So I kinda figured this was the YA megahit I was probably gonna read if any, based on the premise and general claims towards better writing and better characters. So then a friend lent it to me so I could be filled in on things she was going to be serving at a dinner party (lamb stew! crescent rolls! My roommate, who hasn't read this, was baking a pie to bring, and I made sure he claimed it was Nightlock Berry Pie.) 
 So I'm sure you either know what this is about already, or don't care, so I won't bother synopsizing. Suffice to say that it's essentially Battle Royale (which I'm reminded I still need to read the novel of). Right down to its general thrillingness (at least in the more anticipatory first half) and to the anti-authority/anti-mass-media-exploitation themes. Which, I mean, I can totally get behind as good things for our teens to be reading about, right? 
 But does it really succeed in carrying through (and developing) these themes? Well, sort of. I've seen accusations that Hunger Games actually endorses authority and exploitation in some underhanded way, but I don't fully see that. In particular, the protagonist does seem to buy into the system to a certain degree, constantly aware of and performing for the audience (which includes the reader, naturally), but I don't think its outside the scope of a book like this to intend that we be painfully aware the of our participation as observers of a performance directed at us. It's the old victim/sadist/voyeur triangle again, which has absolutely been better-executed many times before. But does that invalidate it here? I guess that depends on how necessary you think it is to have have an in-between YA genre to introduce a less developed version of these concepts. I'm not so sure. Or, also, it may be that I'm giving Collins way too much credit in assuming she intended this kind of analysis and self-reflection, but they definitely can be drawn out of the book if you want to. 
 Less thematically successful, for me, was how the single viewpoint of the protagonist colored the the games. (First, on Katniss, lots of people love her, lots of people hate her. I thought she was okay. I'm sure she puts the Bellas of the world sufficiently to shame, but she still leaves considerable room for greater depth and interest here. And self-reflection of her own.) But anyway, since we see everything from her cold, dispassionate eyes, we're mostly cut off from empathizing with the other contestants. The full horror of the games is that everyone, pretty much, is in the same unwilling, tragic shoes, and I guess I just wanted to feel more when they lost the games. This seems essential. I kept getting interested in, and caring about, people that turned out to be either irrelevant, or actually (supposedly) Bad People, which really lessens the outrage and pathos that I feel like this should be generating. I mean, doesn't that harm the themes a bit if any of these people can die and that be basically okay, in the plot-scheme? I don't want to be coddled into feeling okay about any of this, even my own participation as a reader/audience. What I'm saying is these that these parts have most defintely been developed far more effectively before. 
 Oh, also? The love story? Not so great. They just weren't that interesting, and any tension came down to how clueless the protagonist was. This is part of why the first half was much mroe gripping for me. (others: the world-building was all in the beginning, and the more utterly ridiculous plot points come at the end. Not such a fan of the lycanthropes.) 
 As for the other two in the trilogy, well, I can see where this is going, and it seems like a good place to go, basically, but I'm not really all that concerned about seeing how it plays out. Instead, I need to get my hands on a copy of Battle Royale for comparison now. 
 I keep going back and forth on how many stars this should get. I'm kinda reluctant to be one of those Dissenting Low Scores, when I actually did enjoy reading this, and I think the thematics are basically good and interesting. I think I'm pretty okay with the mass popularity this is getting, at least in the scheme of possible popular books. But personally? I'd rather stick to other, more nuanced treatments, I think. So, two stars.