Did I miss something? Or was it a really bad film?

Rating: 2/10 (31 July 2014)

I seem to be in a tiny minority who found not a single redeeming thing in the film. Perhaps I'm too old, seeing as the film was obviously aimed at little kids, although I didn't get this from the publicity.
I haven't read the books but the story on film is a poor re-hash of 'Battle Royale' with elements from 'Lord of the Flies' and a huge steal from Stephen King's (Bachman's) 'The Long Walk', with a bit of the flavour of the movie version of King's 'Running Man' as well - derivative hogwash. I think I could even see themes lifted direct from 'Rollerball'. Certainly 'The Long Walk' explores exactly the same themes as Hunger Games but achieves them far better. Probably wouldn't have been an exciting film though, seeing as the youths merely have to walk at a set speed until only one is left.
The acting and direction were poor. The special effects were feeble. The storyline was predictable and obvious. Character development was so poor you cared nothing for the life or death of any of the characters, including the heroine and the little girl. The love story was emotionless and unbelievable. The fight scenes were flat and unexciting. The bad guys and the 'grown-ups' were cartoonish and one-dimensional.
Poverty and desperation in the 'village' was conveyed by giving everybody 1940's clothes and haircuts, for some reason I haven't worked out yet - except for the heroine who, although poor and starving, seemed to put on a very expensive designer Italian leather jacket to go out hunting. All very bizarre.
It has obviously given rise to 'The 100', which has a similar feel of a derivative teen-angst story taken from far better 'dystopian future' novels and is another failed project of poor quality in writing and acting