The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

[Anthony G Williams]

I had a rather ambivalent response to the first film of The Hunger Games series, which I reviewed on this blog in January last year. I thought it was an exciting drama, but was unconvinced by Jennifer Lawrence in the primary role. This sequel carries straight on with the story, and suffers from the common mid-trilogy problem of not having a proper beginning (that was in the first film) or ending (that will be in the last – although I see that the final book is to be split into two films), so it lacks a satisfying dramatic structure. Furthermore, there is much repetition in the basic action scenario of jungle combat. However, the plot does take a new turn, focusing on the growing spirit of rebellion in the regions and the President's reaction it, and it remains interesting throughout. Despite this, I still don't understand why Ms Lawrence receives such praise; apart from a few crying fits she spends most of the time looking blandly impassive – animated she is not! Some of the supporting characters are much more memorable, particularly Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks. Sadly, Philip Seymour Hoffman died before completing work on the next film.

(An extract from my SFF blog: Science Fiction & Fantasy)

 

[Anthony G Williams]

The third of four films based on Suzanne Collins' Hunger Games trilogy, Mockingjay Part 1 continues the story of a future dystopia in which Katniss Everdeen has unwillingly become the figurehead in a rebellion against the established order represented by President Snow (Donald Sutherland).

This film suffers from the same problem as the last: it has neither a beginning nor an ending, being merely a continuation of the story, so is lacking in dramatic structure. It does get away from the Hunger Games format for the first time, to focus on the rebellion now being led by District 13, a militarised society separate from Panem (the rest of the country). Katniss has a largely passive role, acting as the focus for inspirational propaganda films while suffering from watching her love interest from the previous films being used as a mouthpiece for President Snow. Frankly not a lot happens, but the film was just interesting enough to hold my attention so I expect I'll see the final episode in due course.

Incidentally, there is as usual no help for viewers whose memories of the previous film have faded over the past year – the movie plunges straight into the action and I was baffled and confused by it at first. I find it very odd that film sequels normally provide no recap of previous events to refresh the memory, while TV series with only one week between episodes frequently do (although some don't bother even at the start of a new season), and I've seen non-fiction TV programmes which give a recap after each advert break! Could there please be some common sense applied here? The value of recaps is directly linked to the length of time since the previous episode: after one week you really shouldn't need one – after one year you certainly do.