Escape to the Movies: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

[deathzero021]

I agree with everything, except I do think they are good movies. They are not great movies though, they are not amazing movies or a must-see. They're slightly above average if only for the themes and the world, as well as some good characters and minor development. The action is completely down-played, which i don't mind since i'm not a fan of action anyway but even still, there never seems to be much of a strong climax in this movie. I feel there is so much more they could have done with this that they didn't do. There is also a lot left unsaid about the world they live in, a lot of plot holes start to form due to this missing information. I think they should stop focusing solely on Katniss and give a little more camera time for exposition and other characters (especially the more interesting characters)

 

[sageoftruth]

Tough decision. I haven't seen the first one yet, and I don't feel like part of the target market, but everyone on Roger Ebert and Rotten tomatoes, is highly praising it, and it's I about time I finally admitted that my standards for movies aren't very high. Maybe I'll read the books first and see what I think then.

 

[wulf3n]

Why do they need a working class when they have complete control over animals? Why not use the animals as their working class or control the working class in the same way?

What makes you think they have "complete control"? Most of what they do can be achieved with basic training, doesn't mean they can start farming or mining for coal.

 

[Gxas]

Why do they need a working class when they have complete control over animals? Why not use the animals as their working class or control the working class in the same way?

What makes you think they have "complete control"? Most of what they do can be achieved with basic training, doesn't mean they can start farming or mining for coal.

Basic training can't conjure up animals out of thin air like they do in the movies. (Granted, I've only seen the first thus far, but those dogs were literally just thought up and made on the spot)

 

[omega 616]

I've seen the obvious comparison to this film, Battle Royale and I have to say that is a much better film. Hunger games (not having seen this one) is very Hollywood, especially with the love thang.

It is a story about a group of kids who get sent off to some place to kill each other and only one walks away, that sounds like a fucking horror film. These Hunger games movies have all the violence off screen and cheesy love scenes on camera.

In the first film they are killing, mostly off screen (you see a girl stung to death and some blood squirts) and chasing/surviving, then (as I now like to call her) Catfish Jellybean stumbles across her district partner, where she carries him to a cave so the tenderness can happen. "leave me!" ... "I won't leave you here!" *que caressing the cheek, moving hair out the face, "you're putting cream on my leg but I am looking loving at you" scene* ... in the middle of a bubble of death! It's like the under age, out of wedlock soft core porn in Friday the 13th films but scaled back.

These films should be about 1 girl from the worst district (sounds like bleach, don't it?), managing to survive the hunger games! Not setting up the next twilight franchise.

 

[LadyTiamat]

A fair review. In defence of the source material, I think most of the faults (such as the characters getting killed off-screen) are stemmed from the original source material; this seems to be a closer adaptation than the first one was.

The movie was too truthful to the books: they could have made it much more interesting action wise. Glad they fleshed out president snow's character though.

 

[wulf3n]

Why do they need a working class when they have complete control over animals? Why not use the animals as their working class or control the working class in the same way?

What makes you think they have "complete control"? Most of what they do can be achieved with basic training, doesn't mean they can start farming or mining for coal.

Basic training can't conjure up animals out of thin air like they do in the movies. (Granted, I've only seen the first thus far, but those dogs were literally just thought up and made on the spot)

The scene with the dogs can be interpreted in several ways. I just watched the scene after my post [had to confirm what I said ] and it never specifically states they were created then and there.

There's a scene where a technician appears to be designing the dog, and the game supervisor says something like "Yeah that's good", but she could have just selected the dog from a list of animals they have.

As for them appearing out of thin air it never actually shows them spawning, so it could just as easily be they were in a holding cell under the arena.

It's probably explained better in the book which may confirm or deny either position, but I haven't read them.

 

[Darken12]

I think going to see The Hunger Games for the violence/action is pretty much the most ironic missing of the point you can possibly make.

That is literally the way the Capitol treats the hunger games, they too would be disappointed they didn't get to see some good old-fashioned slaughter.

That's pretty much not what the story is about. The story is about class warfare, totalitarian regimes, celebrity culture, "bread and circuses" and, from the second installment onwards, the systematic destruction of the psyches of Katniss, Peeta and Gale, and their descent into absolute madness. The last installment (which is going to be divided into a two-parter because that's just the way Hollywood rolls now) is about the three main characters slowly spiralling into absolute insanity, particularly for Katniss (though Peeta isn't far behind), and how, by the end, her mind is roughly 90% trauma.

I think the marketing for these movies needs to stop trying to sell it as an "edgy action movie for teens" and start selling them as "futuristic version of your usual depressing war movie, with teens".

 

[Tentaquil]

I'm engaged in the Hungry Games right now. An epic battle between worthy contenders for the grand prize.



I'm making a sandwich.

 

[heroicbob]

im guessing the reason everyone dies in these movies off screen or through the use of smash cuts is to lower the rating but then that begs the question of why they are making these movies at all

 

[DementedSheep]

Why do they need a working class when they have complete control over animals? Why not use the animals as their working class or control the working class in the same way?

What makes you think they have "complete control"? Most of what they do can be achieved with basic training, doesn't mean they can start farming or mining for coal.

Basic training can't conjure up animals out of thin air like they do in the movies. (Granted, I've only seen the first thus far, but those dogs were literally just thought up and made on the spot)

The scene with the dogs can be interpreted in several ways. I just watched the scene after my post [had to confirm what I said ] and it never specifically states they were created then and there.

There's a scene where a technician appears to be designing the dog, and the game supervisor says something like "Yeah that's good", but she could have just selected the dog from a list of animals they have.

As for them appearing out of thin air it never actually shows them spawning, so it could just as easily be they were in a holding cell under the arena.

It's probably explained better in the book which may confirm or deny either position, but I haven't read them.

Na it actually worse in the books because they also resemble the tributes who died and have their eyes somehow. So they must have been made after the tributes were selected at the earliest.

 

[Arcane Azmadi]

Something that's been preying on my mind since Bob first reviewed this- what does Bob actually think of the Hunger Games books? I mean, during his review of Twilight: New Moon he admitted that yes, he had actually read the goddamn Twilight books (because to honestly criticise something you DO have to have actually experienced it) so I'd be VERY surprised if he hadn't actually read The Hunger Games (a vastly, vastly superior series to anything Stephanie Meyer could ever produce).

But although he says he'd like to like the Hunger Games movies, he doesn't really give any hint as to whether or not he's familiar with the original source material, or possibly whether he's deliberately suppressing his knowledge of it so as not to be biased into making excuses for the movie (which would taiunt his review of the movie as a MOVIE).

Considering that the Hunger Games books genuinely ARE rather good stories (albeit not for everyone) I'd be interested in knowing what his opinion of the franchise as a whole is.

 

[Tim Chuma]

Lord of the Flies is probably the more literary reference and it still stands up today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies

Battle Royale manages to cover deeper issues in the film and still show action.

The Tomorrow series by Australian young-adult fiction author John Marsden follows seven teenagers who "missed" the start of an invasion by being away camping and have to survive and fight back. Yes, sort of like Red Dawn, but it follows the group for several years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow_series


If you just want the violence and gore there is the Machine Girl, Mutant Girls Squad and Tokyo Gore Police. For more serious social issues there is the movie "Suicide Club", but you have to be fully prepared to watch that film.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Watched it, liked it.

It is a very good drama, some social commentary with a bit of action (more going for suspense than over the top bloodfest).

Bob didn't seem to get it was a drama, not mortal kombat.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

I think going to see The Hunger Games for the violence/action is pretty much the most ironic missing of the point you can possibly make.

That is literally the way the Capitol treats the hunger games, they too would be disappointed they didn't get to see some good old-fashioned slaughter.

That's pretty much not what the story is about. The story is about class warfare, totalitarian regimes, celebrity culture, "bread and circuses" and, from the second installment onwards, the systematic destruction of the psyches of Katniss, Peeta and Gale, and their descent into absolute madness. The last installment (which is going to be divided into a two-parter because that's just the way Hollywood rolls now) is about the three main characters slowly spiralling into absolute insanity, particularly for Katniss (though Peeta isn't far behind), and how, by the end, her mind is roughly 90% trauma.

I think the marketing for these movies needs to stop trying to sell it as an "edgy action movie for teens" and start selling them as "futuristic version of your usual depressing war movie, with teens".

Yes, you get it. If you want the bloody spectacle, you are the crowd of the capitol. You want your blood, you want to feed vicariously off the suffering. The real story is the drama and the struggle of a small group, and their friends to survive in the face of this consuming totalitarianism.

 

[Elf Defiler Korgan]

Yeah, definitely your mind wandering with that whole anti-gay subliminal message thing, Bob. Seriously, only you could find that out of this movie. The visual cue of flamboyance and dress style is quite clearly intended to reflect the decadence of the upper class and provide an incredibly stark contrast to the lower class for even the bluntest tools in the shed to make the connection.

Anyway, still not interested in this. Like many in this forum, utterly unsure as to the hype about it.

Other critics have already pointed this out. I think Bob is agreeing with what he has read.

 

[Fasckira]

Holy poop, the film has similarities to Battle Royale, we get it. Its stunning to see how many people are spouting this as if its some sort of profound piece of hidden knowledge.

Bob's review this time round seems surprisingly... "American" this time round; 'Need more violence, more killings, more fights', I expected something a bit classier. Ah well.

Viewing the Hunger Games purely as a film series, I got the impression that the second is very much one of these films that could be done with having the third to hand to watch straight after. I guess the true basis to consider when judging it is whether the film should be made in such a way that someone could watch it without seeing the first film or be able to see any of the upcoming ones, or if it should be judged as part of a whole.

 

[omega 616]

snip

Are you fucking surprised? A group of kids get plucked from their normal lives to kill a selection of other kids till only one walks away from it. Which film did I just describe? It was actually Battle royale 'cos almost nobody dies in hunger games, they just don't want more screen time.

If you want a film about class warfare watch Elysium, does it great! Hunger games is more about the relationship between Catfish and the two boys. They can frame the class warfare in loads of settings but they choose a battle to death with no fighting?

It makes no sense to do it that way, they have a premise that is just a backdrop ... instead of a fight for survival, it's "who will get the girl" 'cos there just aren't enough of them! It's a more romantic drama than action thriller.

 

[Gigano]

Pretty sure all the elaborate make-up and dresses is a patently obvious reference to a little event touched upon in traditional class warfare theory, called the French Revolution, rather than a crusader's call to march on San Francisco.

...but it wouldn't be very important and socially responsible criticism if one didn't take into account the subconscious political effects such run-of-the-mill fiction might (...as in, completely baseless and empirically unfounded speculation that it might at some point affect someone to some degree) have on the ignorant masses, would it now?

 

[chrisdamaddog]

Sorry if I hit on anything someone already said... im a bit late here (there are half a dozen pages of comments). I'm a fan.. maybe not as "into it" as some, but I can dig the subversive narrative, and the core concept. I did enjoy the books quite a bit, and I thought the author captured the whole helpless, moody teenager thing fairly well... That said the movies (the 1st more so than the sequel) suffer the same problem the harry potter movies did, becoming more visual companions for the people who read the books than stand alone movies on their own. That isn't to say that people can't find enjoyment in the films having not read the books, but a lot of those gaps/questions that Bob brought up are blanks that are filled in in the books or things that will be revealed later, or things that got left on the cutting room floor. Now you can argue that means that the production team did a poor job adapting the movie from the books, that's a legitimate gripe, but you can't hold issues you'd have with the book (pacing) against the film. Flaws within the source material aren't going to be fixed when it comes time to make a movie.

Now the real issue I have is the pacing of the film as a whole.. basically dragging through the first 2/3 of the film prior to the games and then cutting the movie short of what happened in the 2nd book... It feels to me that what they going to do is split the end of book 2 and the last book into 2 movies in order to wring every last penny they can out of this series.