The hunger for stronger material lives on

Rating: 6/10 (23 November 2013)

I'll be the first soul to admit the wait between the first Hunger Games films and its sequel wasn't a particularly grueling one, and I likely could've went another year without even giving much thought to the characters or the setup. The first cinematic installment was plagued by questionably unsteady direction, clearly diluted political and social commentaries, violence with little impact, sterilized emotion, and a female hero who appeared more as an archetype or a character on a pro-women propaganda poster rather than a character with practical motivations and a believable persona to her.
I reassured myself that this kind of material could resonate with me heavily after watching Kinji Fukasaku's tremendous Battle Royale, a film that still stirs up controversy and one that finds its way in conversations about its similar contemporary The Hunger Games. But I'm beginning to learn that with film, and life, no expectations equate to no disappointments. Catching Fire is a modest affair, with occasional highpoints exploring the politics of a land's government and its inherently corrupt system, but is too often burdened by hokey instances of humor, eye-rolling dialog and emotional sequences, and dreary survivalist sequences that have the feel of a video game.
We are reacquainted with Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), last year's winners of the legendary "Hunger Games" along with her close-friend and sometimes-boyfriend Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson). At the beginning, Katniss is scolded by President Snow (Donald Sutherland) for her actions in the games because now, numerous districts are rebelling and civil unrest is prominent within much of the Panem community. Katniss and Peeta now embark on a district-wide tour, giving a speech about their victory and such, while trying to prepare for the next "Hunger Games" when everything seems to be in disarray. Katniss seems to be roadblocked by a love triangle with Peeta and Gabe (Liam Hemsworth), a strict government, and the thought that the world of Panem is on the verge of an implosion.
The first half of Catching Fire is surprisingly strong with its examination of a narrow-minded government and further exploration into their devious actions. I was kind of shocked as to how much I was intrigued by the setups, as the first one scarcely captivated me. Writers Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt make the exploration more rooted in politics and social commentary, showing the consequences of Katniss and Peeta winning the last "Hunger Games" and the luxuries that come along with it. It would also be cruel to say that the series' new director Francis Lawrence doesn't come in at a critical time for the series as well. The second film is usually where the stakes become higher, the conflicts become deeper, and the characters become more fleshed-out and this challenge is one he handles very well. He also knows how to direct very spacious, complex landscapes such as the open wilderness and a massive Colosseum; something the original film's director Gary Ross struggled with, as much of his camera-work was shaky and unnecessarily unsteady.
However, after about an hour of solid insight into the government of Panem, the film follows the relatively bland and tiring method of its predecessor by making its "Hunger Games" focus of the film nothing more than a survivalist video game of sorts. When it is discovered how exactly the chaos ensues and when certain forces will be summoned to attack, it reminded me keenly of how my friends and I use to play outside when we were children using our imagination that we were being chased by creatures of all kinds.
I bring this up because the method Catching Fire uses to include these asinine features feels like the improvisational tactics my friends and I used as children. Now, it's a tactic I simply don't care for. It feels like run-of-the-mill fantasy filmmaking where things just happen and questioning them means you have far too much time on your hands.
I suppose, however, I could deal with the film's frantic inclusion of various forces of nature compared to the onslaught of instances in this film that either don't belong or fall flat in their goal. Consider the scene when former "Hunger Games" victor Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), Katniss, and Peeta are all in an elevator and a woman comes in to request her dress be unzipped just so she can stand naked in front of the three to be the apple of Haymitch and Peeta's eye. Or how about the scene when an accident is almost fatal and Peeta and Katniss need to relish their existence once more by holding each other and crying in the wilderness. The scene falls completely flat because, believe it or not, Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson don't seem to have the emotional aspect of their acting down. Many of their movements are shockingly cold or just have the inability to provoke sympathy. And let's not forget all of this is captured within the boundaries of a young adult novel.
It's a no-brainer that those who love the Suzanne Collins' trilogy and the original film will be among the first in line to see Catching Fire and propel the film to hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. This is a fact that cannot be challenged. After two of these films, both of which pretty similar except for the second time around things got off on a better foot for at least a brief time, I truly don't relish the thought of venturing out to see the series' conclusion twice in theaters. There's one more thing I can say positively about the film and that it's infinitely superior to the recently-released parody film of the series The Starving Games and, the more I think about it, the more I'd gladly venture out twice more to watch the series conclude than have to sit through five minutes of that film again.