THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY - PART 2 Is Too Much Filler, Only Some Killer

THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY - PART 2 Review:

So ... that was The Hunger Games. In the sum total of things, there is a lot to like about these movies: Jennifer Lawrence's consistently fantastic lead performance, an intriguing mytharc about rebellion against a totalitarian regime, and an overall message of empowerment that is a net positive for the series' primary audience of kids and teens. But watching yet another Part 2 of what should have been a one-and-done film, a little cynicism can't help but creep in. MOCKINGJAY PT. 2 is stretched-out storytelling, mostly filler - balanced out by a handful of killer sequences that give the movie some desperately-needed injections of excitement. But where previous Hunger Games films have managed to shed a lot of the genre-trappings of the YA world in order to deliver some surprisingly gritty and epic narrative, this final chapter constantly reminds you that it's YA all the way. Why worry about the fate of the world when there's pining and brooding to be done?

The final Hunger Games film picks up directly after the events of the previous chapter - the resistance forces are mounting their ultimate attack on President Snow and the Capitol, even as Katniss - whom the resistance leaders still view mostly as a figurehead - deals with the fallout of Peeta's mind-altering infection by Snow. Peeta is now in a mentally-unbalanced state, slowly regaining some semblance of his old self, but still prone to turning on his friends at any moment and sabotaging their plans. Katniss, for her part, is determined to be more than just a spokesperson - she sneaks her way into the ground troops and devises her own plan to splinter off, leading a group of trusted allies on an attack designed to take out Snow once and for all.

Here's the thing - the movie has at least two major sequences that are total stunners. There's no question that director Francis Lawrence has action-movie chops, and when he gets to cut loose - as he does in a legit-awesome sequence in which Katniss and her friends are attacked by rabid subterranean creatures - he turns in some fantastic stuff. The aforementioned action scene, set in the sewer system leading into the Capitol, ranks as perhaps the best single action scene in the entire franchise. It's that good. There's also a climactic scene - in which Katniss holds the fate of Snow in her hands - that's staged to perfection. It's got exactly the sort of epicness and high-stakes drama that you'd want out of the final chapter of this series. Even though you can sort of see the big "twist" in the scene coming, it hardly matters - it's just a riveting, nail-biting, goosebump-giving scene.

So why isn't the movie as a whole better? Because in between these big moments, there's a ton of padding. And it's not even the right kind of padding. The movie would actually benefit, for example, from spending a lot more time with Julianne Moore's President Alma Coin, who plays a pivotal role in the film. But because we've only spent a short amount of time coming to undersand- really understand - her character, her big moments feel sort of arbitrary. What is spent time on is endless doe-eyed pining. And sadly, the teen-romance stuff in The Hunger Games has always fallen pretty flat. I mean, Liam Hemsworth's Gale is pretty much useless throughout the entire series - and his upped screentime here can't hide the fact that he's a hollow character who never seems at all worthy of Katniss' affections. Josh Hutcherson's Peeta is an even bigger dork - and the fact that his main role in this film is to brood and hate himself doesn't help. Sadly, the supporting characters who really popped in previous films - like Jena Malone's Johanna Mason, Natalie Dormer's Cressida, Jeffrey Wright's Beetee, and Elizabeth Banks' Effie Trinket - are largely sidelined here (even more sadly, this film does feature some final scenes from the late great Philip Seymour Hoffman as Plutarch - and he is, as always, excellent).

And so the burden of carrying the movie and elevating it largely falls on J-Law's capable shoulders. Luckily, Lawrence always seems to be up to the task of bringing depth, intensity, and likability to Katniss - singlehandedly giving the movie a gravitas it might never have come close to approaching otherwise. A scene in which a devastated Lawrence returns to her old home is a perfect example - there's not much to the scene, but Lawrence kills it with an emotional, raw performance. Suffice it to say, Lawrence more than earns her paycheck on these films.

There are some interesting thematic things going on here, and for that I give the movie, and the series, credit. It should be no surprise that a series about kids being forced to battle to the death can go to some dark places, but the series' YA sheen sometimes makes you forget its darker thematic aspects. In this film, there is a legitimately interesting narrative thread about the inherent corruptness of government and the flaw of assuming that the new regime will be better than the old. Again, it makes you wish that the series dared to spend more time and energy on these threads. But the fact that they are there at all makes this a bit more than mere YA fluff, and certainly there are some interesting concepts here to digest post-viewing.

Ultimately, The Hunger Games is what it is, and I give the film series credit for giving us a politically-charged action franchise with a great female protagonist and an interesting universe. But MOCKINGJAY PT. 2 is far from the franchise's strongest entry, even in spite of a couple of franchise-best moments. The pacing here is just too labored and too filled with filler to solidify this as the killer ending that the series needed to truly go out with a bang. Hopefully, the series' legacy will be more thoughtful sci-fi films of this ilk that meld blockbuster sensibilities with character diversity and thematic depth.

My Grade: B

THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY - PART 1 Never Quite Catches Fire

 

THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY - PART 1 Review:

- There's a lot to like about the Hunger Games franchise. In an era when it still feels like we're lacking for female-driven blockbusters on the big screen, The Hunger Games stands as a defiant example of just how wrong and shortsighted big studios can be when it comes to diversifying their tentpole franchises. Katniss Everdeen as played by Jennifer Lawrence kicks all kinds of ass, and Lawrence is surrounded by a supporting cast littered with top-notch talent - from Philip Seymour Hoffman to Elizabeth Banks to Donald Sutherland to Jeffrey Wright to Julianne Moore (joining the series with Mockingjay) - who help to elevate The Hunger Games beyond what it might have been otherwise. That said, MOCKINGJAY, PART 1 also exhibits some of the worst tendencies of modern franchise filmmakiing: artificially extending a story to maximize revenue rather than because it's creatively justified, and in doing so presenting a decompressed storyline that is too frequently filled up with scenes of characters literally just sitting and talking in ways that don't drive the plot forward. MOCKINGJAY has its share of memorable, exciting moments - and Lawrence is as great as ever. But in its need to fill out two hours with only half a story, the film takes on the vibe of a 22-episode CW series - lots of on-the-nose dialogue seemingly inserted just to keep things from moving ahead too quickly. To put it simply, MOCKINGJAY is less killer, more filler.

When we last left off at the end of Catching Fire, Katniss' dome-shattering flaming arrow - a dramatic end to the all-star edition of The Hunger Games - had helped spur revolution across Pan-Em. Katniss found herself whisked away by a previously-secret band of freedom fighters that included old flame Gale (Liam Hemsworth) and former games-master Plutarch Heavensbee. Now, the group - housed in a fortified underground compound (also there: a de-glammed Effie Trinket and Wright's science-whiz Beetee), wants Katniss to be the spokesperson for their revolutionary movement. Katniss is reluctant, but she agrees when she realizes that her Hunger Games companion, Peeta, has become a mouthpiece for President Snow's evil empire. Katniss decides to go out on the frontlines with a camera crew, and broadcast the Snow-inflicted devastation and tyranny to the masses (thanks to Beetee's hacking of the airwaves). All the while, tensions escalate as all-out war looms.

There's some really great, effective stuff in this film. There are some really funny and fun moments in which Katniss is awkwardly prepped by Julianne Moore's revolutionary leader Alma Coin - and a braintrust that includes Hoffman's Plutarch and Woody Harrelson's returning (and struggling-to-be-sober) Haymitch - to be the TV-friendly leader of the cause. Later, as the revolution gains steam, there's an absolutely fantastic scene of Katniss singing a rousing spiritual hymn to her friends, which then - in a stunning montage - becomes the battle hymn of revolutionaries throughout Pan-Em. There's also a super-sweet action sequence in which Katniss shoots down Snow's aircraft with incendiary arrows. I generally like director Francis Lawrence, and he's got a knack for crafting really epic, really effective apocalyptic imagery. And so another highlight of the film are some pretty jaw-dropping scenes that portray the destruction and death caused by Snow's systematic annihilation of problematic Districts in Pan-Em. Yep, in MOCKINGJAY we see Katniss drop to her knees and cry out helplessly among skeleton-filled ruins of destroyed cities - pretty epic - and surprisingly dark - stuff. In and of themselves, there are plenty of moments here that set the stage quite nicely for the coming final battle.

However, there are also lots of moments that remind me of the sorts of stuff we tend to see on TV shows that have to uncomfortably fill up 22 hours of airtime every season: people sitting around, talking, in a way that grinds the momentum of the storytelling to a screeching halt. We all know the kinds of scenes I'm talking about from shows like The Walking Dead: one character walks into a room, finds another character brooding there, and the two proceed to have a "deep" conversation in which they verbalize what we could already infer from their actions - often through pointless anecdotes or meandering confessions. Some may praise the inclusion of these scenes in MOCKINGJAY, and call it character-building. Sure, on the surface, yes. But I call it filler. It's ironic, because there's actually a scene in this movie where Haymitch reminds the rebellion's braintrust of Katniss' most memorable moments in her rise to fame, in an effort to dissuade them from trying too hard to package her in an artificial or forced-feeling manner for their propaganda pieces. Haymitch's words should have also been taken to heart by the filmmakers: what we remember about this series are the character moments that come organically in service of the plot, not those that feel like a forced way to shoehorn more "characterization" These scenes also constrict Frances Lawrence, as he's reduced to shooting lots of static scenes of two characters in a room having protracted heart-to-hearts. By the end of the movie, momentum just seems all but drained - rendering even the big, would-be-heart-pounding attack on the rebellion's compound feel pretty blah. The movie rallies in the final few minutes with a surprising final twist, but the shocker is more in its horror-movie-esque, jump-scare delivery than with the actual plot ramifications.

Luckily, the franchise's ace-in-the-hole is still Jennifer Lawrence, who carries the whole Hunger Games on her shoulders and makes even the film's weaker scenes work as well as they possibly could. It's funny, pop-culture watchers are so frequently exposed to Lawrence's goofy, good-natured real-life persona that it's easy to forget how badass and epic of a hero she is as Katniss. The real heart and soul of the film is Katniss' rise from accidental hero to genuine leader and revolutionary. And this is where the movie really soars - again, in large part thanks to Lawrence's performance. Lawrence makes Katniss' gradual acceptance of her role in the revolution feel natural and earned, and so the movie's true climax isn't any plot twist or battle, but a late-movie scene in which a crowd of tattered, embattled citizens collectively show their allegiance and loyalty to Katniss.

Unfortunately, as good as Lawrence is, and as good as some of the supporting cast is (Moore is fantastic as always, and Seymour-Hoffman - RIP - makes even the smallest of moments pop) ... there are still some clear weak links. Josh Hutcherson has gotten better as this series has progressed, but as Petah, he still feels outmatched and outclassed by Lawrence. And I'm not sure how much of this is on Liam Hemsworth, and how much is the script's poor development of Gale, but the character still feels pretty lifeless, present more so to deliver the requisite love-triangle component of the story (this is still YA, afterall), than anything else. The young women of this world continue to outshine their male counterparts. In Catching Fire that was true of Jenna Malone's standout turn as Johanna (she pops up briefly here), and is again true in MOCKINGJAY with the addition of Game of Thrones' Natalie Dormer, as Katniss-documentarian Cressida. Dormer does well for herself here, stealing a couple of scenes via sheer presence and badassery.

I wouldn't necessarily have minded the first MOCKINGJAY film ending on a cliffhanger if it felt right, and if there seemed like enough material in this one to justify a story-split. But sadly, this does sort of feel like half a movie, and worse, it feels like a movie that is very padded and diluted in the name of ensuring the franchise's extension into four chapters. I'll always enjoy Lawrence in this role, and the stacked supporting cast keeps things interesting. But the decompressed storytelling makes MOCKINGJAY feel more like an episode of a primetime TV soap, and less like the penultimate chapter of the big dystopian action franchise that it is and should be. The movie feels less like it's barreling towards an epic conclusion, and more like it's out for a leisurely stroll. Sure, I'm onboard for the final chapter. But at this point, it's a bit more out of obligation than genuine excitement for what's to come.

My Grade: B-

THE MAZE RUNNER Is Solid Prologue to a Bigger Story

THE MAZE RUNNER Review:

- By now we all know the standard YA novel-to-movie adaptation template. Basically, a high-concept sci-fi/fantasy/horror premise (vampires, werewolves, post-apocalyptic dystopias) gets "CW-ized" (for lack of a better term), and tweaked and optimized so as to best appeal to a target demo of teenage girls. This leads to a lot of movies in the genre that seem to squash their own potential, by forcing MTV VMA-ready actors and melodramatic love triangles into films that could have been better if not for all of their pandering. Sometimes you get some happy accidents (i.e. the great Jennifer Lawrence cast as Katniss in The Hunger Games). But more often than not, I tend to view these movies as less-than their non-YA counterparts. THE MAZE RUNNER, however, makes a real go at being something more than just another YA movie. In many ways, it reminded me as much of 80's kids adventure movies like The Goonies as it did The Hunger Games and its ilk. The film avoids a lot of the usual trappings of the genre. With no shoehorned-in love triangle, some moments of true brutality and danger, and a Twilight Zone-ish mystery at its core, THE MAZE RUNNER definitely feels like a different breed.

That doesn't mean that this is a perfect movie, though. THE MAZE RUNNER never quite nails the Twilight Zone-ish vibe it's going for. It suffers a bit from Lost-itus, where characters answer questions with questions for no good reason, and characters never seem to ask the right questions, or follow-up. That sort of thing is a pet peeve of mine, unless it's done really, really well and the entire tone of the story is conducive to that sort of mysterious vibe. THE MAZE RUNNER has a Twilight Zone-ish premise, but there's little about the movie's aesthetic that feels dreamlike or surreal. Everything is visualized in standard blockbuster fashion. That's not to say there aren't some great action scenes and fun moments - but, given the mysterious nature of the premise, it would have been cool if the movie's aesthetics made more effort to match it. Director Wes Ball shows off some really solid action set-piece chops - many of which have an additional element of sci-fi horror to them. But what he doesn't really do is give his film a real mood or atmosphere beyond standard YA movie stuff.

That mysterious premise is this: a group of boys finds themselves stranded in a glade surrounded by a vast, high-walled maze. None have any memory of their past, except for their name. Every month, an elevator shoots up from underground and deposits a new boy in the glade. For a while, there was chaos, but the first boy who arrived in the glade - Alby - became the boys' leader and helped establish order and rules. A group of "Runners" was created from the fastest and strongest in the glade, tasked with exploring the maze and trying to map it, in hopes of figuring out a way to escape. However, the maze is constantly shifting, making navigation difficult. In addition, it's filled with roaming monsters called Grievers, whose sting is deadly. Despite that, the boys live in relative peace, but their world gets shaken up when Thomas arrives. Thomas is determined to figure out how to escape the maze - rules be damned. Thomas' arrival signals a new chapter. There are hints that Thomas himself has knowledge of the people who created the maze and sent the boys there. And when yet another person arrives in the glade - this time a girl (the first ever) - suspicions are aroused when it's clear that she knows Thomas, even if she doesn't remember how or why.

It's a cool premise, no question. But I'm also not sure if there's enough substance here to really make the film flow well. Here's the thing: the basic plot points I just summarized invite dozens of questions about the true nature of the maze, the back-story of the boys, etc. And those questions, inevitably, are at the foreground of the entire movie. But the hints at answers only really begin to come at the very end of the film, and even then, they feel more like teases for the already-greenlit sequel. Plus, a lot of seemingly key plot points are left mostly unaddressed at all. Case in point: the first girl to enter the glade, Teresa - other than her memory of Thomas from before the glade, she is pretty much a non-character in this film. Who was she? Why was she the first and only girl to enter the glade? Why was there a note attached to her saying she would be the last? All of these issues will presumably be addressed in future movies. But for now, in this one, it feels unfulfilling.

Dylan O'Brian, from MTV's popular Teen Wolf, is the lead. He does a nice job, and really shows some good range in the film. His character, Thomas, shakes things up in the glade by being proactive and not settling for the status quo - and O'Brien is good at playing the desperate-but-determined Chosen One, who may or may not also have a dark side. There are a couple of other interesting turns in the movie from relative newcomers. Aml Ameen has a real presence as Alby, the wise-beyond-his-years leader of the boys. This guy could go places. Also good is Blake Cooper as Chuck (seemingly a bit of an homage to Chunk from The Goonies), the lovable younger kid who is like the goofy kid brother to a lot of the glade boys. Thomas Brodie-Sangster, from Game of Thrones, is also good as Newt, the spritely friend of Thomas' who helps him learn about the glade and the maze. As Teresa, Kaya Scodelario doesn't have a ton to do, at least not yet. But she seems to have the chops to be a compelling franchise co-lead, so I'll be curious if the character steps up in future installments. Scodelario definitely seems capable. Finally, I'll give a shout-out to Will Poulter, who I thought was so great way back when in Son of Rambow, and has now emerged as a go-to young actor to play slightly off-kilter antagonists. In this movie, he does a great job as Gally - a volatile kid in the glade who resents Thomas' quick rise to influence among the group.

I mentioned earlier that the film has some great action scenes. To reiterate, there's some really good stuff here, and a lot of it feels surprisingly dark and horror-infused. The Grievers are truly creepy creatures, and there are some legitimately riveting moments in the maze as Thomas and his friends try to escape their clutches. Later in the film, the Grievers stage a full-scale attack that is fairly awesome and flat-out scary at times. The movie doesn't pull punches here, and key characters are killed in the melee.

Ultimately, I liked THE MAZE RUNNER, but this film on its own felt pretty insubstantial. Because the film has minimal Lord of the Flies-esque infighting among the boys, the focus here is really on the overarching mystery. So the strength and weakness here is that this first film feels like a mere prologue to something much bigger. The hints we get towards the end at the big-picture mythology here are pretty intriguing, no question. But it remains to be seen if subsequent films make this one seem better in retrospect. As is, THE MAZE RUNNER is a solid-if-not-mind-blowing sci-fi adventure flick that will, ultimately, be judged on the strength of the franchise as a whole. So yeah, those sequels had better be good. No pressure, guys.

My Grade: B

THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE Is Bigger, Better, But Still Lacking Some Spark

THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE Review:

- There's a lot to like about THE HUNGER GAMES. Unlike some of its teen-lit inspired peers, this is a franchise that has a beating heart beneath its attractive leads and soap opera love triangles. This is a franchise that actually has an interesting sci-fi narrative, and that isn't afraid to mix in some legitimate social commentary between all the teen drama. On top of that, this is a franchise that has perhaps the single best young actress working today as its lead, and it can't be understated just how much star Jennifer Lawrence brings to these films, and how she shapes Katniss into a true female-empowerment icon, a direct middle finger to all those who say a female action hero can't carry a major Hollywood franchise. Lawrence, with her top-notch action chops, carries the weight of Catching Fire on her shoulders, although here the burden is slightly less than in the first film. Now, she's helped by great new cast additions like Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jeffrey Wright, and Jena Malone.

Still, as much as I want to get fully onboard the Hunger Games bandwagon, I just can't fully commit. Why? Because the movies have yet to be great. Lawrence alone gets them halfway there, and Catching Fire director Francis Lawrence (I Am Legend) brings some visual wow-factor to the table that wasn't present previously. A beefed-up supporting cast also helps this sequel feel like a notch above the first film. But a couple of problems prevent Catching Fire from being, in and of itself, an A-level movie.

One major issue: adaptation-itis. Yep, you heard me. This is yet another book-to-screen translation that feels jumpy, incomplete, and hyper-compressed. The hyper-compression factor is lessened by the fact that actors like Malone and Wright are able to do so much with such relatively miniscule screentime - making their characters feel fully realized by sheer presence and force of will. But what suffers is that, even as the movie seems to want to go big, to show us the larger effect that the Games are having on this world ... it still feels like a very narrowly-focused story, to the detriment of the narrative. THE HUNGER GAMES is all about Katniss' experience in the games - about a teen girl thrust into this kill-or-be-killed gladiatorial scenario. But CATCHING FIRE is about the aftermath - the seeds of revolution being planted. It's about, in theory, Katniss no longer being just a reactive contestant, but a proactive revolutionary. Cool? Yeah, very cool. But between the poorly thought-out plans of President Snow (Donald Sutherland) - whose schemes to make Katniss a symbol of the government's might seem doomed from the start - and the lack of visibility we get into the reactions of the average person-on-the-street in Pan Em, it feels like we're missing something here.

I'll first touch on the scheming that takes place between Snow and his new gamesmaster, Plutarch Heavensbee (Seymour Hoffman). They plan to create a sort of all-star version of The Hunger Games that would see still-alive past winners of the games compete in yet another every-man-for-himself (and every-woman-for-herself) deathmatch. This is the catalyst that forces Katniss and Peeta back into the fray, cutting short their extended good-will tour after the previous year's Games. While touring the various Districts, the two had to pose as a couple to match the expectations of Snow, and of the adoring populace - who sees them as symbols of a coming revolution. Even though Katniss and Peeta play their roles well, and don't do or say anything too incendiary, they still manage to show glimmers of rebellion, and also don't necessarily do anything to discourage the growing cult of personality developing around them. But here's where things get a little nonsensical ... basically, the movie makes Snow seem like a total moron. First, he keeps Katniss and Peeta in the public eye despite being revolutionary symbols. Then he and Plutarch plan to distract from the politics around the two by making them into tabloid celebrities, using their mouthpiece, talk show host Ceaser Flickerman (Stanley Tucci), to distract the populace. But then, Snow agrees to cut his own plan short in order to go ahead with the all-star Hunger Games, essentially condemning the world's two most popular celebrities to death, in addition to dozens of other past winners who were nearly as beloved. And the point of this is ... what, exactly? Yes, Snow wants to squash the hope of the people and show his strength ... but throwing Katniss and Peeta into another battle royale feels pretty half-baked. And you have to wonder - why doesn't every character follow the example of punk-rock Games entrant Johanna Mason and use the forum of Ceaser's talk show to give a hearty "f-you!" to Snow and his government?

And that leads me the second point, which is that it feels like we're watching all of this in a vacuum. The first part of the film does a nice job of showing us the rank-and-file residents of Pan Em, and their hopeful reactions towards the touring Katniss and Peeta. But once the Games start, we go dark. To be honest, I wasn't even sure if citizens were watching / were able to watch or follow the Games via Ceaser's show. The movie never really tells us. So all the build-up that's in the first half of the film - about the peoples' march towards revolution, is completely left by the wayside in the second hour.

As for the Games themselves, they are much more visually exciting this go-round, thanks to Francis Lawrence's more dynamic direction. But the fundamental problem is the same as in Part 1 - the way the Games play out lack the kind of tension and moral ambiguity that a battle-to-the-death should have. The whole point of these Games is to force the combatants to shed humanity and morality and kill in order to survive. But Katniss, and Peeta, and every other "good" character in the film never really does anything objectionable. In Part 1, okay, love conquers all. But the way the Games play out here, it might as well just be Team Good vs. Team Evil. I feel like the real truth at the heart of these Games - that ultimately, in theory at least, someone is going to have to murder many innocent people in order to win - is always sort of avoided. It's like the movie is hiding its own premise in the name of being a blockbuster-movie-for-the-masses.

All that being said, CATCHING FIRE is still a very entertaining yarn that hits the big, dramatic beats with much more aplomb than its predecessor. Katniss gets to be the badass action hero here thanks to some applause-worthy scenes, where Frances Lawrence really depicts her as a fully-formed action hero. A training sequence that shows off her archery skills against an onslaught of virtual opponents is one of the movie's best scenes. Later, Jennifer Lawrence gets a big hero moment, as she brings the Games to a climactic finish with a desperate arrow-to-the-sky moment that left my theater clapping hysterically. Basically, Lawrence makes this film feel much more effortlessly big and epic than the first. The Districts feel more populated, the sets feel bigger and better, and the stakes, also, feel much more elevated. Even though I complained about the movie often feeling like its story plays out in a vacuum, there's still a pervading sense of bigness to it all (or maybe it's partially just the knowledge that events here will segue directly into a presumably even *more* epic Part 3).

Again, Jennifer Lawrence is the anchor. The movie isn't Oscar caliber, but her acting is. She sells every moment to perfection, brilliantly depicting the horror and the agony of being forced back into these Games - and she transitions seamlessly from drama to action to romance to levity. Speaking of romance, this is where the movie does fall into some of the same traps as Part 1. Peeta is a little more tolerable here than before, and Josh Hutcherson does a decent job of making him seem a little more worthy of Katniss' affections. But he's still sort of a boring/bland character. Worse is Liam Hemsworth's Gale - devoid of much in the way of personality, he's a forgettable character seemingly only in the picture to give the story its requisite love-triangle.

But like I said, CATCHING FIRE is pretty stacked with talent, new and old. Jena Malone, as mentioned, is a huge highlight. Her character lends the movie a much-needed dosage of attitude, and the character's gritty, semi-nihilistic nature is a welcome change of pace (and seemingly, much more fitting to the story's violent premise) than the other more cartoonish goofballs who populate Pan Em. Jeffrey Wright is another guy who's always fantastic, and I liked the idea of his character, Beetee (for the love of god, is there any franchise out there with *worse* character names?!), lame name and all, as a man of science who thrives in the games via elaborately-constructed traps. Finally, Phillip Seymour Hoffman is a guy whose mere presence lends gravitas to a film, and he makes Plutarch into probably a way better character than he's got any right to be. The movie doesn't give us much to go on in terms of what makes Plutarch tick, but it's okay, because Hoffman is good enough to fill in the gaps with his acting. Sam Claflin also makes a strong impression as a Games entrant who has more to him than meets the eye. Claflin is an MVP of many of the film's big set-piece action scenes, and is another welcome addition.

On the action scenes, Francis Lawrence directs some pretty intense sequences - a few in the Districts before the Games begin, and several that are part of the Games themselves. Highlights include killer mist and rabid killer monkeys (that's right) - each a suitably scary threat, and each useful as a way to distinguish these Games from the previous film's. 

CATCHING FIRE, on its own, is entertaining and action-packed. And the talent behind and in front of the camera is (mostly) good enough to elevate the material. But these movies are still just a bit frustrating, because they feel like they approach greatness, but don't quite knock it out of the park. The Hunger Games has a great, iconic hero in Katniss, and a strong central premise. But the details don't feel properly filled-in or thought out, and there's still too much that feels sandwiched into the story so as to properly conform to teen-lit convention (what, really, does Gale add to the story, for example?). CATCHING FIRE touches on some really cool big-ideas, the stuff of great speculative and science-fiction, the kind of stuff that comments and satirizes our own society. And there are glimpses of that social satire here that are actually pretty great (at the giant pre-Games feast in the Capitol, the elite down a drink that causes one to expunge the food in their system, thus allowing them to indulge in even more food - even as people just outside are starving). Perhaps what I'm getting at is that all of the movie's really cool, challenging, or even subversive impulses seem to get drowned out by the need to be a billion-dollar PG blockbuster. There's a dark heart at the core of THE HUNGER GAMES, but these movies seem unwilling or afraid to really go to that place, to go all the way. Maybe some of that is just lost in translation from the books, maybe some is just inevitable in the world of big-budget movies. But there's also a certain irony here. After all, isn't it the film's sinister President Snow who tries to distract the populace from the real issues via soap-opera romance and celebrity tabloid gossip? By this same token, CATCHING FIRE at times seems too distracted to fully explore the real-deal issues at its core.

My Grade: B