If you’re looking for a film that’ll make you laugh at its unexpected wit, go see a romantic comedy. If you’d like to be frightened by incredible CGI, treat yourself to a science fiction flick. Or if you’re in the mood to shed some tears, check out a good ol’ fashioned drama. But, if you’d like all three mixed together in a complex concoction that’ll leave you simultaneously satisfied and eager for more, see the “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.”
Just make sure you’ve already read the book or seen the first film. This dazzling blockbuster of a sequel is best served to viewers who are already at least somewhat familiar with its content. Though there are a few lines and scenes clearly aimed at initiating newcomers into the dark, twisted post-apocalyptic world of Panem, it’s difficult to imagine that many of its most rewarding nuances would be intelligible to anyone meeting protagonist Katniss Everdeen for the first time.
But, for those already familiar with the braided heroine and her triumphant survival of a game that’s not exactly as simple or fun as Monopoly or Twister, “Catching Fire” is an absolute gift, clearly personalized for its millions of enthusiastic fans. It’s a shockingly faithful adaption of its source material. Yet, unlike several of the “Harry Potter” films, it doesn’t feel oddly paced, boring or bogged down in exposition because of that; it feels thrilling, with exact lines lifted from the pages and made appropriately threatening, emotional or hilarious by the mostly perfect cast.
Nearly all the book’s most memorable elements, including romantic tensions, outrageous clothing and mutations of the games, are present and well accounted for, in ways both expected and surprising. Several times during the film, I found myself gasping and wanting to scream “Oh, that’s what it looks like,” particularly over the CGI effects. The book’s author, Suzanne Collins, described the world’s visuals with intriguing details, but the film’s director, Francis Lawrence, brings it all to life — albeit, a disturbing one — with rich intricacies. The book provided the blueprints; the film is the fully realized skyscraper.
Perhaps one of the most shocking achievements of this PG-13 film, based on a so-called “young adult” novel, is that it’s even darker than its predecessor — all the way down to Katniss’s hair being black instead of brown. Yes, “Catching Fire” somehow manages to be even more terrifying and bleak than a tale about a nation’s adolescents and teens competing to the death.
The film begins with Katniss, played by reigning Academy Award winner Jennifer Lawrence, experiencing symptoms of post-traumatic disorder from her recent time in the arena. But before she’s able to even begin dealing with that, she’s forced onto a train and into a myriad of flamboyant outfits to deliver victory speeches in each of the 12 districts that make up her totalitarian nation of Panem. Saying much else would reveal spoilers, but here’s a slight hint: the credits don’t end with “And they all lived happy every after.” Happy isn’t a word in Panem’s dictionary.
Yet, humor certainly is a word on the cast and crew’s mind. In tune with the book, several characters grant the audience permission to briefly laugh, perhaps even fully collapse into hysterics, at the absurdity of it all. But these characters are far from the typical happy-go-lucky jesters of comic relief. Johanna Mason, played by Jena Malone, and Finnick Odair, played by Sam Claflin, display delightful wit, yet, they show that they’re just as wounded and vulnerable as they are comedic. Even Effie Trinket, a bubbly ball of upbeat energy played by Elizabeth Banks, who seemed incapable of even the slightest pessimism in the first book and film, shows moments of despair and empathy — making the entire affair all the more gut-wrenching.
My only complaint about “Catching Fire” is that there wasn’t enough of it. The massive cliffhanger of a plot twist thrown down in the final 30 seconds reveal the film’s true role: to serve as an entertaining bridge between the first movie and “Mockingjay,” the third and final book of the series which will be split into two films. Forgive the bad pun, but “Catching Fire” doesn’t leave its audience merely hungry for more; it leaves them starved.
In addition, “Catching Fire” doesn’t cover all plot points of the book; some characters and revelations are completely neglected. But with a 146-minute running time, it’s rather unrealistic and perhaps even sadistic, to expect every last moment to make the cut. Still, the screenplay does a remarkably good job at selecting what’s worthy of inclusion. Perhaps the most notable difference between page and screen is the expanded role of minor character Plutarch Heavensbee. But with Academy Award winner Philip Seymour Hoffman playing the enigmatic head gamemaker, this alteration merits the opposite of a complaint.
The “Hunger Games” franchise may not have the iconic heroism of “The Avengers” or the standard magic of “Harry Potter,” but “Catching Fire” showcases its own chillingly admirable heroes, sprinkled among enchanting movie magic. It may not be a masterpiece on Oscar-winning level, but it surely can’t be accused of being boring, simplistic or anything but incredibly intense and engrossing. It’s a film well worth — I just can’t resist — catching.
