The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Bobby Shipman

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.

Email This Story

The second installment of “The Hunger Games” trilogy improved upon its predecessor in a few pivotal ways.

“Catching Fire” begins with 74th annual Hunger Games victors Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark adjusting to life after unknowingly sparking rebellion in Panem with their controversial victory.

Now a beacon of hope for the districts of Panem, they must lull their riotous hearts at the command of President Snow.

Katniss fears that her unwanted pedestal may lead to the endangerment of her family or all-out war in Panem, making her every move crucial.

Unsuccessful, Katniss and Peeta become targets of the Capitol and are thrown back into the Hunger Games arena once again to compete against surviving victors in a ploy to eliminate uprisings in the districts.

“Catching Fire” was able to develop characters more thoroughly than “The Hunger Games,” due the introduction of complex characters, as well as the actors who played them.

Older and more substantial characters in “Catching Fire,” such as the other victors, aid Katniss’s story arch and create flavorful intricacies that bring the story to life.

The film spent more time delving into the lives of its characters, helping us to better understand their actions just before throwing them to the wolves, or ravenous monkeys.

“Catching Fire” displays a flawless formula of complex story development followed by relentless action, terror, tricks and mysteries culminating in its puzzlingly spectacular finale.

The only downside to this franchise is its inability to truly entangle us in Katniss’s complicated psyche, as the novels by Suzanne Collins do.

A mindless movie-goer might criticize the movie for being long and boring until the hunger games action sets off, but if one goes into “Catching Fire” with a thirst for the true nature of story-telling they will exit quenched.




Print Friendly, PDF & Email