The Hunger Games: Reviews rolling in

By Muhammad Farrukh
in The Media Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Muhammad Farrukh

Posted
Posted

If the early word is any indication, Hunger Games is no Twilight.

On the contrary, filmmaker Gary Ross' adaptation of the first entry in Suzanne Collins' postapocalyptic young adult series of novels is actually receiving high praise for, you know, actually being good as it chronicles the tale of 24 teenagers chosen by lottery to compete in an annual gladiatorial-like TV spectacle in which only one will survive.

Here's a quick roundup of some of the first critiques of The Hunger Games, which as of press time has earned a 98 percent "fresh" rating on film review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, though it's still too early for a complete consensus.

Todd McCarthy, chief critic for The Hollywood Reporter, lavished praise on star Jennifer Lawrence as 16-year-old archer Katniss Everdeen, whose illegal hunting skills help her survive in this sci-fi dystopia.

"As she did in her breakthrough film Winter's Bone, Jennifer Lawrence anchors this futuristic and politicized elaboration of The Most Dangerous Game with impressive gravity and presence, while director Gary Ross gets enough of what matters in the book up on the screen to satisfy its legions of fans worldwide," gushes McCarthy.

He noted, however, that since Lionsgate is marketing the flick as the next Twilight in order to harness the former's box office magic, the filmmakers aimed for a PG-13 rating, whereas "a film accurately depicting the events of the book would certainly carry an R."

"That said, Hunger Games has such a strong narrative structure, built-in forward movement and compelling central character that it can't go far wrong," McCarthy adds.

While acknowledging The Hunger Games will satisfy fans of the best-seller, Variety's Justin Chang suggested the mission to make it palatable to a PG-13 audience may have stripped the movie of some of its more subversive elements, notably the "morality of violence as entertainment and the brutality of pitting children against each other."

"What viewers are left with is a watchable enough picture that feels content to realize someone else's vision rather than claim it as its own. Any real sense of risk has been carefully ironed out: The PG-13 rating that ensures the film's suitability for its target audience also blunts the impact of the teen-on-teen bloodshed, most of it rendered in quick, oblique glimpses," writes Chang.

Here are a few more critics' takes:

? "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," opined TimeOut London.

? "Sadly, there's a sense of familiarity that The Hunger Games can't completely shake off. Recalling everything from Lord of the Flies to A.I. to The Running Man to the cult Japanese thriller Battle Royale, the movie feels more like a solidly crafted amalgam of disparate influences than a wholly original vision," offered Screen Daily.

? "Despite its well-worn ideas and themes, Gary Ross's provocative, pulse-surgingly tense adaptation couldn't feel fresher, or timelier," said London's Telegraph, delivering up some of the best raves. "The Hunger Games is an essential science fiction film for our times; perhaps the essential science fiction film of our times. Whatever your age, it demands to be devoured."

The Hunger Games unspools worldwide on March 23.

Source

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1064576-the-hunger-games-reviews-rolling-in/
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Yusuf M. Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Although I didn't like the trailer, it'd have to be really bad to be worse than the Twilight movies. I'm glad the reviews are good though. My younger brother is a huge fan and his taste in movies and novels is good. I'll read the books when I get the chance... but only after I see the movie.

Grand Master

Minifig

Posted
Posted

no its something worse. This is the kind of movies where the bitch, bitch and annoy the whole the movie and end winning the game. boring. Go away with your PG-13 and all the teen drama

Read the books. There will be no bitching from Katniss in this.

Proficient

furyshinobi

Posted
Posted

Just came home from watching The Hunger Games and I say it's pretty good. I haven't read the books yet since I found it a bit difficult to recognise some of the characters unless I ask my sister who they are. Jennifer Lawrence looks stunning in this film so that may be worth seeing

Mentor

S00N3R FR3AK

Posted
Posted

I enjoyed it, wasn't the movie event of the year but still a ok movie. I watched it wondering if all the 12 and 13 year old girls in my theater thought about how disturbing it was to watch kids kill kids in that manner. While it was not as gory it had its moments.

Grand Master

Joseph B

Posted
Posted

1) I hated the camera style, like... 2 seconds of scenery then 5 minutes of zooming in so close to the face you can see pores... It's like they were hiding something the entire movie

2) Partially related to 1), if you're going to have fight scenes... Zoom the **** out, so we can see more than blurs. ****ing ****.

3) Besides that, it did justice to the book. I really wish there was more narrative style to it, rather than using facial expressions to get what she is thinking across.

Grand Master

Muhammad Farrukh

Posted
  • Author
Posted

'Hunger Games' Sets Non-Sequel Midnight Record

The Hunger Games opened to an estimated $19.74 million at midnight, which ranks seventh all-time behind the last three Harry Potter and Twilight movies. It did score the top midnight debut ever for a non-sequel, and it earned more than twice as much as the first Twilight movie ($7 million).

If one is to use the opening pattern of Breaking Dawn Part 1 and New Moon (which also opened outside of the Summer), The Hunger Games would be poised for a three-day take between $90 and $110 million. Since those were sequels, though, it's probably fair to assume The Hunger Games will at least hold up a little bit better over the next few days.

There's also a very distant chance that its pattern winds up closer to that of The Dark Knight, which would mean a weekend gross of around $160 million; it's been nearly four years since that movie came out, though and midnight attendance patterns have changed significantly in that time.

Regardless, The Hunger Games is off to a fantastic start, and it still has a very legitimate shot at passing Alice in Wonderland's $116.1 million debut to set a new March and non-sequel opening weekend record.

Top 10 Midnight Openings

1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 - $43.5 million

2. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 - $30.3 million

3. The Twilight Saga: Eclipse - $30.1 million

4. The Twilight Saga: New Moon - $26.3 million

5. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 - $24 million

6. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - $22.2 million

7. The Hunger Games - $19.7 million

8. The Dark Knight - $18.5 million

9. Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith - $16.5 million

10. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - $16 million

Source

Grand Master

DirtyLarry Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

1) I hated the camera style, like... 2 seconds of scenery then 5 minutes of zooming in so close to the face you can see pores... It's like they were hiding something the entire movie

2) Partially related to 1), if you're going to have fight scenes... Zoom the **** out, so we can see more than blurs. ****ing ****.

3) Besides that, it did justice to the book. I really wish there was more narrative style to it, rather than using facial expressions to get what she is thinking across.

Yeah, the fight scenes were really, really just way to chaotic. I get the idea of making them that way stylistically, to emphasize that they are just confusion, but you literally could not tell what was going on.

So obviously with my comment above, I did just see the movie a few hours ago today at a 10am matinee. Was way more packed then I thought it would be, and someone literally peed in their chair. Like I am not kidding, you could hear the pee, and then there was a huge commotion. Whomever peed, their entire party just ran out of the theater in embarrassment almost instantly, and everyone sitting around them found new seats. It was just absolutely surreal to me. Someone did not want to get up so badly they literally ****ed themselves. :s

So went on opening weekend as my wife is actually a big fan of the books, so she really wanted to see it. She said she liked the movie a whole lot. Said it was pretty faithful to the book, although she did then point out to me a few things that were indeed different from the book, but nothing sounded severe. She did agree that as someone who read the book, the movie leaves out a whole, whole lot of details, and unless you read the books, it just does not explain how or why certain things happen.

I also have to say that the special effects were really pretty bad. Just all screamed low budget. For such a high profile movie release with this much hype, I expect the best special effects out there. But they truly were low budget.

I also felt the movie was a tad to long. I started to get fidgity and found myself losing interest here and there. They could have probably cut a good 20-30 minutes and the length would have been perfect.

So yeah, I am not really sure what the hype is all about as someone who has not read the books, but my wife who did read the books, really liked it. I thought it was a good movie, but not great.

3.5/5

Grand Master

Muhammad Farrukh

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Friday Report: 'Hunger Games' Kills With Fifth-Best Opening Day Ever

Building on a strong midnight launch, The Hunger Games had one of the best opening days ever at an estimated $68.25 million. That ranks fifth on the all-time list behind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 ($91.1 million), New Moon ($72.7 million), Breaking Dawn Part 1 ($71.6 million) and Eclipse ($68.5 million). It wound up slightly ahead of The Dark Knight ($71.6 million), and also topped Alice in Wonderland ($40.8 million) to set a new record for a non-sequel.

The Hunger Games looks even more impressive when subtracting its $19.74 million midnight gross?throughout normal business hours, the movie earned $48.5 million, which is actually more than Deathly Hallows Part 2 made in that time ($47.57 million). In fact, The Hunger Games only ranks behind Spider-Man 3 ($49.8 million) and The Dark Knight ($48.7 million) in non-midnight opening day grosses.

The Hunger Games received a strong "A" CinemaScore, and should finish the weekend with anywhere from $135 million to $160 million.

It may be hard to believe, but there were actually other movies in theaters on Friday. Last weekend's winner 21 Jump Street fell 53 percent to an estimated $6.25 million, which brought its eight-day total to a very solid $56 million (right on par with Jonah Hill's Superbad). The Lorax also had a steep decline, falling 53 percent to $3.2 million for a total of $167.4 million. The movie that was hit hardest by The Hunger Games, though, was John Carter?the sci-fi epic shed some screens and plummeted 66 percent to an estimated $1.36 million. It's now made $58.7 million, and has absolutely no chance of closing anywhere near the $100 million mark.

In sixth place, abortion drama October Baby opened to an estimated $605,000 from 390 locations. The movie was briefly released last October and earned $199,442 before being picked up by Samuel Goldwyn Films for this more substantial release.

Source

Proficient

soumyasch

Posted
Posted

Wasn't violent enough :( :p

Hated the camera work. Don't know what they were aiming for, a first-person style view or what. It was zoomed so close in to the actress' face that nothing else was visible. Didn't get any idea of the scale or grandeur or terror or anything of the tournament. Also not enough violence was shown (may be I was expecting it to take it from where Condemned left off, even though Condemned was a pretty low hanging fruit :p). Plus the movie was too long. The games didn't start at all till about mid-way. The other contestant didn't have their personalities etched out enough to be terrified or, or empathised with or anything else. They could have as easily been faceless and nameless without any screen time and nothing would have been missing from the movie. In all, pretty boring.

Explorer

theDUD3

Posted
Posted

Wasn't violent enough :( :p

Hated the camera work. Don't know what they were aiming for, a first-person style view or what. It was zoomed so close in to the actress' face that nothing else was visible. Didn't get any idea of the scale or grandeur or terror or anything of the tournament. Also not enough violence was shown (may be I was expecting it to take it from where Condemned left off, even though Condemned was a pretty low hanging fruit :p).

the zooms, blurs and haziness is to soften the raw violence of the book for the early-teen demographic, larger age demographic only means more money for the studios. how i wish studios would release 2 versions of movies a PG rated version for teens/kids and a R rated for adults so we don't have to watch these watered-down movies.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing