Entertaining movie. Absolutely worth the watch.

Rating: 8/10 (6 March 2013)

A movie based on a teen novel, hyped - and grouped - along with the likes of Twilight? I was absolutely closed-minded about this movie, and only rented it because I knew Bikini Spring Break wasn't a good choice for dinner-and-a-movie night with my wife (the RedBox was running thin). We were both pleasantly surprised!
Yes, it's a PG-13 movie, which probably took away from some of the reality, but the characters were well-developed, the concept was very intriguing, and my wife and I both found ourselves wrapped up in the Games. I forgive the writers of the teen novel for wishing to appeal to their demographic, leaving out some of the elements of gore.
I've read the other reviews, and was initially surprised that so many people gave low ratings (1s & 2s), but then I remembered two things: 1) People will think it's either the worst thing ever, or the best thing ever, & 2) This story was first a book, and it infuriates people if an adapted screenplay leaves out ANYTHING in the novel.
I haven't read the book, but I'm sure there's a lot missing from the movie. Consider, for example that the run time of the film is 2:22. The run time of the Hunger Games audiobook is 11:12. Is it not reasonable to expect that somewhere in those nine hours, a few bits of the story won't hit the pages of the movie script? No one is impressed that you're capable of reading, so there's no need to act like what you read is better than what I saw.
But to address specific themes/plot lines that people claim were missing:
I understood that the districts were left hungry - this was not missing, as some have claimed. Remember when Katniss smelled the bread at the beginning of the movie and said "Is this real?!" like it was a 24-carat diamond? Remember that the tension between she and Peeta stemmed from a wasted roll? If the complaint is that Jennifer Lawrence was not emaciated enough, that is a weak complaint.
It was made clear the oppression they all live under - which apparently some of the book-readers claim wasn't in the movie. Throughout the film, in every was possible, it is illustrated. In fact, it's explicitly addressed by Donald Sutherland's character when he talks about why there's winner: Hope. If the complaint is that there wasn't more to illustrate the tyranny, again, it is a weak complaint.
People claim that there was not enough developing of the relationship between Katniss and Rue. I disagree. Did we not see how Rue's death affected Katniss? Were there not multiple occasions when they worked together to kill the other tributes? Did they not play roles in protecting each other? Sure, you can claim that there may have been missing scenes, but to argue that their closeness was not illustrated is - again - a weak complaint.
I haven't - and probably won't - read the book. All that seems to do is create cynics, who want everything from their 11-hour read to fit into a 2-hour movie - and will consider it garbage if anything is missing. That's unfair, and this is coming from someone who discarded this series as crap before learning anything about it.
It's a fun film with an interesting concept, and I'll probably watch it again. Odds are I'll make an effort to catch the sequels, too. I'd strongly recommend this to anyone.