When you want a film with a violent premise to have impact, you show more, not less. Diluting the violence in works like this are a disservice, because the audience that they're aimed at (re: prepubescent teens) are not shown the consequences of violent actions, thus reinforcing that age-old sense of immortality that young teens have.

I think this movie in particular shows the violence very clear without being gory that it is not good and a despised act indeed of a decadent society in a post apocalypse world. I enjoyed this film very much as I enjoy the current Stars Spartacus series with all its very detailed violence scenes but make not mistake The Hunger games has broader appealing to me as far acting and the plot itself. The point is that showing the gory part in this film would have made a movie ratings only for adults which clearly is not the main audience here

I get that the book and film are aimed at a younger audience, so I understand why the violence is shown as it was. I just don't agree with it.

I actually disagree that the violence is important. When reading a book the violence and gore factor are just not really that important. It is just there, part of the games, and part of life. What is highlighted in the book is the choices made. The choices to subdue a population and keep them in control. The ridiculousness of what the people in the Capitol worry about compared to District 12. The absurdity of the amount of preening and stuff that is done to the tributes just for 23 of them to go die. And then in the games the decision to kill. It is not easy for Katniss to take a life, and the first one she takes has nothing to do with gore and more to do with her acceptance of what she will have to do in these games. In the book we are not even really present at the bloodbath at the Cornocopia, and that would presumably be one of the more violent scenes. Violence has its place in movies and I love watching violent movies, but I also do not think every movie needs to have violence. I just do not think the core of this story is hampered by exclusion of gore.

James you said that they played the romance up a bit, the one thing I am not sure how they will get across which I will see tonight is that much of her understanding of her relationship with Peeta is through thoughts that are shared in the book. Last time I checked giant bubbles on the screen with thoughts would look kind of stupid but knowing what she is thinking and feeling is important to the story, especially going into book 2.

It's about showing consequences in films that feature a violent premise, as this one obviously does. For example, good war films do not dilute the violence, because part of sending the anti-war message is in showing exactly what sort of unpleasant things can happen to soldiers during battles. A film like Saving Private Ryan is brilliant in this regard- it holds nothing back, so people get to see exactly how much war can really suck for those who participate in it.

Now, while I agree that showing younger people this sort of thing should be tempered, I don't agree that diluting the impact of violent scenes in a film that features a violent premise is the way to go about it. When Katniss makes the choice to take a life for the first time, showing the gore and full effect of the violent act would have put more weight on that decision and increased the scene's impact on the audience.

I have not read the books [and have no intention to], but what I have read from the reviews, this movie will be un-watchable for me … even on cable. Not sure how the makers of this film managed the death of adolescents [on the screen, to get less than an NC-17 rating; showing them naked on screen would have been a criminal offense; killing them on screen: PG-13] fighting each other.

Frankly, I want no part of it or its taint to my soul.

Because the movie (in the books is better developed) is way more than killing teenagers on screen that's why!

There is an interesting article on Forbes of what we can learn from the Hunger Games

http://www.forbes.com/sites/francesbrid ... ger-games/

I particularly do not see any problem in you reading the book or watching the movie to make your opinion with the facts in hand.

When the first Harry Potter book came out, the library of the Christian school where my daughter was attending banned it from their library and my daughter wanted to read it because the hype so I bought the book and read it first myself (to know what was about it) before to give it to her to decide whether she could read or not or even read it after I provided some parental guidance which I did. The only thing I can say back then that I did not get hooked myself in reading more of the Harry Potter series myself lol (although I saw 2 or 3 related films)

I just finished "Catching Fire" and going to start the last book of the Hunger Games series soon

IMHO, posting a discontinuous diatribe in response to another poster, is no way to go through life.

I found Hunger Games (the movie) to be very disappointing, bordering on snooze fest. Right now I'd say one and a half stars out of four. From the beginning to the end it's a hyper-calculated cash grab. It never takes any risks, and there is a distinct lack of purpose or vision. The movie adaptation never finds its own voice, its content to copy material badly from the books rather than make changes to create a better movie (that would require creativity and insight.) That's why the movie goes over 2 hours long and there are tons of small clips showing random parts from the books. The changes it does make are to make the romance more treacly and prominent as to draw in Twilight fans. The violent aspects of the movie are played down super hard (to get a Pg-13 rating) and one death scene, which was a huge emotional moment in the book, is almost laughable here in how poorly its portrayed I agree with one of the above posters, downplaying the violent aspect is a complete disservice and much more inappropriate than showing the violence on screen. Battle Royale didn't look fun. In Hunger Games it seems the director is trying very hard to make it appear fun.

I like the way James brought up the comparison with Battle Royale
In my view if your main appealing for these type of movies relies in only seen the teenagers kill or being killed in a gory way then Battle Royale is the film to watch not The Hunger Games. Now, if you want a plot way deeper than that and like action/drama/science fiction then give a go to The Hunger games.
By the way, I think the HG book is slighter better than the movie as the characters are more developed and you can read Katniss thoughts but the film was a decent/good adaptation by Ross and Collins (the author) and I particularly loved Jennifer Lawrence acting
If you have not realised by now, I loved this film I think that rocks!!

IMO, I like the movie, but the first half is better than the second half, because the shaky-cam is more suited to the world-building section (giving grittiness to it) than the action one. I am a fan of the books, and I thought the way the game is portrayed loosened its impact. I don't mean that it has to be rated R, because The Dark Knight shows that you can have a movie that feels very violent and has impact and consequences with PG-13. But the director instead chooses to shake the camera so much that frustration gives in. One very sad scene in the game has its impact solely from Jennifer Lawrence's performance, because the director downplayed the helplessness and desperation from the content in the book.

If they still continue with this style of evasive directing, they're gonna have a problem with the third book. That is the book that, similar to the last Harry Potter, you have a feeling anything and anyone can go. And the last third of the book is shocking and leaves me emotionally drained (in a good way) when finished. So I hope before that book they found aother way to water down the rating without watering down the content if they are going to do it justice at all.

PS. I just found out that they are going to split the last book into two movies, because it's the same studio that also did the same thing with Twilight and they're just greedy that way. Kind of pissed about it.

I must have seen a different movie today than a few of you watched. The violence was quite realistic and didn't seem neutered to me at all. I think anything more would have seemed too over the top. At NO point did it seemed to be making killing look "fun". Any of the characters that got enjoyment out of it were detested and shown as cold hearted killers.

I am a little disappointed Rue wasn't fleshed out more like she was in the book, but overall a good adaptation as far as i'm concerned.

Alright, just got back from seeing this. I really enjoyed it, I thought the movie looked great and I thought it was well-acted. Of course, people are harping on Jennifer Lawrence being so good and deservedly so....but I think it's a great dis-service to the rest of the cast who also did rather well. As for the shaky-cam, it's not too bothersome cause the editing isn't quick a good portion of the time but there a couple instances of it.

-The opening bloodbath when the games begin is where the shaky-cam/quick cuts really come into play but I get that from a storytelling perspective. Because it is chaos, it is frantic and you don't really get what's going on besides you're not dead yet. That I really get.

-The final fight between Katniss/Peeta/Cato doesn't quite work in the same way because it's dark and Peeta & Cato look damn near identical.

But other than that, the shaky-cam isn't too bad.

As for the violence, I think it deals with it the same way the book did. It's there, it's bloody and not-fun but it doesn't dwell on the violence....it's kinda matter-of-fact like the book in that "Oh, that guy has a knife in his back" type of thing.

And I really enjoyed that movie expanded the book's scope and we saw the inner workings and all the behind-the-scenes stuff and the commentary. Hell, the behind-the-scenes stuff was utterly fascinating and I want to see a Hunger Games story from the Gamemakers perspective.

And then there a few changes that irked me:

-The greatest of which is the complete non-factor of Rue. Sure Rue is a morality pet who gets killed to show that this SHIT IS REAL! But in the book Rue had a story, had sympathy and a personality. The movie showcases none of that BUT there is one bad-ass moment in the film:



The climax:



And this, this will probably make no sense if you just seen the movie and not read the book and you might think "Oh, he's just nit-picking and his diapie smells like poop because of this!" That may be true but:



That's my thoughts on it....really good entertainment.

I agree whole heartedly on both fronts.

Older folks: Please don't let the fact that teenagers flocked to Hunger Games opening day put you off. This is not some loopy horror movie. I'm old enough to be their grandparent, I've just seen it, and it's a dynamite film. Check out James's review (and the Metacritic site, to see concurring opinions by other major critics).

I joined the squealing tweens this weekend to view a serviceable retelling of the book that has given us a good film that could have been great. Jennifer Lawrence gives a wonderful performance but a hero/heroine is only as good as the villain they overcome. Don’t get me wrong, villains abound in the film and of course there is more to come in the future installments but for this film to work on its own I would have preferred a more powerful villain even if this required a deviation from the book. I know, heresy, just one guy’s opinion.

I noticed the only dolly grip credited is for the 2nd camera unit and don’t know if this is a tell or not but I was distracted by the shaky-cam, quick pans and sometimes focus free zooms. This is not reserved for just the action scenes as I noticed that even the crowd scenes at the Reaping were done with a handheld camera. I don’t normally dwell on such things but for me it works as a distraction from the storytelling not an enhancement.

I don’t want this to sound too negative as I am pretty easy to please if I’ve enjoyed my time in the theater and this I did. It is rare when a movie can equal one’s own imagination and therefore I can’t fault this one for falling a bit short of my own. At late March it is the best film I’ve seen this year and here’s hoping there are even better ones to come.

For better and for much worse, as the world gets more and more protective of children, movies like this seem to serve singular purposes. To give adults an outlet for their own retarded aggression, and to give kids a warped sense of strength and maturity.

There really isn't one minute of this movie that didn't disgust me. I'm not sure how much I want to get into this with anyone, cause I just don't have the stomach for the argument, but I have to say my reaction to this movie was anything but positive.

On my list for top 10 worst movies of the year, if not the decade.

Perhaps you should post your concerns about the film on either the Movie discussion or the Other(General) discussion board.

Why?