Lions Gate via Everett Collection
When we last left our heroes, they had conquered all opponents in the 74th Annual Hunger Games, returned home to their newly refurbished living quarters in District 12, and fallen haplessly to the cannibalism of PTSD. And now we're back! Hitching our wagons once again to laconic Katniss Everdeen and her sweet-natured, just-for-the-camera boyfriend Peeta Mellark as they gear up for a second go at the Capitol's killing fields.
But hold your horses — there's a good hour and a half before we step back into the arena. However, the time spent with Katniss and Peeta before the announcement that they'll be competing again for the ceremonial Quarter Quell does not drag. In fact, it's got some of the film franchise's most interesting commentary about celebrity, reality television, and the media so far, well outweighing the merit of The Hunger Games' satire on the subject matter by having Katniss struggle with her responsibilities as Panem's idol. Does she abide by the command of status quo, delighting in the public's applause for her and keeping them complacently saturated with her smiles and curtsies? Or does Katniss hold three fingers high in opposition to the machine into which she has been thrown? It's a quarrel that the real Jennifer Lawrence would handle with a castigation of the media and a joke about sandwiches, or something... but her stakes are, admittedly, much lower. Harvey Weinstein isn't threatening to kill her secret boyfriend.
Through this chapter, Katniss also grapples with a more personal warfare: her devotion to Gale (despite her inability to commit to the idea of love) and her family, her complicated, moralistic affection for Peeta, her remorse over losing Rue, and her agonizing desire to flee the eye of the public and the Capitol. Oftentimes, Katniss' depression and guilty conscience transcends the bounds of sappy. Her soap opera scenes with a soot-covered Gale really push the limits, saved if only by the undeniable grace and charisma of star Lawrence at every step along the way of this film. So it's sappy, but never too sappy.
In fact, Catching Fire is a masterpiece of pushing limits as far as they'll extend before the point of diminishing returns. Director Francis Lawrence maintains an ambiance that lends to emotional investment but never imposes too much realism as to drip into territories of grit. All of Catching Fire lives in a dreamlike state, a stark contrast to Hunger Games' guttural, grimacing quality that robbed it of the life force Suzanne Collins pumped into her first novel.
Once we get to the thunderdome, our engines are effectively revved for the "fun part." Katniss, Peeta, and their array of allies and enemies traverse a nightmare course that seems perfectly suited for a videogame spin-off. At this point, we've spent just enough time with the secondary characters to grow a bit fond of them — deliberately obnoxious Finnick, jarringly provocative Johanna, offbeat geeks Beedee and Wiress — but not quite enough to dissolve the mystery surrounding any of them or their true intentions (which become more and more enigmatic as the film progresses). We only need adhere to Katniss and Peeta once tossed in the pit of doom that is the 75th Hunger Games arena, but finding real characters in the other tributes makes for a far more fun round of extreme manhunt.
But Catching Fire doesn't vie for anything particularly grand. It entertains and engages, having fun with and anchoring weight to its characters and circumstances, but stays within the expected confines of what a Hunger Games movie can be. It's a good one, but without shooting for succinctly interesting or surprising work with Katniss and her relationships or taking a stab at anything but the obvious in terms of sending up the militant tyrannical autocracy, it never even closes in on the possibility of being a great one.
Follow @Michael Arbeiter
| Follow @Hollywood_com
Joseph Viles/Fox 21
Witches of East End premiered to respectable ratings. A show about witchcraft on Lifetime makes you think of The Client List with spells instead of handies or a sorority of feelings, like Army Wives, with the occult. Instead, it’s looking a little too much like the popular series Charmed. Do the producers hope lightning strikes twice?
Charmed had notable B-list actresses fighting demons and being sisters in a red Victorian house in San Francisco. It lasted 198 episodes and became the longest running television series with all-female leads, until Desperate Housewives. Almost 15 years later to the day, Witches of East End premiered with Julia Ormond, Mrs. Channing Tatum and spritely Rachel Boston fighting evil magic in a red Victorian on Long Island.
The image of a creepily similar house keeps the ghost of Charmed alive. The similarities are staggering. People trapped in paintings, people that turn into cats, and witches in the dark about their birthright were all popular plot points in Season 1 of Charmed. Jason George as a sexy police detective echoes Dorian Gregory as a sexy cop. Hell, even the addition of former Buffy cast member Tom Lenk is similar. Quite a few actors from Buffy appeared on Charmed.
Even the four character archetypes mirror the '90s WB series. Ormond as family matriarch seems a lot like Shannen Doherty’s type-A character, Prue. Tatum’s ne’er-do-well, bed-hopping character of Freya is not unlike Phoebe (Alyssa Milano). Boston’s high-strung but well meaning Ingrid could be a carbon-copy of Piper (Holly Marie Combs). Finally, Mädchen Amick’s snarky, sarcastic sister channels Rose McGowan’s Paige Matthews.
Similarities aside, Witches of East End doesn’t need to make allusions to Charmed. The dialogue is funny, the cast chemistry is palatable and in the realm of magic anything is possible. Hopefully later episodes find a new take on the realm of magic. If not, they should just include a character with a voice like Butters from South Park that screams, "Charmed did it!" each episode.