Movie Review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

A year after her boat-rocking victory in the 74th Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) has discovered that the world outside the arena is even more dangerous than the one inside. The stunt that saved both her and Peeta Mellark's (Josh Hutcherson) lives also put her squarely in the crosshairs of President Snow (Donald Sutherland), the leader of Panem. As a repercussion of her actions, Katniss and Peeta see their names called to return to the arena in what amounts to an all-star competition in the 75th Hunger Games. But there's more at stake here than just the fight for survival and soon Katniss is embroiled in something far bigger than just herself.

I think a lot of people were surprised by the quality of the first Hunger Games movie last year. The books, in my opinion, range from "solid" to "tired" and contain just enough of a teen romance subplot to make me skeptical about the Twilight-ification of a movie adaptation. But the first film turned out quite well for me and became one of the year's biggest hits. That movie laid a solid foundation for what was to come and gave me hope for what was to come in further adaptations that, quite honestly, don't have the quality source material to draw from that the first one did. Even with heightened expectations, I couldn't have expected Catching Fire to be anywhere near the outstanding blockbuster it turned out to be.

Two big things happened in the time between The Hunger Games and Catching Fire. One, directorial control shifted from Gary Ross to Francis Lawrence. Now, I am in the minority but I thought Ross did an excellent job with the first film and I was bummed to see him exit the project. But Lawrence turned out to be the absolute right man for the job. He adds an edge to Catching Fire that was missing in the first film and this bite, if you will, brings home the realism of the travesties the film depicts. As such, this film is a significantly more emotionally charged film than The Hunger Games ever aspired to be. Lawrence, I think, had a stronger understanding of the material and that shows in the finished product. (To be fair, Ross' job was to lay the groundwork whereas Lawrence's was to expand upon that.)

Two, in the time between the release of The Hunger Games and the start of production on Catching Fire, Jennifer Lawrence became a willing movie star. She's always been a terrific actress (in this case, "always" means "since 2010 when she burst on to the movie scene") but in interviews leading up to the first film, you got the sense that she wasn't all that comfortable in this setting and I think that came through the screen at times. Now, however, Lawrence is fully embracing both the character and the direction her career is taking and this makes her performance all the more invigorating. It isn't just Lawrence who seems more comfortable in her skin. Hutcherson is legitimately good in Catching Fire (I've always found him to be only average to this point) and the character is much the better for this. Woody Harrelson's Haymitch gets some added meat to his role, Sutherland actually has an opportunity to act rather than simply stalk through scenes menacingly (which, admittedly, he is very good at), and Phillip Seymour Hoffman is a perfect addition to this cast. In general, this is a superb cast and each escalates the performance to match the escalating stakes of the film. But make no mistake, this is the Jennifer Lawrence show and she comes through beautifully.

Visually, Catching Fire achieves its goal by both highlighting the stark contrast between the lavish capital and the downtrodden districts and by bringing to life a more elaborate arena than what was at play in Hunger Games. The effects are simple and believably and you never get the eye-stabbing CGI overload that you could very easily expect to get in a movie like this. Francis Lawrence paints a lush picture that only serves to heighten the strength and emotional relevance of the film as a whole. Catching Fire is perhaps the best big budget blockbuster you are likely to see this year and leaves one only wanting more from the sequels yet to come. Grade: A (Rated PG-13 for some serious violence and general intensity) 

Review: Red Dawn

I want to make a couple of things clear right up front with you dear reader. First, Red Dawn is in no way, shape, or form a good movie. By almost any measure it is, in fact, a pretty terrible movie. Second, by no means would I recommend any of you spend your hard earned money to see it. If you choose to ignore this advice I will not be held responsible for your loss of $10 and 95 minutes. Third, I was in an emotionally damaged state when I saw this film having just had to put my beloved dog down. As such, my brain was probably not in a trustworthy state. Please keep all of these disclaimers in mind now when I tell you that despite all of its many, MANY, plot holes, absurdities, and general foolishness, I enjoyed the crap out of Red Dawn. There are really only four things you need to know about the “plot” of Red Dawn:

1. Jed Eckert (Chris Hemsworth) is home in Spokane on leave from his duty with the Marines; 2. The North Koreans (all 24 million of them) attack and invade the United States, knocking out all of our communications and (apparently) rendering our military incapacitated; 3. Jed and his brother Matt (Josh Peck), along with a group of untrained teenagers, form a resistance group known as the Wolverines who fight back against the insurgents who have taken over their town; 4. Despite being completely new to this whole “warfare” thing, the Wolverines cause serious problems for the North Koreans and eventually force a major confrontation that will decide the fate of our country.

And that is all.

If I were to turn my appraisal of Red Dawn into a pros and cons list, the cons would FAR outnumber the pros. It’s an absolute mess, really. It isn’t enough that the premise itself is ludicrous. The idea that the North Koreans would invade and find some level of success in taking over this country is absurd. Nuke us, maybe. Engage in biological warfare, maybe. But outright invade and take over? Not so much. Byond that, though, the rest of the plot is rife with holes to the point that you actually find yourself surprised in the few instances when it manages to string together two consecutive scenes that sort of make sense. It is constantly jumping from one place to the next and you’re just supposed to fill in the gaps on your own. The dialogue is painfully cliché and cheesy and most of the time it is delivered in a manner more befitting a Disney channel pilot than a major motion picture (the budget for Red Dawn was $65 million by the way). Several of the actors are incredibly bad and while some of that can be chalked up to inexperience (Josh Peck) or lack of talent (Connor Cruise), I know some of these performers are capable of more than what they exhibit in Red Dawn (Adrianne Palicki). Some of the blame for this can probably be pinned on the haphazard way in which this film was edited after the fact (it’s been sitting on a shelf for almost three years) and some should be aimed at first time (and probably last time) director Dan Bradley whose entire career has been dedicated to stunt work (so you know it was in good hands!). The tone of Red Dawn constantly fluctuates between campy and overly serious, rendering the film completely devoid of an identity. And if all of that wasn’t enough, the movie comes to a conclusion with all of the precision of a bad Saturday Night Live bit at the end of the show and none of the charm.

All of these missteps (and a dozen more that I don’t have time to note) should make Red Dawn an utter disaster. But it does have two things going for it. One, it’s got Chris Hemsworth and at the end of the day, if you have Chris Hemsworth, you’re not completely worthless. This is pre-Thor Hemsworth and he’s definitely a little rough around the acting edges but that doesn’t keep him from being a presence on the screen. He brings sincerity to his role and he does his best to sell his (terrible) movie to you and because of this, he makes what would be an unwatchable movie at least partially watchable. Two, in spite of all of the screw-ups, missteps, and “How in the world did they expect us to buy this?!” moments that plague Red Dawn, it is still, at the end of the day, entertaining. Not entertaining enough to make it good or even overly enjoyable, but enough to make the theater experience relatively fun. It is very much an 80s movie and with an experienced filmmaker at the helm, it might have been made to play like an 80s action movie homage which probably would have worked quite well. As it stands, it doesn’t go nearly far enough into the realm of the over the top ridiculousness that makes films like The Expendables and Taken so much fun and so worthwhile. But for me, it was entertaining enough to stick with it and I’m only slightly ashamed to admit that when Red Dawn makes its way to HBO, I’ll probably watch it again…and again.

Red Dawn Director: Dan Bradley Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Josh Peck, Josh Hutcherson, Adrianne Palicki Rated: PG-13 (lots of violence, language including the big one to ensure that all-important PG-13) Recommended For: Teenagers who don't know any better. And me, apparently.