Excellent execution of a ludicrous and dissatisfying story

Rating: 4/10 (2 September 2012)

During the introduction, as the premise of the story was presented, i thought, "okay, i can suspend my disbelief for this." Then we see little kids, age 13, being thrown into a combat arena against 18-year-olds (yeah, THAT's somehow going to end well for the young ones), and a society who turns its farmers-turned-killers into its greatest heroes (despite the psychological damage such "heroes" certainly accrue, as is eluded to via Woody Harrelson's character's constant drinking but never directly addressed). Nonetheless, the acting was good, the characters were well-cast, and the execution was commendable. As the story played out and the producers of the Games kept changing the rules, throwing out all sorts of "unfair" hurdles at the players (genetically engineered killer bat-faced dog/pig hybrids!?!?), who are supposed to be fighting _each other_ to the death, i kept thinking, "okay, someone had a bit too much budget to play with and felt compelled to stretch this out." As the end of the story drew near i kept thinking, "i don't see the threads coming together yet... what's with the boyfriend back home?" Then, after a particularly dissatisfying clip, practically out of nowhere, the credits started to roll. Aldous Huxley's ending was fine (if unpleasant) ONE time - we don't need a repeat. This time around is was dissatisfying on several levels, even more of a let-down than Brave New World's. Indeed, the ending is almost a 100% clone of Brave New World's, where the characters realize, "we can't change a thing in this broken system," but instead of hanging themselves they simply grin and bear it, becoming the reluctant stars of the Hunger Games. i get the feeling that the author of the story is trying to tell us, "accept it. It could be worse." Thanks, but no thanks - for that story i simply need to browse any world-news website.