Escape to the Movies: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

[Panda Mania]

Sounds to me like the movie struggled particularly with trying to be a deep action flick. Some of the metaphors and in-world mechanics worked, but sometimes you could spot holes. Some parts were viscerally thrilling and cool, but you were disappointed when badassery failed to follow.

Upon initial consideration, I didn't see the lack of epic combat as a problem, for the relentless running away/hiding served to establish that the gamemakers really were trying to kill off as many of the tributes as quickly as they could, hitting them with every danger in the arsenal, so to speak. But the reveal that

Spoiler

Plutarch Heavensbee was on the good guys' side and was trying to keep Katniss alive

makes that defense a little weak, or at least confusing.

Yes, The Hunger Games trilogy is no masterpiece. The writing isn't even as good as that in Harry Potter. But I still hold it to be a compelling story with special emotional and ideological resonances for current audiences. Certainly I would choose it over Twilight any day.


Semi-related question: Is something like The Avengers better than Catching Fire because of the action? the screenplay? the story? what is it?

 

[maninahat]

Having now seen the film, I got to contrast it with the criticisms Bob brought up. I can't say I agree with him in most cases. For instance, I didn't get the impression that the movie was setting up some cool, Mortal Combat death match between all the colourful characters. Sure it would be cool to see the axe girl have an extended fight scene with the trident guy, but that would be all it would be; cool. It would defeat the message of the movie, the point of the story being that people fighting to the death is not cool.

Similarly, I felt that Bob missed the mark with Katniss, and made an unfair comparison to Samus' butchered character. The difference between the two is that Samus was previously established as a badass loner, later betrayed by the pathetic, submissive and dependant incarnation. ON the other hand, Katniss was never a one woman army. Though she is good with a bow, she isn't Rambo, and she isn't going to cut down dozens of mooks. Katniss can barely cope with the odds she is up against. She is always scared, troubled, and on her back foot. That she is still able to keep going against such adversity makes her a badass. A different kind of bad ass that I find compelling in its own way.

Finally, the part about the potentially offensive othering of the flamboyant, foppish and effeminate capital folk? I think that suggestion is undercut by some of them being sympathetic. Even the air-headed woman had hidden depths and a likeable side. That they are superficial, vain and flamboyant is consistent with an oppressive, rich society that has no concerns outside of conspicuous consumption. Labouring slaves don't get to have make up.

I thought it was a good movie. Like the previous one, it takes a little longer to get to the games than I would like, but a lot of the more interesting questions get asked during the pre-game preamble (such as the cost of rebellion, the long term effects of surviving the games, the insidious way in which the survivors are co-opted into quisling roles etc.) A bigger budget means they got to fixing the shitty CGI and shaky cam issues from the previous movie. The main complaint is just how abruptly it ends, cleaving off what feels like a proper climax in place of a brief set up for the next two movies. I assume that's how it ends in the books, though as books, they have the benefit of being able to cram as much introspection as they like into the story's end.

 

[maninahat]

People are in love with the IDEA of The Hunger Games (as the "anti-Twilight) more than the actual Hunger Games story itself...which it's time for all of us to admit is pretty damn flaccid and boring. All the INCREDIBLY ON THE NOSE, black and white, faux-sociopolitical subtext just feels like a bunch of shorthand to try and make us feel something from our otherwise bland and not very interesting leading lady who doesn't really have much of a character of her own beyond "strong independent womaaaan! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7diBUMQVh4k]" Oh and she's in a love triangle, because OF COURSE she's in a fucking love triangle. (Why does Peeta "love" Katniss again? No reason? Okay...)

It's the same problem I had with this Tomb Raider reboot: she's a "grrtoughgirlgrr" that has the world consistently beat the shit out of her, but is able to survive through it cuz she gets to shoot weapons and stuff. And oh look she cries sometimes! So that's means character development!

That's's all I got from new Lara Croft, and that's all I'm getting from Katniss Everdeen.

I think you misread both Lara and Katniss. Though they are indeed strong and independent, they display those qualities in ways totally different from the lazy, kung-fu kicking waifs of a Joss Whedon movie or indeed, the previous Tomb Raider games. Basically, instead of showing how much ass they can kick every moment they are on-screen, the emphasis is on how vulnerable, scared, broken and god damn overwhelmed they are by their circumstances. That's not to say they are weak; the fact that they can still keep going and ultimately triumph in each situation is what makes hem strong and independent. This is diametrically opposed to the usual, where women are depicted as super-amazon fighters who crush their male opponents up until they get incapacitated by a mild tap on the arm and need rescuing by the real male hero of the story. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tALpizMxU-8]

 

[shiajun]

OK, maybe I'm waaaaaay too many days too late into this thread, but I just say the movie yesterday. I haven't read the books, I just recently saw thr first movie for the first time, and I haven't ever seen Battle Royale, which apparently is some thing people over here are such fans of that every other piece of fiction about death matches should emulate, regardless of the intention, audience, or themes involved. It's my experience that echo-chamber effect among anime fans tends to warp the apparent value of those works in comparison to my personal sensibilities.

But anyway.

I have no idea where Bob is coming from. Actually, as of late I just can't follow Bob's movie reviews anymore. I'd defaulted to mentally not agreeing, and then seeing if I was right after I see the movie. As a reviewer, Bob has drifted away from usefulness for me. In retrospect, the whole "Big Picture" episode about critique starts to seem more like a setup to justify posing more taste about movies as actual critique about movies.

For example, I see a lot of "it needed more action" coming from Bob, and other posters. Why? The whole point was that none of what goes on in the games is pleasant for anyone, just that some who can manage the ordeal better have higher odds of surviving. Even if you make it out alive, they still manage to rid you of your former self. It's quite true "there are no winners, only survivors". Making cool or over the top action scenes just ungrounds that whole part of the story. If a lot of that happens offscreen it's because we're following one person's journey, not the omniscient entity that sees all, though we do get some cutaways to that to carry the plot forward. Again, I don't see why this is inherintly bad or uncool or anything. It just is that way because the source material is that way. Bob is always going on about faithful adaptiations and whatnot. I can tell this is pretty faithful adaption. But since the source material is not to Bob's liking, being faithful here is a no-no.

Also, the whole anti-gay is stupid, even is sarcastically implied. I'm gay. I don't read that at all. It's about stupid and pointless decadence. The visual style, while slightly modernized for viewing audiences, repeats the motifs we've seen all through history: Egyptian pharoahs, Chinese emperors vs peasants, Frech monarchy (or well....all of European monarchies) vs their subjects, etc, etc, all the way to gaudy TV and Hollywood celebrities (like Lady Gaga) to the working class. It's always been there. There isn't any gay in there. All critics, including Bob, that try to turn into that are in desperate need of history brush-ups because their current day myopia is showing.

Finally, while I find the whole setup of the Hunger Games society a little hard to believe, I can sort of see how people would allow themselves to be oppressed for so long, since it has happened in real life too. I can suspend my disbelief for the sake of the ride, like I do for other works of fiction. So far I haven't seen some fatal self-incoherecies. Yet in Bob's view (and many others) here it's so much harder to do than for far more ludicrous works.

I could go on and on, but this is just one more sign of decreasing quality of this show. There used to be more film-making insights or meanderings in Escape to the Movie, but this show has turned into more Big Picture than critique.

 

[katsabas]

Liked the first one, just came back from the 2nd one and cannot wait for the final one. No idea what Bob is faffing about. I don't even remember his review but he pretty much suggested against watching it so who gives a shit.

I am also not even gonna bother coming up with counter-points to Bob's points cause someone in here is bound to counter-counter it and the thing will go on and on, like the last time I dropped an argument about ANYthing on the Hunger Games.

Bottom line: Bob's entitled to his opinion, even though in my opinion, his opinion (on this particular movie) sucks. Took a girl to the movie, we both liked it, she put her head on my shoulder, I win.

 

[Whytewulf]

Liked the first one, just came back from the 2nd one and cannot wait for the final one. No idea what Bob is faffing about. I don't even remember his review but he pretty much suggested against watching it so who gives a shit.

I am also not even gonna bother coming up with counter-points to Bob's points cause someone in here is bound to counter-counter it and the thing will go on and on, like the last time I dropped an argument about ANYthing on the Hunger Games.

Bottom line: Bob's entitled to his opinion, even though in my opinion, his opinion (on this particular movie) sucks. Took a girl to the movie, we both liked it, she put her head on my shoulder, I win.

I am with you. Just saw it, darn good movie. People who haven't read the books, would like it. Well they should watch the 1st one. This is much better than the first one. And I suspect Bob doesn't actually get it. Moving on then.

 

[CaitSeith]

So much in the book and so little movie to put on it. They tried to put some relevant parts, but they left several good ones and others more important. I don't think they showed how the rebellions on the districts affected the citizens from the capitol. They didn't give to Katniss her stylists group from the capitol (a trio whom she grew fond of). And worst, THEY DIDN'T SHOW HOW HAYMITCH WON THE HUNGER GAMES AS A KID!

PS: 200th