The Hunger Games

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. (03/04/2012)

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. (24/03/2012)

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. (03/08/2020)

Another book phenomenon of our generation translated to the screen, I was surprisingly impressed. Unlike the fantasy sagas of The Chronicles of Narnia and Harry Potter, I hadn't read the source material, so I had little idea of the story, which I only knew from the trailers. What is most interesting about the film, or rather the book, is that the driving element is the teenagers, but they are often fighting for their lives with more vigor than most adults. The first half of the film was kind of dry and plodding, but once all the Repayers were unleashed into the life or death arena, the plot began to pick up and the tension gradually began to build and thicken. The very first bloody battle for guns, food and survival items was really rough, in fact I was quite curious to see what it would look like when teenage kids would be "soaping up" in the film. Plus, Jennifer Lawrence is quite a looker, I first noticed her in Winter's Bone, where she was one of the film's main assets. In short, a film that may not be to everyone's taste, but I was pleasantly surprised by it, and besides the premise, I would also like to highlight the colourful costumes and make-up of the characters, and the nice musical score (06/09/2013)

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. (22/03/2012)