No, It Wasn't *THAT* Good!

Rating: 1/10 (20 April 2013)

So why is this movie so incredibly popular? Is it *that* good?
No, actually. Not at all.
First of all, this stuff is neither new, nor original. "The Running Man" has a similar concept, but it's actually more believable. "Battle Royale" is basically exactly the same movie, but it's also more realistic. This is some twisted interpretation of "Big Brother".
No, it wasn't *awful*, but, for such an over-hyped movie, with such a huge budget, and such a high rating... I did expect more.
Maybe you have to have read the book (which the movie is based on) to understand it properly, but, since I haven't, I didn't quite get the whole idea behind "Hunger Games". It is implied that the purpose of the show is to keep the slums (districts) intimidated, and to prevent rebellion. How does that work, exactly? If you think of it logically, having "Hunger Games" INCREASES the chances of rebellion e.g. families prepare their kids from a young age for the possibility that they might be chosen to enter the game at some point, so a large % of the districts' inhabitants are supposed to be good warriors, with solid survival skills, well prepared to kill and hunt. Not to mention the hatred they all seem to feel towards the organizers of the game. Does this not INCREASE the chances of rebellion instead of decreasing them??
And why couldn't these kids just refuse to "play"? The spectators expect to see people kill each other, so what would happen if the kids just stuck together and didn't give those viewers what they wanted? They'd be forced to stop "Hunger Games" altogether if, season after season, people refused to "play".
And... erm, I didn't quite get the "hunger" reference anyway. There was no evidence of the supposed scarcity of food, and the characters didn't really seem like they were starving. And what exactly is the connection between "hunger" and children killing each other?
The "future" society looks like the 19th century, and they, most certainly, don't give out the impression of being capable to produce "genetically engineered killer bees", or medicine that can heal a deep wound in less than 8 hours. It was totally unrealistic. The so-called future looked more like the past. It was extremely primitive, actually. Didn't make any sense.
How is it possible to generate images of animals/trees on a computer screen and then instantly transfer them to a physical location as actual living objects (wild animals, burning trees). It would only be possible if the battleground was a simulated environment, which, as far as I'm aware, it wasn't in this case.
Character development was really, really sub-par. We know NOTHING about the lead male. No background on him whatsoever. Same goes for the antagonist. Not to mention the rest of the "players" -- we hardly see any of them, except for Rue (briefly), who, as a matter of fact, serves no purpose whatsoever, and adds nothing to the story. Elisabeth Banks is s***, as usual.
I didn't see the point in Liam Hemsworth's character? What purpose did he serve?
Why did the lead male side with the bad guys? Is isn't explained. And why did they actually accept him into their group -- knowing that he is romantically interested in the girl they're hunting down?
And why DID the "bad guys" form a group to begin with -- knowing that there can only be one survivor anyway? O.K., so there are 4 of them in this group, and they are hunting down the lead female. What happens after they kill her? They will still have to kill each other, so... what is the point forming a group to begin with?
The MOST unrealistic scene in the movie, was the one where the lead female climbs a tree and the bad guys decide to camp beneath her. They could've EASILY shot an arrow at her or set the tree on fire, but they decide to wait for her to come down. O.K., but, in that case, since there are 4 of them, they should've taken turns to watch her, but, instead, they all go to sleep (and wake up) at the same time. How dumb can they be?
And that love story between the lead characters was so incredibly lame... I do not want to see anymore of Twilight. That franchise is really getting on my last nerve, and it doesn't help that a lot of movies copy elements from it nowadays. Very disturbing!
Anyway...
The movie is watchable, but there are a few too many plot holes for my liking, which is really distracting and unsatisfying. I was waiting for some of the answer to be revealed throughout the movie, but... nothing.
It's just an extremely poorly pieced together story that, at times, is more frustrating than entertaining.
1 star to bring down the overall rating, which is currently much higher than the movie deserves. Otherwise would've rater 5-6.