The Hunger Games Again: Catching Fire Indeed.

Okay. So. For those of you that hadn't read my review of the first film, The Hunger Games (here), I was unimpressed. It wasn't a bad movie, but it lacked a lot of the emotional integrity that the book had.

That being said, I was totally blown away by Catching Fire. In a rare event that only special sequels like Toy Story 2 and The Dark Knight get to enjoy, Catching Fire joins the ranks of sequels that are even better than their predecessors. And that ain't no easy feat.

Let's get into the "why," shall we?

I mean, come on. Even the promo art is better.

This movie picks up where the first one left off. Katniss has been living back in District 12 and is about to go on a tour of the 12 Districts with Peeta as part of their victory. But things are not all as quiet as she would've hoped. Before they leave on their tour, Katniss is visited by President Snow, who tells her that she and Peeta must convince the public that the way they left the games was because of their love for each other - not an act of defiance. After she promises to comply, the tour begins. But things only get worse. Riots and botched speeches give way to more conflict and, before they know it, they're back in the games that so haunted their lives the first time. Only this time with a twist. Competing against other tributes that have already won previous years, this round becomes the ultimate survival game.

As a side note can we talk about how all of Panem's propaganda posters

look like they were made in North Korea? (Coincidence?)

So wow. I tell ya what, wow. I didn't have my hopes high for this one, but the new director choice really served them well. (Francis Lawrence. Also, I feel it necessary to mention that a member of the audience shouted "BLESS YOU, FRANCIS LAWRENCE." at the end of the film. Yeah, it's that good.) Instead of vom-inducing shaky-camera, we've got a clear agenda going on here. Who knows if it's the fact that there aren't as many young children being killed in this one, but the action scenes were much more straightforward and SUSPENSEFUL. Each shot was made with more attention and details didn't seem as sugar-coated as in the original. The action part really gets fulfilled where the first one seemed a little unsure of itself

So much action!

(Couldn't find an action shot. Apologies.)

Another layer that seemed to form in this newest installment was the development of the characters. The ones I had considered largely miscast in the first one really seem to come into their own in this film. Jennifer Lawrence, who I thought played Katniss a little too cold in the first one, really becomes a full-bodied character in this one. Her experiences from the first games really seem to haunt her convincingly in this ones, as she finds it hard to emotionally separate herself from things that the state has told her to do. And Josh Hutcherson (bless his short little stature), goes from a lovesick puppy dog to a guy that you'd buy has legitimate feelings for this girl. While in Hunger Games he seemed full of big dopey stares and a questionable level of devotion, his experiences with Katniss in the first games make his love a little more believable and a lot more understanding. (God I love them together. Always was Team Peeta.)

Sorry, Lenny, still not buying you as Cinna. 

Get out of these movies, please.

Beyond all of the acting and cinematography, though, the story in this one is better pronounced as a film this time around. The first book isn't totally action-driven. There's a lot of internal monologue and confusion and waiting and sleeping in trees. But the second book, and this movie, are fueled by constant action and character interaction. Additionally, a lot of the smaller details that I skimmed over while I was busy devouring the second book are fully recognized visually in the movie so that they make more sense ("tick tock," ahem, ahem, and that whole set-up my fellow pre-readers).

The whole film, really is just so much more BADASS. While the first movie seems to take its time getting to know all of the various characters and special situations, it doesn't ever seem to dive right into the heart of the problem. But this one does. Blame it on the subject matter being of a "greater good" kind of depth as the series continues, but Catching Fire had me biting my nails waiting for the tension to subside. The whole idea of revolt really powers through and, even in the face of incredible diversity, the resilience of people in this is just really touching. Maybe that's the other thing that gives this movie more depth than its predecessor: the fact that friendships and bonds are made. And the fact that these bonds are interrupted by something as maniacal as their government only serves to fuel the fire of their revolution.

8.5 outa 10. I really loved it. Might even go see it again.

Also, I have to show you this:

"How should I know? I'm just a piece of bread." Oh my god, I died.

The Hmmmger Games

Hmmmm...

Couldn't have said it better myself

Well, kids. I finally saw it. I bit the bullet. I took a chance. And all I have to say is...

"Well...That happened."

For my fellow book-readers, I hope you will understand when I say that I didn't NOT like the movie, but it left so much to be desired as compared to the book that the experience was kind of lackluster. Alas, even two and a half hours was not quite long enough to get the incredible amount of information onto the screen.

For those of you who don't know the plot (is that possible at this point in the media frenzy?), The Hunger Games is a competition held by the futuristic dystopian nation of Panem (used to be the US, fyi) to keep all 12 of their assorted districts in line after a horrible uprising almost a century beforehand. Each district has to send a boy and a girl between the ages of 12 and 18 to fight to the death in a competition that will result in the victor's district getting special treatment for a year.

So at the center of our plot, we have Katniss Everdeen, a girl from District 12 (the coal-mining district. not that that is incredibly relevent.) who has fought for the past few years to keep her family from starving after her father died in a mine explosion. On the day of The Reaping, her beloved little sister gets called up to be placed in the Hunger Games and, in order to spare her, Katniss volunteers to take her place. Also called is Peeta Mellark(y), who ends up trying to save her throughout the games, either because he has his own agenda or because he is in love with Katniss (you don't figure it out til the end).

So! Let's get to what is good about this movie first:

Excellent costumes. They really take the bizarre Lady Gaga fashions of Panem and bring them to life. Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks) especially has some truly astounding fashion choices and the scenes at The Capital are brilliant.

Who knew Lady Gaga could see this far into the fashion future? Cray.

Also they really seemed to realize the commentary on spectating that the book suggests. That humans can become extremely base when anything is done for pure sport or spectacle, and that when things become entertainment, reality gets extremely blurry. Especially for the people living in The Capital; you can tell that their lowest priority is the welfare of these children and that to them it is all a game.

All in all, it was more or less an accurate visual of what I had already imagined in my head, which was a huge plus.

I mean there's really no better person they could have chosen for Caesar

Alright...gettin down to brass tacks...

I was not all that impressed with the over-dramatization of the characters. Just because you make something shorter does not mean that you have to up the emotional integrity of each character. I felt like the actors took their characters from the book and turned the volume up to 11 (Spinal Tap? Anyone?). Peeta was turned from a sensitive guy into a needy over-the-top baby, Cinna went from Yoda-figure to hip gay buddy (and Lenny Kravitz? What? Really? Why? Awful.), and Hamitch went from a complex gruff and standoffish character with a heart to over-invested sober person (NOT sober for very long at all in the book, just for the record).

Putting on gold eyeliner doesn't make you Cinna. It just makes you Lenny Kravitz wearing gold eyeliner.

Another issue that I had was the lack of violence. Let me justify that statement: the book makes all of the deaths somewhat vivid to bring attention to how incredibly backwards it is to have children fight to their own imminent deaths. The spear that hits Rue, in the film, doesn't even go completely through her. Doesn't that go against science? Likewise, all of the deaths at the Cornucopia were made blurry by fast camera-shaking and such so that you barely even saw any of the kids actually getting killed. That kind of PG-13 violence doesn't really drive home the effed up factor that the books do.

I don't know, maybe part of my problem is just that it's NOT the book. And the book was so much better. Books can take their time explaining things to you because things take a while to happen in real time. Even in most chapters you don't have the magnitude of cuts and scenes that you have in a movie. And even when the cuts and such match the structure of the book, things like music, camera shots, and all kinds of other factors end up taking the story from real to overdramatic almost every time. Another issue is that movies can't really pull off inner monologue without being cheesy, which is a shame because inner monologue makes up about half of Katniss's character.

So. In conclusion. The Hunger Games movie: not bad. But I wouldn't go to it expecting to be impressed if you got reeeaally into the books.

6 outa 10.

Also the Hollywood monkeys disabled embedding for all of the Hunger Games trailers so I'm gonna go ahead and let you seek it out for yourself (as if you haven't seen it already).