Catching Fire - Noodles Review

Rating: 6/10 (19 December 2013)

We all know that it's going to make big bucks from all those devout fans of the books and just the teen populace of the world. But I learned that there's hope for the quality of the movies in the series. So, we left off in the first movie that Katniss and Peeta won the Hunger Games, and the way they did it gave way for people to get the hope to rebel against the oppressive government in this world. Let's talk about the world for a second. The world that Suzanne Collins has established is actually impressive and interesting. I really dig the lore and how everything came to be, as well as the overall atmosphere of it. This movie gets that atmosphere right. The tone throughout the beginning of this movie is spot-on and I was afraid that wouldn't get it right, because the first movie didn't quite do it. I liked the first movie to a certain degree; it did hit some good notes, but I personally don't feel like it did the source material the right amount of justice. Catching Fire, takes almost a 180- degree turn, because this is SO much better! First off, they build off of the good things in the first movie, and then they improve on some of the weak points, and I think that's a lot due to the new director because I could definitely tell that this was directed differently (for the better, though). The camera angles are a lot better, as well as the tone and placement of everything; especially the pacing. Pacing was a major problem for me in the first movie because I don't think I should be getting bored during a movie about a government-orchestrated fight to the death between teenagers in a post- apocalyptic world. But I did. Sigh. The pacing is much better in this sequel. I was invested throughout more of the movie. And here's what you've all been waiting for... wait for it... the violence in on screen! In the first movie, almost all the violence was off-screen so we didn't even see what happened; it was more-so implied. That deters the viewers from caring as much for what happened. Being able to see the actual cuts, injuries, hits, and deaths, really adds more to the emotion and investment in the film.
That is also thanks to the acting because that's also great. Jennifer Lawrence has obviously proved herself as a credible actress now. We know she's great as Katniss. But I was really surprised by her in the beginning of the movie. You really begin to feel bad for Katniss and she effectively portrays her post-traumatic stress and stubbornness. What really surprised me was Josh Hutcherson. Wow, man, give yourself a pat on the back. He improved so much. In the first movie, I gave him a lot of crap since his acting was so wooden and ineffective. Back then he was just a pretty face. He's really improved, because I genuinely cared for his character in this movie, maybe even more than for Katniss at some points. Their little entourage in the Hunger Games is quite fleshed out and distinctive as well. It's inevitable that everyone's gonna love Finnick (or Aquaman as I called him). My favorite character, however, is Plutarch Heavensby, the game-master, and plots with President Snow on how to get rid of Katniss; their conversation on how to get that done is probably my favorite scene in the whole movie. He's played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, one of my favorite actors. Caesar, as well as pretty much all of the supporting cast is acted well. The only characters I sort of have a problem with are the the tributes from districts 1 and 2. I understand that they're supposed to be formidable foes, but this movie honestly doesn't play them as anything else; it feels like they're just there to be bad guys.
Unfortunately, like the first movie, the pace slows down when the Hunger Games actually start out. This is a bit of a letdown because it's a little weird that the movie slows down when the "action" actually begins. Not only that, but the quality of the movie takes a bit of a dip as well. Yet by this point, it is a realization that the actual Hunger Games aren't the basis of the series. The Hunger Games event itself is a tool to help tell the story; it's a vehicle to propel the actual conflicts. That conflict is oppression and revolution. And this is one of the main reasons I like the book series. It's layered and has elements of politics on top of all this action and stuff. It's not just black and white wherein a good guy is trying to beat a bad guy. Catching Fire really started to show that, whereas one of my main problems with its predecessor was the lack of this layering. So up to the Hunger Games, we have actual dramatic conflict occurring, and it keeps us intrigued most of the way leading up to the games. The scope of the film was great until then, and I really felt more connected to the characters before it happened. Speaking of scope, there are some moments in the film that really make it feel more epic, and truly escalate the experience; this is part due to a great blend of sweeping cinematography and strong musical score. The score in this movie is definitely much stronger than that of the first movie since the music is actually memorable. I guess we could sum up this movie that way, because it's overall just more memorable than the first installment of the franchise. Catching Fire is a more exciting and more layered film that not only houses more intrigue, but also more cinematic prowess. Despite it having some obvious conveniences and other downfalls, Catching Fire is definitely a step in the right direction for the series