This really depends. After seeing Catching fire,m I think that if you are under the age of 11, you should not be watchjing it. It is really bad for kids to have nightmares about.

In my opinion, no I do not find it that violent at all. For a rating of 12 it was pretty tame compared to other films I have seen, but bear in mind that it received a rating of 15 upon being released onto DVD due to extra scenes not shown in the cinema.

But, I digress slightly, I don't find it violent, scary at times due to seeing children / young adults in such peril, but I suggest if you're not 12, don't watch it. Especially given some of the scenes involving death or graphic injury.

I, personally, feel it's too violent. It's a very popular series and that means many children will be exposed to it. Especially in really big parts of the book where important characters are injured or killed (take Rue, for example). However, I feel that Fifty Shades of Grey shouldn't be displayed to the public, either, and I feel the latter is much worse. But this is an opinion; Hunger Games is a bit too violent.

NeppyLeet : fifty shades of grey is a horrendous and poorly written book let's keep that out of every discussion. Hunger games is actually a very watered down version of the much better japanese movie battle royale which was violent but no less a great movie.   

Well It depends on what kind of violence you hate if you don't like major blood and gore but if you just like fake dying it really not that violent compared to like ... I don't know Im only 12 years old and I watched both hunger games so its fine unless you're like 8 you shouldn't watch it

Oh. Yes. Wont somebody. Please. Think of the... umm. Children?

 And no to that mommy S/m porn... ummm like either. Since it is totally embarrassing and stuff.

I agree.  I think that the violence was sensationalized too much in the movie.  Many of the messages behind it all are quite solid, but they don't shine through for less mature viewers.  We're left at the end of the movie thinking more "what's going to happen to these characters?" instead of "I felt inspired, now I'm ready to apply what I learned."  I would hardly call it entertainment, since it's all so serious and sorrowful throughout the movie.  It's the opposite of The LEGO Movie.  Even though the movie was funny and silly throughout most of the film, it set up the end quite well, and the message came through fine.

Lego (trademark) Hunger games would be something now would it.

For a movie/book about a widescale fight to the death, I think the violence was perfect.

Dystopics are always portrayed as unpleasant environments, and a way to show people what we can become is always going to be through loss of lives for the sake of emphasis.

Is it senseless violence? Of course, that's the point of the movie/book.

But it is forced violence, more powerful than somebody just up and killing a bunch of people.

I watched the movie and read the book thinking that society needs to become more coersive and reliable so we don't become them.

And if you're scared of children watching it? Don't let them watch it, you obviously have that authority. It's all in the hands of authority figures to make sure that innapropriate things be kept from children in the first place, simply hindering the arts with removal of the artists right to have as much violence they want isnt going to make the world better, it'll only drag us closer to the society depicted in the novel/movie.

I haven't (and won't) seen the movies, but from what I know about it, no, it isn't too violent as far as entertainment goes these days. I personally find it far too focused on violence for my own enjoyment, and (no offense) the theme disgusts me, as I hate violence, and making a movie about a contest of killing people just turns my stomach.

Still, we had Running Man years and years ago, and I fail to see how this is any worse. Also, Mortal Kombat games and movies, pretty much anything that had Bruce Willis in it, and oh, Smash TV (game). How could Hunger Games be considered too violent when all of these things that were equally violent (or worse) were around over a decade ago?

So by my personal standards, yes. By today's entertainment industry standards? Not in the least. It's better than a lot of other movies and games that we have now.

Sadly, I can see us having real life games like this in the future. If nothing else, it's a call to realization that we're quickly heading somewhere we don't want to go. We're looking at becoming the next Rome with it's coliseum. We already pay good money to watch two men/women locked in a cage, beating the blood out of each other. What's next? I honestly don't want to know.

I have only seen the first one with friends and the last thing I remember about it is the violence. To be honest , I wish it was actually more violent and had less ..talking / hiding / sleeping on trees while tied to them and so on, I guess that's just not what it is about. 

I don't think so. I mean the Hunger Games is literally about a group a teenagers sent to murder each other in cold blood for the entertainment of the rich and powerful.

It's really hard to make that NOT violent. Plus it's not like the movie was rated R, it was PG-13. Now if you want to really see violence you should watch Battle Royale. Nothing like watching a kid kill some other by putting a grenade into someone else's decapitated. 

I wouldn't say it was that violent at least not the movies. If you want to see a violent movie watch battle royale or evil dead. They are lots of movies with good violence in it.

I seen other movies that was way more violent than the hunger games. But yeah it was violent. I dont think i expected it to be very violent when i first saw it.

In my opinion, things like fictional violence are only problems because we make them so. As soon as we realize that it's fake and it doesn't matter, it will no longer be an issue.

No. The violence is meant to convey something. Hopelessness. But when a victor emerges, there is a glimmer of hope. Then the process repeats under a oppressive government run by a tyrannical leader.

Hunger games in a way is violent but you never really see the blood. When some one dies I never think you see blood or any thing in the movie. In the first movie all the bad stuff happen mostly at the start. I think even when the killed the little girl by the end you never seen her bleed. All an all a very good movie ether way.

No. That is the simple answer. It truly isn't that bad, I've seen a lot worse. Some people need to just let their children see it, they'll be fine with it. Now, if you're 4 years old, you shouldn't be watching it, it 12, why not.