The Telegraph says: 'That Bella Swan; she’s no Katniss Everdeen. Both teenage heroines journey deep into the woods at dusk, but while Twilight's Bella returns flanked by bickering supernatural beefcake, Katniss emerges alone, smeared in blood and muck and gnawing on the charred remains of a spatchcocked squirrel... The Hunger Games is an essential science fiction film for our times; perhaps the essential science fiction film of our times. Whatever your age, it demands to be devoured' (5 stars)
Empire says: 'There’s no required reading before entering the cinema in order to ‘get it’, and it’s well above the ‘all your favourite bits but with pictures’ business that has become the accepted standard... The Hunger Games as a novel has been dissected, expanded and retooled into something intelligent, immersive and powerfully current... As thrilling and smart as it is terrifying. There have been a number of big-gun literary series brought to screen over the past decade. This slays them all' (4 stars)
The Guardian says: 'The Hunger Games is that rarest of beasts: a Hollywood action blockbuster that is smart, taut and knotty. Ably filleted from the Suzanne Collins bestseller, it's a compelling, lightly satirical tale of a post-apocalyptic entertainment industry, set in a dystopian US in which the terrified contestants are selected via lottery and second place does not exist' (4 stars)
Total Film says: 'There’s still plenty of what the censor calls ‘injury detail’ plus enough clever editing to make you feel the pain. Prime example? The grand, grisly start to the Games themselves, where it’s everyone vs everyone and bodies drop like dominoes. Ross mutes the sound effects and chops the carnage into almost subliminal flashes, avoiding explicitness without losing the horror... What’s remarkable is the lack of cheese. Tacky effects, corny dialogue and creaky performances are all shown the door. We repeat: not the new Twilight.' (4 stars)
The Hollywood Reporter says: 'Lawrence remains compelling all the way. As in Winter's Bone, she's onscreen alone, or nearly so, a great deal, and she holds one's attention unselfconsciously, without asking for attention or even doing much other than the task at hand. Lawrence is one of those performers the camera loves; her appearance alters in different scenes and shots -- lingering baby fat shows here, she resembles a Cleopatra there -- and she can convey a lot by doing little. An ideal screen actress'
See Front Room Cinema's review here.
But don't listen to me, them or anyone else. Go see it for yourself and help make it one of the biggest films of the year! Could this be bigger than The Dark Knight Rises? I'm looking forward to the movie blogging community sharing their reviews so please post links in the comment box and I'll be sure to read them!
