'The Hunger Games: Catching Fire' is even better than the first film

( PG-13 ) ( Monitor Movie Guide )

'Catching Fire' stars Jennifer Lawrence, who is even stronger in her role as Katniss Everdeen than in the first installment.

Murray Close/Lionsgate/AP
'The Hunger Games: Catching Fire' stars Jennifer Lawrence (l.) and Josh Hutcherson (r.).

Catnip – I mean Katniss – Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) gets more than she bargained for in “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.” After winning the seventy-fourth annual Hunger Games and looking forward to some well-deserved R&R back home in District 12, she and co-winner Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) are sent on a “Victors’ Tour” of the districts. Worse, nefarious President Snow (Donald Sutherland), fearing Katniss’s prole appeal to stir the oppressed masses, seeks to eliminate her by staging an extra-special anniversary Quarter Kvell – I mean Quell – Games in which previous victors face off against each other. In other words, for Katniss, it’s back to the drawing board – and the archery range.

This second in the “Hunger Games” trilogy, directed by Francis Lawrence, has many of the virtues and somewhat fewer defects as its predecessor (which was directed by Gary Ross). The action is smoothly sustained, the dystopian weirdness is alternately creepy and somewhat less cloying, and Jennifer Lawrence is, if anything, even stronger in the role. She’s a movie star who can really act – a fearsome combo. Stanley Tucci is back, his teeth bigger and whiter than ever, as TV personality Caesar Flickerman, and there’s a welcome new addition to the zoo: Philip Seymour Hoffman as Gamemaker Plutarch Heavensbee. Gotta love these names.

As teencentric franchises go, I much prefer “The Hunger Games” to the blessedly expired “Twilight” films. For one thing, they employ much better actors. My favorite: Amanda Plummer, one of the best and most underused actresses in America, as one of the Quell contestants. Like Jennifer Lawrence, she can transform pulp shenanigans into something soulful. Grade: B+ (Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some frightening images, thematic elements, a suggestive situation and language.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.