How The Hunger Games movie compares to the first chapter of The Hunger Games book

Rating: 5/10 (6 August 2012)

My review for this movie probably started back a year and a half or so before the movie came out. I think the book Mockingjay had just come out, and I heard of some people who were reading and recommending it. Before long, it was the newest big book series on the popularity level of Harry Potter and Twilight, even though at that point I had never heard of the previous two books in the trilogy, The Hunger Games and Catching Fire. (Some people close to the books could tell me that the previous books were always popular, but I have no proof.) It seemed undeniable that it would be the next big movie franchise. If it was, I knew I would eventually see it. But when I did would depend on what I knew about it. My awareness of what it was about changed over the course of a year or so. My first bare assumption of its content guessed it was some cheesy love story. But when I picked up a book and read the description on the back, it looked like a potentially intriguing story of a battle to the death on live television within an oppressive nation, which is pretty close to what it really is. Over a little more time, I thought I understood some premise that it's in the sci-fi genre, more so than Harry Potter and Twilight, and that represented the point where I began strongly considering reading the book. Then over a little more time, I started feeling a little pessimism about it. Really, 24 teenagers from throughout Panem, being forced by their government to kill each other on television until one is left? Is that a necessarily sci-fi premise, and would it really be uplifting enough for me to put it in a classic place in my history?
Then a month or so before the movie's release, I decided to go to the bookstore, pick up the book, sit down, read the first chapter, and leave the bookstore, considering that I would decide to read the whole book (and see the movie early) if the first chapter was particularly compelling. I considered the book fairly difficult to read, and it took five or ten pages before I could really understand what the first two to four pages were saying. But the book made enough sense by the time I read a couple pages into the second chapter, which was where I decided would be as far as I would get with the book, and I would see the movie in the discount theater. The first chapter is about the characters Katniss, her younger sister Primrose, and her friend Gale, and the second chapter as far as I read introduced Peeta. The story seems to emphasize that it's about Katniss volunteering to replace Primrose as District 12 tribute to the Hunger Games, but that's really only what the first chapter is about. Primrose and Gale have very little to do with the rest of the story. I was able to figure this out even as I stopped at that point in the book and before I watched the movie. I hope (and people who have read all the books could confirm or deny) that the sequels are a little more focused on them.
The Hunger Games came to the discount theater when the London Olympics were on TV, which interestingly enough, was a good time to watch it, though it goes without saying that it's nice to live in a world where the Olympics are not the Hunger Games. My impression of the rest of the book seemed pretty close to what I saw on the screen. Somewhat intriguing, but nothing really compelling. Nothing that made me cheer, and the logical lack of applause from the citizens of Panem probably had something to do with that. People I had talked to who had read the book said that there are dramatic interactions between the characters, particularly before the Games begin, and that's basically true. The big picture of the story doesn't really put it all the way into the sci-fi genre, but some little sci-fi elements, including genetically engineered creatures, made the movie a little closer to my kind of thing. There is obviously quite a bit of disturbing violent content, and I was right that it wouldn't be very uplifting.
As for the cinematic artwork of the filmmakers, the directing and acting were okay, and the music which I often pay attention to was also okay. It is an action movie, but because the sci-fi elements are somewhat subdued and almost the whole thing could theoretically happen in two hundred years or so, that doesn't really justify it for classic visual effects. The costume design, makeup, and hairstyling were obviously really weird, especially on the government people, and I don't know how much the book suggested that. I guess that justifies it for consideration for Best Costume Design and Best Makeup of the year. Is "may the odds be ever in your favor" supposed to be the new "may the Force be with you"? It's quotable, but I don't think that's really going to work.
And my last comment, why is it called "The Hunger Games"? I can tell that the government tries to lighten up the mood of the competition by calling it a "game," but other than the fact that competitors might sometimes get a little hungry during the games, I don't know where the "Hunger" part of the name comes from. If I were writing it, "The Panem Games" probably would have been a better title.