Hunger Games: Catching Fire - by Danny

We were going to watch Gravity but I was persuaded to watch the new Hunger Games movie instead. I thought we'd be the oldest people there who didn't have kids, but actually there were plenty of 30 year olds, and the cinema was packed. Afterwards I overheard someone saying how much more mature Hunger Games is than Twilight.

It was actually really good. There's basically three acts. First there's a very long intro where it's established that the Capitol are horrible, and that Katniss is torn between two hot guys (that bit is like Twilight). In the Second Act her and Peeta get dragged back into the Games, and go to practice and meet the rest of the unlucky tribunes/tributes. I like training montages, and for me this was the best part of the film. In the Final Act there's the games themselves. Since there's a revolution brewing the games don't seem quite so important, but it ends well and things are nicely set up for the next instalment - which in standard trilogy marketing will be released in two parts, in 2014 and 2015.

I read all three of the books on the same holiday. The first one is the best, but then it goes downhill, I think as the author couldn't handle the more difficult themes that come up in describing the whole Panem Universe. She should have co-written the sequels with Iain M. Banks.

Stanley Tucci, who plays the flamboyant TV presenter Caesar Flickerman, said in an interview that the film is mostly pulp to get people interested, but the audience do get drawn into the political element through the character of Katniss. She refuses to ever commit to the revolution, and also never seems to make her mind up about the two men in her life. In fact, although I think Jennifer Lawrence is really good, she's so non-committal that sometimes she just appears to be a bit vacant, and you wonder if she actually knows what's going on.

The Games themselves in this film are a bit of a disappointment. Because it's a Quarter Quell they set it up as a sort of Champion of Champions with all the previous winners. But actually, it's no different to the first film . The tribunes/tributes from District 1 and District 2 are professionals (careers) and apparently look forward to the Games, District 3 are tech mad and the rest are mostly quite nice and make up the numbers. Although the Games are billed as a winner takes all, just like the first movie there's multiple survivors. It's hardly There Can be Only One (but neither was Highlander, with four sequels and a spin-off TV series).

In order to avoid having too much humans killing each other there's lots of mechanical threats in the arena, and it's a bit like Cube in a hemisphere. The chief games-maker is played quite ambiguously by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, I'll say no more. Donald Sutherland is President Snow. It's a good cast.

I've a general criticism of the whole franchise. Why would a totalitarian state puts lots of people who hate them and have nothing to lose on TV and film them? You'd think a Hunger Games would be the last thing the Capitol would do. But I suppose that's the conceit of the film, if the Capitol just had Five Year Plans it wouldn't be much fun. And if you are going to have a Games, why have it with kids, who would be rubbish at fighting and probably just cry all the time? That's just depressing. Each district should send their best fighters.

Finally, I enjoyed that the film was in mind-blowing 2D, rather than mind-blowing 3D. It's the way forward. It still looked great, and there's so many distinctive outfits a Hunger Games costume party is inevitable. I'm going to knit myself a cowl.