The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - Grading and Discussion

[Dream]

Spoiler: Movie Synopsis

THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE begins as Katniss Everdeen has returned home safe after winning the 74th Annual Hunger Games along with fellow tribute Peeta Mellark. Winning means that they must turn around and leave their family and close friends, embarking on a "Victor's Tour" of the districts. Along the way Katniss senses that a rebellion is simmering, but the Capitol is still very much in control as President Snow prepares the 75th Annual Hunger Games (The Quarter Quell) - a competition that could change Panem forever.

The new movie is released in a few days. The early reviews have been very positive. I enjoyed the first movie and am really looking forward to how the new director and the actors handle the second part in the series.

 

[Q2UnME]

Mrs.Q2 and Daughter.Q2 have been pestering me to take them to see it on opening night. I don't want to wade into that mass of humanity just yet. Crowds are not my thing. Besides, opening day viewing is reserved for Star Trek, Indiana Jones and Star Wars movies....

Q2

 

[JD]

Still working my way through the book, but I'm really enjoying it, so my anticipation for the movie is going up by the page.

 

[Dream]

Can ‘The Hunger Games: Catching Fire’ Hit Some Very Big Box Office Records?

 

[Agent Richard07]

Average. I'm surprised that this one is getting so many positive reviews. It was basically a rehash of the first movie... After a slow 45 minutes of what should be a more exciting fallout from the first installment, we get the drawing of names followed by training in the Capitol, then the actual games in the wilderness topped off with some sort of twist. It reminded me of The Matrix Reloaded. Basically a subpar sequel to a good movie. This one even ended with Reloaded's abrupt cliff-hanger and a similar shot. I did like that the games included adults this time around, but ultimately it didn't feel any different. That and Jennifer Lawrence is always a pleasure to watch but again, the movie on the whole didn't impress me. Hopefully the Mockingjay two-parter will be better. I haven't read the books but I get the impression that we'll learn more about how the system came to be and Katniss will somehow bring it down.

Throughout the movie, I was racking my brain trying to figure out who was playing this character...

Spoiler: the person in question.

I recognized the actress but couldn't place her. I was surprised to see that it was Jena Malone.

 

[DigificWriter]

Cross-posted:
Despite being an avid reader, I haven't - and don't intend to - read the Hunger Games novels, but went to see both of the first two movies anyway (mainly because of the cast).

Since I haven't read the books, there was nothing to 'distract' me from just enjoying both the first movie and this one just as movies, and very good movies at that.

Donald Sutherland's President Snow was one of the standout characters in the first film for me, but came across as a little bit too one-dimensionally evil in this one, which was rather disappointing. I was also disappointed that Lenny Kravitz' Cinna seemed to be less 'out there' than in the first film, which made him less interesting.

On the other hand, Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrellson were in fine form, which made up for Snow's 'onedimensional-ness' and Kravitz' less interesting portrayal of Cinna, as did Elizabeth Banks' performance as Effie (she seemed to be less 'aloof', which made her more interesting and likeable) and the performances of Phillip Seymour Hoffman and the actors who played Finnick and the 'nerd guy' (whose name I can't remember).

I wasn't really invested in the relationship between Katniss and Peeta in the first movie, but that changed for this one, and I consequently felt like the whole 'triangle' element of the story with Gale was a bit unnecessary.

The movie was definitely worth seeing, and is, as I said earlier, a really good movie in and of itself, with really compelling actors and a very engaging story in and of itself overall, and gets a 9/10 from me.

 

[Wadjda]

This is out, i completly forgot.

 

[DarthPipes]

I just got back from the film and I have to say it was GREAT. An adaptation I actually don't have any complaints about.

Yep, that was Jena Malone who was fantastic as Johanna Mason.

 

[Ganja Tea]

I took my daughter to see the first one and man, I don't get the appeal of this series. They take these kids from their homes and their families to fight each other to the death but before that they put them in a room together with a bunch of weapons and teach them to fight and yet none of them take that opportunity to attack the establishment forcing them to kill one another? What's wrong with these kids? I also don't see the appeal of Jennifer Lawrence. She's got the one dull look on her face in every movie she does. Peeta is worthless, Katniss should of let him die. At this point I'm rooting for the establishment.

 

[Timelord79 (he/him)]

That's what they effectively did in this movie.
The Hunger Games hinge on the tributes valueing their own survival higher than anything else.
The second that changed and they openly defied Snow the system of hope and fear collapsed.
That's what the entire series is about really...

 

[trekkiebaggio]

I thought it was excellent. I was a little disappointed when it ended because I could have happily carried on watching. Here's my full review.

 

[stj]

If you have any identification with people in general, I can't help but think that the scenes at the whipping post or the murder of the old man during the tour are pretty sensational followups. I could see thinking the system and Snow are too schematically EVIL but dull? What an extraordinary criticism.

This is a YA film and movie. The fact that it's "politics" are not expected and seen to be Ruritanian stems more I think from the mental poverty and artistic mediocrity of the majority of contemporary productions. To put it another way, it's obvious the movie looks forward to things changing, in a semi-magical and vague and inchoate way, rather like a child looks forward to growing up. Since so much "art" is slavishly devoted to the foolish proposition that change is neither possible nor desirable, instead of the inevitable consequences of common lives, this teen book aspect of the movies just isn't very engaging for some people.

As for the "triangle," we hardly see Gale. All we really know is that he's taller like the guy is supposed to be. On the other hand, Peeta is to the undiscerning eye just another male ingenue, a species detested by everyone who thinks correctly about sex. What we see, if we're able to understand what we see, is that Peeta is worthy of love. But more to the point, Katniss loves him, if you understand love to mean the willingness to sacrifice on behalf of the loved one.

But the movies don't really seem to have set up a triangle so much as to have split the object of sexual love, Gale, apart from the romanticized object of a purer, nonsexual love. This too is very YA.

 

[Unicron]

I took my daughter to see the first one and man, I don't get the appeal of this series. They take these kids from their homes and their families to fight each other to the death but before that they put them in a room together with a bunch of weapons and teach them to fight and yet none of them take that opportunity to attack the establishment forcing them to kill one another? What's wrong with these kids?

I haven't read the books so I don't know if this specific question comes up, but it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't that simple for the tributes to do so. I wouldn't doubt some of them would certainly want to, but I'd imagine the Capitol has security to deal with that sort of threat. Also, the Careers (Districts 1 and 2) tend to come from the areas more loyal to the Capitol and usually win most of the games, so they have less incentive to revolt.

 

[Mr Light]

Excellent adaptation.

I really wish we had seen District 12 getting destroyed and Heymitch setting up his rescue operation, though. That would have made for good visuals.

Is Seymour Hoffman's character an invention for the movie? I didn't remember him from the book and I was quite shocked to see him on the hovership at the end of the movie.

 

[tighr]

Is Seymour Hoffman's character an invention for the movie? I didn't remember him from the book and I was quite shocked to see him on the hovership at the end of the movie.

Plutarch is definitely in the book. He maneuvers his way into the game maker job (the movie bluntly says he volunteered) so that he's in position to ensure Katness' survival. He has a vested interest in seeing the Capital fall, which we learn more about in the next book. Overall, this film was very faithfully translated.

They take these kids from their homes and their families to fight each other to the death but before that they put them in a room together with a bunch of weapons and teach them to fight and yet none of them take that opportunity to attack the establishment forcing them to kill one another? What's wrong with these kids?

The training center is protected by force fields, so yes, difficult for the tributes to revolt there. Once in the arena, obviously no easy way out.

To answer the general theme of your question though, without being too spoilery, the whole series is indeed building to a "fight the establishment" ending.

The Capital keeps a very tight grip on the victors, which we learn more about in the final book. Obviously, since Katness has only had to deal with one year of being a victor, she hasn't realized this yet, but there are hints in the way Haymitch drinks (to forget) and the general attitude of the other victors in book 2. Some of them clearly feel it would have been better to have died in their arenas.

One thing missing from this film, I'd have liked to see the clips from the Games the victors won, especially Haymitch (who won the 50th Hunger Games/2nd quarter quell). We hear how Beedee won his, but don't get to see the clips. (In the book, Katness and Peeta study the tapes to 'scout' the other victors.)

 

[Mr Light]

Hmm. I read the books once two years ago so I only remember the big bits.

 

[Trekker4747]

Define "irony":

Cover Girl line of "The Hunger Games" themed make up.

 

[Snaploud]

I thought this movie was quite well done. That's two great movies I've seen in two weeks (About Time being the other one).

 

[CaptainCanada]

Define "irony":

Cover Girl line of "The Hunger Games" themed make up.

That was one of the previews at the theatre I saw it it at. A lot of people laughed.

I thought it was great. The best action movie of the year, easily (best "blockbuster" would be Gravity if you think that falls within the ambit of the term).

Francis Lawrence has a couple of major advantages over Gary Ross when directing the first one: a lot more money, which means he doesn't have to stretch to accommodate the world of the Capitol and the Games; and the killing's all between adults now, so he doesn't have to obscure the action to avoid getting rated R.

Donald Sutherland plays the bad guy so often that it's hard to make that fresh, but he's very good here; one of his best roles in a while. I also credit Elizabeth Banks for getting to bring more depth to the Effie character. From the parade of new characters, Sam Claflin and Jena Malone are the standouts (the former is stuck playing a role whose Adonis-like features in the novel couldn't be fully conveyed by anything less than a younger Brad Pitt, but he seems handsome enough).

The centrepiece, of course, is JLaw, who's in top form. Hutcherson and Hemsworth are both fine (the latter gets a lot more to do here).

 

[tighr]

Francis Lawrence has a couple of major advantages over Gary Ross when directing the first one: a lot more money, which means he doesn't have to stretch to accommodate the world of the Capitol and the Games; and the killing's all between adults now, so he doesn't have to obscure the action to avoid getting rated R.

The other advantage Lawrence has over Ross is that he's capable of directing an action scene. I felt Ross was the biggest weakness of the first. I thought the action was very well done here, as expected (no shaky cam, no over reliance of trying to transcribe Katness' inner monologue to the screen like the first one did). But surprising to me was how fluid everything felt. Even though we never really see a 'death' on screen beyond a few arrows, it comes across more like Die Hard 4 PG13 than the first one did. I wasn't taken out of the film by bad framing.