Much better

Rating: 8/10 (22 May 2014)

In the past years the YA book adaptations have been steaming piles of guano to put it nicely. At first I didn't really see Suzanne Collins' Battle Royale copy as any different despite the fact that it had better than average casting, but after watching the film I had to concede that despite its mistakes The Hunger Games is worthy of becoming a franchise. And Catching Fire just proved this. Really. Gary Ross did a good job of laying the foundation in the first part, the low budget was obvious, then came Lions Gate and pulled a rabbit out of the hat by increasing the budget and getting Francis Lawrence to direct (who is known for Constantine and I am Legend) who could actually do something with the money, as his proved himself with larger budgets. Not to mention their decision to change the script writer to someone more experienced, all this made this sequel one of the best out there. So the story: After winning the 74th Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark return home to District 12. President Snow visits Katniss and explains that her actions in the Games have inspired rebellions across the districts. He orders her to use the upcoming victory tour to convince everyone her actions were out of genuine love for Peeta, not defiance against the Capitol. Of course the tour doesn't work out that way and the rebellions get larger in scale. The capitol is finding it harder to fix and they can't even kill Katniss without making her a martyr. Along comes the 75th Hunger Games where the old winners are thrust back into the arena. So the find themselves right back where they started from but this time around it's about a whole lot more than just surviving. Catching Fire is better than the first part and that's due to it being exciting almost from the first minute to the last. They achieved this great direction, script writing and actors that is almost unheard of in films like this. Which other YA book adaptation had Philip Seymour Hoffman doing an awesome job? Which other one has an Oscar winner as the star (Jennifer Lawrence). Which other one dares to show ever dark part of a dictatorships every dark corner, the oppression, the violence, the fear mongering, the executions? Ding, ding, ding: The right answer is none of them. Okay so it's not gory but it does show cruelty and is even epic in a lot of scenes. It's a lot darker than the first part not to mention what goes on in the arena isn't fun and games for a second. If all this wasn't enough then we get to see more under the surface of the twisted political system. I was even happy that they didn't take the love theme too far. So there are two things I think are wrong with the film. 1. the end. If you haven't read the book the non ending is a little strange, I don't think you can finish a film like that. 2. I still miss a little blood, rawness for it to be a really genius series. Maybe in the third film. All in all the Hunger Games takes moves forward and not just a step but a leap. You can tell professionals made it. Lions Gate didn't make the same mistakes as Summit did with Twilight. They didn't just want to continue the same way, they wanted to move forward and they did, but its not perfect, sometimes the atmosphere wanes and I still feel like Battle Royale was better, but it was done well, so I give it an 8/10. https://www.youtube.com/user/silverscreenreviews1