Hunger Games: Book vs. Movie.
The book wins, hands down.
But doesn't it always?
There's just no way a book can ever clearly convey all the beautiful details that a book provides. It can't give you the back story of all the characters or lay the plot out as neatly; it's a much more abbreviated "in your face, hurry and catch up" kind of presentation.
If you read Hunger Games, then you probably felt like I did; that the movie was an okay adaptation of the book. What sort of threw me is that they eluded to some things without any backstory - and then completely left other important details and characters out entirely. Which, of course if they're going to do a sequel (and you know they are going to do a sequel) then the Hollywood powers that be are going to be using creative license on actually changing the story. I don't know how an author can actually feel good about that?
The casting was overall, pretty good. Some of the characters were portrayed differently than I imagined them -- some, spot on. They really got some of the casting done right.
Would I say not to go see it? No.
I'd say if you haven't read the book and want to see it - go for it.
And if you like it, even a little bit -- you've got to back and read the book.
It's an easy read, quick and not crazy complicated. But the details that aren't in the movie really are some of the finer parts of the story.
I can't help it, I'm a bit of a purist when it comes to these things.