Didn't live up to the hype but still good

Rating: 6/10 (12 August 2012)

When word was going around about "The Hunger Games" trilogy (being someone not familiar with the books), I thought I would give it a shot when it came out since Jennifer Lawrence was in it. Then came the insane Box-Office earnings and rave reviews from most parties. My expectations, as a result, were heightened. However, for me, the hype did not match it's reality. I am not saying that it wasn't a good film, it just wasn't as good as I thought it would be and I think it was so because it really did not put much detail into the many aspects which define the sociological order that exists in this dystopia. This is personified in an event which is based on the idea of a celebration dedicated to nothing other than constant revenge being undertaken by the powerful on it's powerless to serve as a reminder to the consequences of their actions.
I know that most people (who have read the book) would not hold this critique into consideration coming from someone who has not read the prose. Most of the film's fans,however, are thoroughly satisfied due to it keeping true to the original material. To me a great adaptation does not necessarily need to replicate it's source but also give a perspective of the film-maker on it to be really considered to be a piece of art he/she can call their own. Even though the film is directed well by Gary Ross, the lack of that insight into the mechanisms that rule this dystopian futuristic world would have been appropriate and would have been a film which he could call his own. Probably the next installments will delve into that aspect a lot more to make it a better film than it is.
Despite this flaw, I found the movie to be very enjoyable and would watch the sequel. Gary Ross (who, unfortunately, won't be back to direct the second installment) does tell the story he wants to tell very effectively with the use of Flashbacks and skillful editing despite the material lacking proper character development. A lot of people are saying that it lacks this insight into the characters due to it being the first of four films, but that for me is no reason why it could not be delved into since it has been done with such a series before.
The star of the show was Jennifer Lawrence who continues to awe us all with her versatility and maturity on screen at such a young age. She really gives us a glimpse into what her character is all about and does it with a guile that is synonymous to the most seasoned actors. Unless, God forbid, some unforeseen tragedy befalls her, I think we are really witnessing the growth of a great actress for the future who will give us a career with performances to remember. Even though this performance is nothing compared to her brilliant breakout role as "Ree" in "Winter's Bone", it brings out her versatility as she plays the different facets of her character with admirable realism.
A lot of people have been comparing this film to "Battle Royale" and I can't blame them. "The Hunger Games" even though it deals with very different schematics to that of the Japanese film, the portrayal of darkness in Takashi Miike's film was far more resounding giving it a more realistic perspective to society's degradation than "The Hunger Games" did. I am no sadist, but I think another flaw of "The Hunger Games" was that it really did not delve into the darkness and brutality which is the signature of such an event to a level which was required with such a premise. I guess if it was Directed with a darkness which is a signature for Director's in the East, it would have not been as accessible in theaters as it was, thus would have definitely deflated it's monstrous earnings (In hindsight, a wise business decision). Despite it's flaws (ones I consider to be), the film is really enjoyable and does have some very gripping scenes which complement it's material. Not a must-see, but I promise you would be entertained if you do.