I know this is supposed to be movie review Saturday, but I have a confession to make.

I haven’t seen any fantasy or science fiction movies since my last review, and I’d rather not review a movie that’s already been out for awhile. That defeats the purpose of what I try to accomplish with my reviews.

In lieu of that, I thought I’d try something different but hopefully interesting. It’s related to a movie review…sorta, and the topic is Hunger Games. Do I have your attention now?

Good. I thought so.

For some reason, angsty teenage girls and dystopian settings have that effect on people these days.

Everyone I’ve talked to who has seen the movies and read the books says that they don’t like the first movie nearly as much as the book. I saw Hunger Games for the first time last fall—I know, behind the times as usual.

I enjoyed it, but I thought the book was way better. That got my thinking. Why?

Here are two reasons my mind conjured up.

1. The Movie Wasn’t Long Enough

That probably sounds strange, but hear me out.

Movies can’t include everything from the book, but in this case, I noticed the stuff they cut more than I wanted to. Going in, I had certain expectations for what they would include and was sorely disappointed in several areas.

The condensed timeline restricted the movie from doing the book justice.

I was looking forward to seeing how the movie handled Katniss’s prep team and Cinna. They didn’t get anything more than a passing mention.

I wish they had done more with the training and the interplay between the tributes, but that was a letdown as well.

Not only did they cut out sizeable chunks, they added scenes that weren’t in the book. The parts with Seneca and President Snow? Frankly, I could have cared less. Why not put in something fun that was actually in the book?

The entire movie felt rushed, especially the actual Games. It wasn’t the fact that they cut material, it was what they cut and what they chose to focus on that weakened the movie for me.

2. There Wasn’t as Close a Connection with Katniss

This is a writing thing, but don’t desert me. I promise not to be boring.

In the book, everything is from Katniss’s point of view. We’re constantly in her head, privy to her thoughts and inner reactions to everything taking place. It’s a more intimate style that builds a stronger connection between reader and character.

The movie loses all that. We’re outside observers, seeing what Katniss does but not experiencing it with her. It’s like seeing a picture of a beautiful location versus actually being there. The picture is a limited representation of the real thing.

The same is true with our connection to Katniss. Seeing her on the screen is a poor replacement for the closeness provided by the book. For me, that resulted in a detachment from the movie Katniss. I didn’t know her as well as the book Katniss. Unless she was talking, it was hard to gauge her feelings and emotions.

Along with this idea, in the book Katniss is often alone after the Games begin. Since we’re inside her head, it doesn’t matter. Having her mental commentary on the situation is entertaining enough.

In the movie, however, she’s a lone girl on the screen. We don’t know her thoughts, and since having her talk to herself comes across as silly, the result is isolated silence. Not nearly as enthralling. The only good part was that the movie shortened those scenes.

Those are my thoughts on the Hunger Games book vs. movie debate. What about you?

How much did you enjoy the Hunger Games movie? What did you like or dislike about it? Please share your thoughts in the comments.