Spoilers for CATCHING FIRE coming up!
Last year, fans of Suzanne Collins's book series and newcomers alike were introduced to the dystopian nation of Panem. It is a nation wracked by revolution and separated into 12 (formerly 13) districts. It is a nation controlled by a rigid class structure and one that holds an annual event where two children (one boy and one girl) are chosen from each district and forced to fight to the death in order to reinforce the power of "the Capitol." Unsurprisingly, the film took the world by storm and ended up making almost 700 million dollars worldwide. However, unlike most of the people who saw the film adaptation, I thought it was garbage. I thought the script by Gary Ross and Suzanne Collins was pedestrian at best; I thought the CGI in the film was atrocious; and I thought Gary Ross's direction exposed his incompetence when it came to shooting a blockbuster action movie.
All of that being said, however, going into the second film in the four-part series, I had a lot of hope that this would all change. Instead of Gary Ross and Suzanne Collins, the producers brought in much more experienced (and arguably much more talented) screenwriters in Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours) and Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine, Toy Story 3). In addition, Gary Ross had been replaced as director by I Am Legend's Francis Lawrence and nearly every important role in the film was now being played by big name stars. (I love you, Wes Bentley, but Phillip Seymour Hoffman you are not.) And, the budget had been nearly doubled from what was provided for The Hunger Games. Everything added up to give this film the potential to do great things. And, after seeing Catching Fire, I can safely say that it improves on basically every level from The Hunger Games. Unfortunately, for all of its improvements, it is still a deeply flawed film that suffers immensely from "Harry Potter Syndrome," has a central romance that feels stagnant and unbelievable, and feels far too much like a retread of the first film to seem warranted or engaging.
As much as it pains me to say it, one of the film's biggest problems is Josh Hutcherson as Peeta. Don't get me wrong, I think he's a pretty good actor. I loved what he did in both The Kids Are All Right and Joseph Kahn's Detention AND he's from Kentucky so I feel an even stronger obligation to like him. The problem is who he's playing opposite. Nearly everyone else in the film is spectacular. Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks, and Woody Harrelson all perfectly portray characters that are complete eccentrics and you can tell all three are just reveling in their roles. It was also fantastic getting to see Jeffrey Wright and Amanda Plummer (two of my favorite character actors from movies like Broken Flowers and Pulp Fiction) as Beetee and Wiress, two tech-savvy former champions. Though Phillip Seymour Hoffman is only in a few scenes as the new game designer, Plutarch Heavensbee (they don't say his name nearly enough in the film), he completely draws you in with a quiet intensity and a glint in his eye that hints at something smoldering just the below his calm exterior. And Donald Sutherland is Donald Sutherland.
The film's star, Jennifer Lawrence, is also just on another plane than is Hutcherson. Showing why she is one of the most sought-after commodities in Hollywood today, the recent Oscar winner is so natural, so visceral with her emotional portrayal of this deeply troubled girl who has seen and experienced more than many will in a lifetime, that Hutcherson simply cannot keep pace. As such, he constantly comes off feeling artificial, mannered, as if he is in a completely different movie than the rest of the cast. Jennifer Lawrence imbues each of her lines with fury, heartbreak and desperation. It often feels as if she is speaking about her own life in the spotlight, forced to distract us from the world's problems with her day-to-day exploits just as Katniss is forced to put on a show for the downtrodden masses in the hope that they'll forget the pain of their daily lives. Hutcherson, in comparison, is emotionless, as if he wants to play his role as little as Peeta wishes to play his.
Because of this, their relationship feels completely unbelievable. Not once while watching the film did I ever understand why someone like Katniss would ever fall for someone like Peeta. At one point in the film, Haymitch says something to Katniss along the lines of "You could live 100 lifetimes and not do anything to deserve that boy." It's an okay line on its own merits, I suppose (a little cliche in my book), but there is no basis for it in the film at all. Nothing we see in Catching Fire, really nothing we've seen in either film, has shown us why Peeta is such a wonderful person. Katniss herself even makes Haymitch promise to save Peeta instead of her when they're both sent back to the games. Why?! The only thing Peeta has done in either film that remotely demonstrates what a good person he is is when he gave young Katniss that burnt loaf of bread when she was starving. But that's it! Throughout the five hours of screen time between the two films, we have seen nothing that would warrant these reactions from Katniss and Haymitch. The film just doesn't make me care about Peeta. I would much rather see Katniss fight for Gale (Liam Hemsworth), but he's barely even in the film. What this is, however, is a symptom of a much larger problem.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire's biggest fault is that it greatly suffers from "Harry Potter Syndrome." What I mean by that is, like the Harry Potter film series, Catching Fire relies on the fact that its audience has read the book to do a lot of the work for it. It's wholly a transmedia property. You're not meant to just watch the movie. You're either supposed to have read the book going in and be able to fill in all the gaps or go out and buy the book after seeing the film and figure out exactly what is going on. And, if you're willing to accept that, it's a fine movie. However, as simply a piece of art standing on its own, Catching Fire doesn't make any damn sense. As hinted at with Peeta, the film has little, if any character development. Why is Peeta the greatest boy who ever lived? I get that Katniss has some sort of PTSD presumably from the horrors she faced in the games. But why introduce it and never touch it again other than one or two nightmares and the odd cold sweat? What is going on with the Finnick character? Why is he being an absolute dick to Katniss in one scene and then risking his life to save and resuscitate Peeta just because he has the same gold bangle as Haymitch? I understand that he's in on the whole thing, but that doesn't explain his treatment of Katniss when they first met. No one was watching, and if they were, that's another instance of the film not telling us something we should know. And, most importantly, who the hell is Plutarch Heavensbee and what on earth is he doing here?
Plutarch Heavensbee is actually the mastermind behind a Panem-wide revolutionary uprising. It's a genuinely shocking revelation that comes at the end of the film (a feat not often achieved in today's ultra-savvy audiences). However, the only reason that it's shocking is because IF HE'S THE MASTERMIND BEHIND THIS REVOLUTION THEN NOTHING HE DOES IN THE ENTIRE MOVIE MAKES ANY SENSE! Yes, I get that he wants Katniss to be the face of his revolution, leading a revolt that has its start in the former champions' fighting against the Capitol instead of each other in the Hunger Games arena. I might even buy that he wants her to literally break the system that she metaphorically broke with Peeta in the first film. But unless he had the career tributes' attack on Beetee planned to the exact second so that Beetee could be knocked out having finished just enough of the conductor to allow Katniss to shoot the lightning arrow at the top of the dome, I doubt it. And if you need her to be the face of your revolution, ultimately rescuing her from the Games' perils, why make the dome's punishments so brutal and likely to kill Katniss? That poisonous fog was one Katniss slip away from ruining all of your plans. Sure, I guess Plutarch could have turned it off at the last second, but he didn't seem too worried when her hands and face were almost melted/boiled/whatevered off. I just don't understand what he was thinking. And why exactly can't Katniss know about this? All the other tributes seem to know. I can't think of any reason how not telling her benefits the revolution's cause. Maybe it would make her less diligent? Maybe she wouldn't have been as worried about that poisonous fog then and would have just been melted like poor ol' Mags. Either way, nothing is explained! All of this stuff may very well be answered in the book and all make perfect sense. As a film, however, it makes for a frustratingly confusing movie and disfigures what could have been a fantastically surprising reveal and strong cliffhanger ending (with an absolutely brilliant closeup of Jennifer Lawrence's face going from utter desperation to white-hot rage) into something unsatisfying and wholly unearned.
But, as I said early on, Catching Fire is a much improved film from its predecessor. Unlike Gary Ross, Francis Lawrence actually knows how to film action. In The Hunger Games, Ross would film even a quiet conversation between two people with Greengrassian shaky cam, completely sapping any tension from the later action sequences that were already visually confused enough. Lawrence, on the other hand, knows a thing or two about shooting dystopian action and his pacing and smooth camera movements make for a much more visually appealing/comprehensible film and the Games are filled with a wonderful sense of tension that was sorely absent from the first film. Ultimately, it's not really surprising that the man who directed Constantine and I am Legend has a better sense for action than the director of Pleasantville and Seabiscuit. In addition to the fantastic cast of players, the greatly increased budget also makes a world of difference - the CGI in the film looks worlds better than its Hunger Games counterpart; both the fire on the District 12 outfits and Katniss's Mockingjay costume, as well as that terrifying pack of wild baboons look so much more organic. Unlike the fire and those horrifyingly awful looking people-wolves in the first film, the Catching Fire's CGI actually feels like a tangible component of this world.
However, despite its advancements, what Catching Fire amounts to is a film that struggles to be anything more than an improved retread. Yes, the caliber of the actors has gone up. Yes, they found a director with a much better sense of action and tone, though the whole film is pervaded by an utter dourness with little reprieve throughout (not necessarily a bad thing, just odd in this type of movie). Yes, the visuals and overall production values have greatly improved. And yes, even the writing is better. But Catching Fire is basically a beat-for-beat rehash of the previous film. Katniss struggles in District 12 and in her relationships with her friends and family, there are hints of revolution, the Hunger Games tributes are drawn, Peeta and Katniss are chosen, everyone is sad, we have a brief training period, the Hunger Games begin, Peeta and Katniss survive despite all odds and Katniss ultimately breaks the system. Lather, rinse, repeat. Admittedly, there are some interesting ideas in this thing. I was especially intrigued with all the political aspects and strategic moves discussed between President Snow and his various audiences of one and by the idea of the rich and powerful exploiting celebrity culture to divert the attention of the poor away from the true crises around them. But this stuff is purely secondary and barely touched throughout the film. Like Haymitch and Katniss toward Peeta, the majority of audiences are already proclaiming Catching Fire's greatness. But just like with Peeta, I simply don't see why they're falling for it.
Maybe I just need a few more lifetimes to deserve it.
6 out of 10
