Movies: 19831 | TV Series: 3309 | Added today: 0 | Storage: 74692 GB
|Starring:||Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Wes Bentley, Elizabeth Banks, Donald Sutherland, Alexander Ludwig, Stanley Tucci|
|Available Quality:||DivX, Hi Def, Hi Def|
In a not-too-distant future, North America has collapsed, weakened by drought, fire, famine, and war to be replaced by Panem, a country divided into the Capitol and 12 districts. Each year two young representatives from each district are selected by lottery to participate in The Hunger Games. Part entertainment, part brutal intimidation of the subjugated districts, the televised games are broadcast throughout Panem. The 24 participants are forced to eliminate their competitors, literally, with all citizens required to watch. When 16-year-old Katniss young sister, Prim, is selected as the mining districts female representative, Katniss volunteers to take her place. She and her male counterpart Peeta, will be pitted against bigger, stronger representatives who have trained for this their whole lives.
Joe Smith 17 May 2013
If one had not read the book(s), I think he might find this to be anenjoyable, if not outstanding, movie. However, anyone who has read thetrilogy knows that the movie did not even address the theme that madethe trilogy so outstanding. The trilogy is primarily a character studyof at least four of the trilogy's characters: Peeta, Gale, Haymitch andmost importantly Katniss. Katniss is a girl who seems to stand forhonorable ideas, but who finds insult and deceit in almost everythinganyone tells her; especially Peeta. She finds comfort in his arms whenshe is fearful, but then refuses to admit to anyone, including herself,that she has any need for such care. Rather than being the hero, she ismore the anti-hero of the story.In the movie, she is brave and bold and smart. In the original she isbold, but not really so brave and certainly not smart. She operatesentirely on emotion, saying and doing things without paying theslightest attention to logic. Time and again she is convinced thateverything bad that has happened was caused by her. In this view she isonly somewhat wrong. But after all of her agonizing and vows ofrepentance, she continues to do the same self-serving and illogicalthings that lead to more suffering of herself and others. In book 2,Haymitch tells Katniss, "See, this is why no one lets you make theplans." Later, she recalls Haymitch's statement and says,"That's true,no one in their right mind would let me make the plans. Because I can'ttell a friend from an enemy." Here, she is exactly correct, but thatdoes not prevent her from making that mistake time and again with hermost loyal friend, Peeta.Nonetheless, Katniss is a very appealing character, and that is whatkept me going for three volumes. I got a feeling about Katniss verymuch like the feeling I had for Scarlett O'Hara in "Gone With TheWind."This, not her skill with the bow, is what makes "The Hunger Games" agreat story.
griffolyon12 17 May 2013
With The Hunger Games, audiences are treated to a dystopic sci-fiadventure that is suspenseful from the first frame to the last. Asimple story of a fight to the death between twenty-four kids betweenthe ages of 12 and 18 may seem like a gory blood fest, but the storynever glorifies the violence and is more about survival rather thankilling. Director Gary Ross keeps the story with heroine KatnissEverdeen through a clever use of close ups and out of focus background,rather than often revealing what is transpiring all around her. This isnot an entertainment, and it is not intended as such, but rather as aharrowing journey of wills that ask the audience members to oftenwonder how would they respond if they were forced to kill to live.Sadly, certain character motivations are occasionally forsaken to keepthe story driving forward, and so there is often a confusion as to whya character makes the choices that they do because the hows and whys ofrelationships are often skimped on. Overall, though, The Hunger Gamesis a well made sci-fi thriller that features larger than lifesituations with genuine suspense that does not let up, and reallyexpands and visualizes the world of the novels by Suzanne Collins in asatisfying way that makes The Hunger Games worth watching for thethrills and thought it provokes.I give The Hunger Games an 8 out of 10!
M MALIK 14 May 2013
you read it right this film is pile of junk & may i ask what were someof the good actors doing there like Wes Bentley .i mean what the hellis this about the story shows that N.America is divided and is namesPanem.with 12 districts .the 2 young people are selected each year toparticipate in hunger games.and those are televised & everyone iswatching them on TV in Panem this film looks like Rambo meets JasonBourne but i had hopes because i didn't have even seen the Pics ortrailers of the movie.hoped for some action & brutality but it suckedat it.why didn't they used guns in this film if they are allowed to kill andwin what exactly is the hunger games its filled with cheap wannabespretending to be tougher but end up failing.& Jennifer Lawrence cantact she can only smooch in movies with her big fish lips.maybe if youput some dirt on a basketball stadium she would suck it up . put ALPacino in this and it would look better.this film wastes not only the time & money but it spins your head alsoi am shocked at why everyone is going crazy about this film.people lostthe taste. & i read it just beat titanic which is re released on 3d.just see some old James bond films like golden-eye or something, itscrappy film like these are ruining cinema.what a shame.i am sorry but i have to warn others please do not watch this for freeyou will regret.there are no games in this film its an insult to sportsmy rating is 0/10 most awful film in history .there is a Japanese filmcalled battle Royal i think ill go check that out it would be betterthen this trash
Anthony Magno 13 May 2013
Warning, this review contains frequent references to Battle Royale. Ifyou are tired of hearing this comparison, please move along. I have notread the books, so I saw this movie from a blank slate.My biggest problem with the movie is that it failed to portray the realhorror of what exactly is going on. This government is forcing 12-18year-old kids to fight and die for others' amusement. That's a trulyhorrifying prospect, but Hunger Games treats it as if it's an everydayoccurrence. And in the context of this movie, it might very well be aneveryday occurrence, but the audience can't possibly adopt thatmindset. Battle Royale shows the Games for what they are: cutthroat,violent and incredibly emotionally taxing. It showed me what goesthrough a person's mind when he is forced to kill his best friend.The big problem with a contest-style movie being portrayed from afirst-person perspective is that you automatically know who is going towin. Battle Royale averted this problem by portraying the story from avariety of viewpoints. It switched between first and third-personperspectives and focused the battle on several different characters.The winner of the contest was never a clear choice, as no one charactercould be identified as a "main" focus. In Hunger Games, there is notension or suspense in the storytelling. In fact, the most tense momentin the film lasted for five seconds near the end of the movie when thecouple contemplated eating the poisonous berries, thus letting theGames end with no victor.If you're going to make a movie about children cutting each other topieces with various pointy things, stop shaking the damn camera! I knowthis sounds terrible, but I paid money to see teenagers killing eachother and dammit, I want to see what's happening.There is a big problem with your violent, child-assassination movie ifI find the culture of this world and the side-characters moreinteresting than the actual fighting and maiming. Seriously, myfavorite character was not the main girl whose name I can't remember. Iliked the blue-haired douchebag who hosted the contest. What was hisstory? I want a movie made about him instead! Also, when I saw theformer champion mentor guy, my world exploded when I thought that OwenWilson was actually doing a good job portraying an interestingcharacter. Imagine that! Owen Wilson is actually ACTING! But then Irealized that it was Woody Harrelson and the world promptlyun-exploded.I don't understand what point the movie is trying to get across. Itleaves me with so many unanswered questions. Are the Games bad? Dopeople want to abolish them? What is it about Districts 1 and 2 thatthey train children to fight from infancy? Why do they traingladiators, but no other district does? If people hate the Games somuch, why are they content to surrender their children to die for sucha vile practice? If people don't hate the Games, then why don't theyall train fighters to bring fame and respect to their district? Whatwas so special about the little black girl that prompted the districtsto rebellion? She was a cute little girl, sure, but why should I careabout her? Surely she wasn't the first innocent girl to die in theprevious 70 Games? What was the deal with the large-chinned guy whostayed behind in District 12? Why was he in the movie? Does he evencare that his best friend is kissing another man? I think so, but allhe ever does is stare blankly off-screen, so I can't be sure. Why didthe other kids trust the blonde guy after he joined their alliance?Shouldn't they know that he is untrustworthy after clearly saying onnational television that he is in love with the girl they are trying tokill? Why did they trust his judgment from the very beginning?All in all, The Hunger Games was an average movie. I liked it, butBattle Royale is by far the better film. I know it may not be fair tocompare the two films since they were intended for different audiences,but I can't help it. They are just too similar for me to separate them.
Mohsen Qassemi 12 May 2013
This film is dangerous in its (unintentional) attempt to deterioratehuman feelings. The feelings of savagery and blood-thirst are soconfusingly mixed with feelings of compassion and love from the side ofthe people of the Capitol that those inhumane feelings of slaughteringand hatred have in a way been endorsed. I don't give a D if someone defends the film by saying that this Gamehas turned into a tradition for the people after decades of practicingbecause it is, I believe, only in the most nefarious period of humanspirit (if imaginable) that these kinds of traditions would be condonedor, as the film suggests, received full-heartedly and enthusiasticallyand that has had no instance except for the Dark Ages and the ArabConquest! It's funny (for me, even disgusting) that the people of theCapitol show joy in watching blood spilling on the one hand and loveand sacrifice on the other hand.Innovation is good, but not in a Frankensteinian way. One might thinkthis is preposterous, but believe me, films of this sort cannot bewithout psychological effects on younger people.I can't help but restate that this film is dangerous for it fails toclear up the moral mess it creates in the film, which might not havebeen the director's intent, but it should have been. He's responsiblefor the Frankenstein he has released.
willowtree_777 12 May 2013
With this movie, there are two groups: those who haven't read the booksand those who have. I am in the second group, having read the booksbefore there was even a thought of a movie and I really enjoyed them. Iwent to the midnight premiere and was really excited to see it unfoldon the big screen. Did I like it? Well, that's complicated. I'm notgoing to bother describing the plot but just get right into the prosand cons. I may mention some spoilers, so be warned.Pros: -The acting. No one was bad, everyone believable, even thenewcomers such as Prim and Rue. Josh Hutcherson was impressive asPeeta, although most of his lines were awful, and Liam Hemsworth wasgood as Gale. I personally don't like Jennifer Lawrence, her voiceirritates me and I felt like she was too tall and "well fed" to beKatniss. However, I was surprised, she was really realistic and I thinkshe carried the role well. I was most impressed by the Careers though.They had hardly anything to work with but managed to make thembelievable and interesting, Cato and Clove especially. I was actuallydisappointed when Cato died, because he was an interesting character towatch.-The plot. I was happy to see that there were hardly any changes. Sure,no Avoxes or how she really gets the pin, but it stuck close and thatwas great. The violence was toned down, but it still worked. I thoughtthe side story with Seneca Crane was cool, because we get to see what'shappening outside of the game, with the game-makers and the president. Cons: I had lots of issues with the film, but most of them arenitpicky, silly things like goofs, but here are some of my biggerissues.-The settings/costumes. I get that not everyone has the same idea ofthe locations in their head, but District 12 was way too nice lookingand The Capitol didn't seem to have the futuristic "wow" factor I waslooking for. I felt like most of the costumes were tacky, especiallythe other tributes outfits and some of the sets had a cheap look. I getthat there's a budget, but still.-The directing. I know everyone has complained about this too, but Ihave to say something. The shaky cam was so annoying! My eyes neveradjusted to it and I had a hard time knowing what was happening. Itsamateur and makes it seem like there is more happening than therereally is. I felt like the director was one of the major issues withthis movie. I was not impressed by him at all.-The plot. I'm glad they stuck closely to the plot, but it felt like itwas the overview of the Hunger Games that your friend would tell you,not a movie. Everything happened fast with no buildup. When Rue died, Iwasn't even upset, because she'd only been on screen for like 10minutes and hardly had any back-story. Why did Katniss care? If youhaven't read the books, you wouldn't know about how she saw Rue assomeone similar to Prim. The climax went nowhere and the Katniss/Peetathing never was explained. Call me a fangirl, but I really wanted thecave scene to have more and been more realistic than two kisses andcrappy dialogue. We get no feeling about the fake love story, why it'snecessary or how Peeta and Katniss feel about it.So, all in all, it was enjoyable, but I was very disappointed. I hopethey can fix things or get a new director by the time Catching Firehappens.
ogrv621 10 May 2013
I thought the movie had so much potential, but was utterlydisappointing. I really don't understand this movie gets such a highrating on IMDb!!! The actors weren't to blame, they did a decent job ingeneral, but all ethical dilemma's were taken out. WHY????????????NOthing happened in the end, nothing was solved, it was totallypointless.Some examples: Catness played the hunger game , the rule was only onesurvivor, then suddenly there could be 2 survivors, she didn't have tokill anybody, she didn't take any though decisions and in the endnothing changed in the districts, WTF?????? .She falls in love withthis stupid guy from her district (or didn't she?)and all is well inthe end??? the movies would have been a lot more interesting if hestabbed her in the back with a knife (or vice versa) and the districtswould overthrow the regime., or that she had to at least kill the cutegirl and hang herself out of misery. So many opportunities for a goodmovie and they just missed them all!
ibrahim-340-369014 09 May 2013
This movie was gorgeous. It is definitely one of the most amazingmovies I have ever seen in my entire life. It looks beautiful with thecamera...I mean, if the characters are nervous and their thoughts areclouded, the camera makes everything buzzy and distant. The movie wasemotional when it needed to be, action packed, and stayed VERY true tothe book. The readers of the book will most definitely love this movie.The only time when small details were changed were only in threescenes. Those who did not read the book will also enjoy this bookimmensely(don't know if I spelled that right). This is one of thegreatest movies out there. Jenifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, and LiamHemsworth, and etc, all deserve awards for this masterpiece.
wfriesman 07 May 2013
i think the movie was awful ,kids killing kids not recommended foryounger audience.i am a father of 2 and i would have never let mydaughter see this in a private screening .if i would of known it waslike this.why was this movie even made.If you want to see a good movie.go see 21 Jumpstreet.It was the best movie i seen all year.bettermovies with similar story lines are Hard Target with Jean Claude VanDamme,the Pest with John Leguizama,Surviving The Game withIce-T,Running Man with Arnold Swartzenegger.and a great movie to seewith your kids is Journey 2 with the Rock (Dwayne Johnson).All i haveto say don't waist your money .Better Movies Coming Out in the Summer.
getani 06 May 2013
One word for Jennifer Lawrence - Watch out for this actor. She is gonnago places.Amazing film. Builds up slowly but uniformly. Dialogues pack a punchbut are not too verbose. They are just appropriate. It is nail bitingtill the end. It is not kids killing kids kind of psychotic genre. I was veryskeptical about watching this initially because of some reviews onIMDb. But take my word. It is not about kids killing kids. It has avery subtle underlying theme of a totalitarian society and how underdogs can bring about a change by refusing to play by the rules of topdogs.And it is not gory. Somewhere on the lines of Batman (on a gore scale).Next part is going to be interesting.Hail this franchise.
ethanthoren 05 May 2013
I enjoyed reading the books, the first is one of my favorite books ofall time, Catching Fire was good, and Mockingjay was amazing... Beforethe last hundred or so pages. So I didn't see this in theaters, sadly,but a few days ago, I bought it on Blu-Ray because I loved the book,and I was worried I wouldn't like it considering I'd never seen itbefore, but I was surprised as ever, it was amazing, I loved it, forbeginning to end, loved it! Even my dad who has seen over like tenthousand movies, loved it too. I really enjoyed it, so did my family, Ihighly recommend for fans of the book or people looking for a goodflick!
wollbratt 05 May 2013
Common face it, this playoff of this movie has been done before. If youhave any experience watching Battle Royale, produced by Kinji Fukasaku,this movie uses all its layup, and ideas to the fullest, with a mixturewith The running man from 1987. Battle Royale though, is much moredeeper and philosophical about the ideas that this movie tries to touchupon. I do not find this movie unbearable bad, sure it is entertaining,but it lacks originality and just steals ideas which has already beenmade and does it the Hollywood way, which in the end just come out as afaint copy.What makes me frustrated is the ignorance people are showing that justhail this movie as good, cause they have not experienced motion pictureoutside U.S, and ignore the fact that this movie rips off altogetherwhich has already been done before. If you liked these ideas and thedark perspective this movie tried to bring , and even remotely thinkthis is a good movie, then watch Battle Roayle, and you will be amazedwhat had been created more than 10 years ago, with much depth andoriginality.The movie start to build some character and some mystery but totallylacks out before the movie ends which is sad.
dana cazacu 05 May 2013
Although other reviews strongly criticize the movie and the book seriesI do not intend to compare this with the golden age of fantasy andScience fiction, nor will I compare Suzanne Collins to Asimov, Tolkienor Herbert. It will be inconceivable.It is indeed minor literature and minor movie making. I rememberreading Dune when I was 15 and than again when I was 22. It took me 7years and a lot of philosophy and political readings to finally get adecent grasp on those books. Yes indeed, Hunger Games doesn't have thatmuch of subtext, but it is certainly a nice story.Than again look around you and try to find a good movie of this kindthat isn't a remake or a good book that is truly original. I guess fromthe massive pile of bad movies and no substance characters, The HungerGames might be considered decent enough to watch and read.Now too the movie. You have to keep in mind that Katniss is a 16 yearold girl. With barely education at all, deeply traumatized and forcedto survive in dire conditions. That's even before she entered thearena. You will not say much either. I think Jennifer Lawrenceportraits her pretty well. Her acting is not so vocalized, but lets usguess a lot of what is going inside her. Decent acting on the rest ofthe cast as well.The sets are great. The contrast between the district and the capitolis exactly how I've imagined it. And the arena is simply well made. Themakeup and costumes are fabulous.The story follows with little exceptions the one of the book. Forexample the mocking jade pin is given by Marge in the book and by anold lady in the movie.A decent and watchable movie, considering the alternatives.I apologize for not asking for more.
Maleplatypus 04 May 2013
Yes, a comparison with Battle Royale is inevitable here. I guess thishas been done to close the gap between two cultures (not that manypeople even know that B.R. even exists). It seems that the fiction inthe background (did not read the book, btw.) has "juice" but thepresentation form of this movie ruined it. Strange, though. Cast isgood, performances also, even the direction (mostly). But the wholepicture is simply bad. Unnecessary repeating of the parts of the movie(very poorly executed "flashabcks"), fake emotions, tons of illogicaland in essence futile parts (creating some sort of dogs from nothing?Ain't that a concept from Star Trek and Holodeck with safety protocolsshut down?). I could not figure out who screwed up more: writers,producers, editors, even director? Anyway, this story could have beendone incomparably better in someone else's hands (say, Wheddon?,Cameron?, Scott? or anybody who knows how to make a story consistent,logical and meaningful). This way the story has no beginning and noend. Just something vague in the middle. This movie is a miss. Bigtime.Pity.
Lara Sweeney 04 May 2013
This was an interesting movie. It is very unusual when almost an entireaudience put there hands up in salute along with the characters! I amcurrently reading the 2nd book in the series and have been in love withthis series for weeks. The movie is a lot more enjoyable for people whohave read the book. I know this because I went to see it with a fewfriends, half of them had read the book, and they much preferred it tothe others.The others still enjoyed the movie though! The movie has missing pieceshere and there, where in the book everything is explained. Also, I feelthe main actress was not quite right for the role. But an amazingperformance by Josh Hutcherson, he's is a very talented actor who willgo far. I am a bit shocked by some of the hate this title is getting, Idon't think it's deserved! The only reason I'm not giving it a ten isbecause I'm comparing it to the book, which is one of my favoritereads!Apart from the first comment I would recommend the book, and the film.:)
TxMike 03 May 2013
A dystopia is the idea of a society, generally of a speculative future,characterized by negative, anti-utopian elements, varying fromenvironmental to political and social issues,usually hypothesized bywriters of fiction.Yes, "Hunger Games" is about a future dystopian society, decades aftera rebellion. As a type of penance and reminder that the Capitol has thepower, each year each of the 12 outlying districts must choose twoyoungsters, one boy and one girl, to travel to the Capitol andparticipate in the Hunger Games. This is the 74th Games. There will beone victor, one survivor, all the rest will die. Children killing otherchildren.This story focuses on district 12, a mining district where peoplestruggle to feed themselves and have established a barter system.Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is the older daughter of thefamily, she hunts and fishes, is good with a bow and arrow and survivalin general. Against the odds her younger sister, more the girly type,is chosen in the lottery, but Katniss speaks up and volunteers to go inher place. Along with the boy, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) that sheonly knew casually.The story becomes one of survival. Neither Katniss nor Peeta want tokill any of the other kids, but they also are determined to defendthemselves. The days, perhaps most of a week, of the actual competitiontakes place mostly in a forested area, monitored by technicians in acenter with virtual reality displays. The citizens of the Capitol lookat the Hunger games as a big entertainment event, perhaps like theancient Romans did for their arena battles to the death.A saving grace for the movie is that, although we know kids are killingkids, it is done with a certain grace. We don't see a lot of blood andgore, or graphic killings, which makes the movie more palatable forsuch a distasteful topic.Fortunately the main story of survival turns into a love story asKatniss and Peeta form a sort of bond, particularly after he reveals ina pre-games televised interview that he has always had a secretadmiration of Katniss.Stanley Tucci is one of the flamboyant citizens of the Capitol, hemoderates the "show" before the games begin, interviewing eachparticipant before a live audience in a large theater setting. He comesacross most as a host of a TV show like "America's Got Talent",ignoring the fact that almost all of these young kids will die shortly.I didn't read the book so I can't compare the two, but I suspect theyhad to leave some things out to keep the running time around 2:15. Ifound the movie enjoyable, it makes one think about the freedoms wemostly take for granted.SPOILERS: The people monitoring the Games also have a viewing audiencethey need to keep entertained. So to generate interest they announce,and the participants hear this, that for one time only they will allowtwo survivors for the same district, if it turns out that way, to playup the budding relationship of Katniss and Peeta. They in fact do "win"the Games, but then it is announced that they changed their minds, onemust kill the other. Peeta encourages Katniss to kill him so that shecan survive, but instead she gets a handful of poisonous purpleberries, and indicates they will both eat them at the same time, bothdie rather than have to kill one. Peeta starts to object but Katnisssays, "Trust me. Trust me." And what she guessed, happened, instead ofseeing both of them die they call it off, let both live and travel backto district 12.
ada 03 May 2013
i haven't read the book, and i am judging this solely on the movie ihave watched. i had been watching this movie for only 10-15 minuteswhen i started comparing this movie to the running man with ArnoldSchwarzenegger.and this feeling kept me through whole movie.andhonestly i don't know about the book hunger games,haven't read it (buti heard it is great one to read)but i kind of liked Running man better.There are few points of the movie i don't really get - i'll try to beshort- why are the fighters aged from 9-19 years old?why not,i don'tknow for instance 20-40,and how much chance does really a 9 year oldhave in this brutal-killing game?secondly when bunch of othercontestants cornered up on the tree Katniss(girl from district 12)theycouldn't come up with nothing else then camping under the tree?-i foundthat completely stupid. they also said in the beginning that a lot ofcontestants would die from starvation,dehydration etc.-they seemedquite good to me like they just had a cup of coffee and asandwich.-finally the biggest problem i have with this movie is thatnothing happens in the end-in the running man there is some kind oftwist they actually do something about the show,rebel...here they justwin it and that's it by the end of the movie i didn't care a bit ifthey would win or die.i give it 5 but only because first lest say 30-40minutes were somewhat fine and i enjoyed a little watching them preparefor the games and because this movie reminded me of the running man ,ilike the whole plot in the movie but that's it.
retoonetoo 02 May 2013
I had high expectations for this film from my close friend who saidthat the book for this was amazing. I took the chance to watch it assoon as I could and was highly disappointed by it.From the trailer it was shown to be action-packed but an hour of thefilm was the Tributes preparing for the Games and when the day arrived,it appeared to be the opposite to the trailer. In the first fiveminutes of the fighting, many of the people had died which sped up thefilms conclusion greatly. This was basically all the action other thana few more scenes.I don't recommend watching this if you want to watch something full ofaction. The only thing I liked about the film which held me back fromrating this one, was the story.
Ambuj Saxena 01 May 2013
If I were to review the movie in a word, it would simply be "sell-out";selling the soul of the book just to reach a wider audience.Even before I went to see the movie, I knew the screenwriter's job forthis movie is going to be difficult. With the whole movie as firstperson account of Katniss, it won't be easy to convey her emotions andfeelings without making most of the movie a background narration of herthoughts. Yet, the movie surprised me at a more fundamental level. Howcan the screenwriter ignore the very first word in the title of thebook: Hunger. How did the director accept the screenplay in which noone ever goes hungry or thirsty in the arena? For someone who has readthe book, the needless pain and suffering that the tributes endure iscentral theme of the book. The movie decided to chuck that all out,dumbing it down to a glorified reality show. Even at that, they did apoor job of not even taking 5 minutes to show "Why Hunger Games". Allthey offered was a written paragraph preceding the movie and a shortmovie on the history of Panem. Right from the word go, it looked like alazy attempt at screenplay because they were not competent to recap thebackground.The casting of the movie was also a disaster. Except for Katniss,Effie, Senaca, and President Snow, everyone seemed out of place. It washardly believable to see people with well built bodies, perfect hairand skin when they are supposed to come from a food-deprived district.No wait, the audience would believe it because the movie didn't eventake time to explain the poverty and hunger in the districts. Moviessometimes take liberties from the book to make it more compelling andconsistent. An example here would be the story of how Katniss got theMockingjay pin. But what was surprising is that they even decided tochange what the blast did to Katniss' ear. How are they going toexplain her hearing the force field in the second movie? Morescreenplay liberties, I guess. I wanted to rip my hair off when theydecided to dumb down on the emotional connection Katniss establishedwith Rue, when they decided to skip the emotional conflict in Katnissand Peeta's mind on their fake love, the dumbed down signaling betweenHaymitch and Katniss. Yet, the movie wastes time visiting twice thestory of Peeta in is young days having crush on Katniss and stillunable to explain the whole burnt bread saga, the emotional Katnisswhen she sees the dress she has to wear for the reaping without anybackground to its significance, and so on.Sure the movie will now be more popular because most people don't careto read the book and they won't understand all the levels the moviefails to deliver. And when they won't understand, it will probably beattributed to mysticism rather than incompetence.
lazyedit 01 May 2013
I have not read the books.However I have seen Battle Royale that was released in 2000 and alsoSeries 7: The Contenders released in 2001. This film is a copy of bothfilms. However Battle Royale is much better and much more violent. I don't know when the book was written (maybe battle Royal copied itfirst). But if the book was released after battle Royal, it would belike me writing Jurassic park and then releasing a film of it?! Intheory they could have made this a great film, but they chose to leaveout any kind of violence. I am really interested to see if the book isalso just the same as Battle Royale. Someone should be sued!