With its $161 million opening weekend, the Hunger Games franchise’s second installment has officially taken the young-adult box-office crown from the vampire and his non-emotive lover.

But “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” (Rated PG-13, 146 Min.) stands as a more solid, more cohesive film than any of the Twilight movies ever hoped to be. The sequel follows Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) as they set out on a victory tour after winning the 74th-annual Hunger Games, a competition where children are forced to fight to the death until one remains alive and victorious. However, their performance sparked something deeper than hope in what remains of a dystopian America: rebellion. And because Katniss’ defiance puts her in the middle of the uprising, the villainous President Coriolanus Snow (Donald Sutherland) hatches a plan to make an example of her.

Advertisement

Karsten Burgstahler: For me, the thing that sets this series a notch above the other young-adult franchises like “Twilight” or “Percy Jackson” is the cast. We have an Academy Award-winner in the lead and a host of great American actors taking on the supporting roles: Sutherland plays Snow with gleeful tyranny, and stars such as Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson all bring awards credibility to the movie. The actors are given a better chance to shine than they had in the original, and Sutherland is the MVP here. Lawrence fleshes out Katniss as much as the script allows, but unfortunately, the movie spends a bit too much time on her romance and not enough on setting her up for her role in the series’ climax. I typically try to judge the movie apart from the book — the movie should be judged on its own aesthetic merits — but the romance works much better in the books because we are allowed to get into Katniss’ head. That’s a nagging flaw the series must contend with.

Lauraann Wood: I disagreed with your MVP before I sat back and gave it a little more thought, and now I only half agree. Sutherland captures every shade of Snow’s darkness, but Tucci wins my MVP award. Tucci’s character, Caesar Flickerman, is tasked with the heavy job to make light of the fact that 23 district tributes will face imminent death while only one survives, and I think his delivery is as important for the tributes as it is for the audience. The way Tucci parades around his stage and makes cracks about the tributes and their district representation provides a temporary comedic relief that helps both characters and audiences forget why they have gathered in the first place — but only for mere moments. I am adamant about judging a novel series’ transition to the big screen since it is important to stay faithful to what drew readers to the books in the first place. And I agree there’s an evident lack from not being able to read Katniss’ mind. However, this is neither here nor there once the focus shifts to how well director Francis Lawrence captures the doom and gloom that comes from a totalitarian government that vows to wipe out any individual who even thinks to step out of line or show favor for the opposition. The film peaks in its first hour, when viewers begin to understand the upheaval Katniss’ rebellion stirred and just how focused Snow becomes to properly punish her for her actions.

KB: I agree Tucci does a great job as Flickerman, but the scenes between Snow and Head Gamemaker Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) that plot the political ramifications of the new Hunger Games are brilliant as additions to the plot from the book. And the film certainly peaks in the first hour. Lawrence is working with a script that the halfway point is identical to the first film, save for the grand finale. Sure, the effects are cleaner because the budget is bigger, but he gets a chance to show us the difference in filmmaking styles he has from the first film’s director, Gary Ross, in the early district scenes. Katniss’ and Peeta’s speech in District 11 is heartwrenching, and so are some of Katniss’ interactions with her District 12 neighbors and friends. Lawrence does away with the shaky cam, independent-style filmmaking that dominated the first film. In that respect, “Catching Fire” is a better film than the original. This movie has a blockbuster feel and captures the scope and scale necessary to tell this story. “Catching Fire” exists in a more expanded world than does the original film, which makes the horrors more terrifying and the excess more disturbing.

LW: “Catching Fire” is the better movie in the same regard that it is the better book. Audiences have more muck to wrap their minds around, a thicker plot to consider and, thankfully, no shaky camera to overcome. The characters were more fleshed out, the arena more complex and the intellect used to navigate it more impressive. And I’m going to tell on myself here: I lost it during Katniss’ portion of the District 11 speech. In fact, I’m pretty sure I let tears roll during most of the film’s Rue references. There is no way to remain cold-hearted toward the relationship and alliance the girl on fire formed with the girl no one knew was there. In the same regard, it is hard to turn a cold shoulder toward any relationship on which she capitalizes during her stay in the Capitol. It is those raw and vulnerable relationships that help audiences capture the genuine nature Jennifer Lawrence exudes as Katniss, and it is that nature that will lure even bigger audiences for the final two films.