbelief. Is this for real? So I am very disappointed by our human race. This film definitely should not have been rated PG-13, i have seen many movies with R ratings that were less violent. It was truly disturbing. This movie should not have been touted as a teen flick but as a physiological thriller and the script should have been rewritten to be as dark as the as the material truly was. I am so disappointed by the media, but that should not of been a surprise. I nearly took my 13 year old niece to this a month ago. I am sure that she has seen it by now, almost every teenager has. From the film, it seems like the movie is about 2 teens who sort of maybe fall in love, or that might be an illusion just to stay alive and then they magically are allowed to both live because they are in love. Seriously, twilight was a much better and believable film then this piece of ....

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Lame

1/10
Author: crocamander
28 April 2012

This movie is weak. Don't watch it.

Anyone who likes this movie has poor taste. I fail to understand why it is so popular. I won't even bother recounting any of the plot. If you go to see this movie, you are wasting your time. Yes, it's that bad. It makes Transformers 3's plot/acting/dialog look like Casablanca's.

I believe that this movie was made by mentally ill people on hard drugs. It is the only reasonable explanation. If I must say one positive thing about this movie, it is the fact that it has an interesting title. Yeah, that's it.

Two thumbs way down.

Problem, hunger games fans?

Was the above review useful to you?

11 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

What a piece of trash!

1/10
Author: gpd035 from United States
21 July 2012

How can anyone who loves his fellow man call this crap entertainment? The notion of pitting children against one another in a death match is inhuman and unconscionable. Portraying total government control of the food supply is frightening and sadly prophetic. That this sort of trash is accepted and loved by young people makes me fear for the future of our country. No wonder children rape and murder one another in schools. No wonder young adults walk into theaters and school campuses with guns and kill people at random. My wife dragged me to this crap, and I watched about 3 minutes and then kept my eyes closed. Who was the big ugly blond transsexual-looking broad anyway? A lot of ugliness in this film.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 17 people found the following review useful:

3/10 because of bad really bad fighting scenes and some unrealistic features that don't sit well with me at all.

3/10
Author: rakkegaming from Norway
31 March 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The plot is somewhat straight forward; no surprises at all. The clipping, especially in the fighting scenes is so terribly disturbing! I've never seen anything like that! You can barely see what's happening as it look like someone filmed it with a hand-held cam recorder... Also, Katniss' face is all clean through the entire movie while everyone else's covered in mud and some blood stains.

For last: It's called the Hunger Games right? It's a bloody murderous competition. Where's that in the movie? There's some blood, as when Rue get's pierced by that spear, but all the brutality and bloodshed in this movie is covered up by the shaky filming in the fighting scenes. My personal opinion is that this movie had been better if it had been more like a Game of Thrones. It needs to be graphic. You need to see the sword, spear, arrow, whatever pierce through the skin and penetrate the the flesh. You need to see the blood squirt out from the wound and and the killer covered in it.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 19 people found the following review useful:

Disappointing.

1/10
Author: norgannons_finest
29 April 2012

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

It is always hard to watch a movie after reading the book. Never comes out at the same caliber. Maybe its the lack of having to write in the details to paint the picture because you can actually see the picture. Maybe its the fact that how you pictured it in your mind is all wrong from how its depicted. So rule of thumb never nit pick a movie made from a book on the small details or even the little descriptive dialog they leave out. That being said I was super stoked to see Hunger Games. The book is nothing short of amazing and well written. The movie started out promising. You could feel the tension during the reaping. Great. But as the movie progressed, so did my anger. BIG MASSIVE parts are left out. Continuity errors running rampant. A couple that really irked me: 1) They never mention that Peeta was injured. In the book you found out pretty early in the games that for being a traitor to the alliance, Cato cut him and left him to die on his own accord of infection/the elements. In the movie all that was said until you actually SEE the injury is Rue saying "oh hes by the river". 2)The day she blew up the alliance food stash. She in the book was fully and then partly deaf. No mention of that in the movie. It kinda made a distorted sound for a couple seconds but no mention of her completely losing hearing in her ear. 3) The whole disappearance of the hospital scenes after the games and things that were carefully put in the book for a reason like the crazy showers at the Capitol. 4) No hover cars scooping up the dead 5) No mention of the Everdeens being healers. 6) At the end it didn't show the tension between Peeta, Katniss, and Gale. Gale looked sad she was with him but Katniss never had the discussion with Peeta she was confused. 7) The uprising of districts didn't happen in this book. We can go on and on but those are the ones that are a slap in the face.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 16 of 196: [Prev][11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [Next]

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