Perhaps the number one thing I learned watching The Hunger Games is that director Gary Ross is dearly in need of one specific Christmas present: a Steadicam.

Before getting into the film itself, some venting is in order. There are times in which using handheld cameras and intentionally keeping a shot unsteady are warranted. Director Paul Greengrass is most famous for this technique at the moment, utilizing it to an excellent and effective extent in films like Bloody Sunday, United 93, and the last two Bourne films. Even other directors’ efforts such as The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield, for all of the nausea possibly induced by their camerawork, at least had a good reason to employ this particular filmmaking choice.

In the case of The Hunger Games, I’ll even capitulate to the excuse that keeping the camera constantly moving and trembling like a teenage girl meeting Justin Bieber for the first time makes getting the all-important PG-13 rating easier (more on pushing for the less restrictive rating in a bit). However, Ross should be too experienced a director to miss the mark so terribly. He should know when that technique is warranted and when it is not; that every moment someone watching the film spends hoping the camera will steady itself is a moment they’re not invested in the movie.

It would be one thing if it were only the action scenes that were marred by the amateurish use of shakycam (and by this I mean EVERY action scene). The bigger problem lies in using it for expositional scenes where there’s little more happening than a few characters walking from one end of the room to another or chatting across a dining room table. This isn’t a byproduct of caving in to avoid an R-rating, it’s lazy filmmaking. Worse still, it’s not consistent. Some scenes are shot using a tripod/probably with a steadicam/by a camera operator not on their 47th shot of espresso. Obviously, Ross is aware there’s a way to shoot scenes without making the audience wonder if the camera is being handled like a marionette, he just unwisely chooses not to.

Okay, that beef aside, let’s move on to the next problem. When adapting a story involving kids and teens brutally fighting to the death to highlight the societal commentary author Suzanne Collins is attempting to explore, toning things down to make sure every 7th grader can buy a ticket without much hassle is compromising the very integrity of the source material. I haven’t read any of the books, and believe the author when she says they are not based on the far more graphic Japanese novel/film Battle Royale. But just in watching this film, it’s readily apparent that there’s far more going on in the books than what gets conveyed on-screen.

It’s as if the movie has declawed the book, retaining some of the violence but worried more about creating a safe product designed to make money at the box office than truly exploring the themes obviously brimming underneath the surface. I realize the written works are aimed at young adults but if you can write about these things, one shouldn’t sugarcoat the cinematic adaptation. The mediums are different but the point is that this subject material should provoke a reaction; that the film fails to do so means that it failed to make the same point.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that the casting department did a very nice job in finding actors to fill these roles. While I’ve been told by numerous people that Jennifer Lawrence doesn’t physically fit the mold of the main character, she’s got the acting chops to make the characterization in the movie work. Helping her along are a bevy of well-known actors including Stanley Tucci, Toby Jones, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, and Elizabeth Banks. There really isn’t a weak link among the actors, top to bottom, and this keeps the film moving along despite a runtime of nearly 2 ½ hours (it still felt shorter than the 80-minute Jonah Hex).

Also, while neutering the violence and gearing the overall effort to ensure it won’t alienate the lowest common denominator is frustrating, the fundamental story is interesting. It’s a sure bet that the three-book series will each get their turn on movie screens so hopefully, there will be a directorial coup d’état, and future installments will give audiences more credit. As it stands, The Hunger Games does what it needs to do to establish the franchise. But unless the next three movies are allowed to be as dark/violent as necessary (of course they’re splitting the last book into two films … ugh), the gap between this series and the awful Twilight films will mostly be measured by the strength of its actors and not by the target demographic or, ultimately, its lasting legacy.

GRADE: C

The Hunger Games hits theaters on March 23, 2012 and is rated PG-13 for intense violent thematic material and disturbing images – all involving teens.