Though I enjoyed the book series as a reasonably well-told bleak dystopian story with some interesting social commentary thrown in, I was largely indifferent to the film version of The Hunger Games, as Hollywood’s track record at adapting modern YA publishing phenomena has been less than inspiring.

However, the universe conspired to put me in a seat at a screening this week, and I found myself enjoying it. I didn’t necessarily find it to be the transcendent film experience the rest of America seems to think it is, but all told, it isn’t bad.

What I really liked about the film is that unlike, say, most of the Harry Potter flicks, The Hunger Games actually worked as a film without relying on prior knowledge of the books. There weren’t, for example, any “Marauder’s Map” shaped holes in it – somebody who hadn’t read the books won’t find themselves at a disadvantage in terms of understanding (didn’t stop the girl next to me from constantly filling in background details to her boyfriend the whole time, although she was doing it in spanish, so it could have been a language thing).

One thing I worried about in terms of adaptation to film is that fact that so much of what drives the story is what happens in the main character’s head – much of her survival depends on projecting an outward image that is often in conflict with her thoughts. That sort of thing is hard to pull off on film. The film’s script doesn’t spend a whole lot of time on that aspect of things, preferring to get straight into the action, particularly in the latter half of the film; a fact that many reviewers rightfully pointed out.

However, I didn’t find myself missing it, largely because of the fine work done by Jennifer Lawrence, whose body language and well, “acting” managed to express a lot of that inner conflict, at least to me. When she’s “putting on the mask” for her on-screen audience of Demolition Man extras, the way she carries herself changes. Toward the end, for example, after the arena business is over with, and she and Peeta are returning home to District 12, as victors, and for all appearances, romantic partners, her face is smiling, but her eyes reveal her true feelings of confusion and discomfort. It’s quite good work.

It’s rather a shame that none of the other characters get fleshed out more in the film, but then, most of them don’t get much more in the books, either (except maybe Rue). The other tributes are mostly faceless in the film. I’m tempted, however to let that one go, because the story does focus so much on a single character, and that character’s survival depends, at least in theory, on not growing too attached to other people, and the narrative depends on wringing dramatic tension from the situations where she can’t shrug off that attachment.

As good as that element of the story was, I couldn’t shake the feeling that the film probably could have been better*; for example, the pace was often too frentic throughout, even when it didn’t need to be – it might have worked a bit more effectively if some of the scenes got a little more room to breathe. Most of the arena action is pure disorienting shaky-cam, though I expect that’s just as much to avoid actually showing the rather intense violence of the book in order to hit a rating that would allow much of the target audience to actually get into the theater in the first place as it is trying to ratchet up the feelings of tension within the audience. Mostly, though, what it accomplishes is obscuring more of what’s happening than was probably intended.

One other thing I liked: the score – at least when the banjos kicked in. It just felt right when paired with the Appalachian flavor of District 12. It was a nice surprise; I expected lots of maudlin strings or a youth oriented pop soundtrack geared toward cross-market targeting synergy or whatever the business-speak equivalent would be. I didn’t stay through the credits, though – the tie-in soundtrack hit from some young country pop tart was probably stuffed back there.

That whole target audience angle plays into the larger theater-going experience for me. I see a lot of movies theatrically (it’s a nice way to fill an evening on the road); though I could tell that this film was marketed to an entirely different audience than I usually find myself in. The trailers were different: sure, there was some cross-pollination (Prometheus and Spider-Man), but the rest of felt foreign and Stepheny Meyer heavy – Twilight V, a teaser for The Host, and Snow White and the Huntsman (which actually looks good to me), for the K-Stew crossover. The oddball ad, though? What to Expect While You’re Expecting: The Movie. Yeah, I don’t get it either (and it looks awful).

It’s a strange experience venturing into the world of film marketed toward teenage girls and Twilight-moms. It’s a weird world to visit, looking at it from the perspective of someone who’s spent most of his life in the golden target market of “males 18-34” (even if I’ve never quite fit completely with the mainstream), and provides an interesting perspective, even if I don’t want to really spend much time there.

Though it still doesn’t explain how that Prometheus trailer (a movie that is a not-officially-affiliated prequel to Alien) got in there; I guess they were throwing me a bone.

So, in summary. The Hunger Games was rather good, certainly the best of the recent swath of YA novel adaptations. However, the dog-thing in John Carter was a way better dog-thing than the dog-things on display in this movie (I kept expecting one of them to hatch into Rick Moranis as Louis Tully).

_____________________

* – It’s almost like they knew they had a huge built-in audience that was going to see this movie no matter how good or bad it was, so they didn’t put in any more effort than they really needed to: if a solid B- will do, why go for the A, even if it wasn’t that much extra trouble? I’m not sure I agree with that, but then, I’m not a movie studio.