Runtime: 2 hours, 26 minutes
Rating: PG-13
Director: Francis Lawrence
Quick Impressions:
Ordinarily as I walk out of the theater after a movie, I’m already thinking about what I plan to say in my review, but as I left Catching Fire I was thinking, “How can I trick someone into taking me to see this again?”
(I’d love to see it a second time in the theater, but I just attempted to count the other movies I need to see before the New Year, and I ran out of fingers.)
For prestige pictures, 2013 has been a great—a teeming!—year. But compared to last year’s crop, this summer’s popcorn flicks were more lackluster than blockbuster. Now I see why. Apparently all of the best crowd pleasers were held until just before Thanksgiving. First Thor, now Catching Fire! I’m extremely excited about Frozen and The Hobbit and more than a little curious about The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.
Typically years with fewer great blockbusters have a more exciting Oscar season (and vice versa), but 2013 is suddenly shaping up to be a good year for movies period, offering, frankly, the strongest and most diverse field of films I’ve seen in a very long time.
This second installment of The Hunger Games is by far the year’s best blockbuster. It’s what Skyfall was last November—that really awesome, big budget, star studded, crowd pleasing, box office hit that nobody expects to be a serious Oscar contender despite the fact that based on merit alone, it’s clearly one of the best pictures of the year. It’s so well made, so impeccably cast, so enjoyable, so satisfying. (A lot of people in our packed house clapped at the end.)
The whole time I was watching, two big questions kept repeating themselves continuously in the back of my mind.
1) Why is there such an obvious chasm separating Oscar hopefuls from fan favorites? (Isn’t there something wrong when we say, “That was the best movie I’ve seen all year! I mean, it’s not going to win Best Picture or anything. It’s not that kind of movie, but…”?)
2) Why isn’t every successful YA book franchise brought to the screen with the same painstaking care? I ask this not only as someone with a personal investment in YA literature (because I write it), but also as a pragmatist. I mean, there’s so much money to be made, and yet the majority of YA adaptations seem set up to fail. (Look at the Percy Jackson series. Maybe it’s true that not everyone in the movie audience needs to read the books first, but I think the people in charge of making the movies probably should.)
Suzanne Collins thoroughly won my admiration (and envy) when she wrote the screenplay for the first Hunger Games film herself (with director Gary Ross and Billy Ray). I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen a movie that matched my expectations so completely. (It helped, of course, that I knew Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson were cast as Katniss and Peeta when I first read the novel.) Still, to keep that level of creative control (and more importantly to know what to do with it) is amazing, commendable, and enviable in a novelist. Stephen Chbosky took things a step further when he not only wrote but directed his The Perks of Being a Wallflower, also with great success. (But I think Collins gets points for greater degree of difficulty. There’s no archery, child-on-child murder, or subversive political content in Perks, though Charlie and Katniss are neck-and-neck for number of childhood traumas endured.)
The first Hunger Games rarely (if ever) departed from the novel. The only significant changes were the scenes showing us what the first person narration of the book could not, namely the crucial stuff going on behind the scenes, events Katniss could not witness firsthand. These enhancements worked in the film’s favor since they did not change the events of the story but rather shifted point of view to show us a more complete picture of events than Katniss could form using her limited firsthand experiences. And in a film trilogy, if someone—like Donald Sutherland’s President Snow—is going to be a key player later on then we need to see him early and often to establish his importance for the audience. (English teachers, take note. The novel paired with the film could be a great lesson that not everything happening in the story is told explicitly in the narration.)
Of course another defining trait of the first film was its motion sickness inducing visuals. It didn’t make me sick, but there were a lot of close-ups and quick cuts and shaky cam. My husband and I had different takes on this. I said, “It’s filmed like a reality show, plus it gives the same sense of urgency as the present tense narration of the novel.” More pragmatically, my husband pointed out, “We get so used to close ups and the camera jerking away that when it’s time for all the killing of kids, it doesn’t feel weird that we can’t see the graphic violence very clearly. We’re already used to that filming style, and that way, they don’t get an R.” (Because something came up, I never finished and posted my review of the first Hunger Games, but you’re getting a taste of what I did say here.)
My impressions of the first film were mostly positive. Certainly I enjoyed it enough to read the second book and get excited about the movie Catching Fire. Honestly I’d say the first movie was a success in every way. So keep that in mind when I say that the second film in the franchise, Catching Fire, is roughly nine-hundred-thousand-million times better than the original.
Is Catching Fire a marginally better book than The Hunger Games or is it marginally worse? Ask a group of invested friends, and you could probably debate that without resolution for days. But there’s absolutely no contest when it comes to the movies. Catching Fire is by far the superior film, more engaging, more emotionally resonant, and ultimately more satisfying. It’s definitely one of the best movies of 2013.
The Good:
I started reading Catching Fire right after The Hunger Games, but then I got caught up in something I was writing, and when I came back to the book, it seemed too depressing. (So I read The Handmaid’s Tale and Dracula because, obviously, those books are rays of pure sunshine.) This November, I suddenly realized in alarm, “Oh no! The movie is almost out! I’ve got to finish Catching Fire.”
This time, I burned through the pages so quickly my Kindle almost caught fire. (If you ever want a grim novel to seem less depressing, try reading Ender’s Game first. Ender and company make Katniss Everdeen look like Shirley Temple!)
I love watching a movie adaptation with the book fresh in my mind. It makes the whole thing so exciting. Even better, my daughter fell asleep during the previews while sitting in her brother’s usual spot, so I got to sit next to my stepson for once and hear all of his unfiltered reactions to what was happening on the screen. He has not read The Hunger Games series yet, so I got the double fun of watching the movie with the book fresh in my mind and hearing the quietly vocalized reactions of someone who had no idea what was coming.
I don’t mean to be bossy, but everyone should do this. It makes the movie so much fun.
Every ten seconds my stepson would either gasp or whisper something like, “But in the end, they’ll all have to kill each other,” or “Aww. I love Mags. She’s so sweet. I hope she makes it out. Maybe they’ll call it off. I don’t want her to die.” (His questions, on the other hand, were more problematic. It’s pretty hard to answer stuff like, “Why are they beating them?” in a brief, inconspicuous whisper.)
My stepson was not the only one who hadn’t read the book. We had a very interactive (yet polite) audience. At least half of them were gasping so earnestly at moments that I’m sure the events on the screen took them completely by surprise. On the other hand, a sizable number of viewers clearly had read the books because there are a lot of moments that serve as cues for knowing laughter (a bit different than the parts that are simply funny).
Clearly this movie is equally enjoyable whether or not you’ve read the book. My stepson’s comments also helped me gauge if the movie was suspenseful for people who haven’t read the book. There was a late moment when my stepson said of Johanna Mason, “Oohkay, she has anger issues.” He’s about to turn eleven. I’m sure there were other kids his age (and kids my age) thinking along the same lines and trying to make sense of everything they were seeing onscreen.
I can pay Catching Fire an extremely high compliment by saying that if you have not read the novel, it is not predictable. (I love the Harry Potter franchise, the books and the film adaptations. But, though unquestionably well done, the films usually take part of the fun out of the story by making J.K. Rowling’s suspenseful, hard-to-guess plots a lot more obvious. Compare the fourth book to the fourth movie. I’m actually a huge fan of the Goblet of Fire adaptation simply because the book is so intricate and involved that it could be a miniseries. I think that many of the changes for the screen are good ones, but they do simplify the plot drastically and greatly reduce the mystery. That doesn’t happen here.) Catching Fire manages to surprise audiences who have not read the book, and I applaud it for refraining from obvious gestures that would give the entire thing away.
In the book, for example, there’s a moment at the ball for Peeta and Katniss when we get a huge visual clue (and some spoken ones) that we do not understand until later. I don’t think there would be any way to show this in a movie without making it far too obvious. So the movie simply doesn’t show it. I think that’s a good choice.
There are more changes this time around than before. The movie leaves out some early scenes altogether, conflates others, shortens others still. I think that’s a good thing. It keeps the pacing brisk and the story taut. It’s also really nice to see Plutarch Heavensbee and President Snow having their private conversations. For those who haven’t read the book and don’t have the benefit of Katniss’s thoughts and surmises on the situation, these moments help explain why things are happening. For those who have read the book, it’s fun to watch and realize the cleverness and political savvy of some characters.
But the best thing about the movie is really the cast. How did they get this cast? This isn’t the kind of movie that traditionally wins Oscars—but why not? Philip Seymour Hoffman, Donald Sutherland, Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci, Toby Jones, Jeffrey Wright, Amanda Plummer. If you read the cast of the movie before the title, you’d assume it was Oscar bait. Then of course it helps that the star of the whole thing won Best Actress in 2012.
She leads a young cast that is every bit as fantastic as the supporting cast, including possibly the best (and certainly the most prolific) young actor of his generation, Josh Hutcherson, Liam of the Hemsworths, Jenna Malone (perfect for her part), Sam Claflin (also well cast).
As I watched, I couldn’t help wondering, “Is Jennifer Lawrence an expert archer by now?” I mean, she’s been faking it convincingly for a long time. First Winter’s Bone, now in two films as Katniss. Quite honestly I think her performance here is just as good as anything that’s been talked about for Best Actress. (And the performances I’ve seen thus far have been pretty phenomenal.) Lawrence is a stunningly strong actress and comes across as such a likable, down-to-earth person. I really haven’t seen someone so young make such uncannily good (and seemingly effortless) acting choices since Kate Winslet was her age.
She’s certainly having a great year! Best Actress, Katniss Everdeen, and a potential Supporting Actress nominee for American Hustle.
My other two favorites are Stanley Tucci (who basically gives Oscar caliber work in all his performances and makes Caesar Flickerman a huge scene stealer) and Lenny Kravitz as Cinna (my favorite character in the books). Of course Kravitz is more well known for his phenomenally successful musical career, but for somebody who is a musician first, he’s a remarkably good actor. I wish he would make more movies.
The movie features several small moments when actors make good choices, tiny things that help establish or reinforce character (like Woody Harrelson and the morphling while Gale is in the house or the commentators’ chit chat, “Our favorite. Well, my favorite,” during the parade). I’m not sure what’s in the screenplay and what the actors themselves are generating, but whatever’s happening, it’s working. As Effie Trinket, Elizabeth Banks also gets much more emotionally resonant material this time and really makes the most of it.
Catching Fire’s screenplay was written by Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt, and I’m mentioning them because I think they’ve done wonderful work. (As far as I’m concerned Michael Arndt can keep working on The Hunger Games, and Lawrence Kasdan can write Star Wars. I’d say that’s a beneficial arrangement for everyone.)
A part of me wants to say that when you hire actors based on their acting ability and get good screenwriters, the movie has to turn out well, but I’m not sure that’s true. (Good editing and cinematography choices are quite crucial, too.) It’s harder for me to evaluate what goes on behind the camera, but in Catching Fire, the end results are so effective that I just have to assume that everything is working.
Often I don’t notice things like costuming, but this film has some of the most impressive costumes and make-up that I’ve ever seen. Everyone looks exactly right all of the time. In particular, I love Effie’s butterfly dress and Katniss’s amazing wedding gown.
The visual effects are also much more impressive this time around. In general, there’s less shaky cam claustrophobia and more steady, rising grandeur. The special effects are better, too. And I also love the score. Not only is it catchy, it’s used well.
Catching Fire is definitely a superior movie to the first installment of The Hunger Games (which was already very good). It helps that the story is bigger and more cinematic, but I think the improvement in terms of visual effects is entirely the movie’s victory.
Best Scene Visually:
As the end credits rolled (and my daughter woke up), my husband cited a favorite moment that I had made note of myself. There’s an absolutely brilliant moment with President Snow at the end of the banquet for Peeta and Katniss. A movie can’t convey fragrance, so instead it gives us a visual image that will stir the same associations. It’s an especially nice nod to the book for those who have read. I really loved it.
The parade of tributes is also stunning, really quite grand and spectacular, especially when compared to the first movie (which we are re-watching at this moment). It can’t be just the daylight. Everything seems much bigger, which is fittingly in step with the much larger scope of the plot.
Funniest Scene:
Jenna Malone’s introduction in the elevator is perfect. It’s not just the way the scene is staged (although that’s great), but all four actors involved play it absolutely perfectly. Jennifer Lawrence doesn’t even speak (at least not much), but her face is just priceless. Since Jennifer Lawrence was cast after playing an eerily similar character in Winter’s Bone, I can’t help wondering if somebody thought of Jenna Malone because of her work in the shower with Hayden Christensen in Life as a House. I’ve always liked Jenna Malone, and it’s been a while since she’s been in a big, successful film, so I’m delighted to see her here. She makes a perfect Johanna Mason.
Best Scene:
My favorite scene in the novel is Katniss’s farewell to Cinna. The movie does this well, and it pairs nicely with the earlier scene when Caesar interviews the tributes. That scene is probably the strongest in the film although almost every scene is excellent.
Best Action Sequence:
The book has a convenient narrative structure since all the action comes at the end. Probably the most gripping sequence is the one with the fog, though of course that final arrow got a lot of applause from the crowd.
The Negatives:
As far as pacing goes, the choice to conflate and skip over so much of the material that comes before the Quarter Quell makes sense and works out well. The thing is, I think the movie would be better if it gave us more Gale and even more Peeta. At least movie audiences got plenty of Peeta in the first film and can carry those memories with them. But Gale needs a little more time. I think his big scene in the middle deserves a lot more time (although I appreciate that this isn’t 12 Years a Slave and that an R rating would seriously hurt this movie’s box office take).
Honestly, I’d even like to see more of Finnick Odair. Sam Claflin is great when he’s in it, but I felt like Finnick was more of a presence in the novel.
Honestly, though, I don’t know how to fix this because the movie already moves at a brisk pace and seems to last forever. (Thank goodness I changed our dinner plans at the last minute from after to before!)
My stepson’s reaction to the very ending was priceless. He cried, “No! Seriously!”
I suggested, “You could read the books.”
He replied, “Yeah, but books are even worse. It’s always like you get to the end of the chapter, and it leaves you hanging, so you hurry up and read the next chapter, but it’s like fifty years in the future, and then someone’s telling a story, and then it jumps back to twenty years ago, and then somebody’s having a dream, and by the time you get to find out what happens next, it’s like six chapters later, and you have to go back and reread because you can’t even remember what was happening anymore.”
Overall:
Catching Fire was so good that we’re all at home watching The Hunger Games now. My husband, my stepson, and I all loved it (like seriously loved it). My four-year-old fell asleep during the previews and awoke after the last scene. A few seconds later she told my husband with a smile, “It’s a funny thing. All I remember about that movie is the credits.”
Some scenes may be too intense for most kids her age, but with a plot that includes whipping, multiple murders, insurrection, nudity, and profanity, the movie does a fantastic job of hinting at such things rather than showing them and keeping its PG-13 pretty kid friendly.
Catching Fire is a fantastically entertaining and (for younger viewers especially) thought provoking movie. See it for the cast alone. They’re all very gifted actors turning in fine and highly watchable work here. I hope I can find the time and money to see it again in the theater, but perusing a list of upcoming movies I need to see by the end of the year, I’m beginning to feel that the odds won’t ever be in my favor!