Hunger

A heavy, existentially tuned and extremely personal drama that attacks the limits of the viewer's emotionality in a completely indiscriminate, mentally and physically exhausting way. Unfortunately, this applies only to the second half, when watching Fassbender suffer voluntarily makes us more nauseous than Jackson's Braindead – if the whole film was like this, it would immediately reach top positions in the popularity charts here and perhaps even the percentage rating. Unfortunately, the opening part is boring and confusing rather than shocking and, despite all efforts at authorial innovation, quite uninteresting, too, so my rating is just a logical outcome of two completely different halves. But nothing against McQueen, his patient and strongly poetic approach would prove very useful and even massively successful in subsequent films. And here (in the first half) is the germ of everything. 70% (13.04.2014)

Hunger is a film that feels absolutely convincing, evokes exactly the emotions it wants to evoke, and is economical in its expression. It is told through imagery and the only crucial dialogue between the hunger striker and the prison chaplain is a delight in how many layers, connotations, probing, and information it contains. This drama can provide a complete picture of the problem in a reasonable duration of 95 minutes and literally engulf the viewer. The theme of torment, and frustration of prisoners and guards who are limited by political guidelines from people who have no real idea about the actual situation and no intention of dealing with it far away in parliament. It is a battle of willpower, ideology, ideas, sacrifice, intimidation, and strength. A controversial film that is not for everyone. Overall impression: 95%. (19.05.2011)

I understand what Steve McQueen is going for, and I must admire him for not giving in to anti-populist form even for a moment, while avoiding the feeling of a self-indulgently slow pace. The boundary between raw reality and explicit atrocities and violence is sometimes quite thin, and Hunger crosses it too many times for my taste. Of course, Michael Fassbender can weigh twenty kilos even with the bed included yet still captivate me with a mere glance. But more often than not, I sneered at it disgustedly instead of experiencing it. (15.08.2012)

While watching Hunger, you spend the whole time wondering what the point of the film is, since everything in it depicts the outrageous treatment of IRA prisoners in an English jail with a Kubrick-like austere eye. Even in the second half, when the screenplay forgets the previous characters and focuses on Michael Fassbender’s voluntary martyr, we remain only observers of things that make our blood freeze. In this part, however, the film is brought up a level higher thanks to the actor’s extraordinary talent. Finally, the film acquires some meaning due to the fact that the suffering that the character(s) endured was not for naught. A powerful film. (27.02.2010)

A painfully physical experience. Persistent, intense, gradual and scorching. McQueen risks serious accusations of political controversy, but this film is not about defending ideology, but rather about the often Baroque-rigid and visually brilliant image of humiliation, determination, and suffering. In terms of structure, the film resembles a three-winged altar full of blood, renunciation and feces - an altar that does not accuse, react or evaluate... only radiates a disheartening chiaroscuro. Steve McQueen is undoubtedly a huge talent with his artistry, economical language and sober sharing ability. (04.01.2010)