...and I am disappoint. I just did not like it.

It just doesn't make sense. So, as punishment for some war 70 years ago, each district on Earth has to offer two teenagers to fight to the death in some sort of computer simulation. Litterally dude, to the death. And the last one standing is apparently the "winner". How is this okay, and how is this meant to pacify the human race? Because that's apparently the reason for this whole Hunger Games thing, to put an end to the war between mankind.

Then, there's the alliance the kids make up, which doesn't make a lick of sense. Teaming up with someone is counterintuitive to the entire concept of the games, since only one person gets to live in the end. I would've liked someone in the group to at least mention this, but nope! Instead, the script tries to feed us the "good guys, bad guys" crap, in a game in which everyone is supposed to be fighting for their lives.

And here is my biggest complaint about the whole thing: I did not like Katniss as a protagonist. She did jack to survive, she didn't have to make hard choices to do so, she's just wasn't likable at all for me. She kills one person, which was purely out of instinct, in order to defend someone who she teamed up with (you know, because that makes sense in the Hunger Games). She doesn't off the bad dude at the end, the ugly CGI dogs did. Anyway, for some reason or another, Katniss and Rue (the girl she befriends) just don't seem to recognize that at some point they would've had to kill each other, it's just not even glanced on throughout the entire sequence of the games. It actually made for some decent tension, but then that was completely ruined when it was some "bad guy" who eventually killed off Rue, which led to Katniss killing the "bad guy" in a reflex.

Then there's this scene where she walks into an obvious trap in order to get some medicine for another person she refuses to ice, because he's just too precious to her or some crap, when she is jumped by another girl and held to the ground with a knife to her throat. Looks like Katniss finally has to kill in cold blood, in order to survive...

LOL, NOPE! And then another guy who we've never even seen or know who he is jumps in and kills the attacker himself.

This is my main problem with The Hunger Games, it's a game which forces kids to kill to survive, and Katniss, being the main protagonist of the movie, mainly just sits there not having to do anything to be the star of something. EVERYTIME it looks like she has to make a tough decision, the plot is making that decision for her. At the end, the movie even bails her out of a decision to commit suicide with her crush, so that none of the two have to off each other.

It's just... This movie was just bad. Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings, this surely wasn't.

I understand why some might come to your conclusion, but i just want to put in my two cents.

First, it's not all of the districts on earth competing. It's all of the districts of Panem, which roughly encompasses North America. The rest of the world simply collapsed.

Second, the Hunger Games are not a computer simulation - they take place in real-time, though yeah, most effects are computer-triggered.

Third, the Hunger Games pacify humans by showing them a lesson. That should they rebel again, they will be put down full force, and that the government isn't messing around.

And fourth, regarding the whole alliance thing, you remember the end, right? Where they allow both of them to win? The two knew that all it took was keeping popular with the crowd and toughness for them to make it through together. THAT'S why Katniss didn't do much killing. She needed to stay popular.

I know we have polarizing opinions here, but that's just my view.

I have to agree with some of the things both you and Boxia mentioned.

Katniss couldn't kill the girl who jumped on her since the other girl was in a better position. And yeah, she just had luck there. 

And those dogs could kill Cato easier then Katniss would have done, so it was only logical.

It was mentioned, it is not a computer simulation. It is an artificial environment, but everything is real.

As for the purpose of the games, it is just a cruel means of control. The districts rebelled, lost, and are forever punished. Just a matter of the capital keeping them down. But the movie also leaves out a LOT of details. One example is how when someone wins the game, hey also win a lot of food for all of the people in their district. So the winner literally comes back a hero to their district. That adds to the control aspect of the game (and the name of the game). The games have a reward not only to the winner, but their whole district, which is another use of control.

There was also a bit more explanation for why people would form alliances. Yes, they would have to kill each other in the end. But your chance of surviving when there are less people against you for the whole game. So form an alliance, then you end up having 3-4 people against eachother (you included) instead of 5-12. Then there was also more element of psychology. Work with someone and help them and it might make it harder for them to kill you when the time comes.

The thing about Katniss not doing much, again, a movie adaptation. I have never seen a movie keep all the details of the book. There was more that went on than what happened in the film. I would suggest reading the book before the movies because there were important details that the movies left out that made a lot of things not make as much sense and even altered the overall atmosphere and context of a lot of events.

rcarter2 : Pay in mind, I'm just talking about the movie here. I'm not a book guy, at all. I don't think that invalidates my opinion though. If I have to read a book in order to make the movie more understandable and as a result more enjoyable, then there's something wrong with the movie. Not with the book, and if that's the case, I'm willing to withdraw my statement about the concept of the games making no sense, since the movie has failed to inform me well enough about it...

I'm sure the book is a good read for those interested, but the movie, I did not like. Purely from a moviefanatic point of view.

Oh, absolutely. Not saying your opinions are wrong. You made some remarks that things weren't making sense, so I thought I would just explain it so it might make the movies make a little more sense. I have actually not read the books myself, but my wife told me all about it. Before they were even going to be movies, she gave me the whole spiel. When the movies left out an important detail that pretty much changed the context of important factors, she let me know . Normally, that would bug me, but it made me like the movies more when I knew the correct context.

About the whole "Katniss not killing"... why would you WANT her to kill in cold blood? Finally a movie that doesn't glorify violence, but instead makes killing a disgusting and disturbing thing, and people WANT the main character to start killing people?

It certainly wasn't my favorite movie, but I thought it did make a good point... but I guess it went right over some people's heads.

Light Knight: It's not about killing, it's about doing the thing necessary to survive. And pretty much, every time Katniss had to make a hard decision (which is killing to avoid being killed, that's actually the whole idea of the Games), the story provided a neat way to sort of 'cheat' Katniss out of making that decision. Literally, the only time we've seen Katniss actually being capable of surviving an encounter against someone who's hell-bent on killing her, was through a reflex. An impressive reflex, but a reflex nonetheless. This doesn't make her a likable protagonist in my eyes, just a very lucky one.

I don't know how what kind of girl Katniss is in the books, but if the movie portrays her in such a way when she's actually a badass who doesnt condone killing, but can still get the job done when the need arises in order to survive, then the movie failed. But that's just my opinion.