I have just walked out of "Catching Fire" at my local cineplex. Wow. How I enjoyed it.
I have already fallen in love with Suzanne Collins' trilogy of fantasy novels in which she uses the first-person narration of the young teenage Katniss Everdeen, and all that she experiences, to argue the futility of war (I am reading them all through for the fourth time!). An ever-increasingly bleak view of the world, The Hunger Games trilogy brilliantly promises a good versus evil resolution, but diverges to offer so much more.
After viewing the first two films, I am a very happy fan. Both films have captured the essential ingredients of Collins' novels and thrust Katniss Evergreen forward as a genuine 21st Century hero. I'm sorry Twilight Saga fans, but Bella just pales into... well nothingness in comparison.
This adaptation of Collins' second book captures the magic and the meaning of its source text whilst not always sticking to the exact moments. Storyline is elided here and there, but the substitute scenes work just as well as Collins' originals in conveying the meaning behind the narrative (e.g. the context of Katniss' very first kiss with her miner); I recognised all the notes from Collins' melody as the movie progressed.
The sheer scale of some of the scenes is impressive. The action set-pieces work well - in particular the events of the arena.
But the viewer is never able to forget that Jennifer Lawrence is the star. She is quite truly magnificent. Her face conveys so much emotion - her hurt moves the watcher to tears. She is already an Academy Award-winner; if you have not seen this actress, go out of your way to do so. Outside of the two Hunger Games movies, there is no better introduction than 'Winter's Bone'.
The supporting cast is also good. Woody Harrelson is everything that I pictured Haymitch to be in the books. Donald Sutherland provides the right oily persona of the President. Josh Hutcherson makes you care that Katniss does not appreciate what Peeta has to offer her.
However... there is a but. But I'm not sure if it is indeed a problem for me.
It is evident in the previous movie - 'The Hunger Games' - that Jennifer Lawrence is not 16 years old. She is clearly older than the Katniss of the novels. For me, this did not detract from the first film at all. I could accept she may still be an older teenager. So I still reeled from the horror of a society pitting children against each other in a battle to the death to provide entertainment to a small section of society.
In this film, she is clearly older. And, this is accentuated by the fact that her two male peers have also become young men. So, we feel as though we are into young adult territory here. As a devotee of the books this is only a problem because I know she is merely 17 years old when the events of 'Catching Fire' play out. It has not bothered me as much as it has others that in the film Lawrence is patently older than her literary counterpart; this is because the very story demands that the battle scenes take place between a mixture of children and adults.
I cannot wait until the the third book is committed to celluloid. I want to see and then ask my wife to buy me all of the movies as a gift-box set to watch again and again. My only reservation about the coming ending - being filmed as I write - is the decision to split the last book into two further films. I pray that Lionsgate's avarice does not result in these being diluted of plot impetus and excitement.
So, to conclude, if you haven't already:
1) Read Suzanne Collins' trilogy of novels.
2) See Jennifer Lawrence in - well - anything.
3) Get 'The Hunger Games' out on DVD and THEN PROMPTLY VISIT THE MOVIE THEATRE TO WATCH 'Catching Fire'.