THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE ***

Expanding on its original concept Catching Fire dives into further into media criticism providing providing somewhat of a warning in a very entertaining and smart package.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, 146 minutes, director: Francis Lawrence   *** of 4 stars

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire expands on the original concept, which was a little thin, this time adding a curious amount of media criticism in addition to its political commentary. Thankfully it’s a film that lives and breathes, a smart action film that believe it or not is dialogue heavy, autonomously building towards its showdown in the arena.

Director Francis Lawrence has made one of his more restrained films; in fact it limits the disorienting CGI to one sequence that feels out of place, grounding itself in a semi-reality. Screenwriters Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt deserve a lot of credit, the film is far from the brainless entertainment that Thor: The Dark World was, and a heck of a lot smarter than the Twilight series ever was, in short a film with a few strong ideas under the hood.

Front and center is Jennifer Lawrence, as Katniss Everdeen, a forced to be reckoned with: she shared a victory in the last hunger games with Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson). The powers that be, in a move I don’t completely understand have in essence decided to host a best of Hunger Games called a Quarter Quell, after the victory of Peeta and Katiness spark a rebellion in Panem. The Hunger Games as you’ll recall is a sick sort of tribute where poor folks from various districts come together to fight each other of national TV – it’s like Honey Boo Boo, Duck Dynasty and MMA crossed with American Idol and hosted by Stanley Tucci’ flamboyant Caesar Flickerman. The powers that be include Donald Sutherland as President Snow and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Plutarch Heavensbee. Silly names, I know.

The game is rigged and of course in the best of selection Peeta and Katiness are chosen to fight against an eccentric best of set of tributes with a cast that includes Jeffrey Wright and Amanda Plummer as two very brilliant killers who won their Hunger Games by electrocuting the other tributes, amongst others including Jack Quaid and the grandmotherly Ripper (Taylor St. Clair). Thrown into a tropical arena, Peet and Katiness are well equipped with several allies in what turns out to be a rather exhilarating film.

Why does it work so well? The film invests greatly in its set-up – in fact I’d estimate this is half of the film, efficient yet entertaining Lawrence has a made a film that respects its audience while delivering all the thrills you’d expect.

The political allegory and what follows, apparently from what I’ve heard departs slightly from the book (although allegedly not nearly as much as ego maniac Peter Jackson, this one is grounded in a surreal political reality while The Hobbit/Lord of the Rings series is just boring). What can be made of this film?

I don’t necessarily read The Hunger Games films as a warning; perhaps they are a warning about idol culture squarely directed towards the young women that make up its core audience. This would wholly imply a US-centered reading of The Hunger Games, in a climate geared towards tribal cultures rebelling against a centralized power that has created a reality TV show to suppress the population. Perhaps we do this currently – narrative is packaged and manufactured, sometimes as a distraction – I’ve certainly had moments where I’ve been too distracted to follow a political condition or a global event.

The 'Hunger Games' is though tied to a political event – the rebellions in the district and the game is essentially a purge for the sins of the rebellion and perhaps this is where it’s a little flawed. A total distraction would be Honey Boo Boo style programming – I’m curious to see what other entertainment content exists in the world The Hunger Games is set in.