Katniss Everdeen voluntarily takes her younger sister's place in the Hunger Games: a televised competition in which two teenagers from each of the twelve Districts of Panem are chosen at random to fight to the death.
In a dystopian future, the totalitarian nation of Panem is divided into 12 districts and the Capitol. Each year two young representatives from each district are selected by lottery to participate in The Hunger Games. Part entertainment, part brutal retribution for a past rebellion, the televised games are broadcast throughout Panem. The 24 participants are forced to eliminate their competitors while the citizens of Panem are required to watch. When 16-year-old Katniss' young sister, Prim, is selected as District 12's female representative, Katniss volunteers to take her place. She and her male counterpart, Peeta, are pitted against bigger, stronger representatives, some of whom have trained for this their whole lives.Written by
Suzanne Collins
Since Jennifer Lawrence is friends with Lenny Kravitz's daughter, Zoë Kravitz, she couldn't get herself to use his first name. Instead, she called him "Mr. Kravitz" from the first day on. Kravitz quickly found out that the rest of the cast and crew also started to call him "Mr. Kravitz". See more »
Goofs
During The Reaping, in the wide shot when the Mayor and his affiliates are being introduced, there is only a microphone and the chairs on the stage. The Reaping Balls do not appear until Effie draws the names. See more »
Quotes
[first lines]
Seneca Crane:
I think it's our tradition. It comes out of a particularly painful part of our history...
Caesar Flickerman:
Yes, yes.
Seneca Crane:
...but it's been the way we're able to heal.
See more »
Crazy Credits
The film opens with a worded passage about the history of the Hunger Games. In the last section, all of the text fades away except for the film's title. See more »
Alternate Versions
A rough cut of the film was submitted to the BBFC in the UK for an advisory screening, a process used by filmmakers to see how likely a film will obtain a certain rating. The BBFC explained a 12A rating would be likely if the violence was toned down. Four scenes were changes, removing bloody violence, threat and a scene of injury. These included the use of alternate footage and the digital removal of blood. When the finished film was submitted to the BBFC for a formal classification, the BBFC stated that more cuts would be needed in order to secure the 12A. Blood splashes were digitally removed from both impacts to bodies and blood on blades of weapons, achieved through the darkening of certain shots and by digitally erasing blood from the image. The BBFC then gave the film a 12A rating for cinema release. This pre-cut version was released on DVD in the UK with a 12 rating. However, the US PG-13 version was submitted to the BBFC for the UK Blu-ray release, which was classified '15' uncut. See more »
This must be one of the most hyped films over here in Europe this summer and naturally I took precautions to watch it due the fact that hyped flicks mostly fail for me.
The Hunger Games are based on a book and here things already go wrong. It is loosely based on the book. I just will refer to the dogs at the end of this flick, here they are created by the masters of the game. In the book they are the dead that resurrect into dogs. A big difference and also one of the reasons that shows that it was made for the youngsters among us. While the books have a lot of blood and gore the flick doesn't show us anything of that.
But is it all that bad, no, there are a few good actions taking place and it never bored me but it failed by choosing for a flick that fits for whole the family. By saying that it brings me back to another trilogy I doesn't like, Twilight. The way the lover birds are talking does take you back to Twilight.
I was more into the brutal Immortals (2012) a flick that failed for others but worked out fine for me. If you like The hunger Games but would prefer it a bit rougher then I should recommend Battle Royale (2000) but let's wait for the remake of Battle Royale coming out in 2015 if it will be like the original one.
Effects and acting was okay but it's a trilogy I wont follow any more.
Gore 1/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 3/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5
24 of 34 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this
This must be one of the most hyped films over here in Europe this summer and naturally I took precautions to watch it due the fact that hyped flicks mostly fail for me.
The Hunger Games are based on a book and here things already go wrong. It is loosely based on the book. I just will refer to the dogs at the end of this flick, here they are created by the masters of the game. In the book they are the dead that resurrect into dogs. A big difference and also one of the reasons that shows that it was made for the youngsters among us. While the books have a lot of blood and gore the flick doesn't show us anything of that.
But is it all that bad, no, there are a few good actions taking place and it never bored me but it failed by choosing for a flick that fits for whole the family. By saying that it brings me back to another trilogy I doesn't like, Twilight. The way the lover birds are talking does take you back to Twilight.
I was more into the brutal Immortals (2012) a flick that failed for others but worked out fine for me. If you like The hunger Games but would prefer it a bit rougher then I should recommend Battle Royale (2000) but let's wait for the remake of Battle Royale coming out in 2015 if it will be like the original one.
Effects and acting was okay but it's a trilogy I wont follow any more.
Gore 1/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 3/5 Story 3/5 Comedy 0/5