A TV movie, nothing more.

Rating: 3/10 (15 April 2012)

Let me start with a general appreciation. Hunger Games is not such a bad movie. Acting was really great, the setting and environment of the world was well designed and artistically well executed, with nice CGI, costumes and decors. I can't complain on this. The overall story is also interesting and I surprisingly found myself craving for the Games to start.
But despite all these good points, watching Hunger Games was a very frustrating experience. Ironically, I left the theater hungry, not for more Hunger Games, but for what was missing in this first installment of the series.
The first missing element is a steady and adequate rhythm. The show starts rather slowly, and full attention is given to the sole and only leading character of the movie. But the time taken to nurture Katniss' persona was oddly too long and unnecessary as it failed to bring us in the story. In our minds, the following twists of the plots are clearly predictable and offer no suspense at all, and yet it sill took more than 20 minutes to get there. And once we set foot in the Hunger Games and their training until the end, everything is gone : the attention to details that gives life to the story, the easy-to-follow pace, the feelings of the characters.
The second missing element was a real director. The close shots of faces lead us to think the focus would be on character development rather than on the action. It will later show that it is in fact an artificial trick from the director to make us forget how bad the story telling was going. Action scenes have never been that awful and were just trying to hide a complete lack of choreography and creativity. Proof is that 2/3 of the tributes are killed off screen. Most scenes were made of the same objective : give focus on the present, so that the spectator feels immersed and carried away by the plot. But it happened in the wrong way. The director completely failed at bringing up new elements, they didn't create any expectations, like the big dogs who didn't raise the adrenaline level at all. The movie also failed at giving resonance to past events, whether it was related to the mechanics of the universe of the story, or to the characters. Indeed, how could Katniss forgive Peeta for betraying her at the beginning of the games so fast? The kissing scene was so unrealistic and showed the complete lack of character development. Like if it was just meant to happen, to please a teenage audience, most likely.
The last missing major element was the attention to details. Arrows vary between 2, 3, 4 even when Katniss just lost a few while fighting the girl near the pyramid. Or when she just shot the apple sack. If the principle was that resources are scarce, they completely failed to give us worry for Katniss. And her hair was always different between shots, sometimes just a second apart. With dozens of people on set, and dozens of eyes paying thorough attention to every details on screen, how can this still be possible ?
I still perfectly remember the first Harry Potter and the comparison is not in favor of the Hunger Games. Sorcerer's stone perfectly managed its three main missions : introduce us to a very detailed and rich new universe, its mechanisms, its characters, its ambiance; Give space for the first adventure of the young wizard, and give plenty suspense, action, comedy and romance; Conclude the first story and bring the spectator to fancy and hope for a second movie. Hunger Games failed at these three main objectives.