Hunger Games: Back to boot camp
As in the first instalment, much care is taken to make this adaptation of Suzanne Collins's book of the same name as visually convincing as it can possibly be.
Jennifer Lawrence returns as Katniss Everdeen in Hunger Games: Catching Fire. Picture: Supplied.
The two films following this sequel to director Garry Ross’s Hunger Games (the better production, which makes it curious that new helmsman Francis Lawrence is being retained for the follow-ups) are already in the process of being made, so settle in for the long haul, as Hunger Games is the new Twilight or Harry Potter for tweens in need of an escape.
The wardrobe budget alone probably dwarves the total cost of many smaller projects. Everything, from the bleak, military-run outposts that Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence, further developing the magnetic screen presence she exhibited in the first film) and Peeta (Hutcherson) must visit as part of the eternal publicity attached to their unlikely Hunger Games win to the opulent train on which they travel looks supremely fitted to its purpose. On that level, this is a believable fictional world, no matter how bizarre the events that take place there.
For the most part, the writing keeps pace. In the aftermath of the 74th Hunger Games, which Katniss and Peeta survived, there remains smouldering discontent among the Panem peasants, and President Snow (Donald Sutherland, well cast for his emotionless sneer if nothing else) proposes that sending his pretty young heroes out on the road is the best way to maintain morale among the residents of his realm. Katniss and Peeta, unsurprisingly – if you’ve survived hell once, you don’t want to venture back inside – are less than keen to play along.
These protagonists trying to out-manoeuvre each other is the main focus of the script, with the mechanations added by new Head Gamemaker Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) adding complexity and a new level of brutality to proceedings.
The portion of the film in which contestants must kill or be killed in an arena still calls to mind Survivor on steroids, with a bit of the stoic group mentality of Lord Of The Rings tossed in, and though it’s thrilling to watch, it doesn’t add much to the developing storyline until right at the end of the film.
The ending here is a major problem. It’s essentially the cinematic version of the funny-shaped protuberance on a puzzle piece that fits into the corresponding hole on the neighbouring piece.
It wrenches the viewer away from the tale they’ve just spent two and a half hours connecting with and announces: “For marketing purposes, we need to cut this here. Please tune in for Episode Three as soon as we’ve completed printing the posters.”
Hunger Games groupies won’t mind – they’ve budgeted for third and fourth chapters already.
But neutrals who were impressed with the scale, acting quality and elaborate concept of Chasing Fire will be mightily annoyed.
They’ve paid for a blockbuster action drama and been presented with an episode of a big-screen mini-series.
For more news your way
Download our app and read this and other great stories on the move. Available for Android and iOS.