Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

The Hunger Games (2012)

Director: Gary Ross

Time Out rating

Average user rating

23 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out London

The perils of allowing a successful author to adapt their own work for the screen are demonstrated once again in this absorbing but cluttered take on Suzanne Collins’s highly regarded post-apocalyptic teen epic. This is a gripping, impressively mounted action movie – but its adherence to finicky details in the novel means that there’s not enough time to fully explore Collins’s complex world or the characters who inhabit it.

Jennifer Lawrence (‘Winter’s Bone’) excels as Katniss, a teenage girl forced to take part in the televised Hunger Games, in which children from each of 12 tightly controlled districts fight to the death in tribute to the ruling Capitol. Whisked off to the big city in the company of fellow pugilist Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), Katniss finds herself completely out of her depth.

The film’s strengths are many: from the opening scenes set in the beautifully realised Depression-style District 12 to some grittily realistic, often shockingly nasty fight sequences inside the Arena. The central concept may be derivative, but as in the book, there are enough original ideas to make it feel fresh and involving.

But for all that, ‘The Hunger Games’ is an oddly muted film. Director Gary Ross’s decision to shoot much of it handheld and in tight close-up throws us right into the ring with our heroine, but tends to leaves the other characters on the periphery – a fact not helped by the propulsive but rather functional script. Similarly, his decision to avoid any sense of uplift or triumphalism may be appropriate for a story about children killing one another, but it leaves the film feeling a little one-note in its bleakness, which may harm its chances at the multiplex. Overall, this is a solid take on the material, but it could have done with a little less narrative incident and a little more cinematic sparkle.

Author: Tom Huddleston

Time Out London Issue 2170: March 23-29, 2012

Email Tweet Share

User reviews of this film

olivia said...

Posted on May 08 2012 16:21 i watched it and it was brilliant you have to watch it i jumped at parts it is deadly but i still liked it so watch it

Report as inappropriate
jennitpk said...

Posted on Apr 29 2012 21:37 Went to see this with my 9 year old daughter not having read the books and not expecting it to be that good (based on the reviews) and we both really enjoyed it. It is not suitable for children who are easily scared as there is (as you might expect if you'd read the books) quite a bit of violence in it. A very enjoyable, well acted film, with some very moving moments.

Report as inappropriate
J.P. said...

Posted on Apr 28 2012 02:33 Entertaining... could not help making comparisons with Running Man and Battle Royale whilst watching it. Haven't read the books so not sure how far the violence goes, but given the disturbing concept of the games, I think more brutality would have added so much more impact and stirred up a real sense of shock amongst cinema-goers. The plot in the end kind of falls flat a little and I feel the film could have explored more into the competitors' dark experiences and Katniss' heroine strength and influence on the oppressed society outside the Capitol.

Report as inappropriate
long cat said...

Posted on Apr 21 2012 11:09 Tame - Why the hell did they cut it to lose the gore from a 15 to a 12a and spoil what could've been a really decent movie. The sets are excellent and the weird utopia of Panem is Zardoz-like in its opulent obscenity. The concept left me wondering - "What is the point in the hunger games?" If you wanted tributes dead just shoot the buggers at selection.
The film may be the first of a serial and had to play to all prospective audiences but for me it failed to live up to the hype and the best characters are already killed off.

Report as inappropriate
Alan said...

Posted on Apr 20 2012 09:58 With the price of cinema tickets as they are, and spare time invaluable, you like to feel you can trust reviewers and friends, and the overall word on this film early on was that it was good. Another case of ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes?’ It truly is awful, and I couldn’t agree more with the last three comments here. If you’re still in two minds about whether to see this film, you have been warned. If you still go to see it, and like me, find yourself thinking 30 minutes in, ‘this will get better in a while’, it doesn’t. Leave then and enjoy the two hours of time you’ve saved.

Report as inappropriate
miles said...

Posted on Apr 14 2012 02:06 horrid trash made out of battle royale -SOS

Report as inappropriate
Sam said...

Posted on Apr 10 2012 07:00 Jennifer Lawrence (during the trailer for this movie): "This is a film for our generation", and "It really resonates." Erm, no, Jennifer, it doesn't "resonate" with me - you've just been told to say that as part of your contract by the director and movie houses in order to plug the movie. It's disjointed, poorly shot tosh.

Report as inappropriate
miles said...

Posted on Apr 09 2012 13:57 dreadful dystopian dribble with a fantasy female warrior killing agile virlile men and women too ,even 'turkey shoots was better than this battle royale ripoff

Report as inappropriate
Blaize67 said...

Posted on Mar 28 2012 11:11 Really great sci-fi movie, brilliantly realised. Good direction and performances, especially from Jennifer Lawrence. Highly recommended for fun viewing...my only criticism is the occasional hand-held wobbly camera work on some action sequences, unnecessary and distracting. But, I'm being picky. I'd put it up there with Avatar and Inception.

Report as inappropriate
Technoguy said...

Posted on Mar 28 2012 10:38 Had not read the book(s),but thought the film worked as a blockbuster viewing experience.Loved Lawrence's central performance,stunning,this girl has a great integrity and moral presence,think of Winter's Bone. Many great charcater parts by mature actors,Harrelson,
Sutherland,Tucci(with boufant blue hair) as the media
host to each participant.This franchise will fill the hole
left by the Twilight films/books.By the way there is no need to read this.Just enjoy the film.The only fault is
that to reach a mass audience they soft pedal(blur) on the violence to reach a target audience of 12A.

Report as inappropriate
scrumpyjack said...

Posted on Mar 28 2012 08:59 Good but simply too long. 7/10

Report as inappropriate
Ciaran said...

Posted on Mar 27 2012 10:59 In reference to annabelle above, I don't think the directors would be too happy if only people who read the book went to see this film. Thank God your opinions do not sway any power, this film is for whom ever wishes to see it.

Report as inappropriate
VioletP said...

Posted on Mar 27 2012 07:21 i'm not sure how this film became classified as either "action" or "drama", and altogether missed the category of "boring" - presumably the classifier had fallen asleep. this is one long movie - at heading towards 2.5hrs long, it doesn’t have the raw ingredients to keep the viewer engaged. presumably the director was working on the basis if the cast wore colourful costumes and a lot of gold make-up, no one would notice the absense of a decent story, acting, etc.

Report as inappropriate
Mike said...

Posted on Mar 26 2012 23:19 There’s one word for Tom Huddleston’s review of this movie: Generous. As for the enthusiatic audience reviews for this film, it’s not hard to see the movie industry’s been here extolling the virtues of a dead horse.
.
For a first movie by recently graduated drama students, this film would be merely acceptable, but under any other guise it’s terrible: Weak storyline, bad script, poor improvisation, cliché, cliché, predictable. Need I go on?
.
Little wonder this movie’s been released immediately after the Oscars - it would have stood no chance for a nomination beforehand. If you’re bonkers enough to go see this film, nip into Boots first and ask for some sea sickness tablets - they’ll help calm your stomach and possibly you’ll get through the protracted hand-held camera sequences at the start without repeatedly wretching. Cinemas showing this movie ought to tuck sick bags into the back of the seats in front.
.
I’d genuinely rate this movie as zero stars, save for the fact it wouldn’t be reflected in the over all average ratings for this film - therefore one (generous) star.

Report as inappropriate
iain said...

Posted on Mar 25 2012 09:33 "... which may harm its chances at the multiplex." Really, Huddleston ? No, *really* ??? It's breaking B.O. records here in the US. And no, nothing has "hurt its chances".

Report as inappropriate