After the success of the first film, there can be no doubt that "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" is the most anticipated film of 2013. The prognosticators are already predicting one of the biggest openings of all time and the film will undoubtedly be a big hit. The success of the first one was the result of strong quality and a performance that turned Jennifer Lawrence into a household name. Lawrence has transcended the series with her Oscar win and the franchise is no longer likely to surprise anyone; this only implies that the stakes are higher than ever for the latest major Hollywood franchise. Can the film live up to it?
The first installment introduced the world to Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) and the futuristic world Panem where 12 districts have been set up to control the people from rebellion. Each year a male and female from each district is selected to fight in the Hunger Games; they must essentially kill each other and the last one standing gets to provide for their people. Katniss won in the first film (obviously) but she turned everyone's head upside down inside of the Capital when he opted to concoct a fairy tale love story with fellow district 12 tribute Peeta Millard (Josh Hutcherson); she also managed to save him. Obviously, her act of rebellion has the big bad President Snow (Donald Sutherland) upset and as the second film starts he threatens to kill Katniss' family unless she plays out the romance with Peeta and gets rid of talks of rebellion. After the lengthy tour that starts the film, Snow and his new Game maker Plutarch Heavensbee decide to reunite past winners for the 75th anniversary of the Hunger Games. At this point, Katniss and Peeta must return to a new arena to save their lives.
It goes without saying that those not invested in the franchise will find little here that will lure them in. In this writer's opinion, the first film was plodding and took forever to get to the Hunger Games centerpiece. Once it got there, it managed a few poignant moments but also felt a bit tired and repetitive in some instances.
Fortunately "Catching Fire" works in a different manner. As the film opens the viewer is presented with an icy forest land and an extreme close-up of Katniss; something is off. Later on she experiences a traumatic vision of killing someone as she hunts down wild animals. The viewer is immediately interested. Moments later Katniss is being threatened by Snow. The film does hit a bit of a lull as Katniss and Peeta go on tour but there are some unique and poignant moments of rebellion going around. As with the first film, this one is not afraid to dish out the violence. This will not be a rant on the ratings system (because in this writer's opinion, the system is a massive joke), but it is pretty embarrassing and revealing that this film is rated PG-13 while other movies like "Philomena" (which has no gruesome violence and barely any inappropriate language) was initially rated R. The whole point is that unlike such films as "World War Z," this film is filled with adult violence that is sometimes tough to watch. That is worthy of applause considering the content.
As expected the film picks up once the new Hunger Games are revealed and the protagonists' lives are put in danger once more. The tension in this competition is heightened because there are more surprises and a variety of threats in store for the contestants than in the first film.
The film is far from perfect however. The love triangle feels as superfluous as it does in the entirety of the "Twilight" series; its greatest achievement is to confuse the viewer. Katniss indicates early on that she loves Gail (Liam Hemsworth) but then has moments where she loves Peeta. By the end of the film, there is an indication that she has fallen for one over the other but it still feels confused and unconvincing at best.
The plot twist at the end of the entire movie actually feels quite unsurprising and unrealistic in how it unravels. Why is the main hero being put in such tremendous danger when the ones putting this character in danger have a completely different mission for her altogether? Wouldn't the entire plan fail if Katniss was killed while enduring the aforementioned danger? Then what would they do with their master plan? Seems like a rather dumb risk to take with so much at stake. Suspense of disbelief is always essential, but the film's final big twist manages to step on an otherwise solid film to that point.
Lawrence made a name for herself after a star turn in the first film and she continues to develop the character with relative ease. Lawrence always gives her characters a coolness that makes her alluring despite being a bit intimidating. These traits remain in Katniss, but the constant close-ups reveal a rather brittle exterior and a more vulnerable interior. This actually draws the viewer in and makes Katniss plight all the more interesting.
The remainder of the cast pretty much does the same as it did in the first film. All of them do their work well enough to provide Lawrence with the support that she needs, but it is clear that this is truly her show and no one else's.
When compared with other major tentpole films like "Man of Steel," "Thor: The Dark World," "Iron Man 3," "Monsters University," "Star Trek Into Darkness" and "Pacific Rim," "The "Hunger Games: Catching Fire" undoubtedly tops them all. The film should please fans of the series and first film and potentially lure those willing to give the franchise another chance.
- Contribute to this Story:
- Send us a tip
- Send us a photo or video
- Suggest a correction
