good, not great

Rating: 7/10 (11 July 2012)

Having not read the books, I was pleased with The Hunger Games as a movie. However, I do not know why it is the 3rd highest grossing movie for an opening weekend ever. It is likable, but it is no Dark Knight or Star Wars or Titanic. It is a good movie but not a great movie. The acting was solid. The mood and contrast complimented the story's dark tone. The story is very well thought out and it made me want to know more about it. For example, I wanted to know more about the individual significances of the 12 districts. For a two and a half hour movie, they could have used a little more time elaborating on the districts. I was surprised they showed the amount of blood that they did for a PG-13 movie. The only reason it did not garner an R-rating was for the lack of graphic violence. It really enhanced the movie's realism, and that is something you hardly ever see in a PG-13 movie with a serious tone. But what this movie does, that is similar to many movies now a days, is the way the camera captures the action scenes. The picture is very cut up and shaky, and so heavily edited that you can barely see a thing, during the action scenes. They say hand held movies are supposed to be the shaky nauseating ones but I have to disagree when it comes to action scenes that are depicted in this one. However, I was very pleased with the camera work that did not feature action. It was very clear and dark simultaneously, and it really captured the setting. I look forward to the next Hunger Games movie, even though the ending could have had more of a hook for the audience. Mainly, what pleases me most about this movie is if it is supposed to be the next series phenomenon, I prefer this over Twilight any day. 7 out of 10