to love, not to mention the President who
only seems to live to threaten her very existence and the
existence of her entire district. The worst part,
however, is the announcement of the 75th Hunger Games.
So what, right? I mean Katniss and Peeta won the last
hunger games which means they are on Easy Street for the rest
of their days. Unless some dastardly villain fixes it so
that previous winners have to go back and compete yet
again. That is so not cool.
So here we go again. Our heroes are back in the capitol
city catching fire and stuff, Drunken Haymitch (Woody
Harrelson) is back to advise, smooth Cinna (Lenny Kravitz) has
returned to dress, and hideous Effie (Elizabeth Banks) is back
to do whatever it is she does. 24 combatants are sent to
the tropics to do battle, alliances are formed, death is the
order of the day and there can only be one winner. The
President's plan to finally get rid of Katniss Everdeen is
working like a charm. But not so fast my friends… oh
dang. Now I have to wait for the third movie. And
this time, I actually can't wait to see it.
I almost cannot put into words how much more I enjoyed
'Catching Fire' over the first 'Hunger Games', and I'm still
not exactly sure why, other perhaps the simple fact that
Francis Lawrence is just a better film director than Gary
Jones, though I'm sure it goes deeper than that. I still
have some lingering issues, such as a philosophical difference
with the way the capitol city insists on oppressing its
people. I do like the underlying analogies to current
events, one percenters, and other modern technologies, but I
still think that starving and beating and publicly executing
the populace, then sending their children to murder each other
on national TV could serve no purpose than to guarantee a
surefire rebellion, and as a result I do still have a
difficult time buying into the basic tenant of The Hunger
Games concept, but I will say that this time around the
oppression of the Capitol City was far more impactful, the
effects of the oppression of the lower districts was far more
affecting to the audience, and where President Snow was more
of just a jerk in the first film, he has now morphed into a
legitimate, seething, hissing, completely reprehensible
villain, which always makes for a better film.
The political and sociological elements leading up the 75th
Hunger Games had more power, the backroom dealings were more
insightful, a lot less time was spent getting to know Katniss,
since the first movie went to great pains to take care of that
tedium, but now the audience can exist with Katniss, and a
better presented Peeta for that matter and involve themselves
deeper into the gravity of what these two are dealing
with. The first film may have been tedious, in my
opinion, but it did lay the groundwork for this one.
Even the Hunger Games themselves are better presented,
possibly because we are spared the unfortunate distaste of
having to watch children slaughter each other, which is still
crazy if you ask me, and features the notable addition of a
few important characters who will no doubt play an even bigger
role in the upcoming film. This time around more focus
is on the environment of the games and less on the individuals
attempting to kill each other, which actually flows better
into where the film is eventually going.
Considering everyone is back from the first film, and that the
performances were never an issue in a film with a solid cast
such as this, the acting was never an issue. Phillip
Seymour Hoffman stepping in for Wes Bentley is trading up,
though we do miss Seneca Crane's awesome beard array.
And as we mentioned before, Josh Hutcherson and Donald
Sutherland's characters received significant upgrades, but of
course the movie sinks or swims on the soft young shoulders of
Jennifer Lawrence, and it swims well. She swam well in
the last one too, but this time, if you ask me, the rest of
the movie came along with her this time.
We are forced to say that 'Hunger Games: Catching Fire' is of
the better Part II's we've seen. At least in relation to
Part I's. I mean 'The Empire Strikes Back', 'The Dark
Knight Returns', 'The Two Towers' and 'The Godfather Part II'
it might not be, but those movies followed great movies.
The step up to this, from that, is remarkable.
Lisa's Take:
It has been nearly two years since I visited the Hunger
Games world, but my lack of memory for previous plot points
didn't detract from the viewing experience. All in all, I
would agree with Mr. Armstead that the movie was good. Was it
better than the first? That would require me to remember the
first movie, which I don't. And I'm only lukewarm about the
third movie, I suppose I want to find out what happens to
Peeta. But if I don't find out, I'll be ok. If I was really
moved, watching this movie would have prompted me to read the
books to find out what happens to Katniss and company. I'm
just not that into this franchise. I watched the movie
thinking, why is that? The movie went at a good pace, I
didn't feel the 146 minutes, which is really saying something.
The acting is good, I mean this is carried by the one and only
Jennifer Lawrence. And yet, I haven't caught the fire. I have
questions, questions that I am sure those who have read the
book can clarify for me, and for which I would appreciate. But
before the fans cry out in protest, remember I don't know this
story, and all I have gleaned is from the movies.
One reason for my lack of enthusiasm is the heroine is
herself. When compared to Harry Potter. Luke Skywalker, and
Frodo Baggins, Katniss doesn't move me to her cause. I guess
the first thing is I'm not really sure what her cause is. Is
it remembering those who died? She seems particularly
moved by Rue's death. If that is the case, is killing more
people truly honoring or avenging them? She seems to side with
the protesters, and is supportive of the uprising. Yet, is she
part of the rebellion? I don't see how participating in the
Games is rebelling or taking down the Evil. But hey, that is
just my view. Also, is there a rebellion going on, or just
protesting? Where is the call to arms, did I miss it…
Which brings me to my next point, the Evil. Harry had He Who
Must Not Be Named, an Evil so potent, you literally couldn't
say his name without striking fear. Even Vader didn't have
that kind of range, he continually enforced his stranglehold,
by literally strangling insubordinates. And then Frodo
faced Sauron, an Evil strong enough to muster all other
unspeakable evils to do his bidding. These were real Evils,
and we knew it by the way they looked, carried themselves, and
spoke. These evils are not easily identified as humans, two
barely had corporal bodies to speak of. They were so evil,
there was no face for them. And for the one with a face, well,
it was robotic and spoke with the might of James Earl Jones.
The Evil Katniss is battling isn't some hideously deformed
creature. The face is entirely human, and a rather
grandfatherly one at that who speaks in the soft tones of
Donald Sutherland. The Evil in the Hunger Games is the
President, and he isn't lurking in the shadows. This is the
evil we face ourselves, he is us. We, the collective society,
are the Evil. And well, that doesn't help me escape or make me
join the cause or rebellion, assuming there is a rebellion
forming. It just makes me think this is a really a statement
on society, and not a fantasy movie.
The statement I got was the age old battle of the haves versus
the have nots. The people in the districts are fed up with the
way they are treated, and are looking for a leader. The masses
are hungry, overworked, and angry. Angry enough that peace
keepers have to increase their counter measures, so far it has
reached public flogging stage. What exactly is that supposed
to do to the rest of the masses? Make them cower in more fear?
Fear has several stages, and when the victims have been
subjected to so much fear for so long, they no longer are
afraid. They get angry. Has the Capital not learned from human
history, that harsher punishments only serve to rally their
opponents? The harder those in power inflict their will, the
less authority they have in the eyes of the people. The masses
over time have become increasing more brave, more people are
protesting, and more people looking for the Mocking Jay to
show them out of darkness.
And who is that Mocking Jay? Is it Katniss? The heroes in
fantasy movies encounter along their journey crises of
faith, while Katniss's entire journey seems to be
a crisis. Harry, Luke, and Bilbo started out and remained
innocent throughout their journey. When faced with whether to
do good or evil, they always choose good and remained true,
making their journey more arduous and their villain more
upset. In the battle of good versus evil, showing compassion
and mercy is the surest way to strike down evil. Katniss has
blood on her hands, and is haunted by what she has done. In
the first movie she killed someone, I think, and in the second
movie, well I don't know what her end game is. She doesn't
even want to survive. That isn't heroic. In the face of evil,
we mere mortals will do what it takes to survive, making
compromises and straying from the path of righteousness. A
hero chooses to do something greater than just survive, they
triumph. It also helps the hero to have along their journey a
mentor, someone to help them stay on the path of
righteousness. Harry had Dumbledore, Luke had Obi Wan, and
Bilbo had Gandalf. Who does Katniss have to guide her on this
journey, Haymitch? A character whose alliances are still
unclear? Even though he is a victor, and probably has some
hidden depth yet unexplored, a mentor has to do more than give
a spile to tap a tree for water.
What gets me even more about the Hunger Game world is that the
real Mocking Jay are the people themselves. They are the key
to their own salvation. While we, the collective society, are
the Evil for allowing such inhuman treatment to continue, it
is also within our power to stop it. The oppressed don't need
a wand, a Ring, or a lightsaber to fight back. They just
actually need to fight, and it starts by saying No. Saying no
to sending children to be slaughtered for sport. Saying no to
the Hunger Games themselves, by not watching. The one thing I
do recall from the first movie was that Gale character uttered
that very line. If no one is watching, the power and influence
of the capital decreases. Saying no to taxation without
representation (is that what they want? I'm still not sure) Or
is it democracy the oppressed want, having their vote count?
Whatever it is they are trying to achieve, it all starts with
them. Not Katniss. I guess that is why I'm not that into the
Hunger Games, it is too much reality and not enough fantasy. I
hope Katniss and Peeta do triumph, and that the oppressed get
their demands met. I just prefer a good versus evil version
with more wizards, Hobbits, or Jedi and less Lord of the
Flies/Heart of Darkness human behavior.
