Sometimes I almost feel bad when people around me really enjoy something that I find ponderous and tiresome. Such is the case with the Hunger Games books and the movies based on them. I started reading the books because my wife and older children did, getting maybe a third of the way through the second book in the series.
I'm actually surprised I made it as far as that, because the non-ending of the first book - which I interpreted as the writer making the final pages deliberately off so readers would feel obligated to read the next book - irritated me. Despite that apparent display of contempt for the audience on said writer's part, I fought on but finally surrendered upon reaching a point in the second book where I felt the aforementioned contempt was now mixed with a desire on their part to make the audience feel beaten up as well. Interestingly, when I tried to watch the movie based on the second book in a fit of boredom on a long flight, I stopped watching at the equivalent point.
That said, the first book is pretty good, owing mainly well-done first-person narration by the character of Katniss that made a story that was overall fairly cliched feel a bit unique. Unfortunately, that point-of-view element was pretty much absent from the movie - not shocking as movies generally don't handle that kind of subjectivity very well - leaving it a well-acted action movie. Let me rephrase that, The Hunger Games is a well-acted action movie beleaguered by the mistaken notion that it has something original to say about the human condition, which is something far worse than simply being an action movie - well-acted or otherwise.
For better or worse, I'm the only person in my house who sees it that way. I'm OK with that.
