Hunger Games: L'embrasement

From the acting to the sets to the special effects, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is an exceptional film. This movie is long, but it doesn't feel watered down or stretched out - there is plenty of story and action to fill the time. Plus, Jennifer Lawrence doesn't have to carry the movie on her own. The supporting cast does an excellent job, as well. This film can't really stand on its own, but it's still a fun ride and a well-done adaptation of the book.

I think this instalment was the best movie in the series. It has the perfect balance of action and storyline. It expands the world with more backstory and characters, and the effects were better so it was more convincing and we felt like we were part of this world. The casting was quite fitting.

This could easily have been a repeat of the first story; what this film does well is act as a bridge from the battle royale gimmick towards the politics and rebellion coming to the forefront.

Immediately the cinematography is better. The capitol looks vibrant, stunning and disturbing. The shaky cam is thankfully gone. It's rare for such a drastically positive leap in presentation inside a franchise. The scene that transitions into IMAX ratio is really quite incredible.

The caliber of actors also increases with the addition of Plutarch, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, continuing the solid casting of this series.

The writing and editing are a step up as well; scenes flow into each other logically and no cuts feel as jarring as the other entries in the franchise.

I do however find the love triangle still incredibly tedious and unnecessary. Sad Gale is a super boring character, and all time spent with him feels wasted to me.

The score also feels pretty perfunctory - nothing wows me like Harry Potter's incredible soundtracks (sue me, it's the gold standard for young adult film series).

The CGI mandrills didn't look great and my last complaint (I did quite like the film, honest) is that the reasoning for the selection of champions felt rather contrived.

Overall Catching Fire really does elevate its source material, and justifies its existence by taking logical steps into becoming something more than a battle royale.

Ever since I first saw it in theaters, Catching Fire has been one of my favorite movies of all time. It's so much better than the first one. It explores the story's political conflict more deeply and greatly expands on the dystopian universe.

The new director gives it a fresh and improved vision. The first one had audiences criticizing the shaky and desaturated camerawork and this sequel fixed it. Even though one this movie involves Katniss and Peeta competing in the games again, it never feels like a repeat of the first one. They understand that viewers already know how the games work and take advantage of the chance to explore new concepts with it.

Catching Fire should be an example to all filmmakers of how to do a good sequel.

I must say, I was worried about this one. Catching Fire is my favorite book of the trilogy, but cinematically it makes absolutely no sense. The Hunger Games reads like a screenplay--Catching Fire is a meandery epic full of worldbuilding and exposition for a war that won't even begin until Mockingjay. So I was pleasantly surprised to find that this installment of the hit franchise, directed by industry rookie Francis Lawrence, was maybe even more engaging than its predecessor.

Visually, it is a feat. The attention to detail is remarkable. Lawrence, along with screenwriters Michael Hardt and Suzanne Collins herself, manages to weave in all of the necessary set up to the upcoming war against The Capitol without it feeling tedious or heavy-handed. The new additions to the cast, most notably Philip Seymor Hoffman's Plutarch Heavensbee and Sam Claflin's Finnick O'Dair, are excellent, and the dialogue is much less wooden than, forgive me, the dialogue in the books sometimes is. Moreover, it is impressive that even with so many new people and so many moving parts, the central thread of Rebellion shines through.

Of course, with so much plot, so much to set up, one can hardly blame Catching Fire for falling short in the emotional department--as is, it clocks in at 2 hours and 26 minutes--but I did find myself wanting some steamier Peeta/Katniss action. I was disappointed by Lawrence's apparent disregard for the relationship between Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence, no relation) and Peeta (the incomparable Josh Hutcherson). To me, Catching Fire is about Peeta. It's the Peeta show.

Here's the thing: Katniss is supposed to be conflicted, not indifferent about Peeta. In the paper version, the reader, and by extension Katniss herself, feels truly torn between Gale and Peeta. She can't help but slowly fall in love with Peeta, who is so charming and funny and relentlessly Good. In this iteration, Katniss and Peeta have little to no chemistry, and Peeta only speaks when it is necessary to move the plot forward. Gale, on the other hand, is 6'4 and literally a Hemsworth. That he is a Hemsworth is no one's fault, I guess, but maybe Peeta should have been allowed to say some of the cute stuff he says in the books.

The "adults" in the cast--Woody Harrelson's Haymitch and Donald Sutherland's President Snow have much meatier roles than they do in the books. To their credit, they are fantastic. But I can't help but wonder how much more potent this movie could have been if Lawrence had trusted his young stars a bit more with the emotional heavy lifting.

Though it fell a bit short of exceptional, Catching Fire is by no means a Sophomore Slump, and I look forward to watching Mockingjay Part 1 on the big screen when it comes out!