The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

I am glad that this sequel was just as good as the original film. I was impressed by the previews I saw for "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire". I liked the story and come to think of it, if the story weren’t good then it wouldn't have been adapted for the big screen anyways. I am therefore going to focus most of my attention of the cinematic depiction of this story. The cast members, returning and new, did their jobs well but once again, the romance had me a little confused. Maybe the fact that I am a guy has something to do with it. Because I haven't read the books, I will never know.

The opening scenes and the montage of the victory tour were effective in providing exposition. I enjoyed the drama seen in the reaping for the games in that Katniss is the only living female victor from District 12 and so the drawing of her name is only a horrific formality. At this moment, Effie goes from being the annoying Capital representative we remember from the first movie to being a proud member of the District 12 team. I did not expect this and I am happy with the change that has come over her. It shows Katniss' inspirational power. Her dress during the interview was really cool but that is stating the obvious. I love the reaction to the "revelation" that Peeta gives to the audience at the TV interview. It shows that even the Capital has the ability to rise up in rebellion. The part where Cinna is beat up is hard to watch. The romance in the movie was easier to understand after seeing the first film more than once. Also, the filmmakers did a good job of portraying the true nature of Katniss and Peeta's relationship in "Catching Fire" up until the arena. Once the games begin, I can't tell whether it is still a show for those watching and everything in truth is platonic or if Katniss truly have strong feelings for Peeta. Of course, those who read the book know the answer but what about people like me who only know this story by way of the movies? The first movie had a better climax but I guess the filmmakers were going for cliffhanger power this time. I was expecting that the 75th Hunger Games would resemble the 74th in that it would come down to just two competitors. In this movie, the games ended sooner than I was expecting and I did not feel as big of a climatic highpoint. The twist ending with Plutarch was a welcome surprise and the final shot of the film with Katniss is important. Something changes in her mind.

As mentioned, all the cast members did great. Since the last movie, Jennifer Lawrence has won an Oscar. In fact, she attended the Oscar ceremony in the middle of filming. I am starting to like Woody Harrelson's performance in these films more so than Stanley Tucci's. The late Phillip Seymour Hoffman was the perfect choice to play Plutarch because the character needed his bad guy persona. Willow Shields has grown so much since the last movie that I didn't recognize her. Michael Arndt, under a different name, co-wrote the screenplay by the way. I noticed a change in the cinematography, which I think caused some realism to be lost but that was because the arena scenes were shot with IMAX cameras. I did slightly notice the switch to IMAX format as I watched the film.

The biggest fault that this film franchise has is that it more appealing to those members of the audience who have read the books. Thankfully though, the acting and story itself make up for this flaw. There are similarities between the fictional Hunger Games and the real life process of making movies. Actors are chosen and paraded in front of fans as promotion. Then comes the release of the movie and everyone goes to watch the spectacle. Those performing must convince the audience that they are worth watching and those behind the scenes are also doing their part to make the showcase attractive and entertaining. After the movie, the winning members involved bask in the rewards. Just as Panem for 74 years went along with all this, we are in danger of become desensitized to moderate cinematic adaptation. I am not saying that the filmmakers did a bad job; what I am saying is that a character's thoughts are hard to adapt from a book to a movie. There are ways to accomplish this and I felt that the people behind the scenes could have done a little better. Because I am unfamiliar to the books, it is hard for me to interpret the romance in "Catching Fire" as well as in the first film. I will end with one more concern about this franchise: two more movies from one final book? Where have we seen this before? I don't like trends that are illogical. It was logical for "Harry Potter" because a seventh adaptation needed two films for resolution purposes after such a long franchise. My friends have told me that "Twilight" didn't need to follow suit. "Twilight" was after as much money as possible. Does a three-book franchise need four movies in the case of "The Hunger Games"? I guess we will have to wait and see.

3.5 Stars