17.

Rating: 3/10 (13 March 2014)

The Hunger Games, both film and novel have garned massive attention and fandom, was it really worth it though? I think not. I understand movies are fun and adventurous, but they are also harrowing, emotional and riveting. What Hunger Games was supposed to be in the book, was not on the screen. The novel, also written for teens and an audience with a certain limited vocabulary, fell victim to plain and tasteless, everything. So was the Hunger Games doomed from the start? The idea, though used before, had a its own twist of use.
The Hunger Games is set in the near future in the Americas, now divided into poverty stricken nations where the right hand and flamboyant aristocrats of the Citedel nation act like baying Roman crowds and demand a yearly penance for the other nations uprising. The penance? Each nation selects 2 representatives in a cruel lottery of bloodsport, called The Reaping. The 'lucky' selectees are transported to the Citedal to represent their districts to fight each other to the death where one may only win.
Pretty cool idea but with poor penmanship and even worse directing the idea and the emotional drive was sapped of the film. We are offered completely useless scenes that could have only been supported by other plots and focus but were removed, forcing the film to its knees. Roo's death was useless and lacking complete emotion. The whole idea of starving, seething districts was made redundant with no screen time and the bittersweet romance between Katniss and Peta was superficial and cosmetic. I give The Hunger Games a 3/10 as it was faithless to the novel and as a film.