Pretty boring and shallow, and leaves you desiring more

Rating: 3/10 (3 April 2012)

To begin I have actually read the novel that this movie is based on and the book actually hits the mark, and this film doesn't. I don't even want to confuse this horrible attempt at a film adaption a movie. Thinking about watching this wreck again makes me sick to my stomach.
When I went to see the movie I was really expecting a survival experience like "The Running man", "First Blood" starring Sylvester Stallone or "Battle Royal", but what I got was just disappointing and boring! Even a movie experience like the "The Condemned" with Steve Austin was a lot more enjoyable than this disgrace of a film. (I actually enjoyed The Condemned and would watch it over Hunger Games without hesitation). I have seen and heard a lot of complaints about the shaking of the camera in certain scenes and I guess Gary Ross thought it would add a raw feeling to the film, but all it did was make people sick. I have seen the hand-held/shaky camera technique pulled off well in a good movie like "Saving Private Ryan" and it actually adds to what is taking place on screen and isn't overdone!
I guess the problem lies in the fact that I am not a teenager and that I have actually seen good movies before. I honestly think that the director (Gary Ross) thinks he can get away with selling a boring movie with a cheap plot. What really confuses me is that this movie got so many good reviews from the critics. Are you kidding me! Did they even see the same movie I endured?
This movie does have some good moments and good effects but anything good is overshadowed by all of the boring waiting around you do as an audience member. I give it a lousy 3/10