The Hunger Games

I have a feeling that, no matter what I say here, pretty much everyone will disagree with me.  I can live with that.  Here goes:

Hunger Games was a decent movie.

That's right.  Not a great movie, not even a good movie.  A decent one, and that's it.  This is why: The shaky camera was very annoying, the character relationships were quite unbelievable, and there was simply zero emotion behind any of the acting besides Donald Sutherland's as President Snow.  I'm sorry, folks, but Jennifer Lawrence played a very flat, boring Katniss.  Not really her fault, since Katniss's emotions were much more cognitive than visually apparent to other characters in the book, but still, it didn't work on film.  I can't imagine even understanding the relationships between the characters if I hadn't read the book.  I won't give away anything--incase someone out there hasn't read or seen the movie--but there just wasn't time to develop any believability between the characters.  And again, that freak'n camera work was headache-inducing.  What's so wrong with staying focused on something or someone for longer than a heartbeat?

The movie will make butt-loads of money, teenage girls will wet their pants with glee as they wait in line for their fifth viewing.  Blah, blah, blah.  I for one, wished the movie would have had more soul.  Then again, I thought the book lacked the very same thing.

At least it isn't Twilight.  I can happily say there wasn't a single moment in THG where I had to turn my head in embarrassed shame.  It's too bad, though, that John Carter will be crushed beneath THG's mega, teenage-pukefest averageness.  JC was definitely the better March flick.