Hungry for Games too

Pleasantly surprised when a philosophy peer asked me out earlier today. I tend to like spontaneous outings a lot. Dinner at a casual restaurant, we were directed to a table with 2 seats when there were a few vacant tables with 4 seats despite some initial reservations on our part. Friend just told the waiter we were expecting someone else, and the waiter had no choice but to yield. One advantage of being an error theorist, my friend later quipped. (An error theorist is one who believes moral judgments express beliefs, but they express beliefs about nothing true in this world; myself, I am at parts a noncognitivist, at parts an error theorist)

Caught The Hunger Games. Ok at best, would watch on the TV again but only for the attractive female lead, who could portray both strength and vulnerability well. Build-up was slow and not too subtle, but I might have felt that way because I had read the book before. The more serious defect was that it glossed over some more important aspects of the story while still showing many unimportant bits. There was supposed to be a kind of ambiguity in the relationship between the 2 leads, for example. And overall I just couldn't connect with any of the characters well, not even the attractive female lead. The stakes were never high enough for me consequently. Many of the characters' motivations were not well-developed too, leaving some of their behavior mildly confusing and hollow. What saved the film was some decent directing, some decent acting, and some decent music. These were enough to make scenes like Rue's death and the 2 leads kissing, while not exactly impactful, not exactly cringeworthy either.

How come no spoiler alert one?