Read the book or the odds will not be in your favour

Rating: 7/10 (24 March 2012)

The Hunger Games is a good adaptation of good material. As a reader of the first book but not the sequels, I liked how Katniss was an independent and strong character and that it's a teen lit novel that doesn't become a love story. The idea is great (I'm a firm Battle Royale fan) but the writing was only fair- too many cheap cliffhangers- but I felt that it would translate excellently to the screen. However I was able to avoid the hype and hold a very neutral, yet educated stance.
The structure of the book is intact. From start to finish the film is very faithful, with the only exception being that a flashback is told sporadically in the film instead of being laid out early in the book. The time distribution however is not equal throughout the film: the first act is skimmed through. It gets the plot rolling quickly, but the characters suffer- something that happens a lot. Gale, Prim and Mom see so little screen time, which makes The Reaping feels very wrong. It seems too quiet and empty, despite silence being the point of it.
Very early we get to the Capitol, which is lushly realized despite some very plain visual effects. The costumes and locales are ridiculous, extravagant and ignorant like the citizens who wear and occupy them. And the Games itself jump right out of the book.
There's two major, looming problems with the film, which are the assumptions filmmakers made about you and removing the narrator. Suzanne Collins, the author of the books, co-wrote the screenplay. So in her mind, it is assumed you know anything she leaves out of the film because you have to have read the book. For example, who Foxface is. Readers know, but if you are in the dark you probably won't understand until her arc is completed. In fact, most characters disappear in the film- Thresh gets one line, Clove, and Rue even. The thing that could have rectified this problem was taken out of the film: Katniss' thoughts. The perspective changed in transfer to objective, meaning we only see what happens, no thoughts about them. Katniss' thoughts could explained so much that didn't need to be shown and wasn't. Maybe a full blown narration wouldn't have worked, but even hearing her think to herself sometimes, or hearing things others said earlier, or even Nathan Drake (Uncharted) style talking to herself could've fleshed out the world and made the film easier to stomach for those who didn't read.
There are more issues though. The camera gets ridiculous. Understandably, not all of the violence could be shown on screen, but the action shots here are sickeningly unfocused and uninspired. A late change to the 'dogs' makes the scene impersonal and has the cheapest scare I've ever seen in a PG film, and like the source material there's not much closure. Despite a healthy 2:20 runtime, characters are really underdeveloped (Peeta's alliance has no repercussions or explanation, mind-boggling), and it still feels slow in some areas. The visual effects are lazy- the flaming dress is SO BAD- it put very dangerous words in my head: cash in.
There are some great performances though. Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) is perfect, strong and unaffected by men, and the film thankfully has even less forced romance than the book. And while it's not played up for excitement, she kicks some ass for survival. Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) makes the best of any support. He's captivating, a clearly haunted and tired character, but still humorous and helpful. Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley) is a character I can't even remember from the book, and I'm conflicted about him. Some parts he seems too nice to be the Gamemaker, and in others he seems too cruel, but he gets a fantastic last scene that I think was the best original thing they added. It's very poetic. Lastly Cato (Alexander Ludwig) is the primary tribute antagonist, and I always pictured a very intimidating young man playing him. So while the casting isn't the best for him, he's convincingly vicious.
The atmosphere slips sometimes. Some parts nail the desperation and horror of the event, but others actually coaxed laughter from the audience like a very important and tense last scene from the book that had the whole theater giggling- still not sure if it was intended to be comedic.
The Hunger Games has its ups and downs, but a solid core. It's a fair adaptation of material heavier than its developed audience and it shows in the film that the goal is to make lots of money from fans. It's a good couple of hours but not an especially memorable film. If you're a fan of the novels you'll love because you'll actually understand it, but if you're like me, on the fringe, or haven't read them at all, don't feel too bad if you miss this one. 7.5/10