Beautifully shot and very brutal. Can be very hard to watch at times. Michael Fassbender is fantastic. The 17 minute shot was amazing. I can't believe they got that in only 4 takes. Steve McQueen knocking it out of the park on his first movie.

Tries to be moody instead of actually telling a story. It came across as very slow and confusing at the start. When the guy glumly
smoked a fag in snow for a few minutes, in yet another non speaking scene, I kind of knew what I was in for. Not my cup of tea.

Extremely powerful movie about the Northern Ireland conflict.

Every single scene is a punch to the stomach amazingly filmed that leaves you thinking.

So disturbing and brutal yet so powerfully beautiful.

In Michael Fassbender's performance we can feel the dedication that he putted in his role, so intense and so powerful. Michael Fassbender you are amazing!

The way Hunger is shooted is so great turning the storytelling of the events even more darker and intense.

Steve McQueen made a stunning piece of art.

It wasn't a great film, but not bad, and didn't quite get my appetite. It could of had more energy to it, but good performance from Michael Fassbender as always.

This impressively constructed debut feature shows the last six weeks in the life of Irish republican hunger striker Bobby Sands. With the level of skill that it took to make this movie, its honestly hard to believe its Steve McQueen's first. I mean the movie features an ideological debate between two characters that goes on for 23 minutes. 17 and a half of those minutes being all in one record breaking shot. That's insane! It is very different so I wouldn't recommend it to everyone but if you're quite fond of the criterion collection then you're probably going to like this movie.

Interesting theme, interesting portraying of this theme, but maybe more appropriate for a short as many passages were repetitive or predictable.

Politics aside and from a purely cinematic standpoint this was very, very bad.
To call it slow paced is the understatement of the century, watching grass grow would be sensory overload compared to watching this.
There is no background given at all and no narration, it's just one 'artsy' shot after another, and the only enjoyable moment in the whole thing was the discussion between the Priest and Sands.
And that conversation is the only real insight to Sand's thinking at all throughout the film and that is a poor substitute for background and continuous narration.
I admire Fassbender's complete dedication to the role but one stellar performance simply isn't enough when the script really doesn't allow for anything to happen and even knowing the background and the events surrounding the hunger strike doesn't really help when you are given practically nothing.

Brutal and intense. Made me want to learn more about The Troubles of which I know woefully little.

Raw, dirty and violent, the film sheds light on the situation of IRA members in 1981 mercilessly. A plan sequence of more than 10 minutes emphasizes the performance above the average of Fassbender.

An extremely interesting concept that falls flat on its face due to some of the most miserable writing and directing I've ever seen. For a movie about a so called hunger strike, you would expect a harrowing, tightly-knit story about prisoners fighting to overcome various mental and physical obstacles while struggling to carry each other through the horrors of starvation. Instead we get a mismatch of completely irrelevant scenes with random characters, then a 10 minute montage of Michael Fassbender sleeping. A complete waste of time.