"Catching Fire" Proves That "The Hunger Games" Has More To Say Than Other YA Franchises

Directed by Francis Lawrence, written by Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt, starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Jeffrey Wright, Elizabeth Banks, and Philip Seymour Hoffman - Rated PG-13

Much like the unfortunate deputy, the Capitol has no idea what's about to happen.




The first Hunger Games movie was a welcome departure from the usual young adult adaptation fluff.  Typically, a young adult (or YA) series is either skewed too specifically to its young audience (the Twilight series), or its world is too complicated, or wacky, for the non-readers (insert any of the failed YA franchises here).  The Hunger Games worked because it had something for everyone, and the setting was recognizable.  You had the love triangle business for the tweens, but you had the social satire for the adults.  Sure, the satire wasn't very subtle, but it left you with something to think about.  Plus, there was a strong cast that made you care about the characters.

Catching Fire doesn't simply continue the story of The Hunger Games, it enhances it.  The appropriately titled film (and book) takes the injustices hinted at here and there in the first installment and puts them at the forefront.  Heroine Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) can no longer be the quiet pawn in the government’s game.  She has become a symbol, and it’s impossible for her to keep a low profile.  Because of this, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) has to push Katniss back into the spotlight, so he can destroy her and any hopes for a revolution that she might represent. 

This is a fairly basic story as far as dystopian films go.  An impoverished populace must fight their rich overlords.  What makes it different is that this is not a film about planning.  Katniss is truly a game piece that each side uses, often without her knowledge.  Since she is kept in the dark, the audience is as well, for the most part.  The film diverts from the book (which is told only through Katniss’s perspective) with a few scenes with Snow and the new head Gamemaker, Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), but the bulk of the film is told through Katniss’s eyes.  This is important because it leaves some mystery to what could have been a very boring story.  Katniss is an unwilling symbol of freedom that needs to see firsthand the atrocities being committed throughout society.  Instead of boring secret meetings in which plans are hashed out then performed, we get to see Katniss react to the extreme poverty gap.

The Hunger Games is a series that requires you to suspend disbelief and accept that this world, in which the nation’s youth are forced to kill each other for entertainment, exists.  As a free society, the audience may find it hard to believe that humans could ever let things get so bad, but historically, it happens (some would argue it’s happening right now).  Some might think, “How is Katniss so gullible?”  But she is the product of the world she was born in.  There is no grand revolution to celebrate because it hasn’t happened yet.  In fact, it was attempted years ago, and the district that rebelled doesn’t exist anymore.  So her frame of reference for revolution is the opposite of, say, an American’s.  To Katniss, revolution means everything you know and love will be destroyed.  So it’s important for her to see the discontent firsthand.

Director Francis Lawrence, writers Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt (credited as Michael DeBruyn, for some reason), and author Suzanne Collins have done a fantastic job of showing the divide.  Collins, of course, laid the groundwork, and Beaufoy and Arndt focused on the best examples, but Lawrence (no relation to star Jennifer) should get most of the credit for presenting it all in a very effective way.  He sticks with the first film’s style by following most of the characters from behind as they walk into scenes, but he has improved upon the original.  Perhaps it’s only because there was more money available, but Catching Fire simply looks better than the first film, which means that the differences between the rich of the Capitol and the suffering of the poor are that much more realistic and powerful.  The staging of most of the film in general is quite effective with the characters small in the frame and the surroundings towering around them.  It created a feeling of the world bearing down on all of these characters.

Who cares about the world bearing down if you don’t like the characters, though?  Thankfully, Catching Fire has enough talent for you to get on board with most of the characters involved.  There are some great actors involved with this, including two Academy Award winners (Jennifer Lawrence and Philip Seymour Hoffman) and two more nominees (Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci).  These four acclaimed actors are joined by returning stars Josh Hutcherson, Elizabeth Banks, Toby Jones, Donald Sutherland, and Liam Hemsworth, to name a few, and a few newcomers in Jeffrey Wright, Amanda Plummer, Sam Claflin, Jena Malone, and Lynn Cohen.  The fact that there are even this many roles to be filled by recognizable actors shows that this is no throwaway movie for tweens.  Because of the size of the cast, however, most of the roles rely on screen presence alone. 

Most of the actors are given at least one scene to show off a little bit, but there’s not enough for them to do to stand out in any way.  But it is certainly nice to see the likes of Jeffrey Wright and Amanda Plummer in small roles.  The most high profile new addition would be Philip Seymour Hoffman.  His character takes the place of Seneca Crane, aka the guy with the crazy beard, from the first film.  Hoffman looks pretty much like he does in any other movie, but he gets to play up the ruthlessness in this role.  Hoffman is perfect for any role that requires him to seem indifferent to characters around him. 

As for the returning stars, nothing much is going on with them.  Lawrence and Hutcherson both do fine in continuing their fake romance while realizing how bad things are around them.  Banks is still pretty much a walking costume, which is kind of the point with her character.  And Harrelson is still the comic relief as the constantly drunk, but wise, former victor.  If there is a slight fault to the film, it is that his character’s alcoholism is treated so lightly, but laughs are hard to come by in the bleak world of the film, so it’s not a terrible transgression.

Catching Fire, despite the love story and social commentary, is still a bit of an action film, as well.  Since the focus is more on the problems with society than it is on the titular Games, the action is pretty scant until the last hour or so.  But that last hour is filled with plenty of tense moments.  Once again, this might be because of a larger budget, but the action looked better this time around, especially the special effects.  Director Francis Lawrence has used computer effects to his detriment before (I Am Legend), but that may have been simply because the technology was not yet up to snuff.  Either way, it looks great now, as nothing in the Arena segment seemed overly fake or manufactured.

Overall, Catching Fire improves upon the original and solidifies the series as something more than the passing fad that other series were.  There are some big themes about society and life in general behind the blood and love of the story.  Will the tweens focus more on the love triangle and pick which “team” they are on?  Probably.  But for those of us who don’t care who Katniss ends up with, there is a seriously enjoyable movie beyond that love story. 

Didn't Get Around to Watching "Now You See Me"? No Big Deal. Watch "The Prestige" Again Instead.

Directed by Louis Leterrier, written by Ed Solomon, and Boaz Yakin & Edward Ricourt, starring Mark Ruffalo, Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine - Rated PG-13

Pretty much completely indifferent on this one.

 

 

 

 

Movies about magic are not exactly a subgenre just yet, but it’s getting close.  Previous films in recent memory like The Prestige and The Illusionist were all about a mystery that the audience had to look for.  In the case of The Prestige you have Michael Caine flat out talking to you about looking closely.  I suppose it’s fitting that Caine also appears in Now You See Me, the latest mystery magician film in which the audience is dared to look closely and figure it out (once again, the audience is directly addressed).  I consider “The Prestige” to be one of the finest and most engaging films of the past decade (I was not a fan of The Illusionist), so Now You See Me has some big shoes to fill.  In an unfair comparison to The Prestige, Now You See Me does not hold up very well.  But as a piece of forgetful entertainment, it gets the job done.

 

First off, it’s unfair to compare the two magician movies because Now You See Me has a much more light-hearted tone than that film.  This isn’t a film that is truly about magic.  In other words, you don’t get to see a lot of tricks painstakingly planned out and explained.  There is a little of that, but for the most part the audience is left completely in the dark and we’re told how it all worked after the fact.  I suppose that’s fine and all, but the film seemed to be cheating at times.  The viewer doesn’t really have the chance to think the film through because the evidence is limited.  We’re reduced to simply guessing who is behind it all.  It’s still interesting enough to stay involved and want to know the answer, but it’s not as satisfying as it could have been.

 

Part of the problem of the film is that it seems unsure of who the main characters are.  I know that this is part of the point what with misdirection and all, but the film suffers for it.  The basic plot involves four street magicians played by Jesse Eisenberg, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco, and Woody Harrelson.  We’re introduced to them individually, and it seems like they are the protagonists (the preview would lead you to believe this as well).  But once they are brought together, we leave them, for the most part.  Once they are brought together and named the Four Horsemen (is Isla Fisher a man?), the film becomes a detective story told from Mark Ruffalo’s perspective as he (and the audience) tries to figure out who’s behind it all. 

 

The detective gets involved because the magicians turn criminal when they rob a bank as part of their big Las Vegas show, promising that it’s just the beginning.  It’s really the beginning of this movie becoming less interesting.  Ruffalo’s detective is so cliché and boring that you just want to see what the magicians are up to, but we rarely get to see things from their perspective.  This is a problem because it’s not as if the movie never follows these characters…it started with these characters!  So the rules of the film allow the camera to be with these guys as they plan their act and whatnot, but it chooses not to show us because the filmmakers probably couldn’t think of anything interesting for them to do. 

 

I think the film would have been better if we just got to know the tricks and illusions as the magicians came up with them.  The tricks are not so amazing that the mystery is worth it anyway.  Instead of this turning into a cops and robbers story, it would’ve been an interesting film about magicians figuring out how to perform cool tricks, and we would still have to figure out who the benefactor is.  It’s a win-win.  Such a missed opportunity…

 

Despite that major gripe, the movie’s worth a watch when it comes out on HBO or something.  It’s filmed adequately and the performances are sufficient.  It’s a slightly fun magician movie.  It wants to be a mindbender, but the focus and the mystery were lacking.  I think I’ll go watch The Prestige for the twentieth time now…

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

 

I wasn't kidding at the end there.  I am actually watching The Prestige again as I post this.  And speaking of that film, it's not that I wanted Now You See Me to be just like that film.  That would be pointless.  If anything, the fact that this film tried to mimic a "twist" like The Prestige had is what limits it.  So it's actually too much like The Prestige.

 

As for the "twist" ending, it is only effective in that it makes Ruffalo's character make a bit more sense.  He's really only playing at being a cop.  Although he probably had to be a real cop for the misdirection to truly work.  What dedication...  The movie isn't worth watching again to check for all the tell-tale signs, but looking back it makes the film seem that much more deceitful.  There were a few moments when Ruffalo was the only guy in the scene yet he kept up the act.  I get that it shows total devotion to the illusion, but I just don't buy it. 

 

Kind of harsh on Morgan Freeman, by the way, isn't he?  So Freeman exposes his father as a weak magician, which goads Ruffalo's father to perform a trick that proves without a doubt that he's a weak magician.  (Or at least an unlucky magician that picks a safe that is too crappy for a trick?  I wasn't quite clear on the safe problem, I was ready for the movie to be over at that point.)  Why is this Freeman's fault?  I get that without Freeman's action, Ruffalo's dad wouldn't have tried it, but it's not like Freeman challenged him to do it.  This line of thinking would lead someone to blaming a car company a for fatal car wreck even if the driver was at fault.  Let's hope no other bad things happen to Ruffalo's loved ones...who knows how far he'll expand the blame.

"The Hunger Games"

Directed by Gary Ross, Written by Ross, Suzanne Collins, and Billy Ray, starring Jennifer Lawrece, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, and Stanley Tucci - Rated PG-13

The Evil Kurgan was entered in The Hunger Games at age 2...he won in less than an hour.

The Hunger Games is being called the new Twilight, but don't let that keep you from enjoying it.  This new franchise, adapted from the immensely popular young adult series by Suzanne Collins, can only be compared to that other tween series because it is aimed at young people and is wildly popular.  You could argue that a potential love triangle connects it to the vampire/werewolf series, but the similarities stop there, thankfully.  I say thankfully because, no offense to the Twihards out there, The Hunger Games is a film that should be enjoyed by older viewers as well as young, male as well as female.  This isn't a movie boyfriends should have to be dragged to, this is a film they should want to see as much as, if not more, than their significant others.

 

 

The Hunger Games is set in a dystopian future in which North America has been divided up into 13 districts of a new country called Panem.  The 13th district rebelled years ago and was turned into a forbidden zone.  To remind the people of that district's betrayal, all districts are forced to select (sacrifice) a male and female "tribute" between the ages of 12 and 18 to battle to the death until only one is left.  These are the titular Hunger Games and they are presented to the public as a kind of disturbing, sick reality show. 

Typically, the tributes from the upper districts are fodder for the tributes of the lower districts.  In other words, people from Districts 1-3 are rich enough to train kids for the Games whereas tributes from Districts 10-12 are so poor they struggle to stay fed, much less train.  The heroine of The Hunger Games hails from District 12, which is basically the coal-mining Appalachian region of today's United States.  Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is the main provider for her father-less family.  She hunts with her friend (boyfriend?) Gale and looks after her sister, Prim.  When Prim is selected to be tribute, Katniss volunteers for her, essentially giving up her life for her sister's.  Once Katniss is whisked away to the Capitol, the film really starts to take off.

The main thing The Hunger Games excels at is world-building.  Panem seems like a real place, despite the ludicrous styles of the people there.  It's a simplified world that accentuates class struggle and what it's like when you have some people destined to always be poor and others to always be rich.  Katniss and her fellow tribute Peeta gaze at their surroundings in wonder because District 1 might as well be another planet compared to their dreary, miserable home.  This obviously begs the question of the sustainability of such a government, but the film doesn't delve too deeply into that area (it is hinted at and will certainly come up in the sequels).  The only problem with this set up is the exclusion of the middle Districts.  Sure, 1 is a metropolis compared to 12 and people won't stand for that for too long, but what about 4-9?  Are these Districts decent?  How do they feel about the government?  Hopefully, it will be covered in the sequels. 

The opulence of the Capitol should be enough to hold people over, though.  The styles of the everyday people are like that of pre-revolution France.  You have this upper class that is comical in its opulence (it looks like Lady Gaga picked out everyone's clothing and makeup) contrasted by this poor lower class who know only misery.  District 12 has an effective, gritty feel to it and District 1 is a shiny, futuristic beacon of hope (or maybe impending doom). 

The setting trumps every other aspect of the movie, but that doesn't mean the characters are uninteresting.  Katniss makes a compelling heroine because she is methodical but has that hint of weakness that makes her more human.  Peeta is a bit dull, but that may be due to a lack of screen time more than anything.  Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), their mentor for the Games, is amusing because he is drunk and bitter, but there's a missed opportunity there to make him more of a meaningful character.  The rest of the characters are fine, if one note.

The actors all do a decent job.  Lawrence holds the screen well.  Stanley Tucci is a stand out as an “American Idol”-type host.  Harrelson is having fun, but seems restrained.  Sutherland is enough of a presence to work as the scheming President Snow.  No stand outs, but more importantly, no atrocious performances, either.  The only red flag is the casting of Toby Jones in such a miniscule role. 

Action is just as important to this film as setting and character, though.  The film, after all, is named after this extremely violent event.  If you can get past the disturbing thought of children killing each other for entertainment, then the action of the film is compelling. It's toned down a bit from the book (although some scenes are still quite brutal for a PG-13 rating), but the survival elements are handled well and things move quickly.  I wouldn't sell this movie as an action film or anything, but it works. 

As a standalone film, The Hunger Games has enough going for it with the setting, characters, and action to keep casual filmgoers entertained, but there is another audience that is going to dissect this film: fans of the book.  I have read the book and found it enjoyable for what it is.  As far as the film is concerned, this is a very faithful adaptation.  Sure, things are changed and characters are dropped but that is necessary when adapting a novel.  My only complaint is the lack of screen time Rue gets, but I can't imagine fans having any serious issues with this adaptation.

But this review has mainly been for the people who haven't read the book; the people who only know of The Hunger Games as the new Twilight.  Sure, there are droves of very young people going to see this movie and that usually means people over the age of 18 will hate it.  There is an exception to every rule, though.  The Hunger Games may be a tad simplified but that doesn't mean interesting questions aren't raised and important themes aren't addressed.  While it isn't high art, it is entertaining and it makes you think at least a little.  That's not the "new" anything, that's something to look forward to in the cinema these days.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I feel the need to mention Battle Royale since that Japanese film is very similar a far as the actual Games portion of the movie is concerned.  I think this film is more than just an American version of that film, though, and the sequels will hopefully prove that to be true.

There is a bit of missed potential in truly exploring society in this film.  It just seems a bit ridiculous that everyone would be that giddy about a group of kids killing each other.  No one stands up to claim this is wrong.  And it's been going on for 74 years?  I get that the government is restrictive, but surely a large scale revolt would have happened by now.  Not that big a deal, I guess, but the film would be a bit more realistic if at least some people in the Capitol seemed to think the Games were a bit savage.

Didn't get a chance to mention it above, but I liked the camerawork of the film, even if it did get too shaky from time to time.  It gave the film, especially the moments in District 12, a stark feel that clashed nicely with the polished Capitol.