Here’s a quick and dirty FAQ for “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire,” the second movie based on “The Hunger Games” trilogy of science fiction adventure novels. If you’re only browsing and want to move on without reading the whole thing, “Catching Fire” is “The Empire Strikes Back” of this series. Now to the FAQ:
Q. Wait a minute! I was only browsing, but now I have to read your review because I don’t know what “’Catching Fire’ is ‘The Empire Strikes Back’ of this series” means. Explain yourself.
A: Easy. As much as “Star Wars” fans love the original movie, many consider “Empire Strikes Back” to be a superior film. It transformed the lighthearted fun of the first film into grand, dark space drama. I’ve read that famous science fiction writer Isaac Asimov applauded at the end of “Empire” and said, “Start work on part three!”
Like “Empire,” “Catching Fire” is superior to the original movie.
Q. Tread carefully, bub. You’re walking on sacred ground. So you’re comparing “The Hunger Games” to “Star Wars?”
A. No. “Star Wars” is a phenomenal movie; “The Hunger Games” is not. In fact, I didn’t like much about it: the characters were hastily drawn, like a daily comic strip, and the action was nauseating. Half of the movie was an incomprehensible blur, while director Gary Ross spent the rest of the movie shoving the camera in his actor’s faces. Ross has said he shot it that way to put viewer’s in the shoes of its central character. I think a more honest answer would be he has no cinematic sensibility, but that’s just my opinion. Either way, I didn’t hear Asimov, or anyone else, applauding at the end of “Hunger Games.” (To be fair, Asimov passed away in 1992.)
Q. I’m still not sold on the “Star Wars” comparison. Unlike that movie, “Hunger Games” was hardly lighthearted fun.
A. Correct. It told the story of a teenage girl named Katniss Everdeen, who takes part in an annual battle to the death against other youth. The autocratic government that oversees the titular games draws one competitor from each of its 13 districts and then forces them to fight in a massive enclosed arena until only one is left. The nation ruled by an evil despot named President Snow. (I get the irony, but I still think he sounds like a video game villain.)
Q. That sounds like the storyline for “Battle Royale,” a Japanese movie with nearly the same premise.
A. You know your stuff. Then you’ll also understand what I mean when I say “The Hunger Games” didn’t have an original thought in its pretty little head, borrowing liberally as it did from not only “Battle Royale” but also “1984” and other genre works.
Q. You’re running out of space, so get down to brass tacks: What makes “Catching Fire” better?
A. I’m glad you asked! First, director Francis Lawrence ditched the shaky camera, and instead used a more classical approach. “Catching Fire” contains lots of wide shots, a steady hand, and more carefully choreographed action. The wide shots open up the world in which the story is set, giving the filmmakers room for more detail. Likewise, Lawrence isn’t afraid to hold his shots, giving viewers more time to soak in everything. Lionsgate, the studio behind the movies, put some money into those shots, too. The result is a world that feels more cinematic and, yes, more real, giving the sequel far more dramatic weight.
Q. You complain about shaky cameras too much. What about the script?
A: It’s a far better piece of work. There’s a better sense of Katniss’s efforts to cling to her humanity in the midst of inhumanity, there’s a clearer focus on the love triangle at the center of the story, and the political intrigue has me, well, intrigued.
The series is also coming into its own as it incorporates more original story elements. “Catching Fire” isn’t only about the battle to the death or an indictment of human cruelty, but also about the sacrifices people are willing to make for each other.
Q: And the performances?
Also better. Jennifer Lawrence does good work as Katniss. The role is intense; Katniss has very little reason to smile. While Lawrence spends most of the movie looking tense, concerned, or distraught, she still manages to create a likeable persona. But for my money, I love Donald Southerland as Snow. The guy drips evil.
Q: So you’re saying I should see “Catching Fire?”
I merely hope I provided enough information for you to decide whether or not you think you’d like it. I certainly did. Start work on part three!
Three stars out of four. Rated PG-13 for intense violence and action, frightening images, thematic elements, a suggestive situation, and language.