Avis des utilisateurs

The Hunger Games is ought to be the next big thing like Harry Potter, except it already started in a darker and more serious tone than any other young adult fantasy book films. The film did a good job executing its grit and thrills. Decent directing and amazing performances. The filmmakers did a fantastic job bringing Suzanne Collins' book to life. It's not the usual kind of blockbuster that focuses to its loudness. It's a film with moving drama and has its suspense.

It's pretty easy to understand everything about this story and its world. We get to know most of it and the entire film is intriguing and undeniably entertaining. The cast brings most of it to life. Jennifer Lawrence is simply fantastic as Katniss. Josh Hutcherson is okay but does not tie with Lawrence. Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Wes Bentley, Donald Sutherland, and Stanley Tucci didn't get a lot of screen time but they were good to their roles.

The movie is great in suspense and drama. It doesn't have a lot of score which makes it moving and compelling. The moments of Katniss in the arena are stirring. Thrilling music score is a great effect to these sequences. Unlike our blockbusters these days, the film doesn't focus too much to the CGI and the explosions. There isn't really much explosions here. Surprisingly, the filmmakers aren't lazy to create a non-CGI set(except the chariots). There is, of course, still CGI here but not as excessive as our modern blockbusters. The action is pretty good with the shaky camera. It's nicely shot gives enough momentum and excitement. Most people complain to that though. Lastly, the production design is beyond decent.

The Hunger Games is thrilling and solid enough. Decent filmmaking made it spectacular. It's amazing and intriguing enough to start a big series. It succeeds to become a solid and one and not a lackluster like Twilight or I Am Number Four. I don't know what else to say about it, but it's silent, gritty, and compelling.

Thrilling,Engaging and entertaining dystopian action sci-fiction flick. Really liked the visuals and all the action scenes. This is the real deal of Drama and action. Screenplay,costumes and make up all are decent. Especially the make up and movie sets are very beautiful and elegant which make the people from novel come to life. Now,considering the novel,this movie adaption misses a few things i wanted to see on screen. One is I expected it to be more violent on screen with a R Rating but they made PG-13 Stuff, i don't know why,to make more money i guess. That shaky cinematography too. some of the important messages had been cut down. These things really disappoint me because i loved the novel and wanted it to be more precise. other than that it is good popcorn entertainer. Loved Jennifer Lawrence though. Acting is far far better than that Kristen-NO-Expression-Stewart. Not only Jennifer but all the actors did their job very good. Now looking forward to sequels.Hope they will be better.

There's almost nothing to say about a movie like The Hunger Games -- it's been so worked to death to be a successful blockbuster that all of its edges, the things that make a film good or bad, have disappeared. It just exists as a spectacle, a finished product that defies any critical lens.

I could go on about the particulars of the adaptation -- the ridiculousness of the entire Capital setting, or the sometimes disorienting shakycam work, or the great cast of adults patiently playing supporting characters -- or the source material -- the gestures at social commentary, the way that the story protects Katniss from ever having to morally sully herself -- but they all seem to be beside the point. Look. The movie has the things that happened in the book, but in a movie, competently shot and acted, with absolutely no risks taken. If you liked the book, or want to learn what this whole Hunger Games thing is about without having to read the book, you'll probably like this. It's a digestible film, even an enjoyable one, but in the end it's not really interesting or memorable. But to be fair, it wasn't meant to be.

This is not so much a review, everything has already been said in the other postings, but rather my experience with this movie and book.

OK, look, I'm probably old enough to be the grandfather of most of the people submitting reviews to this movie. I am not into the teen age drivel that seems to be everywhere you look these days but .....

I first heard about the story when the book came out. It seemed you couldn't turn around without hearing it being discussed everywhere. The enormous hype made me mildly curious, but not so curious that I wanted to read the book. Fast forward several years: the book had been out, the movie hade been out, the DVD had been out and only then did I accidentally stumble across the DVD at the library. I could check it out for free and if I didn't like it I could turn it off after ten minutes ... so, why not?

I immediately found myself captivated by the beautiful cinematography and background theme and despite the over-the-top and ridiculous costumes and makeup of the people in The Capitol I decided to continue watching. I was drawn deeper and deeper into the story and the characters and after about a fourth of the way through I knew I was hooked. The acting, starting with Jennifer Lawrence, was exceptionally good. I have to go through about 25 movies before I find one that I can say I absolutely loved ... this was a 25er.

To finish my story: unbelievably, when I returned the DVD to the library, on a table in the lobby of the library where they sold used books cheaply, I found a mint condition copy of the book (the big paperback format) for fifty cents. I grabbed it. I began reading the book when I got home and couldn't put it down even though I already knew the story. Collins' writing style was as captivating as her story and the very few differences between the movie and the book were not worth mentioning. Actually, I thought the movie version of the ending was better (just couldn't imagine Rue as a werewolf).

I now own, and have seen and read, all of the books and movies of the franchise and consider them among some of the best entertainment of my life. SO it seems the old adage is wrong because you really CAN teach an old dog new tricks. Other young adult movies came out after 'The Hunger Games' which tried to capitalize on the same type of theme and they, by comparison, have failed miserably in my estimation.

One of the things I liked the most about reading 'The Hunger Games' was the intensity of how it was written. Feeling the story seemed maybe even more important than reading it, so when I went to see the movie, my expectations were very high.

On the upside: Great performance by the main characters, excellent visuals and well directed.

On the downside: The book gives a lot of context as to how the characters feel and how things have come to be the way they are. The movie changes a number of things to make it at all possible to show the story and for me the choices made took down the quality of the story a bit. To give at least some context, it took the movie a while to get really started and even despite that, some of the characters, again in my opinion, didn't really develop in depth the way they should.

Long story short, I liked the movie and thought it was a nice adaptation from the book, but it lacked a bit the intensity from the book.

Let me start by saying that I'm a huge fan of the "The Hunger Games" book series by Suzanne Collins. I've read them countless times and when I found out they were making a movie of them a little over a year ago I was very excited. But I was also worried.

"The Hunger Games" is not very easy source material. The book is written in first person narrative with very detailed descriptions of everything form the characters' looks to the strange futuristic devices they use in Panem, the future version of the U.S. where the story takes place. I couldn't imagine that they would be able to convey every detail as I had imagined it and make the story believable without an R-rating or a huge budget. All of my concerns were wiped away when I saw the movie.

I've never seen a more faithful adaption of a book in my life. All of the costumes, the sets, the locations, the cast (I'll talk more about them in a while) and the pacing is as if they were exactly replicated from the book. And the small things that do differ or are added (such as more insight to the gamemakers' control room) only add to the amazing world Collins created and improve the narrative movie-wise. And the movie is great for people who haven't read the books as well. Not once did I feel as if something was vague or badly explained.

The cast is stellar. Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss carries the movie and makes me regret complaining about her casting because she was too "hot" and not starved enough. She IS Katniss and one can feel the graveness of an situation just by looking at one of her expressions. Josh Hutcherson as Peeta is also a true breakout performance. The way he looks at Katniss will makes girls all over the world envy her, just like it's supposed to be. Other standouts in the cast include Stanley Tucci as the flamboyant talk-show host Caesar Flickerman, Woody Harrelson as the sarcastic but caring mentor Haymitch and Wes Bentley as the sinister game-maker Seneca Crane (his final scene might be the best one in the whole movie). The child actors Willow Shields and Amandla Stendberg who portrays Prim and Rue are believable and heartbreaking even though they're inexperienced.

Despite the PG-13 rating the movie doesn't gloss over or sugarcoat anything for their audience. The violence may not be gloriously graphic but it's still there. People will feel the tributes' pain and despair and not even realize the violence isn't gory until you've left the theater. The movie also deals with important themes like survival, governmental control, grief and helplessness. There is a minor love story subplot, but it doesn't distract from the movies main themes. In my opinion I think it rather improves them by showing some light in the dark.

The only complaint I can think of is that the movie feels too short. It's almost two and a half hours long, but it feels as if it goes by in a blink. I will have to see it again to fully pay attention to every detail (such as the costumes and animation of the Capitol, which looked amazing). But this is still not me saying that the movie is rushed, because as I stated the source material is very dense and the filmmakers managed include almost everything.

People are expecting this to become the next Twilight-style teen movie franchise. I can't say I think the two stories have anything in common even though I hope "The Hunger Games" will do as well at the box office. But if the first movie is any indication of the quality of what's to come - this will be a series way out of Twilight's league.

Seeing the "Hunger Games" series gain so much recognition is difficult to fathom; especially when it's more or less a blatant copy of "Battle Royale", a Japanese novel (1996), movie (2000), and manga (2000-2005). I've read the entire series of "Hunger Games" (2008), and not only is the writing style bland, but the plot is exceedingly unoriginal and not 'unique' like many of you are claiming it to be. Like the "Battle Royale" manga, "Hunger Games" includes love triangles, a group of teenagers randomly chosen (BR: by class HG: by district), plans to overthrow authority, teens given weapons and forced into a death match, a pair working together to undermine the game with the help of an older mentor who had previously won the game, both female and male main leads, a corrupted government, signal fires and bird calls, a reality TV show program (which IS in the English adaption of the manga (2006) for the series unlike many of you have known), and the list goes on and on. Evidence of these unconcealed similarities can be found on various Internet articles (whose writers I sincerely thank). I urge you to go right now and read the manga or novel of Battle Royale online so that you can compare the two series. The author of "Hunger Games" blatantly claimed (*cough* lied *cough) that she supposedly never even knew of "Battle Royale", so you can't use 'inspiration' as an excuse anymore. Instead, she blurted out nonsense about Roman mythology and the Iraq war since she doesn't want to admit her source of inspiration is a contemporary. How convenient for her own success since "Battle Royale" is a Japanese series that isn't well known in North America. She basically made an American-version of the series that contains less gruesome content and involves districts in place of school classes. Even if she truly did not know about "Battle Royale" or mysteriously forgot about it in the back of her mind, it is still part of an author's job to confirm the originality of his or her own to-be published works through researching. I'm posting this all of over the web so that "Battle Royale" can at least receive some acknowledgment that the "Hunger Games" author denied. Sure enough, both series also share resemblances with "The Lord of the Flies" and "The Running Man". However, unlike the HR author, the BR author has not denied this inspiration. Moreover, the "Hunger Games" is more like a rip-off of "Battle Royale" than an inspiration since the majority of the plot elements are nearly identical. There's a fine line between the words 'inspiration' and 'copy', and "Hunger Games" has extended far past it. There are also many popular American series that were inspired by Japanese series such as "The Matrix" from "Ghost in the Shell", however they rightfully gave credit for the 'original' series… unlike a certain someone. I sincerely apologize if I seem rash with my word choice, but it's so aggravating that Suzanne Collins had dare stated that she wasn't inspired by "Battle Royale" when she clearly was. What's more contemptible is that she's getting not only famous from her rip-off, but she's also obtaining vast amounts of money from it. But hey, that's how reality works, right? Therefore, I don't care if this is marked as spam or hauled with negative comments from "Hunger Game" fanatics. As long as it reveals to some people the credit "Battle Royale" genuinely deserves, then I'm satisfied. Nonetheless, the movie's portrayal of "Hunger Games" is quite exceptional in comparison to other movies adapted from books, which is why I am rating this 2/10 instead of 1/10.

An unfortunate catalyst that propelled the trend of teenage protagonist led book adaptations, of dystopian futures. Divergent and Maze Runner followed, both failing to complete their respective stories. Perhaps that has tainted the memory of a satisfactory film, undefinable by genre.

It's easy to forget that way back in 2012 this was fresh and new, tonally dark cinema, aiming for the teenage demographic. Perhaps that's a large reason for the success of the franchise, it was new and interesting, everything since has just been a rehash, located in a different world.

Refreshingly dark and mature, visually graphic, The Hunger Games has a lot going for it, as a visual spectacle, not so much as an immersive and compelling story. Narratively it meanders, without intent, there's a station to arrive at but not the train track to get there. Tonally gloomy at times, balance is hard to find. Switches in mood make the texture of the atmosphere uneven, because changes are jarring and misplaced. The edit failed to maximise the potential seeping throughout. Scenes are drawn out and end on odd notes, something that could've been tightened up in post-production. Additionally more cuts to and through between the Games and the world at present would've helped to increase tension while the story pondered, the scale and public reaction isn't documented anywhere near enough, if at all. Personally I feel the editing really trips this film up, it's quite easily 10-15 minutes too long, feeling even longer due to the fact of how much sitting around there is.

Stretched so far it's see through, the ending is blatant from the get go, meaning there's not much to keep you interested after the half hour mark.

Gary Ross shows wonderful craft and delicacy when concerning the dark themes of oppressed society, life without choice and just how bleak living in a dictatorship is. In the first act he manages to craft a tone and atmosphere that reeks of desperation, fear, the empty void of hopelessness and life without control. Yet he lifts the mood with the slightest and smallest of scenes between Kat and Gale, serving as a reminder of humanity's ability to dream and aspire for a better world. Each shot set in District 12 is delightful, sombre chills run through every vein as you are enraptured in fear and anxiety. The build up to and throughout the reaping is tense and nauseating, interactions with Kat and her sister are filmed so preciously. Sound is well utilised through the overdrawn run-time, music is allowed to overrun and dominate, drowning out the world perfectly and symbolically. An example that comes to mind concerning the sound is when Kat offers herself up, her screaming juxtaposed against the silence sets her out from the rest, nailing her on as the protagonist we will all route for. Selfless.

This was Jennifer Lawrence's big break in the public eye, she left a good impression. Portrayed with care, Katniss is delicately played when is necessary but can easily surge with passion when needed. Reminiscent of an indie film portrayal, Jennifer showcases her range and hits all the marks, and you, in all the right places.

Hunger Games starts off brilliantly, it's exhilarating and tense, filled with subtlety. Has a terrific lead performance that powers you through. It's weighed down by an underwhelming narrative, that's evened out with an enjoyable character arc. Sadly it gets wrapped up in it itself, losing its awareness of how sick a situation this is, and rather than point it out, chooses to accept the societal issues, it so cleverly addressed in the beginning. We then drift and chunder toward the inevitable ending.

Nevertheless I'd quite happily re-watch the first act, but would have no qualms with skipping the rest.

It's a solid piece of film-making.

The hunger game is a game that everyone is not willing to participate in.

In this killing game with no humanity, no rules, and no shame, the purpose of the game is just to make people forget to resist and lose their humanity.

One of the most important rules of the hunger game is: only one survives.

This man returned Yijin to the "privilege, wealth, reputation, prosperity" that the poor compatriots in his hometown envied.

Every game, everyone will watch. In the process of watching, everyone is immersed in it.

At this moment there must be countless ideas in their hearts. But under the guns of the army and under the huge screen, there is no way to show ideas.

Paying attention to the game itself is the only correct expression.

What is suppressed is human nature Many people expressed their desire to live according to their own wishes, and they did not want to be a pawn at their disposal. They are normal human beings with thoughts, humanity and desires, not desperate hunting machines.

It's just that in the end, either look at the distance or choose to die. A certain area can't stand it, it's a riot. They were greeted by repression, slaughter, bloodbath, and company.

In the game, the last deceased thinks he understands the rules of the game before dying and thinks the winner is the default. In fact, the outcome of the game does not matter to the president.

This supreme commander doesn't care who the dead person is or whoever wins. The only thing he was afraid of was surprise, surprise, and people 's emotions beyond control, their yearning for silencer, and their resistance to bondage.

Overall it is great to see the novel brought to life on the big-screen. First of all, kudos to the actors - each does a marvelous job with their roles. Harrelson, Lawrence, Hutchinson, Tucci, Banks and the rest of the cast - they all nail their characters and do them honor.

The heart of the story is intact, unfortunately there are many significant elements from the novel entirely missing, or changed to the point they lose the depth of meaning they were intended to have. Unlike some of the sub-plot and story elements left out of the Potter and LOTR series, these missing and adulterated items matter greatly, and lessen the quality of the movie. I will give the producers credit for building Seneca Crane's role in an effective way that answers many questions for those that have not read the books.

Finally - production values. You will suffer significant eyestrain after 2.5 hours of glaring close-ups. All of the action is shot so close and is so muddled it is almost impossible to determine what is happening. The chariot display is shown either to close or too far away, and in both cases so fast that the impact of the glorious entrance and introduction of the tributes is lost. The CG shots (thankfully there are few of them) look like leftovers from a Syfy channel production. This may be the worst big-budget production to hit the big screen in years. Although Ross worked well with the actors, he did not handle the action epic elements well at all. The cinematography is atrocious and the whole production looks cheap.

You will enjoy the movie, but you will also wish for the grand and respectful care-taking that was given the Potter and Lord of the Rings franchises.

There was a great deal of hype and fuss when The Hunger Games came out as a film and perhaps I should have known I was not target audience because up till then I had never heard of the book series (or indeed that a film was being made). Although with the usual hoopla that goes with any large film, quite a few critics I respect gave it surprisingly good reviews and I decided I would check it out at some point as it seemed to offer more than just a copy of Battle Royale for American teenagers. With all the fuss (and teenage audience) I was very happy to let it go by in the cinemas and instead I waited for the DVD.

The film offers a lot of potential and this potential is evident from the start because it sets out its stall to be many things. Firstly there is plenty of room for satire by virtue of this exaggerated futuristic world where this annual murder is presented as both entertainment and also as a way of punishing the masses and keeping them in their place while those with the power enjoy the best of life. Secondly there is the opportunity to draw the audience into being a viewer of this very thing and then confronting us with the horror of what it really means so that there is at least a part of us questioning what we're finding entertaining. I wasn't looking for this to be some incredibly dark film that spits out an audience full of self-loathing and introspection, but I did expect it to be intelligent and impacting on some level to make it stand out from being just a teen-friendly adventure story.

The film itself surprised me by falling far short of what it could have been and squandering or ignoring most of the things of the potential it had. In terms of the satire, it never convinced me of the world it had created – it seemed unnecessarily excessive and didn't have enough truth to it to make me believe. I got the impression that it wasn't particularly interested in making the world function as a real place either – just that it was on screen was enough. As a place for commentary or digs at real things, it wasn't that it picked easy targets or easy shots, it was more a matter of it not really having much interest in saying anything beyond a few very basic things. This is a problem not only because it wasted potential but also because the first hour or so of this film is entirely in this world.

The second hour is within the games itself and as such it does have dramatic moments as one would expect (it is after all, an expensive Hollywood thriller), however these are fewer than I would have liked and also a lot less impacting – I watched most of it with a removal that I shouldn't have had. The delivery of children violently murdering other is only horrifying in regards how sanitised and unhorrific it is. I wasn't looking for it to be really gory or to revel in the blood, but it certainly should not have been something that I watch without any reaction. This lack of horror (even just emotional horror) leaves the game as a rather hollow affair which eventually turns into a standard thriller where we root for the "good" kids over the "bad" kids, even though it would have been stronger to have not drawn that very easy line.

The performances are mostly solid even though the majority have little to work with. Lawrence is a good actress and she adds a weight to her character tat doesn't seem to come from anywhere but her. I liked her throughout – even terrible "fire" special effects seemed unable to make her look bad. The supporting cast aren't able to bring as much as her to the table – even though there are plenty of big names here. The majority of the other children are carefully cast and given exits from the story that befits the easy-road approach to the plot.

I wasn't sure what to expect from this film but I was surprised to find that the words sanitised, safe and standard were the ones that kept going through my mind considering I was watching a globally successful satire that uses the murder of children by other children as its core plot. As it is The Hunger Games comes off as a lot of ideas that have been done better elsewhere and any teeth it may have had are all smoothed down and buffed into a consumer friendly product that will undoubtedly become a smash franchise – my only hope is that the next film can deliver some of its promise and not just churn out something as safe, generic and frankly unmemorable as this one.

Wow, what an adrenaline rush! I was so impressed with this film that I created an account just so I could review it. I'm from Hawaii and I managed to catch a early screening of the movie. First off let me start by saying that I have read all three books, and I must admit that the trailer made me a bit hesitant. I mean in the trailer they didn't get the little details right (for instance Katniss's backpack is suppose to be orange and it isn't) but that didn't stop me from seeing the movie, and it SHOULD NOT stop you either! The movie followed the books as closely as a "PG-13" rating would allow, and the things they did change didn't distract from the overall movie.

I don't want to say too much, but this movie is a magnificent start to what I hope will be an epic trilogy. The actors/actresses are wonderfully cast and their performances are extremely convincing. Not to mention that there is plenty of suspense and action to keep you glued to the screen (even if you've already read the books!)

Now I now it's difficult to watch a movie when you've already read the books. People already have preconceived notions about who the actors/actresses should have been, what the setting should look like, or how the plot should unfold. But I promise you, the movie does the book PLENTY of justice. My advice would be to enter the theatre with a big bag of popcorn and an open mind...just make sure it's ready to be blown!

Okay, you may not believe me, or even call me a simple liar, but I was brought by some friends of mine to a special screening of "The Hunger Games" in an almost-hidden Mondoplex here in Hawaii. I read the books and I saw the trailer, I thought it looked a little boring, but then...I saw the movie. TO be honest, I wanted to see it twice. It is certainly the 2nd. best movie I've ever seen in my life! The acting was superb, realistic and meagerly emotional. The fights were, ha-ha, super violent and action-packed and I'll tell you: THERE WILL BE BLOOD! Yet, this is an awesome movie, with lots of special effects and lots of combat sequences, that just kept me on the border of my seat. Really, 9.9/10. It is really 142 mins. long but you will be unprepared for this masterpiece and you will be entertaine whatsoever!

We literally have a simple winner. THE HUNGER GAMES is one of the most irresistible, epic, beautiful, suspenseful and iconic masterpiece that will surely not let you down at any point! Instead of watching another cheesy vampire/human romance and investing money on the same, old crap of the usuality, go for this!

I am referring to the audience watching. Because the original Battle Royale (japanese movie) with a similar theme, was more of an adult version of this movie right here. Having said that, the idea is so good it translates to the screen, even if it is watered down a bit. Plus I was just enjoying the girls moaning and exhaling in general while watching this and finding romance even in the weirdest of situations. Throw in Lenny Kravitz, Elizabeth Banks and the always reliable Stanley Tucci for some acting/weirdness weight and you got yourself a movie.

Apparently though the movie has not covered everything the novel had to offer (which should be no surprise). What should be a surprise to anyone who was living outside the US, is the fact, that this was one of the most anticipated movies in recent history (though I'm more than happy that The Avengers beat them at the total box office of course). Better drama, story and acting than Twilight, hopefully it stays that way and won't dwindle down the road ...

Addressing the concerns of violence in The Hunger Games movie: The acts of compassion outshine the acts of violence. Also, the message of persevering through something so tragic, and being the spark of hope that eventually surpasses fear, is a great message for kids -- as well as, good verses evil. If you talk to your children about life and how cruel people can be, and to try and be a good role model for compassion, they will understand this movie. As the old cliché goes "the book is better than the movie." -- not so in all cases, but in this, it's true. I have to say, they did a good job with this one -- being that it was written in a first person narration, it was pretty close to the novel, and truly captured the essence of the tragic tale. As usual, with every novel that has been adapted into a screenplay, there will be some changes and some things left out in the making of the film. But, overall I was pleased with this movie. Before anyone critiques it, they should see it, as well as read the books. This movie has been criticized for its violent content -- but, kids today are actually exposed to much worse through TV, movies, video games, music, etc...as well as the DAMAGING doses of sex being slipped into every form of entertainment we're exposed to in our society. We should educate our children with the knowledge of how blessed they are to be living in a free nation such as ours -- instead of places like the Sudan, where people are suppressed, terrorized, starved, and slaughtered, everyday. There is a huge difference in trying to keep your child's innocence intact, compared with keeping them naive to the cruelties of mankind. Also, if you've ever read the famous works of The Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen, and other greats, you'll know that many stories written have exposed children to such good and evil of this world...providing many with a moral to the story. Movies such as Harry Potter, The Chronicles of Narnia, The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, etc...have their share of battles that contain a measure of violence as well -- as so with The Hunger Games, they too, were forced to fight what was evil. I believe, if at all possible, in taking the negative and turning into a positive. The heroin in this story, was able to do that -- as she's a much better role model than most kids have on TV.

Also, there are those who're comparing The Hunger Games to a 1999 Japanese novel, Battle Royale. Both novels are great reads in their own right -- don't knock either one of them until you read them both. The stories are completely different as with the characters. The only similarity is the tragic tale of kids being forced to fight to the death with only one survivor aloud to live -- all for the totalitarian purpose of terrorizing and suppressing the nation's populous with its life threatening methods of control, fear-mongering, and propaganda. In Battle Royale: The kids are all of the same age (9Th grade), they are gassed on a bus during a school field trip, kidnapped, and then taken to an island "School" as part of a military research project called the "Program". These students, from a single class, are isolated and are required to fight the other members from their class to the death, allowing only one survivor to live. In The Hunger Games: The Dictator, President Snow, demands a National "Reaping" of two kids, one boy and one girl, between the ages of 12 and 18, taken from their home districts to the Capital and calling them "Tributes", then forcing them to fight to the death in an unknown arena with only one survivor aloud to live. Two completely different plots, but two very good reads. I could go further into detail about each book, but I'm sure you get the gist of it. I highly recommend that both are read with an open mind, especially for those who are so critical without reading them first.

When I read the first critic reviews that sprang up I didn't see anything out of the ordinary for a book to movie adaptation; Characters were omitted, characters weren't developed as well as the books, plot points were dropped, etc.

I knew this going in, and as I said fairly predictable for an adaption. However what most reviews missed, including the esteemed Ebert, was the I hope Zenith of what David Bordwell calls intensified continuity, a narrative trend towards quick cuts, hand-held cameras, and camera movement. A great example would be the third Bourne movie where there were reports of people throwing up in the theaters, with an average shot length of under 3s.

The Hunger Games lacks the clarity of the Bourne film in terms of framing though. As I said, expected the story to have trouble with fidelity, but I was always hopeful that at the very least I would be able to SEE a beloved series in live action.

Instead, all I can really remember were a few master shots, some blurry trees and Jennifer Laurence's face. They make up 90% of the 2,500 plus shots in the film. All the action, probably for PG-13 rating, is so closely framed and quickly cut that any comprehension of who is actually doing what to who is retarded.

I hear Ross is on for Part 2, so I just rented Battle Royale, and hopefully that can salvage my disappointment. I will say I thought the Trailer was really cool, and the few times you do see Panem, the costumes and make up were spot on. No real complaints with the actors either, they did the best with the screen time they had, even if most of their emotions are unjustifiable without having read the book because the film makes no effort to explain or validate whats going on.