Lionsgate
142 min., dir. by Gary Ross, with Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, and Elizabeth Banks

Harry Potter is over for now and the last Twilight installment is on its way — it’s clearly time for the next young adult reading phenomenon to overtake the multiplex. The Hunger Games already kicked up a fuss over its subject matter when the book was released, and the film seems to be no different. Certainly unflinching in its delivery, the end result is a jumbled mess of questions. Maybe the book answers them, maybe not, but one looming question exists: why?

The story takes place far in the future. As punishment for a long ended rebellion — as well as to keep its oppressed citizens in line — the government in power chooses two teens (one male, one female, between the ages of 12 and 18), and forces them to participate in an annual all-out death match known as “The Hunger Games.” To protect her 12-year-old sister who was chosen this year to participate, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) volunteers to take part in the competition. Viewed throughout the nation by a rabid fan-base, The Hunger Games are about to experience some new twists it hasn’t seen in its 74-year existence.

Have you seen or read The Running Man? That certainly explored public bloodlust in relation to reality television, and that was before we even had reality television. Have you seen or read Battle Royale? It already explored fading humanity as teens were forced to murder one another. So you may ask, what does The Hunger Games have to offer that may be remotely new? The answer is nothing. At least in Battle Royale the kids were chosen for an experiment. There’s no explanation as to why these games use kids for its madness. Other than for the sake of sensationalism, there is no reason this story could not have contained adults fighting for their lives. No semblance of reason was provided to justify this plot point.

Throw a group of adults into this situation and confusion would reign — why would anyone expect children as young as 12 years old to put on a good show? The entire endeavor is one big attempt to shock. Seeds are planted for plenty of famous themes, but none are fleshed out. There isn’t even a proper resolution. Sure, the character completes a journey, but there are no discernible consequences, especially since no matter what ultimately happens to her, her sister can still be called to compete next year — or at any point in the next six years.

I have a speckle of appreciation for the filmmakers for not shying away from some gratuitous violence, but the story is tame when it comes to its ending, which is the equivalent to a slap in the face. If you’re going to go all the way, then pull the trigger and do it. Next to the shocking child murder, the only thing that kept me awake was watching Elizabeth Banks and Stanley Tucci get a little wild and crazy with their over-realized characters. Oh, and I mustn’t forget Donald Sutherland as the restrained overbearing president — not many people can be so evil by hardly moving an inch.

The Hunger Games simply is a story that has been done, and is just now being sold to a mass audience. In a confused, partial pile of familiar formulas, all The Hunger Games does is make unsuspecting viewers cover their mouths as maniacal freaks murder young children, (under a PG-13 banner, mind you) while answering nothing. Why? Because it asks nothing.