Review of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) by Mitchell B — 17 Mar 2016

Catching Fire is the second installment in the Hunger Games franchise. Catching Fire, in my opinion, is better than The Hunger Games, but still not without its issues. I have many of the same problems with this film that I had with The Hunger Games. I did not read the books so I cannot make any comparisons but I did hear that they cut a lot out.

The film takes place a year after The Hunger Games. Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and her friend Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), who were the victors of the last Hunger Games are on tour of all the Districts. Everyone sees Katniss as a light of hope due to her actions in the Hunger Games. Rebellions start to break out in all of the Districts. The president, played by Donald Sutherland is not happy about this, because this could trigger a full-scale revolution. He tries to get Katniss to her side. Katniss herself does not want to be a symbol and only wishes to keep her and her family safe. However, the president forces her and Peeta to participate in the 75th Hunger Games. This time the victors of previous games will face off.

The first issue I have is with the first 30-45 minutes. I personally found it a little boring. The first 45 minutes is Katniss and Peeta on tour and her being a symbol of hope for the people while trying to please the president so he does not kill everyone in her District. I know why it is there, but I just got a little bored after a while. I heard in the book that plotline took even longer. However once they announce the Hunger Games and we are introduced to the other combatants then things pick up again. I did not find the first part of this film quite as boring as the first part of the Hunger Games. I found the first part of the Hunger Games to drag on a bit too long and it is cliché. It was not bad, but it was too long. Here I was less bored.

Another issue I had was the shaky-cam during the fight scenes. I had this problem with the Hunger Games as well. During the fights the camera moves too much and I could barely make out what was happening. It wasn't as bad as in the Hunger Games but still noticable.

Aside from Katniss and Peeta, the rest of the cast gets very little development, like in the last film. However, I did like the supporting cast more here and they get a bit of development, which is more than I can say for Hunger Games. I also found that the ending was too abrupt.

However, despite all of that Catching Fire is still a good film and I do like it a bit more than the Hunger Games. The main reason is that the story is stronger. The Hunger Games mainly focused on introducing us to the character and setting up the world. It mostly focused on the games themselves. Here it focuses more on Katniss herself and her being a symbol of hope for the people. It also deals with the inevitable revolution and introduces key characters that are relevant later. I also like the supporting cast more. I felt that they had more life and energy even if they do not have much development. I also like the design of the actual games more this time around as well. Some of the obstacles they put in are very creative.

The effects are amazing. Again the design and obstacles of the Hunger Games itself are very well done. I like how there is more future tech used here. The world they are in still looks amazing. I did not see this movie in 3D so I cannot say how good the 3D is.

Overall, if you like the Hunger Games, then you should like Catching Fire. I did like the Hunger Games quite a bit despite everything I said about it earlier. I did think that this was a good film as well despite the problems I had. The effects are great, the cast is great, and the acting is on point.