Mixed reviews for THE HUNGER GAMES

[Borstalboy]

"The patchwork of “The Hunger Games” never really holds together or makes any sense, except as an elementary fairy tale about a young girl’s coming of age and an incipient romantic triangle (which is the focus of the film, far more than the book). In Collins’ novel, the first-person narration and Katniss’ intense physical and psychological struggle seize center stage and overwhelm the threadbare situation, at least to some degree. Ross’ movie version — co-written by him, Collins and Billy Ray — is probably adequate to satisfy hardcore fans, but only just. It’s a hash job that offers intriguing moments of social satire and delightful supporting performances, but subsumes much of the book’s page-turning drama to sub-“Twilight” teen romance. Of course it will make a zillion dollars opening weekend, but I’m not convinced this franchise will be as ginormous, in the long run, as Hollywood hopes."
Salon.com review here

[MotorTink]

but I’m not convinced this franchise will be as ginormous, in the long run, as Hollywood hopes."


I don't think they are the greatest books ever but I really enjoyed them. And that was over a year ago. The amount of people i know who have borrowed my books sense and have become obsessed with all aspects of the upcoming movie.... I think it will be as big of a blockbuster. I think the darker material helps it reach more adults that arent into the normal harry Potter/Twilight fold already. hell, even my dad was interested in possibly checking the books out. And he is as Archie Bunker-like as they come!

[beautywickedlover]

An article on Yahoo actually says it got pretty good first reviews:

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/hunger-games-movie-inspires-good-early-reviews-223152800.html

[StockardFan]

My son makes me change the channel every time the commercial comes on......LOL

[MrMidwest]

Dave Poland's review is interesting:

"Simply, it does not have the courage of its conceit. Not for a minute."
Poland on HG

[JP2]

91% on RT.

[Mister Matt]

Focusing on the love story for the first film actually makes sense to me if they want the second to be interesting. The biggest problem I had with the books was that the second was almost a photocopy of the first. Focusing on the love story in the first will allow for better contrast introducing the more political aspects of the second.

Of course, I haven't seen it yet and it could be a mess and I may have their intentions all wrong.

[themysteriousgrowl]

It's got a high overall aggregate on RT, but many of the "positive" reviews come with a host of qualifiers.

[Mister Matt]

I only pay attention to the Top Critics on RT, but even that is still at 82%. I do find it depressing that of the top 10 box office films this week, 9 of them received "rotten" ratings.

[themysteriousgrowl]

Yes, Matt, I noticed that, too. I was just pointing out the inherent problem with aggregates that divide reviews binarily. Even the 82% Top Critics' reviews aren't all glowing. Theoretically, a movie could have a 100% from Top Critics and 100% overall and there not be a rave among them. That's all I was saying. I'm very curious to see the movie, myself.

And, yeah, that string of B.O. is really depressing. It is that time of year, though!

[Mister Matt]

Oh, I totally understood what you were saying. I just don't hold much stock in the total aggregate of "All Critics". Too many blogs and fringe publications. I just appreciate getting a general sense of the Top Critics and then go into the reviews later if it catches my interest. It's rare that anything gets a full-on rave. Most critics don't consider themselves critics unless they're criticizing something and let's face it, this is another teen fantasy franchise. These reviews are practically Oscar bait compared to Twilight.

[Taryn]

I think a better indicator is the average rating right under the RT percentage. For top critics, it's 7.4/10.

[JP2]

"I think a better indicator is the average rating right under the RT percentage. For top critics, it's 7.4/10"

And that, too me, is pretty solid. It's rare that a film scores an 8/10 on RT, much less a 9.

[winston89]

I feel like there is going to be a lot of comparison between Hunger Games, Twilight and Potter. All three are books that were popular with the young adult demographic and all have had the hollywood treatment. However, I think that The Hunger Games is somewhere between the two. Potter was a book that was rather well written and had a sense of maturity about it both in how it was presented on screen and they way the books were written.

I feel that Twilight was successful because its drama was on par with the kind of story lines one might see in a teen drama on The CW. Not something that adults would go for but at the same time something that the teenage girls went crazy for.

Hunger Games, is something that is far from as well written as Harry Potter. But, the books are accessible to people of different demographics. I can think of many adults who are reading/wanting to read The Hunger Games. Same thing with Harry Potter. However, I can't think of a single adult that wanted to read Twilight. Hunger Games is a series that has attracted people of varying ages and has aspects of it that appeal to different people. Some may be into the romance story. Others may find the story of The Capitol and its control to be more entertaining.

I think that if they didn't feel that this movie would be a hit from the get go. Then they wouldn't have announced that the film adaptation of Catching Fire (book 2) is scheduled to come out the fall of next year. This is one series that doesn't have to worry about critics. Besides which. Between Hunger Games, Potter and Twilight. I feel that this may lend itself better to the film treatment more than the other two. But ,we shall see. I am very much looking forward to the movie. But, at the same time, as someone that loved the book, I feel that there are going to be changes that may bug me. Sure, I will annoy it but I feel that the majority of the book lends itself so well to being on film that there shouldn't be the need for many major changes.

But, that is just me and we shall see. I am more angry over the fact that I can't see the film in a real IMAX theatre.

[EricMontreal22]

A I mentioned in the IMAX thread I won passes to see the press preview here last night. Overall I enjoyed it--I had some small issues (some were changes from the book, some were things that just didn't work as well),but... I'll be curious to hear what others think.

Metacritic which I trust (as far as I trust reviews) over Rotten Ts because it bases its comments more on the official reviews,and not fan blogs, etc, like RT has it currently at 72% out of 26 reviews which for an MT score is really very high. I would hardly call the reviews mixed...

(It sounds like Salon didn't enjoy the novel either all that much, which is fine--a movie should be reviewed on its own terms though I doubt this one really well, but...)

[EricMontreal22]

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-hunger-games

[trentsketch]

The reviews are mostly saying it's a good film. I've read enough to know that--fairly, I might add--the critics are evaluating The Hunger Games as a stand alone feature. They point out that there isn't a lot of context in the film for what's happening. The outside world and cause of the games kicks in during the second book.

The common factors in almost all the reviews (including the negative ones): Jennifer Lawrence and Stanley Tucci give great performances. Tucci plays the host of the games and apparently his role has been expanded to allow him to outclass the rest of the "adult" cast. Lawrence carries the bulk of the film and is captivating. Neither surprises me. The adult cast and Lawrence weren't the wild cards: the screenplay and other "child" roles were.

[YouWantitWhen????]

To echo what Trent said, the LA Times gave it a very good review, but RAVED about Lawrence.

[MrMidwest]

Jennifer on Letterman

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Lawrence has gotten raves across the board, it's a star-making performance from what it sounds like (and I thought she was brilliant in WINTER'S BONE but it's such a small movie I would call that more of a breakout role than a starmaking turn like this one). I hope she's ready to handle the kind of stardom that will come to her from this role, she always comes across as smart and prepared. I look forward to seeing her career evolve through the years.
Both Variety and Hollywood Reporter singled out Kravitz amongst the adults which I thought was interesting. I haven't read the books at all but I love Lawrence and can't wait to see the movie tomorrow!

[MotorTink]

There are a lot of articles out there about Jennifer and her views about the oncoming press stardom/obsession. She seems to have her head on her shoulders so far.

Outside Lawrence, I've seen most raves for Stanley Tucci, then Woody Harrelson and Lenny kravitz.

[beautywickedlover]

Last night the film made $19.7 million in midnight showings, which was the seventh highest midnight gross of all time and the highest midnight gross for a non-sequel film.
'The Hunger Games' earns a record-breaking $19.7 million at midnight screenings

[beautywickedlover]

The film made $68.25 million on its opening day, which was the highest opening day gross for a non-sequel film, breaking the record held by the Tim Burton version of 'Alice in Wonderland' ($40.8 million).

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3400&p=.htm

It's also on its way to breaking the record 'Alice in Wonderland's record for the highest opening weekend in March and the highest opening weekend for a non-sequel.

ETA: I won't be going this weekend. I'll post my thoughts another time.