The Hunger Games: Movie of the Year, or Slow-Starting Time-Waster? - Comments

This was a really nice review. I thought the anecdotal information was a nice touch (and also provided a bit of a disclaimer to readers – letting them know that your view may have been a bit shaded by all the hype and the fact that you went into it already deciding that you didn’t enjoy the novel).

I liked that this review wasn’t just a rave but included information about parts you didn’t enjoy (like the slow start). I would have liked to have seen more information on the film’s plot. Without that information, some of the things you mention would probably be confusing for those unfamiliar with the book/movie (usually reviews are read by people who haven’t yet seen the film and would like to know a little more). And, as a reviewer, I think it would be better if your stance on the film was clearer – at the end, I couldn’t tell if you were really recommending it or if you didn’t really like it; there was a lot of flip-flopping between opinions.

Overall, though, nice review.

Like you, I didn't finish the book. I wanted to read it, but I just didn't have time. So I went ahead and watched the movie with my friends, who ridiculed me for being a heartless "book-skipper".

I was generally impressed with how easy the story was to follow even though I didn't read the book. The acting was great, the visuals were pretty good, and it had a pretty strong screenplay. I don't, however, think it was an AMAZING movie. Good? Yes. Incredible? Eh.

Honestly, I loved the books. I thought they were pretty good. Not incredible, but good. In regards to the movie, well I was really disappointed. I was really hyped up for it. Maybe it was all the attention it got; how the media wouldn't stop talking about it- I don't know. For a good 4 months before it came out, I was so excited to see it. But about half-way through the movie, I was about ready to get up and walk out of the freaking movie theatre. They centered the movie on the Romance. The freaking Romance. In my opinion, it is not a Romance. I was excited to see the action. The killing. The blood. The rebelliousness of Katniss. The frustrating feelings towards the Capital. The violence. Did I mention the killing? But nope, it was centered around the Love Triangle. Don't get me wrong- I love me a good romance story, but I don't believe that's what the book was about. Maybe that's just me. I think the movies and the books are overrated. Anyways, tl;dr.

Thank you so much. (:

(I'm a judge for the artcile contest!)

I think the thing about the movie was that yes, it was good, but what made it epic for most people was the books. If you loved the books, the movie was well-done enough for any book lover to go nuts over it (just like I did!) But I'll have to agree that if you weren't a fan of the books, the movie was just a good movie, and not movie of the year. I adored it, though.

Your article is very well-written. I saw no spelling or grammar mistakes at all.

I read the books first and thought both had a slow start (I still enjoyed it. It was slow but not excruciating or anything), however that beginning is the basic foundation for the whole series and if you continue with Catching Fire and Mockingjay, you'll be thankful for that slow beginning in the first one. I thought the movie was really well done, especially in terms of book-t0-film adaptation as well as cinematography and acting. It's not movie of the year but being a movie derived from a popular book series, of course it'll be highly anticipated and people will exaggerate. People do that with any movie that's highly anticipated. Everyone said The Avengers was the movie of the year, too. I don't think either are.

I have to say, though, that I believe the slow start was necessary. It really is important to the overall trilogy plot. You have to be able to see Katniss and Prim's relationship and Katniss and Gale's relationship. Otherwise, the movies to follow would make less sense. It was definitely well written and well cast, however.

I agree with asteroid's first paragraph. I was reading it before most of the news about the movie got out, and the first one who noticed was my reading teacher, and I lent her the books as I read them. It was all we would talk about and she'd even talk to me in the middle of class while we were working on a paper. I honestly didn't think it was boring in the beginning. I like reading about my character's atmosphere and living the experience. After all, that's what books are for, right? To give you unforgettable experiences? To hieghten your imagination in a way math never can?

I love The Hunger Games trilogy, but I have to admit the movie wasn't the best.
I think most people just hyped it up because it was a "big deal".

I think the first movie did have to be quite slow moving though, because even the book is.
It's hard to set up an entire society in the future and include lots of fast paced action.

I agree with you overall though. Although good, The Hunger Games movie isn't as good as everyone claims it to be.

I agree. I saw the movie before I read the books, and I think the first is just about setting up the atmosphere of a time hundreds of years in the future. The overall trilogy plot is amazing, though.

There's nothing wrong with the movie. It's solid entertainment. But for people who need drama, action, and entertainment every second of the movie, it will disappoint. Fans of this movie need patience for the Games to start.