Once in a great while, my career beckons me in a way that incapacitates me ever so slightly. Did I see The Hunger Games? Yes. Did I like it? Definitely. Do I have time to write a full review? Not this week. For this reason, joining me for the review is At The Buzzer contributor and all-around Superman look-a-like Shaun El-Ters.

Both being fans of the novel by Suzanne Collins, we’re going to first take issue with any and all comparison’s to the Twilight films beyond the simple truth that these are popular stories designed for tweens. The trailer for The Hunger Games is, on its own,  compelling viewing, while any clip of Bella Swan (who we most recently saw hungrily eyeing a deer) induces laughter. Both properties are obviously designed to make money, but the expertise in the production of The Hunger Games makes it the sci-fi pulp cult classics are made of.

The Hunger Games presents a dystopian future where the empire of Panem has risen out of the ashes of the once dominant North American nations. The decadent citizens of the Capitol rule, and the remind the citizens of the other 12 districts of their firm grip through the annual ritual of The Hunger Games — where a young man and a young woman from each district must fight to the death in an area surrounded by hidden cameras and endless death traps. The film is never bogged down by the exposition — a feat director Gary Ross and his team of screenwriters and film editors should proud of.

Any further explanation is a mute point when a film grosses $214 million globally over its first three days in release. The cast consists of Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen, Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mellark, Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket, Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy, Donald Sutherland as President Snow, and Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman. If these names mean nothing to you now, they will soon enough. These characters and their motivations are now popcorn history in the veign of Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, Darth Vader and Hannibal Lecter before them.

The Hunger Games doesn’t change much from its best-selling source, but the occasional deviations are effective — but more importantly, cinematic. The explanation of the absence of Katniss’ father and the emotional failure of Katniss’ mother are explored more effectively in this film. The deeper characterization of Seneca (Wes Bentley) provides an interesting angle and gives a perspective to the other side these most horrible of games. Much of the interior monologue that drives Katniss is excised, as are the great stretches of quiet reflections that result from her time alone. But the inspired casting of Lawrence, who delivers another incredible performance as a young person who hates feelings, is what
will raise this entertainment above expectations. As many have pointed out, The Hunger Games could have easily been subtitled Winter’s Bone 2. She still even has her bow in tow.

The Hunger Games aims for entertainment, and it succeeds at hitting that mark. Both the film and its source draw parallels to Ancient Rome, and perhaps our very own televised distractions. Yet any social commentary a consumer gains from The Hunger Games is entirely subjective. Why are these hormone-driven teenagers presenting little reflection in the face of their usually inevitable demise? Why is this society is so docile in the face of such a cruel system? These are questions for another story, or perhaps the forthcoming sequels.

The Hunger Games is, in our respective opinions, the best a movie adaptation of the novel could have been. Is the book better than the movie? As is often the case, the book was better in ways that books are always better—more familiarity with the characters, more time to invest in the world. However, the film captures the constant, underlying tension that made the book riveting and unforgettable, while never glorifying or losing sight of the precariousness of young teens being forced to fight to the death.

Note: Gary gave The Hunger Games a rating of 4 stars, while Shaun awarded the film an unapologetic 5. We have agreed, for the sake of avoiding an argument, on 4.5 stars.