Good but not Great

Rating: 7/10 (26 August 2012)

Like "The Truman Show" "The Hunger Games" depicts a world in which real people are plunged into an enormous TV set that replicates specific environments, and then filmed 24/7 with numerous hidden cameras.
However, the similarity ends there as this movie is not about a relatively benign show with an unassuming and oblivious star. The "stars" of this show (the "Tributes") know all about these terrifying "games", and their likely fate.
The "set" of "The Hunger Games" is a far more dangerous environment, where violence and death at the hands of the other "Tributes", or "natural causes" (i.e. hazards introduced by the shows' producers), is never far away.
In this respect "The Hunger Games" is more akin to a futuristic "Gladiator" - a blood-thirsty spectator game where the Christians (or in this case the "Tributes") are cast to the lions, all in the name of entertainment for the masses.
Unfortunately "The Hunger Games" possesses neither the intrigue, subtle hints and slow revelations of "The Truman Show", nor the double crossing characters, grandiose battles and epic storyline of "Gladiator".
For me it is a better than average sci-fi movie that could have delivered much more than it did - I wanted it to be great but the formulaic and predictable ending belied the intensity of some the earlier moments, whether that be the central character, Katniss, rushing forward to volunteer for the games in place of her sister, being hunted down by an alliance of other Tributes, or comforting the sweet young dying Tribute who befriended her.
As this is the first in a sequel of films it may well be that as the overall plot unfolds this proves to be a more worthy film as the first in the series, rather than a stand-alone movie.
Taken as a stand-alone it introduces us to a compelling and chilling idea that gives us a good story line, some well executed scenes and a few memorable characters, which, for me, just scrapes it into the 7/10 league.