Jonny Prophet and I
finally succumbed to the newest hit teen movie franchise based on a book series
Percy Jackson… oh wait, I meant Beautiful Creatures… sorry, I actually meant to
say The Vampire’s Assistant… um, Eragon? The Mortal Instruments? Divergent? Bear
with me here…
Warning: Spoilers… but
seriously, who hasn’t seen this movie yet? It’s like the biggest November
release ever. Plus, it’s a damn book! How much can I seriously give away?
(I have to warn
everyone in advance. I have never read the books and probably never will. I am
not that knowledgeable with the characters, so I am likely to just refer to
them by the name of the actor or actress who portrayed them.)
Toaster’s Contribution - I liked Catching Fire; it was
better than the first Hunger Games movie and really upped the ante in terms of
the story. I did, however, have some problems with the film and many of my
gripes apparently come from the source material itself. So I suppose at times I
will be critical of just the movie and others I will have issues with the book
itself. Most likely I will be unable to know the difference.
I’m going to back up slightly to last year when The Hunger
Games premiered. Jonny Prophet and I were considering going to the theater and
see it when we saw a Japanese cult flick with a similar premise called Battle Royale. We enjoyed that movie so
much that we thought The Hunger Games would be a letdown, like a watered down
version of the brutal film we saw. In some ways we were right. One of my
biggest complaints about the first Hunger Games was that it didn’t seem like we
focused enough on the psychological aspect of being forced to kill to survive. They
did touch upon the after-effects in Catching Fire, but not as much during the
first one. Now I will admit that Hunger Games has a better back-story than
Battle Royale, the latter of which having a flimsy set-up of distrustful adults
sending teens off to die in a last man standing competition. Yet I will contend
that the background to Battle Royale didn’t matter as much to the story as the
psychological ramifications of having to kill your peers to survive.
What got me interested in seeing Catching Fire was that the
trailer looked really interesting. I liked the idea of how Katniss’ actions
have led to a rising tide of rebellion and how the totalitarian regime tries to
contain it by tightening the noose. So once I had decided to see the sequel, I
watched the first film a week ago. Jonny went in mostly blind.
I love the world of The Hunger Games. It’s this sort of
post-apocalyptic America
mixed with a totalitarian government. I can see how The Capitol can overwhelm
the various Districts through pure technological might. While it would seem
difficult to control such a huge expanse of territory, the population of Panem
may be dramatically smaller than our own United States after the devastating
war (or wars) that brought the world to its state in the story. The contrasting
societies are really well done. You have the materialistic, glamorous denizens
of The Capitol juxtaposed (I love that word) with the poorer, oppressed peoples
of the Districts who generations later still live in the shadow of the Dark
Days War they lost to their masters.
Many of the characters are great and really add a flavor to
the overall story. Katniss is a great protagonist, a strong female lead with a
rebellious streak and a distrustful perspective that she uses as a defense
mechanism. Peeta is interesting; he is strong but not strong enough to survive
in the games, yet he provides an emotional stability to Katniss that she needs
to survive society itself. I love Elizabeth Banks’ over-the-top character,
easily one of the best in the series. Woody Harrelson’s portrayal of the Hunger
Games victor of yesteryear, haunted to the point of near constant intoxication
(insert Cheers joke here) provides a
great mentor character as well as a great source of comic relief. And I absolutely
must point out how amazing Jena Malone was a Johanna Mason, the feisty,
rebel-rousing, and possibly a little psychotic past Victor of the Hunger
Games. Then again, I have loved Jena for years after
seeing her in Donnie Darko, The Dangerous Lives of Altar Boys and Saved! Donald Sutherland’s President
Snow is a unique villain. He is subtle and subdued. There is no maniacal
laughter or yelling at his subordinates. He calmly discusses and in turn
menacingly implies his wishes. He comes across like a wise old man, strong to
the people and unafraid to do what it takes to preserve his people’s way of
life.
Another of the best characters in the series is Stanley
Tucci’s Caesar Flickerman, the celebrity personality with the whitest teeth on
Earth! Tucci portrays Flickerman with a mixture of a charming late-night talk
show host and a glitzy game show host. He also helps give a voice to the people
of The Capitol, a very important means of expressing a people that could easily
be demonized. However, the Capitolites come across as more naïve and almost
child-like; they seem like the bizarre evolution of our own pop culture
obsessed society taken to such a degree as to be completely oblivious to the
harm being done to those in the Districts. They treat the Hunger Games like the
ultimate spectator sport, elevating the contestants to the height of demi-gods,
not unlike our obsessive admiration of certain athletes. They seem almost
apathetic to the plight of the children forced to kill each other for
amusement, treating the death of their favorites with the “there’s always next
year” attitude given to the local team being ousted from the play-offs.
Not every character is well represented on film. (Again, I
am unsure if they get more attention in print.) I would like to see more of
Liam Hemsworth’s Gale in the films. He is an excellent young actor and I feel
he is woefully underutilized. The head Peacekeeper given charge of District 12
in Catching Fire, the one who flogs Gale, comes across almost cartoonishly
evil. It would have been nice to see what makes him tick. If he is just a sick
violent bastard, show us why. Seneca Crane, AKA Wes Bentley with silly facial
hair, really didn’t get that much time and as such just came across as
generically evil. We know virtually nothing about Katniss’ own family, either.
I imagine at the very least that the Everdeens get more time in the books and
also wouldn’t be surprised if Gale does as well.
The biggest complaint that I (and Jonny) had with the film
was its abrupt ending. I am told it’s the same way in the book. Catching Fire
didn’t really have an ending. It was more like a television show when the next
to last episode airs and it isn’t so much an ending as a cliffhanger to set up
next week’s finale. Katniss destroys the
75th Hunger Games, gets taken up into an airship, she wakes up and
finds out her home is destroyed, she’s now part of the rebellion and is on the
way to the “lost” District 13 (which I need to add… really? 13 is the lost
District? As long as we are running with clichés, is Katniss part of some
ancient prophecy too?). We get no closure with the other characters, just that
they were captured. Couldn’t we have seen that? How did the Peacekeepers
capture these armed kids already on a survival kick? How did the rebel airship
escape the Capitol forces? Couldn’t we have seen the destruction of District 12
or even Snow’s order to do so? How about showing Gale actually saving Katniss’
mother and sister? No? That’s just lazy story-writing.
If I were reading the book, I would have been pissed. As is,
I will have to wait a year before we get part 1 of Mockingjay and another year
before we get the ending. See, each Lord
of the Rings film led to the next, but Fellowship
of the Ring and Two Towers
each had their own climax. The first saw a battle with the Uruk-Hai, the death
of Ned Stark and the splintering of the Fellowship and the second ended with a
decisive victory against overwhelming odds. Even The Empire Strikes Back (a film that Catching Fire was compared to)
saw Luke Skywalker forever changed and the capture of Han Solo. It wasn’t just
a blatant cliffhanger.
Like I said, I did like Catching Fire and feel it was better
than the previous film. I think that the 74th Games at the end of
the first movie was a lot stronger than the Quarter Quell in the second. In my
opinion the real strength of Catching Fire was the political plotlines and the
building of impending uprising. Maybe if there was an actual ending of the
Quarter Quell Games, I would feel differently. Will I see both the Mockingjay
films? Most likely; it will be interesting to see how the revolution plays out
in Panem.
And now for the always
perplexing response from Jonny Prophet…
Jonny’s Contribution - Sooo... let me get straight (for this
first of film in series I saw) in the gay/drag queen future kids are force to
kill one another, for amusement. This show is hosted by a Ryan Seacrest type
guy played by Stanley Tucci (weird to see him with hair). The world is run by a
Victorian era pimp who doesn't solve the world’s problems so much as sends in
his gay storm troopers, all of which are horrible 2D bad guys. One girl playing
what is basically Battle Royale (I still prefer that film more) sparks the idea
we should have an uprising against the pimp and his gay stormtroopers, like no
one ever thought of this before or wanted to really make a go of it. All of the
uprising and plans were that of Woody Harrelson and The Master’s con on the
pimp. Yeah, ok then, thoughts... It’s fun seeing Smallville's Aquaman bite the dust… in water no less. For being a
genius, Jeffery Wright's character didn't seem that smart. I too would rather
have Liam over Josh, he's the better actor. No really, the future is
taken over by gay/ drag queens? I say Kazuo Kiriyama (of Battle Royale) takes
all these kids within a day… and lastly, if you place exploding kill
collars on the kids in these “last man standing” types of games (as they did in
Battle Royale) you can control the game and not them.
You’re kind of
disturbing, Jonny Prophet.
Until the Next Review… may the odds be ever in your favor
Stay Strange.
No comments:
Post a Comment