The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Bookmark and Share

Mon, 11/25/2013 - 13:44 -- Bob Gibbons

By Bob Gibbons

The Hunger Games: Catching FireThis movie is more ambitious, more aggressive and more atmospheric than the first one. It’s darker, more desolate, with characters that are more multi-dimensional, sets that are more elaborate, a plot that is more complex.  And yet, it ends so abruptly that it makes the whole movie feel more like a set-up for the next chapter than a fully formed piece of satisfying entertainment.  The audience simply left in silence when the credits began. There was no applause. Did they, like me, feel a bit cheated? The movie is long, overburdened with detail, incessantly gloomy, intermittently cruel, but only lightly violent. But there is real production value here. The costumes seem to have escaped from Elton John’s closet; interior sets in Panem are from Architectural Digest of the 1930s; exteriors are from Auschwitz of the 1940s. Pageantry is borrowed from Cecil B. DeMille extravaganzas of the 1950’s. Cinematography by Jo Willems is dark, intense. Director Francis Lawrence focuses less on documenting competitive events and more on creating interesting characters. This time around, Lawrence is more mature; she plays Katniss Everdeen as more confident and more conflicted, but Stanly Tucci steals every scene he’s in.  He plays Caesar Flickerman as Liberace on uppers, the pony-tailed host with a phony laugh and a toothy smile. Should you see this movie?  Oh wait: on its opening weekend, it made $161 million.  I think you may already have.

Category: