Everybody and their dog surely has a review of “The Hunger Games” by now. I’ll keep my observations simple and short: It’s a good movie, a nice ride and a good adaptation of the book. It ought to be considering the author was deeply involved in the screenplay. And that’s what strikes me as significant about it. Never before has the movie version so closely matched what I saw in my mind’s eye from the book.

Knowing the film was coming and my daughters likely would be interested in it, I listened to the audiobook version (thank you, Audible.com) a few months ago. Now I want to read or listen again because so much of the imagery was spot on. Was it just a coincidence that my imagination interpreted it that way? Did the way the book was written have such specific imagery that it became a clear template for the cinematographer? Or did the movie crew just do a great job finding locations that matched the descriptions? Whatever the case, it was interesting to see it so fully realized.

That said, I could have done without all the shaky-cam. Watching “The Hunger Games,” I figured the shaking at the beginning was meant to convey Katniss’ near-panic and unsteadiness, and that everything would be “normal” for her once she was in her element while in the wilderness. But that wasn’t the case, and all the wobbling got old.

Despite that, I’d give “The Hunger Games” seven generic rating measures out of 10.