Los juegos del hambre

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.

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.

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.

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'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.