As someone who's decided not to touch Twilight with a ten foot pole, I also don't see the comparison between that franchise and The Hunger Games, especially the movie. Oh, I understand why people would try to connect the two, but it tempts me to think rather unflattering things about those people who are earnest about it.
That said, I figured out that I didn't agree with Movie Bob a long time ago, and only watched this out of a mixture of boredom, mild curiosity, and lack of alternative distractions. I didn't finish watching his review for all the reasons I generally try to avoid it in the first place. Succinctly - rich in experience but shallow in perspective.
The other disclaimer is that I agree, the movie didn't quite reach the heights it could have, but I don't think graphic, explicit violence would be the answer. (Besides which, isn't that part of the point the movie is trying to make?) I'd go with better editing, and an expert if deft hand at action. Hunger Games said a lot by what it didn't show, which I appreciate and would expect out of the improved action sequences as well. Peeta needed more character to his character, and shaky cam needs to die in a fire as usual, even if I understand the theory of it in the beginning of the film.
But the movie was good, quite good really. Better than any I've seen in a long time. I enjoyed the costume design and that the visuals in general weren't the usual hyper-real, Hollywood tripe, because the acting and vision behind the movie were the heart of the experience and the reason it shined above the masses, not the production values. The disparity between the two left a lot more room for the former, and it helped in this case. Since when was a good movie defined by production values anyway?
The weaknesses weren't pronounced enough to hurt my experience, the strengths were more than worth seeing, and really, how many movies can say even that much these days?
Oh, I haven't read the books either.