The original Hunger Games left me feeling empty and unsatisfied. It lacked depth and substance. I almost skipped Catching Fire because of it but I'm glad I didn't.
Catching Fire has several things going for it that the original didn't.
1) A Great Bad Guy: Although Donald Sutherland was in the original his character was more of a token villain and the focus was on the rival contestants. In Catching Fire, we have a great bad guy that the audience can love to hate. There's real conflict and tension between Katniss and the President and this serves as a great foundation on which to base the film.
2) Excellent Conflict: The root of any drama is conflict and this has a lot of it. I loved the conversation between Katniss and the President in the early part of the film that sets the stage for the rest of the movie. Two opposing forces who hate each other but must tolerate the others' existence while secretly plotting ways to either eliminate or mitigate the threat the other poses. A cunning game of cat and mouse ensues as they engage in a battle of wits.
3) Interesting Characters: The relationship between Katniss and Peeta is complicated and interesting to watch as it develops on screen. Haymitch, the most interesting character from the original, continues to be entertaining. There are a lot of undeveloped characters in this film that I would have liked to have known more about (for example, Nuts and Bolts) but I am satisfied with the level of character development in this film.
4) Emotional Appeal: Although the actual hunger games portion of the movie is devoid of emotion, much like its predecessor, the rest of the film manages to engage your feelings. Katniss & Peeta's visit to the other districts to pay respect to the fallen tributes was interesting. Katniss' insistence on Peeta's protection and survival was believable. Her emotional breakdown in the end was quite stirring. I was surprised the film was able to achieve this connection with the audience.
All in all, this is one of those rare instances where the sequel is better than the original. That doesn't happen very often.
Catching Fire has several things going for it that the original didn't.
1) A Great Bad Guy: Although Donald Sutherland was in the original his character was more of a token villain and the focus was on the rival contestants. In Catching Fire, we have a great bad guy that the audience can love to hate. There's real conflict and tension between Katniss and the President and this serves as a great foundation on which to base the film.
2) Excellent Conflict: The root of any drama is conflict and this has a lot of it. I loved the conversation between Katniss and the President in the early part of the film that sets the stage for the rest of the movie. Two opposing forces who hate each other but must tolerate the others' existence while secretly plotting ways to either eliminate or mitigate the threat the other poses. A cunning game of cat and mouse ensues as they engage in a battle of wits.
3) Interesting Characters: The relationship between Katniss and Peeta is complicated and interesting to watch as it develops on screen. Haymitch, the most interesting character from the original, continues to be entertaining. There are a lot of undeveloped characters in this film that I would have liked to have known more about (for example, Nuts and Bolts) but I am satisfied with the level of character development in this film.
4) Emotional Appeal: Although the actual hunger games portion of the movie is devoid of emotion, much like its predecessor, the rest of the film manages to engage your feelings. Katniss & Peeta's visit to the other districts to pay respect to the fallen tributes was interesting. Katniss' insistence on Peeta's protection and survival was believable. Her emotional breakdown in the end was quite stirring. I was surprised the film was able to achieve this connection with the audience.
All in all, this is one of those rare instances where the sequel is better than the original. That doesn't happen very often.