I was initially drawn to this book because the plot takes place in the dark post-crisis society that Suzanne Collins predicts for the future of North America. I guess that sounds weird, but it's because I've always enjoyed books that tell of brave individuals fighting a dystopian totalitarian government (1984, The Giver, Anthem, It Coulnd't Happen Here etc etc). The Hunger Games held up as a book in this genre, so I had to see the movie. I was ultimately satisfied with the movie, but not as extraordinarily thrilled as I had hoped I'd be.
First off, it was always going to be a tough adaptation to the screenplay, considering that the novel is written in first-person present tense, from the perspective of our young female protagonist. You try putting a story's worth of internal thoughts and calculations into visual/action movie-form and tell me how easy it is. Then, add to this the difficulty of staying as true to the story as possible, like in the Harry Potter adaptations, to keep all the young fans of the book happy and eager to watch the next two movies. I guess that's why they brought in Collins as co-screenwriter. But one of the consequences of this is that the script wasn't as creative as it could have been, and it got a little bit dull visually at a couple places and resulted in a long film too, at 2 hours 22 minutes.
Also, the director, Gary Ross, was perhaps not the most obvious choice for this adaptation. His career has been as a rather ecclectic writer, doing Big, Dave, Pleasantville and Seabiscuit, directing the latter two. This resulted in a unique vibe throughout the movie, something quite different from the all-out Hollywood blockbuster feel of the later Harry Potter movies. The camera work was unique with lots of closeups and hand-held effects, plus there was an odd selection of instrumental, classical, music. Both of which, by the way, were a bit distracting at times. Also, it felt like Ross was trying to keep a low budget on effects because a couple scenes' CGI felt more like a high school art project than a professional job, namely the futuristic capitol city and the all-important flame costumes.
Ross also made certain casting decisions that weren't necessarily convincing. If his objective was to stick close to the novel, I think he strayed off course with the choice of Josh Hutcherson as lead male. The book painted the character as somebody much less assuming and arrogant, someone naturally more introverted and good-natured. Woody Harrelson's character in the book was both a bumbling drunk and a caring role model, but his portrayal only lived up to the former. And, finally, our protagonist Katniss Everdeen was played by Jennifer Lawrence, an inexperienced actress who is too much like a supermodel in real life (for proof, see her on the Red Carpet here) to play this role. In fact, she overdid her stoicism and reminded me of a young Juliette Lewis, the actress who played the middle-aged, knock-you-in-the-gut, mascara-smeared, roller derby hotshot, "Iron Maven" from Whip It.
But, bringing it all back in, I did like the movie overall. The brutality of teenagers killing each other in cold blood was successfully kept PG-13, other than casting choices it lived up to the book, and made me ready for the sequel.
