Free The Hunger Games
Genres: ActionThrillerDr
Starring: Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Wes Bentley, Elizabeth Banks, Donald Sutherland, Alexander Ludwig, Stanley Tucci
Available Quality: DivX, Hi Def, Hi Def
Director(s): Gary Ross
Country: USA
Year: 2012
In a not-too-distant future, North America has collapsed, weakened by drought, fire, famine, and war to be replaced by Panem, a country divided into the Capitol and 12 districts. Each year two young representatives from each district are selected by lottery to participate in The Hunger Games. Part entertainment, part brutal intimidation of the subjugated districts, the televised games are broadcast throughout Panem. The 24 participants are forced to eliminate their competitors, literally, with all citizens required to watch. When 16-year-old Katniss young sister, Prim, is selected as the mining districts female representative, Katniss volunteers to take her place. She and her male counterpart Peeta, will be pitted against bigger, stronger representatives who have trained for this their whole lives.
 |
The Hunger Games (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1920x800 px | Total Size: 2048 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Hunger Games (Hi Def) | Resolution: 1280x528 px | Total Size: 6702 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Hunger Games (DivX) | Resolution: 624x256 px | Total Size: 1171 Mb |
|
Movie Photos:
We have taken some photos of "The Hunger Games". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitors Review
tacticalmax (17 May 2013)
All hype and mass marketing!! Don't fall for it!!
This is yet another shining example of MASSIVE marketing done by thetypical Hollywood goons to get you into the theater that first weekendbefore the word spreads. There is no violence, shock factor, adrenalinerush, originality, or anything else that they're marketing this movieto be. They also beat the dead horse of "shaky cam vision" yet again.They continually and purposely shook the camera and kept it blurred outof focus to the point of ridiculousness. During the VERY FEW fightscenes there were, they deliberately shook the camera like crazy anddid very fast edits so you couldn't see any of what was going on, whichprobably kept them well within they're PG13 goal. Seriously, this moviewasn't even remotely close to anything higher than a PG. It waspathetic. Soooooo much media hype everywhere. What a marketing scamHollywood has stooped to in order to fill seats. They wouldn't have toif they put out a decent story. I may read the book someday, since it'ssupposedly good, but any potential the book may have is certainly notin this movie.
Fred (16 May 2013)
Seen without preconceptions, without reading the book - it was good.
I have not read the book; my kids have them and I plan on reading afterI finish what I'm reading now, so this perspective is from someone withlittle knowledge about what was supposed to happen.It was intense. My emotional level was kept high nearly the entiremovie, it didn't seem to let up. In many ways, this is less anaction/sci-fi movie than it is a compelling tragedy, and I cannot waitto get reading the books because I simply do not want to wait until thenext movie to see what happens.We all know the premise - it's written in the IMDb summary; KatnissPrimrose volunteers to take her younger sister's place after theyounger sister is selected in a lottery to join the Hunger Games.Each district must supply a boy and a girl, aged 12 to 16, to compete,chosen by lottery in a spectacle aptly called "the reaping." Out of the24, there is only one winner and death for the others. The districtsare essentially all impoverished, with hunger being rampant; eachdistrict supplies the "capitol" with it's resources, but they are allkept on the verge of starvation. The "winning" district is suppliedmore food, thus "the Hunger Games."Like the spectacle of gladiators, the Hunger Games are the opiate ofthe masses in this dystopian future; more heinous considering kids asyoung as 12 are compelled to compete. The "tributes," as they arecalled, are dressed up, paraded around the city, and interviewed one byone on what we would call TV in a macabre display as odds arecalculated for each one for betting. Here we get to meet the tributes,learn which ones we like, which ones we don't, all the while knowingonly one can live.The movie predictably moves on to the "games" themselves; verycompelling and, after accepting the premise, very real. This moviedoesn't do what the "masses" want it to do. I was on the verge of tearsnearly the whole movie, and they weren't tears of joy. As a parent itmay have affected me more than others. Still, by the end of the movie Iwas left wanting more, and so definitely am looking forward to the nextinstallments, as well as reading them myself.
Michael_Elliott (15 May 2013)
Good Entertainment with Fine Performances
The Hunger Games (2012) *** (out of 4)Good adaptation of Suzanne Collins' novel is part THE RUNNING MAN, partTHE MOST DANGEROUS GAME and part BATTLE ROYALE. Set in the future, eachyear twelve colonies must send a boy and girl to participate in thesport known as The Hunger Games. The battle to the death will allow forone winner who will get to take food back to her people but this yearthere's a twist as the two contestants from twelve (Jennifer Lawrence,Josh Hutcherson) begin to have feelings for each other. I'm probablyone of the very few that hasn't read the novel so I have no way tocompare the two and I can't say what the book got right or wrong. Forthe most part I thought this was pretty entertaining from start tofinish even though there are some flaws in the film. I think one of thebiggest flaws isn't really the fault of the film but when you knowsequels are coming it's pretty hard not to know what's going to happenat the end of this film. The one other problem might get me killed bysome but I found there to be very little passion between the two leadsand I thought the love story was the weakest thing even though thisobviously plays a very big part in the film. With that said, the restof the film was highly entertaining and I was pleasantly surprised tosee how effective the film was even with its PG-13 rating. The huntsequences are actually pretty intense and there are some grippingmoments during the deadly games. I also thought the entire opening bitwas quite good and really helped build up the hype for the game thatwas to follow. It also didn't hurt that the cast were so good. Lawrenceturns in another winning performance and she's so good here that it'snearly impossible to take your eyes off of her. I also thought thesupporting players were great including Donald Sutherland, WoodyHarrelson, Wes Brently, Lenny Kravitz and Elizabeth Banks. THE HUNGERGAMES also benefits from some beautiful scenery even if some of the CGIlooks incredibly fake. Again, I'm not sure how this differs from thenovel but as someone unfamiliar with the story I must admit that themovie is extremely well made, gripping and delivers some fineperformance all of which makes it worth viewing.
nishant_varma (15 May 2013)
good movie but not great
i had to watch hunger games.. because i was so impressed by JenniferLawrence as ree in winters bone and when i came to know she would beplaying katniss in the hunger games,i was excited though i have notread the book bt i somewhat knew the story and katniss in hunger gamesis so much like ree in winters bone.she is arrogant,rude.not veryfriendly and dedicated to keep her family 1st in every way shecould.but i will have to say although i was impressed with JenniferLawrence work .overall the movie lacked action,if you now the storysurrounds killing each other in a fight to death game,i expected morerunning,chasing,killing.and BTW.. they have used the hand-held cameramore often to my liking.it made my head dizzy on occasions.i loved thesurroundings..futuristic world.watch it for JenniferLawrence(katniss),she is the heart and soul of the movie.
ivison_1985 (14 May 2013)
What a rare film
If you've read the books this will contain no spoilers what so ever butif you have not read the books as of yet this will. I've seen amazingbooks ruined when they were made into films e.g Eragon but this filmwill not be amongst them this film starts slow with them showing therelationships with Katniss giving her a back story, and this only helpsthe film with the later stages being one adrenalin rush after another.With the little breaks for example when Katniss takes the time to putflowers over and around Rue's body and then back to the adrenalin whenyou see what reaction this has in Rue's district (The Riot). I mustalso tip my hat to Jennifer Lawrence when I first saw she'd been castas Katniss I wasn't sure she could pull it off but I was wrong she didit amazingly. When this film ended I and quite a few other people inthe cinema clapped once or twice it was just that good all I can say isbring on Mockingjay. To end I will say this if you liked the filmyou'll like the book and if you like the book you'll like the film. Oras in my case if you loved the book you will love this film.
foximus (13 May 2013)
Hunger Games, the movie
This movie is science fiction set in a distant future in which part ofNorth America is divided into 12 zones, with some zones wealthier andmore advanced than others. Television still plays a huge role in thisfuture society. Television producers are able to create elaboratefantasy worlds.For historical reasons, each zone is required to select a young man andyoung woman to participate in a reality show that is essentially amutual hunt to the death combined with an escape from deadly specialeffects. The story focuses on the experiences of one engaging andattractive young couple from a particularly poor district.This interesting future world and the grand theatricality and drama ofthe "hunger games" are gradually revealed in a way that allowed me toget caught up in it. I enjoyed seeing how they imagined the futurewould look and how such a show would be mounted. The characters wereextraordinarily attractive and the movie was visually appealing. Themovie was fast paced and I was curious to see where it would lead.The character development of the Katniss character was good and therole was believably and well played by Jennifer Lawrence. She was thefocal point of the movie (perhaps at the expense of the othercharacters). I ending up caring about what happened to her and therewere a few places where I was emotionally affected by her experiences.Every movie has flaws though. Most of the characters weretwo-dimensional. Some aspects of this future society, including thetechnological capabilities of the show producers, bordered on theunbelievable.After looking at the discussion boards, I've discovered that this movieis part of a teenage phenomenon. Many young people see themselves ascognoscenti because they've read the books. They are explaining themovie in light of the book. It seems many fans don't want this movie tobe taken at face value -- they want viewers to read the book and theywant the movie to be interpreted in that light.Also, some young fans are apparently troubled by comparisons betweenthis movie and earlier movies, between this movie and earlier culturalthemes and concepts. Of course, they want the Hunger Games phenomenon(including the movie) to be seen as something fresh and new in ourculture.I think we have to remember to respect the fact that a movie is aseparate work of art. Books and movies are different media. The bookwill reveal more detail, including the thoughts of the characters. Amovie is much more of a visceral, visual experience. A movie may beloosely based on historical facts or a book, but it will not be thesame. And nor should it be. Hunger Games the book and Hunger Games the movie are two differentthings. They are approached differently. It's not really useful toexplain the "real" story behind the movie. There is no real story. Themovie is what it is. It stands on its own, separate from the historicalevents or book that gave rise to it. This doesn't effect the validityof the original book or historical events, of course. They can all beenjoyed, but in a different way.Also, many books and movies reflect earlier books, movies and themesthat have arisen in our culture. This is a good thing and enriches theexperience. Every book and movie will have to rely on artistic elementsthat went before. Some fans don't want this movie compared to the"Truman Show", for example, which was a fantastic, original movie. Themovie "In Time" also had a future world where people were forced tolive in districts with disparate wealth levels.The fans particularly don't want the Hunger Games compared togladiatorial combat. But to me that's what this movie reminded me of,especially the chariot entrance into the stadium. It was essentiallyfuturistic gladiatorial combat aimed at teenagers. Clearly this is whatthe author intended or the country wouldn't have been called "Panem".It didn't escape my notice that there was not much difference betweenthe 21st century moviegoers and the futuristic audience watching theHunger Games live. Perhaps not surprisingly, the morality of ofsadistic voyeurism was a theme not explored in this movie. This moviemight have been improved by the realistic depiction of gore. Theviolence here, despite being the core of the movie really, was of thegoreless Hollywood variety. True gore is too difficult for most peopleto watch. For me the unrealistic violence mitigated the horror of thesituation and the underlying moral point.Hunger Games seems to be aimed at a generation that has grown upwatching survivor, reality and game shows where people get "voted off"."You are the weakest link -- Boom!"I enjoyed the movie (but only for what it was) and would recommend itto anyone.
francis-cy (12 May 2013)
Brilliant adaptation of the book
The hunger games is truly one of the best book to film adaptations I'veseen in a while straying a little from the actual plot in the book.there were a few differences which may annoy you if you read the booksand it may not capture the true emotion of the characters from the bookand it may not be as gory as it should be (book great if you like gore)but nether the less it is well written, beautiful scenarios and theactors do very good jobs in their rolls). this movie has much moresignificance for me as it captured what a world that i always had animage of in my head and replicated it almost perfectly).Rating: 8/10 Personal rating:10/10
David Ferguson (11 May 2013)
Don't Fear the Reaping
Greetings again from the darkness. Having not read the Young Adultnovels of Suzanne Collins, my comments will be limited to the movieonly and not a comparison to the books. The screenplay was a jointaffair from Ms. Collins, Billy Ray, and director Gary Ross(Seabiscuit). Whether or not you read the books, you surely know thatthis has been an anticipated film version in the vein of Twilight andHarry Potter. My analysis is that it falls short of Harry and issuperior to the vamps.What this film definitely is ... proof that Jennifer Lawrence is forreal. She burst onto the scene in her Oscar nominated turn in Winter'sBone and once again, her squirrel recipes come in handy. Lawrence playsKatniss Everdeen, a tough as nails and very resourceful resident of thedirt poor District 12. She provides for her little sis and theiremotionally vacant mother, and does so by honing her bow and arrowskills hunting in the vast woodlands.Without going into too much detail, the dystopian world of Panem isdivided into 12 districts and a Capitol. As a combination entertainmentand price for a previous rebellion, an annual lottery is held to selecta boy and girl from each district ... "tributes" to their community.Those drawing the proverbial short straw are entered into brutal fightto the death, where 23 are to be killed and one left standing. In the74th annual Hunger Games, Katniss volunteers to take the place of herlittle sister. So she and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson, The Kids areAll Right) are whisked away to the Capitol to meet their mentor,Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), a one time winner who celebratesdaily by downing as much alcohol as possible.In stark contrast to the hopeless community from which they arrive, theCapitol is a gleaming, bright-colored land of enchantment filled withwildly costumed residents seemingly bored by the atrocity of the annualevent. Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley, American Beauty) is the man in chargeof staging and manipulating the event for the highest possible ratingsand entertainment value. He carries out his duties while sporting avery unique satanic beard, unlike you have seen before.After prepping, the tributes appear in front of a futuristic RyanSeacrest played by the flamboyant Stanley Tucci. His Caesar Flickermanis charged with interviewing so as to help the audience make aconnection. Lenny Kravitz plays Cinna, a futuristic Tom Ford clonewhose duties are to make Katniss and Peeta "presentable".It takes a full hour, but the actual Hunger Games finally begins.Quickly the faceless characters disappear and the game of brutality andbrains begins. Lawrence is truly a standout here since she hastremendous ability as an actress, and sells her athletic ability quitewell. I can't say I was as taken by Mr. Hutcherson, who spends most ofthe film looking like a wounded puppy.While the PG-13 rating keeps it from becoming a gore fest, I found theaction sequences to be quite entertaining. More interesting to me washow the story and characters are posed so that a viewer might interpretmeaning in just about any manner one cares to twist. There arepolitical views and human nature traits and commentary on the RealityTV world that are primed for claiming ... regardless of one's opinion.To me, that's a weakness. I would rather the story take a stand andmake a statement. But then I remind myself that this is the first in atrilogy of Young Adult stories. It's not designed for deep thought. Themovie succeeds in reaching the goal of producing a strong young femalecharacter in a world run amok.
rock iwi (11 May 2013)
Disappointing, predictable, don't watch it!
I was deeply disappointed by the movie. And I haven't even read thebook! First of all, I felt that the movie was way too long for the story ittold. Too many unnecessary details for me, a person who hasn't read thebook. Basically, wasted time. Secondly, the characters were relativelypoor developed. I mean, everything was way too predictable.And you willprobably get what happens next after the first 30 minutes! What is more, the camera shake was at times annoying- and by seeing themovie in the cinema, I was even more annoyed by it. Unnecessary again. However, the fantasy part was well developed and it was the only "up"for me. Special effects made it for me. All in all, if you think of watching this movie - think twice. Unlessyou're a fan of the books and you're curious about the adaptation, Iwouldn't recommend seeing it.
Nick Allen (11 May 2013)
What a movie!
This movie was great! The action, the excitement, and the laughter allin one! It sucked though, because not all the deaths could be shownlike they were in the movie (like how in the book Thresh killed Clovewith a rock, but the movie he kill her by smashing her head into theCornucopia). , I was sad when Rue died (I didn't cry, but I was sad).So the movie was amazing and I think it'll be the next big thing sinceHarry Potter ended. I thought at first Percy Jackson would be the nextPotter movie, but that was ruled out back in 2010 when I saw the movie.But still it rocked and I can't wait for Catching Fire!!!! Whos withme????
robert_kukulis (08 May 2013)
Boring tasteless and sometimes bloody..
I anticipated the whole movie right from the start! One thing left outmy vision was how long it took me to try understand why was this movieeven made? Aren't there more interesting stories with morals in thisworld? If you are a sci-fi fan of Robert Sheckley like stories.. thisplot is not for you. There are many things in this movie withoutreason.. I just don't want to tell the plot.. but in my opinion evenJohn Carter had more sense.. I mean because the introduction into thestory was poor i was waiting for more info from the movie. But I guessfilm makers were preoccupied by a lot of empty space to give you thefeel.. but they overworked..
gmoney65 (08 May 2013)
Not a real Fan
Look I'm tired of these played out Harry Potter, Blair witch Projecttype movies, The movie granted is a cult following to the masses, thatsfine, but to see any movie that depicts murder of any kind of youngchildren is wrong, and any child that supports this theory is wrong, Ihave grown up in the fine urban cities of the USA, and watched enoughkillings to last me a life time, to subject myself to a boring go nowhere movie for 2 hours to promote more violence targeted at our youthis wrong, and stupid, My wife is a fan of Jennifer Lawrence and thatsthe only reason I went to see the movie, personally the running manwith Arnold was a better movie to me for my generation,
Corey Perlin CorCreations.com (08 May 2013)
Ehh
I was really looking forward to this movie, really looking forward toit. I had no school the Friday it came out so I even went to see themidnight premiere in IMAX. I really liked the book and started readingknowing they were going to make the movie. I wanted the ending of themovie to not be ruined so I didn't read the last four chapters of thebook. Then the movie started and everything I loved about the book, theaction, the violence, the visuals were not matched in the movie. Whenthey were around the cornucopia and the games started they did a shakycamera montage and I couldn't see a thing (cloverfield was less shakyand I love cloverfield). The movie just fell flat. I left the theaternot feeling happy telling my friend ehh it could've been better. Therewas little character development and the movie seemed geared towardsthe money making twilight audience (as made very clear by the amount ofpeople cheering at that lame excuse for a 20 second teaser.) This moviehad some good moments even though I didn't focus on them, but Irecommend to everyone to read the book and maybe pass on watching themovie
vsp-enterprise (07 May 2013)
Another Bad Teenage Movie
Short and sweet, Hollywood found another book to turn into a terriblemovie, the adaption is just plain horrible, this is a terrible moviefueled by teenage babies who will say its great just to fuel thecurrent fad, see it for yourself and understand why, its overdramatized, it has a bad story, bad camera work and bad acting. Thecamera was so shaky it was like watching The Hunger Clover Field, thismovie should get a razzie award but the makers are very smart becausethey know all the spoiled teenage brats will go see it,I just cannotexpress how much I wanted to like this movie since I read the books butit was not anything close to being good, this movie is all about moneyand the right advertising. I expect a lot of thumbs down for my reviewbut like when twilight came out, so did all the crybabies.
Maude Vanhengel (06 May 2013)
Not another adolescent "hype"
My expectations were very high, I have read all three books, and I aman absolute fan of THG. The film was really good, they did change alot, but I think they did it for the people that haven't read thebooks. They tried to make it less complicated than it seems, because inthe books you can hear the thoughts of Katniss all the time, but theycan't show thoughts in the movie.. I think the cast set up an amazingperformance. I absolutely love Jennifer, she's very confident andstrong but she can also show her sensitivity to the viewers. Josh isjust adorable, in every way. I'm not a huge Liam Hemsworth fan, but hewas rather good as Gale. I do have a downside. I went home with a majorheadache, cause I was on the 4th row in front, and the camera wasreally shaky so your eyes get so tired of it. The director attempted tomake it that way, and to make it less 'flowing' and the attempt worked,but not when your sitting out front..Overall, good film, great cast, and I'm waiting for 'Catching Fire'!
maz4u61 (06 May 2013)
Okay movie.
I had nothing to do Thursday night. My friend called me and said letsgo watch Hunger Game. I was like SO SO. Then i went to see it aftermuch consideration. At midnight the theatre was half full. I took me bysurprise because last time when i went to watch a movie on Sunday,there was not a single body there. But there was an environment so myexpectation went high. After watching the movie. I had a so sofeelings. Because, in the past there were many movies attempted thatwas based on survivor game, Just to name a few " Condemned,Tournament". So there was nothing special or new in the movie. Theworst part of the movie is shaky camera just like "found footage" usedin Cloverfield and Chronicle. It gave me a headache. But the best partof the movie is Acting and the conflict that may arise between the Trioin the future. The movie lacks development of character and dept. Butoverall, its a good movie worth watching once.
MATT RIFLEY (06 May 2013)
OK at best
This could have been an AMAZING movie, but the cinematography was sojittery and unstable that I found myself being completely pulled out ofthe story to hate the experience. Steady-cam or Warp Stabilizer wouldhave done wonders for this film, but half the movie was either out offocus or all over the place. Especially the ending battle scene- wecouldn't make out who was who, or even if it was a person involved inthe fight.I live for the movie experience - and I knew in the first 20 minutes Iwould not be buying this to add to my library (and I have almost 2,000titles).Maybe the next one will be shot better.
hamdirahwan (05 May 2013)
Not another New Moon saga movie!
Really ?!! I'm still wondering why I paid equal to 20$ here in DK forthe ticket.I was obviously misguided.I thought it is some kind of Si-Fimovie really. I have to say I didn't read the books,nor did I see thenew moon thing because it would have been too much to digest.I cantlive with it, but I think after I spent a great deal of my lifewatching movies,I can say this movie offended my intelligence simplybecause the plot is too weak and naive,yes it is... "cheap to sellvalues" writers and then of course Hollywood are selling the publicLove ..Sacrifice ..etc....hey what else do we need from Hollywood otherthan the infinite wisdom..right? The Hunger Games is about a societysuffering from hunger and poverty living like slaves under the sadisticrule of the mighty wealthy society which has it all from food tofashion (even that sucks) somewhere in the no place/time era...fine,butI didn't really get a grasp of the core selling point of it which isthe game...really it didn't make any sense whatsoever to my littlemind,yeah I'm in the 40 land of age. The movie has long scenes of mixedemotions supposed to transfer you and move you to the next level of thewhole experience,but i found those long and boring,worthy of people whohave overloaded emotions to give further to the one sitting next to. Many technical details could've been avoided to make the movie moreenjoyable. I don't want to get into details for the those going to seeit no matter what ,but I tell you if you are the Moon Saga fan,between19 and 12, then go for it .
Biomech_XVII (05 May 2013)
Boring. A visibly dumbed Battle Royale down for kids.
So, after all the hype, I just watched The Hunger Games and reallywasn't impressed.It's basically Battle Royale dumbed down for kids. You could clearlysee the intent to hide anything that would take it over the 12A/15certification. Hell even Speed had more verbal and physical violenceand that was a 15.I found it boring. The majority of scenes were silence or dubbed overwith gently epic music. And, throughout, I couldn't help but feel that the whole moral premisewas on par with The Only Way is Essex (TOWIE); In order to besuccessful, you must pander to socially acceptable rules, the way youlook and are perceived are the only factors important in your socialacceptance not what you can do. Which, personally, I find disgusting.
davy007 (04 May 2013)
Leaving me dissatisfied...
For myself, this movie only left me feeling depressed that true justicewas never achieved. People under complete rule of a dictatorship beingforced into an arena of death for the enjoyment of others. How very sadtrue justice was never obtained by the throwing down of these leadersof tyranny. If this had in fact been achieved, I would have given it aslightly better rating but as it stands, it does not even merit arating of 1 in my book.I would like to pose this question to the creators of this film: Whywasn't justice served? At least in the movie "Gladiator", for all ofits blood and gore, Maximus obtained justice by killing the evilCommodus.I think perhaps all of the adults involved in the making of this movieshould be placed into the arena and the last person left alive shouldhave to spend the rest of his/her life in rehabilitation and CommunityService.If it's justice you seek, you won't find it here in "The Hunger Games".
Review total: 20, showing from 1 to 20