Sign In Now ►
or Create A New Account ►
Rank This Matchup or Comment/Reply Below
This is a tough one. Both are grade A popcorn movie material that deserved their hype when they hit theaters. The Hunger Games is a lean, mean action packed machine propelled by another flawless performance by Jennifer Lawrence. The Avengers on the other hand is a dizzying juggling act of larger than life personas including Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk and Thor. Choosing one over the other is such a hard call. The Avengers has the better production and let's face it... it's more bad-ass. The special effects are nearly flawless and we're swept from one location to the next over the course of the movie. The Hunger Games has the danger element though and the stronger character development. The stakes are set so high and there is a nail-biting sense of urgency hanging over the movie. I feared and cheered for Katniss the entire time. The world is threatened in The Avengers, but it kept a lighthearted feel throughout and despite all the hysteria in the final scene I knew our heroes would save the day. My final decision is... The Hunger Games. In the end, The Avengers would not have been as compelling had I not seen the five other films that preceded it and it follows a formula that's been used in several other superhero movies. The Hunger Games is a new story and can stand on its own. That being said, this was an incredibly close race.
of course, both films are fantastic. But i'll have to choose the one that is the highest one my flickchart ( i mean the better film ) and that is..................................................T.........H..........E.........................AVENGERS! great special effects and of course, marvel always leaves a teaser at the end!! for any of you that want to know who that is at the end on that meteor thing, that is Thanos, he is obsessed with death, and he holds the Infinity Gauntlet. He is basically a big @$$ monster dude that is like the hulk.
Avengers. More fun, better-directed action.
I had a better time with Hunger Games, so I'm going with that.
Being a fan of the Marvel universe I prefer Avengers. It is much more humorous and the special effects and action are outstanding. Watching the Hunger Games I couldn't stop thinking about how it is clearly a rip off of Battle Royale aimed at a teen audience.
The Hunger Games seems deeper, but I felt it was missing... something. It definitely had that "Part 1" feeling by the end of it, worse than most first-of-the-series films I've seen. The Avengers, while not very deep at all, was some of the most enjoyable 2 hours and 30 minutes of film viewing I've had in theaters in a long time.
The Hunger Games, no contest. I prefer movies that have some depth, sorry Avengers but it just wasn't there for me.
The Avengers. No contest here. The direction, script, performances and character development of the Avengers are way ahead the Hunger Games' league.
based solely on my own personal enjoyment, THG. as far as the better movie... Avengers
The Avengers was a bloated mediocre action flick with no intelligence, or shockingly, any decent action. The Hunger Games was a marvelously entertaining film with superior acting and story (not that The Avengers really even had any story to speak of) and true depth. Both films have a planned sequel(s), but those of the Hunger Games are the only ones I'm interested in watching.
Both The Avengers and The Hunger Games were very disappointing but the Hunger Games is the better movie by faaaaaar.
Surprised this is that close. Hunger Games was a solid movie...and nothing more. Zero memorable about it. The Avengers was off the charts fun. Case closed...
One is a Battle Royale ripoff based on a book I never read and, thus, have no allegiance to. The other has Robert Downey Jr., and that's really all it needs to win.
Now we're all already very aware of two things. Well three things... Firstly, that I'm quite sexy, but that's irrelevant here. Secondly, that I am in fact a genius and labelled as such, both by popular opinion and by certification (more importantly, that I consider myself a genius and I'm a pretty fine judge of these things). Thirdly, that I generally venture away from objectivity, considering it a fruitless endeavour and a limiting paradigm bedecked in myopic essentialism and gayness. Phooey. All that in mind, The Hunger Games is a poorly, poorly made movie. Very poorly made. I'm actually having a hard time thinking of a movie that's shot with less competence. I guess Crank 2 is shot with even less finesse than THG, but that was largely experimental and intentionally, I dunno, vertiginous...? But dude, why are you throwing the camera around? Why do you need so many close-ups of nothingness? Why so many cuts? In fact, why so many quick panning shots if you're gonna cut within seconds? Did anyone see any action in this so-called action film? Cause I fucking didn't. Zoom the fuck out and let us see what's happening. Shaky come doesn't represent or indicate realism, it just covers up crappily choreographed action (which might have been necessary given that there was little or no imagination put into any of the kill scenes). Why repeat, actually repeat, like four separate sub-scenes? Why shoot portions of the movie in such unbearable WWII drabness and then switch to OZ-style, poor-man's Burtonesque ode to Technicolor? What? Viewers not perceptive enough for subtlety? I'm told that THG has characters with depth. Really? All I saw was an utterly wooden Jennifer Lawrence, playing an utterly wooden character. They pretty much admit as much within the narrative of the movie Why the bland protagonist? (Hint: the same reason so many movies revolve around loser guys successfully wooing the hot chick - a tourniquet for the wounds of the socially maladjusted). Why were Woody Harrelson (love him) and Elisabeth Banks (love her) playing such irritating caricatures? Why so much build-up and so little pay-off? Or, why so much crappy build-up and no pay-off? The idea of the movie isn't even bad. It's been enjoyably done in some fashion or another in Death Race, Death Race 2, The Running Man and of course Battle Royale to name but a few. Pageantry in the presentation of murder/survival as sport is an attractive concept that should be milked for imagery, elegance, badassery and fun, and most definitely not repackaged in a sappy shell. Big fail Ross, big fail. And fuck you M, you lying twat, for telling me to watch the film.
The Hunger Games wasn’t done well for all of the reasons listed above. (Thanks for saving me the keystrokes, Cleckley.) It was mediocre at best and certainly didn’t make me want to read the book. The Avengers. I don’t love it as much as most people seem to do but it’s at least entertaining.
The Hunger Games movie adaption failed to live up to the book (or the hype), so The Avengers takes this one, despite its very bare-bones, uninspired plot.
Hunger Games...makes me feel dirty picking them but it really was a more solid film.
This is a hilarious match-up, The Avengers was truly amazing and one of the best films ever made. The Hunger Games was average at best not a good movie by any means.
on Mar 25
I think after much thought they come pretty close, but I'll say the Hunter Gemes for now.
Avengers is far better but I did enjoy Hunger games to a certain degree. Avengers is a genre classic. Hunger Games is a gimmick film. Not really close when you think about it.
2012 was an amazing year in movies for me. The Hunger Games was the first movie I saw in 2012, but The Avengers was the movie that really started off the year for me. It looks like Marvel will be the ones to start the year off again with Iron Man 3.