The Hunger Games

[Hannah Matthews]

In my opinion, The Hunger Games is a very interesting and scary book. I really enjoyed reading and the adventures in this book. Although there were a couple things I did not like about this book. I did not like reading the beginning of the book because it was very dull and boring. The book actually took me awhile to read because I could not get past the beginning. I also did not enjoy the plot; it was a bit too scary for me. The thought of fighting over food to the death scared me a little bit. On top of the book being scary it was also a little confusing. Some of the ideas were hard to follow. Since the book was set in the future it hard to imagine he future how the author imagined it. Over all, the book was a fun read but not one of my favorite books to read. I do recommend it to others though!

[faithosaurus]

I have an unhealthy obsession with this trilogy. Like, scary. Blankets and necklace and everything.

I think you can tell my opinion on the book, haha.

[Mariner]

I'm almost bothered by the present-tense. But I'm compelled to read the series, even if it takes me a few years to get around to reading

[The Inkwell]

The Hunger Games trilogy is what I like to refer to as "potential gone awry." The first installment was spectacular--it was thrilling, daring, and it explored the gritty side of humanity that is usually associated with post-war life and general oppression. Collins was descriptive both of the environment in which her characters lived as well as of the characters themselves. Although the "love triangle" theme seems to be somewhat generic, Collins was able to execute that portion with a refreshing angle--a must if the book were to ever receive true acclaim. The second book, Catching Fire, was in my opinion the best of the three. If you weren't all that interested in the drama between Katniss, Peta, and Gale--you could find solace in the fast-paced rebellion and political revolution taking place in Panem. I enjoyed every scrap and morsel of it.

The third book, on the other hand, is where this tale goes "awry." The third book was a fog of lose ends. It seemed as though that the book was naught but a long delaying of a finale--one that could have come quicker or come preceded by more action. The finale--when it finally arrived--was predictable and a bit anticlimactic. For all of the struggle in the previous books over Katniss' ultimate choice for love and happiness, it seemed she arrived at a decision rather nonchalantly. Overall, Mockingjay seemed hurried. As though finishing the series was an obligation and writing enough to get to the end was a chore and not a pleasure. I would recommend the books to any person, but I think the series could have ended a bit differently. I always wonder how much best-selling series like this are influenced by the attainment of fame early on.

One final note: skip the films.

[krishna_lit]

I didn't read the book but saw the movie and frankly the plot seemed uninteresting and ridiculous, so the thought of reading the book series didn't even arise in my mind. Fandom of The Hunger Games, plz excuse me.

[qimissung]

I liked it! A ripping good yarn, and really a decent little dystopian novel. Inkwell's assessment is pretty good, although why not let there be a little love peeking through? We all need a bit of hope, especially in dark times or dark novels.

I can understand that you think the ending was a little hurried, but she didn't really spare us in one sense-after all a goodly number of children died as Katniss and her group fought for freedom.

[Ecurb]

I liked "Hunger Games", but not the two sequels.

Hunger Games is designed to appeal to modern teenagers, reared on a diet of Reality TV. Modern teenagers (the author correctly assumed, based on book sales) fantasize about being reality TV stars, wearing great clothes (remember the fashion parades?) and eating great food (long descriptions of fine dining in the capital). In addition, teenage girls like to have two boys in love with them (if we can believe Hunger Games and Twilight). Hunger Games cleverly combines these themes.

[Chris 73]

The writing struck me as a little basic but I was engaged by the story,characters,themes of ptsd,propaganda and a teen love triangle that for once didn't make my eyes role in my head. Also I found it to be genuinely tense read due to the inherit cruelty of the situations the characters found themselves in.
The much maligned final volume was a bit of a mess but still very affecting.

[Grit]

I read HG in one night and found it a page turner. I've since been soured on the whole thing by seeing the movie Battle Royale, which came out ten years before HG and is an adaptation of a Japanese novel. BR is the exact same concept, but much more raw. In BR, it's not two kids from each district, it's a randomly chosen school, so all the kids know each other. This makes for a higher emotional charge. BR is so far superior and it annoys me HG is actually just the kids rip off of what is a masterpiece.

[SilentMute]

I saw Battle Royale and found it even more intense and disturbing. However, I think the focus of the story was different. Battle Royale, I felt, focused on the idea of the changing world. The old generation can't quite adapt, and they feel threatened by the changes. Meanwhile, they feel the younger generation doesn't have what it takes to survive in this new terrifying world, and that makes them more frightened. The Battle Royale was their version of "tough love" and weeding out the weak. What is horrifying is to think that parents and teachers--the people who are supposed to nurture and protect you--would do this. It also demonstrates how close ties can easily be broken--and friends will turn on friends. I think Battle Royale was meant for mature audiences.

I believe the author of the Hunger Games said she was actually inspired by the Minotaur myth. You know, the most beautiful males and females from each district were sent as sacrifices to the Minotaur...I believe that is how it goes. It is very difficult to ever have an original idea as an author. After several thousands of years, humanity has pretty much brought up everything there is to think about. Our only hope is to discover something totally new so we can have new thoughts.

As for Hunger Games, I read the books and saw the movie. I enjoyed them. I was surprised the movie was as well done as it was. I wasn't sure whether there was enough "moveable" plot to make a movie interesting. I thought the book was more interesting due to character development and interaction. I felt this was the true focus of the book, or at least the first one. Later, politics does become more of the forefront...but it is always about Katniss Everdeen, who became the reluctant heroine just because she couldn't bear to lose her sister to the Hunger Games. The first book was my favorite, but the other two had their merits. I forgot which one of the sequels I found a little slow to get moving...I think it was the third.

[synodbio]

This book is not only good, it's captivating. It sucks you inside and you can't see or hear anything other than the events happening on that page.

[ACm Stha]

just have opinions on book Only...

[Chance33]

Inkwell- I agree entirely.
To add to these reviews- I feel the need to rag on Katniss Everdeen. Yes, "the girl on fire".
In the entire three novels all she is focused on is saving her own skin and of course, Prim. Not once did she ever think to inspire a "revolution". That was all of Gale's philosophy. Katniss never cared. She wanted no part in being a symbol of "hope". I think it's ridiculous that she's going to receive all this honour and be the symbol to the revolution. I think having her be "the girl on fire" is such an ironic statement. Because truth is, she could care less. In the beginning of the trilogy, had an alternate name other than her sisters been chosen, we would have never thought twice about this Katniss. All she cared about was Prim.
All she cared about the entire trilogy was really just Prim.
So how appropriate is the ending? I think it was a must. I won't spoil it, but I agree with Collin's decision on the course of events.
Also, it's frustrating to have a teen novel become the apparently only good "dystopian" novel to people all around (not everyone of course). What happened to George Orwell's, Ayn Rand's, Anthony Burgess', Lois Lowry's and even Ray Bradbury's works(to name a few)? People read Hunger Games and rave it's so original, so "scary". I encourage people to broaden their horizons with another dystopian novel (Not Divergent, please...).
You can never really compare movie's representations of books. The fact is, that we all read and will see a novel differently. No movie will ever accurately portray our interpretation of the novel(except maybe Lord of the Rings, bless you Peter Jackson). So the best way to view the movies is as if it stands alone. The Hunger Games movies, in my opinion, have a lot of work to do.

[Sweetgirl]

I am absolutely in love with the Hunger Games!! I swallowed the 1st book in 2 days...I just couldn't put it down. Haven't seen the film yet but to be honest I am a bit wary of watching it, in case it is rubbish and ruins everything haha

[semyonovna]

The first installment will always be dearest to my heart because I find that the social and political commentary was much more vivid. Meanwhile, the second book seemed merely to reiterate the issues exhibited in the first. I enjoyed the third book mostly because of the raw emotion, though I agree with The Inkwell that it could have been better written and planned. I think it also provided an interesting insight into Katniss' character.

I also preferred the first film over "Catching Fire". If the producers had done a particularly exceptional job of translating the second book into a movie, I might be more inclined to watch Mockingjay Parts I and II, but it overall felt flat.