Excellent book, fun movie. Lacks character development.

Rating: 8/10 (20 May 2012)

I can be the first to admit that The Hunger Games novels were around the bottom of my list of things to read. I had in previous years read many other sci-fi/fantasy books that seemed to mimic the idea brought across in The Hunger Games general premise. The Hunger Games novels were suggested by my wife, a frequent sci-fi skeptic. And when the reading began it ignited an old flame for the love of science fiction that I thought I had lost.
Where Star Wars dwindled in quality and remakes are a dime-a-dozen, Hunger Games brings a subtle yet intriguing environment similar to that of Logan's Run or THX-1138. Where poverty runs rampant and imperialist dogma leaves breadcrumbs all over the gov't, Hunger Games takes what's good in your average sci-fi and keeps it fresh. Where many look at this as a blatant rip-off of Takami's "Battle Royale," one must come to understand that Battle Royale itself was based, albeit loosely, on Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man" where the first chapter is about killing for others' pleasure titled "Battle Royale." Good sci-fi always bases its premises on others works.
Hunger Games does just that. Its ideas are based on those who have come before it, but that gives no reason to pass it off as garbage. The games themselves are a thrilling place of dog-eat-dog intensity. the movie is a unique take on America's mainstream cinematography.
Jennifer Lawrence does an excellent job as a girl who has no desire to be in this depressing world, but will try her hardest to make it better. Stanley Tucci does a wonderful job as a deluded and wealthy newscaster living the naive lifestyle in a power-hungry empire. But where these characters are well-studied by the actors themselves, it seems what the film lacks the most is still development in character on the large scale. Though she is honorably mentioned, I doubt Suzanne Collins had much sway in the writing of the screenplay, as there are many times in the film where the audience could gain a lot from learning more about the characters involved, but Gary Ross and Billy Ray leaned the opposite direction and decided intense action was much more important than character: in my opinion a huge flaw in most novel-based films. Why do we love books? We learn about character. The same frequently goes with films.
With that said the only other con of the film would be visual effects, at least on the CGI side of things. The "girl on fire" scene came and went and what could've been a potent and powerful expression of character for Kat and Peeta became a "Oh, yeah, did we mention this is supposed to be cool?" moment.
Overall, the movie brought a ray of hope for the sci-fi industry. With films like JOHN CARTER of Mars falling short and AVATAR being considered the cat's pajamas, Hunger Games flips the coin of chance and brings the old sci-fi style back into perspective. Something that I, for one, am very grateful.