*½/****
starring Jennifer Lawrence, Liam Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson, Philip Seymour Hoffman
screenplay by Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt, based on the novel by Suzanne Collins
directed by Francis Lawrence
by Walter Chaw Portentous, eagerly-anticipated, ending on an abrupt cliffhanger aboard a spaceship… Yes I'm talking about The Matrix Reloaded–I mean, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (hereafter Catching Fire), which for all the conceptual visual improvements inherent in moving from The Hunger Games director Gary Ross to director Francis Lawrence for this instalment, still suffers from hilarible, unspeakable dialogue and a scenario seldom honoured by the execution. Those who haven't read the books (myself included), fair warning that you'll not be able to follow a moment of this one without revisiting the first film–again like The Matrix Reloaded. From what I could glean based on the fragments of The Hunger Games I haven't blocked out is that this girl, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence, earnestly dreadful), has won a televised deathmatch sponsored by a monolithic government to keep control of twelve impoverished, racially- and class-coded districts. I get it, it's a metaphor and, um, a satire of some sort.
Katniss not only won, she saved the life of non-descript milquetoast Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) for the ethical treatment of animals, get it? Comedy gold. She saved Peeta by pretending to be in love with him, a charade that really pisses off real sorta-boyfriend Gale (Liam Hemsworth), who, in a cosmic bit of cinematic bad timing, occurring as it does so close to the anointing of 12 Years a Slave, gets whipped while tied to a post then tended to by firelight with rags wet by snow. Yeah, it's terrible. Anyway, in this breathless episode, Katniss and Peeta are redrafted into the Hunger Games, this time in conflict with previous winners of the Hunger Games–sort of an "All-Star Survivor", the difference being that for as little as the original dealt with Katniss's survival skills, this one deals with them even less.
Katniss is a hero, though she doesn't do anything very heroic–she's essentially rewarded for being a symbolic object both sides (the haves and have-nots) do their best to exploit. She's not clever and she's emotional, fulfilling in that way the worst stereotypes of women in action film. There's a lot of crying, not a lot of surviving; that she stays alive is due to the constant intervention of others who, at least this time around, aren't noble black people…well, except for that one old guy who makes some kind of defiant gesture in honour of Katniss announcing that she really misses the little black girl who sacrificed herself for her in the original. Oh, and except for her fashion designer, Lenny Kravitz. Oh, and… Best not to go there, as it's not like Catching Fire, which tosses around words like "revolution" in the same way that college freshmen hang Che Guevara posters on their dorm-room wall, has anything on its mind. Katniss loves Gale, no she loves Peeta, no Gale, no Peeta, and nothing happens in the long first two-thirds of the film other than a lot of talking, a fashion show, and a parade. Truly, it's like a game of imagination played by two young girls. The eventual fighting and killing is less unsavoury in this go-round since it's not children, it's twenty-somethings and one old lady who kills herself because it's best not to become a burden to the young in one's dotage.
At the end of the day, there's not much point in talking philosophy about a film that banks on fan devotion and a few pretty pictures. Measuring out tween chill moments in regular intervals like hamster pellets from a timed feeder, Catching Fire is arty, self-serious tentpole garbage featuring a truly depressing number of great actors (Donald Sutherland, Woody Harrelson, Stanley Tucci, Amanda Plummer (!), Toby Jones, Jeffrey Wright, Philip Seymour Hoffman) doing shtick for a cut of the back end in a movie that isn't aided by their presence in the slightest. Poor Plummer, in particular, gets typecast as the loony bird, with the bulk of her screentime spent giggling like Regan after she kills the exorcist and saying shit like "tick-tock" on an endless loop. (It does bother me that character development is left to pastiche and a presumption of familiarity with the source material.) Then there's Jena Malone as crazy Johanna, still doing whatever it was Malone was doing in Sucker Punch while somehow managing to offer up the only thing that seems like honest vitality in a picture full to bursting with the fake kind. Catching Fire is bad. It'll make the money it will make, earn no new converts to the flock, and be the type of movie you hope no one ever brings up in polite company because you don't want to look like an asshole. As with the Twilight series, when the last one screens for press, I'll probably be sick that day.
“It’ll be the type of movie you hope no one ever brings up in polite company because you don’t want to look like an asshole.”
Exactly, exactly, exactly. Do we give up the good fight? Do we sigh and allow that it’s not just about ‘bad’ movies anymore, but about monolithic commodity fetishism that has essentially erased any last linkage, even any possibility, of commerce commingling with entertainment commingling with art?
I used to like going to bad movies because they were fun. The cheap ones still are, the ones made by human beings who just weren’t taking it seriously, or any sundry vicissitude that contributes to the creation of bad movies. But man oh man, to witness the modern blockbuster feels like staring into the gaping-hot maw of the Beast. They’re these Kantian nightmares, where every character is quite literally and merely a means to an end (be it for marketing, for ‘fan service,’ for easy plotting), where every last nook and cranny has been seeded by ad-men who squelched their souls many, many sad years ago.
Fascism, I tells ya! Emergent fascism! Or just entropic banality. But that’s probably the same thing. And the worst part, oh the absolute worst of it, is when you’re sinking into your seat in abject horror at one of these inhuman cinema-products, and then you glance around and discover that everyone else in the theater is in rapt attention. Then you die a bit inside and start prepping for the wilderness, am-I-right?
Anyway, you remain a beacon of bright in a very big dark, Walter. Good to hear you’re getting over that depression, because we need ya now more than ever.
“Katniss is a hero, though she doesn’t do anything very heroic–she’s essentially rewarded for being a symbolic object both sides (the haves and have-nots) do their best to exploit.”
Not that I recommend the original book series by any means, but it does do a lot more with the idea that Katniss survives, and is useful to both sides, not because she’s particularly heroic but because she’s a vessel for a narrative they’ve imposed upon her. I suspect Suzanne Collins has a background in marketing, because all the interesting parts of the books center around P.R.
In other words, it’s just like all the other vacuous, tentpole films Hollywood churns out. A shallow event that will quickly be forgotten. Just like a parade, which this franchise apparently loves. I’ve learned to kinda dread watching big studio productions.
Thank you to Walter Chaw for the review and thank you for the excellent comment, Chris Coleman. This helps me make sense of how much it hurts me to see these big budget soulless franchise movies. The worst part is, as Mr. Coleman points out, the increasing sense of loneliness I feel when I’m the only person in a theater not laughing at the racist caricatures the likes of a Transformers film or the hatred I feel for these cinematic magicians who somehow turn bottomless production budgets into utterly unremarkable lifeless CG-effects reels interspersed with actors reciting expository or “snarky” lines.
Twilight Rules, dumbass!
Actually, now that I’ve seen the movie, I can amend that the movie actually does do a little something with how helpless Katniss is, and in fact, this is probably the best popcorn movie of the year (except for Gravity of course). Considerably better than both its source novel and the previous movie.
I enjoyed the review though I disagree with with it. That Katniss doesn’t do anything particularly clever or heroic is actually one of the positive features of Catching Fire. She is like a pawn that other pieces are sacrificed for so that she is promoted to queen.
Hey, learn how to spell and then become a critic. Also I bring up any movie I wish to bring up in polite company because polite company is defined by how we treat one another, not by our personal tastes.
– Saw this tonight with my daughters, and I was confused by the experience. Granted, the theater mangled the visuals with some kind of bizarre projector ghosting and red LED running lights that washed out the lower left corner of the screen in the (seemingly self replicating) low-light scenes, but from what I could tell the visual sense of “dimness” and “gosh I’m sure something must be happening up there” was a good match for the movie’s actual content. It seemed like Phillip Seymour Hoffman (who is excellent) was just wasted on this, Donald Pleasance (who is excellent) was only barely saved from being a cardboard cutout by his ability to sneak emotions through the backdoor, Amanda Plummer (who is excellent) was FAR BEYOND WASTED on this, even though she could easily have ripped the place up with that character, if allowed… and I think there were other people around somewhere… oh, Jennifer Lawrence. She’s great. I’m glad she managed to prove herself otherwise before succeeding (or whatever it’s called) here.
– I agree with Coleman and Chaw here. Without whatever scaffolding the first movie (or the books) created, this would have been some kind of absurdist Norma Rae / Papillon / Run Lola Run pastiche as imagined by Costa Gavras’ lobotomized pre-teen self, after the marketing department’s work was done. Or something.
– At first I thought “well… the lack of visual impact due to a faulty screening blew the actual project for me.” But then I thought “hey… if sub par visuals managed to suck THAT much life out of the story, maybe I was actually saved from a fate worse than beguilement by the theater’s incompetence.”
– Now I’m going to have to see it screened properly. But I am very, very afraid: if it works for me next time, I will have to accept that I am a great deal more shallow than my worst, most damning nightmares have ever impugned.
Um… oops. To be fair, I should add that some of the crowd scenes in the districts actually hurt a bit, and Lawence’s reactions there felt real, and human.
– Problem is… the whipping scene took almost all the wind out of that particular sail. I honestly think there are some things that should NEVER be shown without at least some obvious attempt to leave their full horror intact. Because those same things there are are horrible in such a way that failing them, or at least not very seriously TRYING to put it out there, is a sign of a such a profound lack of sympathy and understanding that the perpetrator should be immediately disqualified as an interpreter of anything human.
– And even though the failure (as acted) may have rested largely with Helmsworth and whoever played the whipping stormtrooper, someone really should have noticed. Really.
If you’re going to be a movie critic, then at least learn to spell, and properly structure a sentence.
Also, it would be wise to exclude the profanities next time– if you expect people to take you seriously.
Movies are subjective, and a matter of opinion. Everyone will see them in a different way, depending on their perspective, and life experiences.
Katniss is a 17 year old girl suffering with post traumatic stress disorder. She’s not meant to be some big action hero chick. She’s a victim of an evil government and a corrupt system. Also, she saved her sister’s life, as well as Peeta’s. That’s pretty heroic, if you ask me.
Thank you for using the word of the day “Garbage”. If this movie is good, its only because its driven by its fan base. Spend your money on anything else.
What a bunch of pretentious comments here! “I enjoy quality, artful movies and can’t stand when others enjoy mere entertainment”… Please get over yourself, whether you enjoy the film or not. Looking down on others doesn’t do anyone any favors.
This review and its many echoing comments are absurd trash, in my opinion. You’ve clearly missed the point. Several of them actually.
Film does not have to be some dadaist work concocted by hipsters to have merit. You are not a special snowflake and this review did not prove you are smarter or more discerning than the internet.
If I had to describe the movie in one sentence it would be “Enjoyable, intense, a bit rushed.” If I had a few more sentences I would say that its possible the movie’s pathos relied a bit too much on the book. But it is impossible for me to objectively evaluate that potential weakness. As always, my advice is to read the books. If you have done that, the movies are both enjoyable and skippable.
Your sentence structure is conversational, without adding warmth or clarity; your word choice verges on the pretentious but isn’t impressive enough to manage; you come across as a joyless troll.
I imagine you’d review Casablanca and complain that a few hard to believe romance scenes got in the way of a war movie; or perhaps complain that Requiem for a Dream should have had a happier ending and not focused so much on drug use.
Pointless and aggressive as my comment is, you should honestly watch the movie again and review THAT, not whatever vision offended and caused you to shit on something that works to bring depth, social relevance, and thoughtfulness to a movie aimed at a teen demographic. Or maybe you’d just harp on the whipping post, or your difficulty in believing a teenaged girl threatened with death for herself and her loved ones has a hard time understanding her own PTSD-inflected emotions.
I will now strike the unkindest blow, and completely forget I bothered to comment on whatever site this is (I followed a link from Rotten Tomatoes, mea culpa). I only hope you learn to let yourself enjoy movies again, since you’ve apparently decided to review them professionally. Godspeed.
Like an oracle from a Greek tragedy, Chris Coleman, the first commenter on this review, referred to the backlash toward dissenting opinions about a film as a reflex of an emergent fascism. Now, fanboys are gonna hate, but you all are just proving Coleman’s point.
@Al: No need to remain curious–here’s what Walter thought of CASABLANCA – http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2013/03/casablanca.html
This review is sadly accurate. The film is an extreme disappointment – all hype. It is meant for tweens, obviously, and Jennifer Lawrence hasn’t really done a decent bit of actual acting since “Winter Bone” – she’s a star presence, for sure, but basically she’s continually hamming it, which seems to be what her fans lap up – so I guess that’s what she’ll keep providing, at least until her audience grows up. I’m so tired of all these franchise atrocities – basically it’s corporate, disposable entertainment. Most critics don’t want to alienate the crazy fans, so they get in line to applaud the empress with no clothes.
There are a lot of movies out there that are eaten up by mass audiences that I personally think are lacking in depth, illogical, etc. (e.g., a few good men, 2001, a space odyssey, etc.). However, this does not necessarily make me smarter or have more depth than others (although I can go on at length that a few good men is laughable, stupid and awful for me). I find the comments of the reviewer as well as Chris, Drifter, and KD Jones, etc., to be the comments of people who desperately want others to know the depth of their character or intelligence, as opposed to everyone else. I love when people use words or phrases like “corporate” or “confused by the experience,” or other cliche to prove to themselves they are so much higher than anyone else. If you don’t like the movie, say the reasons for such, don’t try to make me think you never got a date in high school and its time to pay back others in spades. Oh, and by the way, as others have noted, the reviewer did miss the point, she is only a pawn being used potentially by two forces, maybe both bad . . . ..
It’s quite hilarious how these comments seem to focus on whats good and bad about the movie but i find it insane that people would actually think that Lawrence at least wasn’t ‘holding a lasting impression’ in this movie. Also, she was very good in Silver Linings Playbook and that’s coming from someone who really isn’t into the whole romantic movie scene. Her facial expressions and totality of how she conveys real expression in general is better then any younger actresses I have seen in a while. Two spots for instance in the movie.
1) Her expression at the end of the movie when she quickly moves from the tears of realization to the serious face who’s ready to kick some ass. Also she simply just commands attention on a screen which is something people have or they don’t, and she most certainly does.
2) Her look in the elevator when Jenna Malone gets naked is so perfect…This look or horror and embarassment and confusion as she stares as far a way as possible..haha.Some people might think well why didn’t she yell at her or act nuts when that happened because of the rage she shows at other times, but in true to character as Katness she is still a small town girl who is somewhat shy in meeting others, yet so powerful in true emotion when she is pushed. It’s also why when she goes in to meet others to form allies in both movies, despite her edge of personality- the only way she seems to be able to open up is through her bow and teaching the two “techies” to start the fire. She has the perfect mix of showing fierceness, anger, sarcasm, mixed with feeling shy, alone and confused in spots….Also with showing compassion despite her rage–in my opinion is done to perfection. These days for characters in a movie to have be so many different traits is rare at best.
2) Her expression at the end of the movie when she quickly moves from the tears of realization to the serious face who’s ready to kick some ass. Also she simply just commands attention on a screen which is something people have or they don’t, and she most certainly does.
Also I could care less if I have some spelling errors or dictation problems….Why is it that you guys all make such a big deal of this–As if that’s the only way to know someones intelligence, especially when it comes to movie criticism??
You liked the CARRIE remake but hated this? You have exceptionally atrocious taste in movies.
You’re quite the bitter little twerp. Tearing down every other building in town does not, in fact, make your building any taller.
Bleh. The reviewer totally misses the point, dismissing the film before the opening credits. If your looking for a tween twilight movie, I guess thats what your going to get. Self fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Just because it wasn’t laced with gore doesn’t make it a tween movie, it makes it tastefully done. I don’t think this is a matter of film quality, I think it’s a matter of personal taste and opinion. As far as book to movie goes, this is probably the best I’ve ever seen. Coming to the film without reading the books? Still a fantastic film.
The review concentrates on so many flaws with the story, but they come directly from the book. Should the film have been so different? Amanda Plummer was not wasted, her character unfortunately is short-lived.
You have got to be kidding me. The movie was awesome. “inhuman cinema products”. Cris coleman there is no way you even saw the movie.
give me a break.. tent pole movie..
Its like most of you never even watched the movie.. yeah nothing heroic at all.. like the speech she gave in the beginning, or getting in front of the guy giving a beating, or shooting the arrow at the dome. or about 10 other moments in the movie where she does do heroic things.
This was a great movie, it was better than I expected. it was over before I even knew it that’s how good it was.
Its like most of you never even watched the movie.. yeah nothing heroic at all.. like the speech she gave in the beginning, or getting in front of the guy giving a beating, or shooting the arrow at the dome. or about 10 other moments in the movie where she does do heroic things.
I get so tired of reading idiotic smug reviews and comments here simply because people apparently cant pay attention at all. No instead we who can pay attention have to put up with total ass-hat comments like..
“””And the worst part, oh the absolute worst of it, is when you’re sinking into your seat in abject horror at one of these inhuman cinema-products, and then you glance around and discover that everyone else in the theater is in rapt attention”””
Well… *genius* if you actually did PAY ATTENTION to the movie, maybe you would actually understand what is so great about it.
What a concept..
I didn’t see the first of the trilogy. First mistake. Having said that, I did not enjoy the first two hours because it was odd, strange, and really didn’t make a whole lot of sense. Don’t watch it unless you have seen the first. Which I won’t be doing.
Wow, I’ve never been involved in one of these comment-section brouhahas before! Fun stuff.
What stands out to me, though, is the person who reached out across the Internet simply to call Walter Chaw a “little twerp.” There’s a scene in “Doctor Who” in which an abusive veteran is screaming at his own kid, accusing him of being spoiled, opinionated and disobedient. He eventually snarls, “you’re just a little twerp!” Finally the kid yells back, “you went off to the war and fought the fascists just so I could *be* a little twerp! Just so I could *have* opinions, and *be* different!” Right on, kid.
Movies like this feel evil to me. That’s all. I feel ‘lesser’ upon having experienced them. I’m disturbed when they start affecting a subversive facade, the way “Hunger Games” becomes a Mobius-strip metaphor for itself, or the way “Oblivion” playacts at being concerned with base-superstructure theory. To me, they come off as “subversive sci-fi product units” as manufactured by conglomerations that are very much part of the superstructure they claim to be attacking. Genre should be ruthlessly honest, negativistic, passionate, and separate from the machinery of power. And of course entertaining, accessible, funny, humanistic and enlivening as well. But, dear friends, when I go into a movie like “Hunger Games” (and yes, I’ve seen both of them), I feel like I’m stepping *into* the machinery of power, and I feel so much smaller coming out than I did going in.
That said, I do apologize for this stupid line: “you glance around and discover that everyone else in the theater is in rapt attention. Then you die a bit inside and start prepping for the wilderness.” I reread it realized it just stinks of pretentiousness, but I really didn’t intend it as a slight against the audience. I don’t regard any audience as ‘bad’ and I grew out of forming opinions on others’ opinions. I just meant that sometimes I experience a kind of ontological horror when watching these movies, and then I see that no one else feels the same way, and that I’d render myself an outcast were I even to mention anything. It’s isolating, is all.
And sure, I understand that some people use these words and concepts as a cudgel with which to insist upon their superiority. Really, I get it — I went to college with those folk, and they’re as awful and authoritarian as they come. But some of us feel a real terror towards the world as it is and where it seems to be going, and we do find recourse in theory, if only as explanation for the source of this free-floating terror. It has nothing to do with self-satisfaction or satisfaction of any kind; it’s just a personal balm to soothe the mounting realization that, to quote Leonard Cohen, “the good guys already lost” and we’re living in a William Gibson dystopia. ‘Already’ being the operative word — not “in the near future,” but now-right-now.
Put another way, if you extend the satire of “Hunger Games” to our present situation, who is reaping the benefits of our patronage? The starving country-folk? Or the Sadean power-mongers with weird hairdos? Doesn’t the inherent reality of that exchange value utterly devastate the ‘point’ of these movies? If you *really* wanted to be like Katniss, to believe in the heroism she potentially represents, wouldn’t it be your duty to reject these movies both financially and philosophically?
Take pause to consider that Lions Gate (still curiously designated an “independent film studio”) was initially funded by an investment bank that specialized in gold and silver mining operations. It’s currently financed by a network of European broadcasting corporations. It’s primary business model has been simply to buy-out smaller studios that were actually producing independent content. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of this, but it is problematic to believe that an authentic voice of resistance and subversion could possibly be issued out of this billion-dollar conglomeration. And being that “Hunger Games” is expressly about resistance to a falsified media-culture, then aren’t we dealing with a false satire of a false media-culture as produced in a false media-culture? Isn’t all this really just obviating any possibility of actual resistance and subversion? One’s head begins to spin.
“Put another way, if you extend the satire of “Hunger Games” to our present situation, who is reaping the benefits of our patronage? The starving country-folk? Or the Sadean power-mongers with weird hairdos? Doesn’t the inherent reality of that exchange value utterly devastate the ‘point’ of these movies?”
No, of course it doesn’t. Fuck’s sake. Unless you mean to take down Star Wars, Wall-E, and a billion other anti-corporation-rich-people-bad-guy-whoever movies made by billion-dollar corporations. Criminy, you freaking people. “Movies like this feel evil to me.” Christ. Might wanna take a re-read of that sentence too, guy.
Such pretention, such arrogance, such vanity I have found here, both with the person who calls himself a reviewer and the commentators here! First and foremost, any review of film or book where the comments are so irretrievably unbalanced to either the negative or the positive should be ignored as it cannot possibly be a fair review. And beware of a ‘reviewer’ who uses a lot of interestingly phrased language, but really does not say anything explicit or precise about exactly what elements contribute to the success/failure of the film. Second, if a reviewer can utterly misunderstand a major theme so violently, as the role of pawn that Katniss plays in this story (obvious both in the books and the films), then his understanding of the film as a whole must be severely undermined. A truthful review should, if not citing a totally balanced approach, ALWAYS have SOME degree of negative AND positive aspects.
In terms of this particular film, I did not find the themes quite as carefully presented as they were in the original Hunger Games (it’s a pity it suffered a less capable director), and I found the film rather over-edited. The 114 minutes, although utilised as well as editing allowed, was not sufficient to portray the full potential of the film and its themes. Characterisation also suffered as a result. The final scenes in particular left out some important information vital to the story, leaving the scene and Katniss’ actions not fully explained. I also found Katniss’ face change in the final seconds from grief to anger totally unconvincing, first because the final scene really didn’t lend itself to her anger appropriately, second because the actual acting was not at all believable, and third because in my opinion the idea simply did not work.
However the film, and the characterisation that was given time, was highly faithful to the book. The opening image of Katniss hunting was an excellent opening to the film, and the discussion she shares with President Snow was well crafted. The costumes, as per the original Hunger Games film, depicted the capital population’s removal from reality admirably. Had the editing been just a little more lenient, the film would have benefited greatly. Although Catching Fire was less successful for me than The Hunger Games it was not unsuccessful as a film. But it could have been better.
Beware any person who comes into the comment section of a review claiming to know what a review should or shouldn’t be. Chances are they’re part of a “fandom”.
I’ve seen Twilight, and I loathed it. I laughed at it. I haven’t read The Hunger Games, and I don’t intend to. That being said, I really enjoyed Catching Fire. It seems to me after reading this review and all of the comments, that there are numbers of people who seem to hate this movie for all the wrong reasons, and people who would defend it by insulting everyone who just didn’t like it. I’m going to try to be neither. I won’t insult anybody’s intelligence, spelling, sentence structure, or insinuate that my taste in film is simply better. I will say this: Shakespeare managed to write plays that were commissioned by the ruling class, and used them to indirectly spit in said rulers faces, inspire hope in everyone else, and still be well respected by all. BEFORE YOU GO CRAZY, I am not comparing The Hunger Games to Hamlet in any other way than the Trojan Horse aspect. It may never have been LionsGate’s intention to do anything other than cash in on the tween fanbase, but I can tell you that i’d much rather children see a message like this rather than the vapidity of all the other tween movies out there regardless of where it came from. Does a good message really lose weight because of the mouth it came from? Can the message of love, revolution, unity, and sacrifice really be discounted because of execution or origin of funding?
One thing is abundantly clear: This reviewer is an idiot who has no idea what makes a good movie. From now on, I shall find out what this person DOESN’T like… and then go watch it. Not only does Walter Chaw not understand good cinema, but he’s a pretty poor writer, to boot. This article would never have gotten past my editor without being heavily rewritten. It’s sad that such mediocre writing is allowed to pass when it comes to reviews these days. Where’s the professionalism?
Punchbowl; turd. Turd; punchbowl.
This reads like it was written by a pubescent Armond White. Consider this a compliment or not. All I know is that from now on, if I ever wonder if I’ve gotten too cynical in my early middle age, all I have to do is think back to this review and the answer will be “Well, at least I’m not Walter Chaw.”
When evaluating a movie, I nearly always fall back on the axiom “was this movie a well-made example of what it was trying to be?” Walt seems to be taking shots at “Catching Fire” for some undefined thing that he wanted it to be, but it was never concerned with being. The source material is a pop novel (unread by me) for teens/young adults for Christ’s sake. It was alway going to be a big, kinda dumb spectacle with all possible edges dulled and padded. So, for a big dumb spectacle was it at least well-made and entertaining? I thought it was. At 2 1/2 hours, it didn’t seem long to me, which is always a positive sign.
Heaven help me if I ever become so “mature” or “film literate” (read: jaded) that I lose the ability to take in a loud, lumbering tentpole with many other humans and not come out as the contrarian a-hole that Walt accurately fears he has become. At this point, I still allow myself the possibility that I might actually enjoy myself at one of these “event” pictures.
Is she really “earnestly dreadful”? Say that to her OSCAR!
Haven’t read the books, but am completely sympathetic to the social commentary the story is attempting. I have to agree with Walter on this one though. The film is a crashing bore. It may very well be that the ‘point’ of the film is that the protagonist is a pawn being fought over by competing factions, but unless the protagonist is aware of that and/or struggling against it somehow, you simply have a passive protagonist.
You can see the problem immediately when Malone comes on screen. Her character has passions, opinions, an agenda and voices them. Is thus immediately more interesting to watch. The story told from her characters point of view would have been much more compelling.
Add to this the ‘unspeakable dialogue’ as Walter notes. (You could actually see Hoffman cringing inside) Absurd character responses, why was it shocking to anyone that Kravitz was summarily executed for inciting rebellion? Flat antagonists and non-functioning social commentary and you get a pretty forgettable 2 hours at the movies.
Whether this is a book problem or a film problem is irrelevant. If the filmmakers have translated the book’s narrative weaknesses to film, then they’ve simply made a bad film.
If you are not a teenager, or a parent living vicariously through a teenager…..you might not want to bother. To be fair, I haven’t seen “Catching Fire.” However, I remember my 16 year old niece going on and on about how great the “Hunger Games” was. So I gave it a chance. Despite all the hype, it was a average movie at best. Its all about elaborate makeup, and lavish costumes. The actual “games” themselves were a joke.
Example? The “Hunger Games” is a supposedly a fight to the death, winner take all event. Yet, everyone teams up and sleeps together under a tree, just to get a chance to kill Katniss. I don’t know about you, but the concept of “last man standing” certainly don’t mean having a group sleepover. This lapse in logic might not be noticed by teenagers, but it may insult your intelligence if you are over 16.
I felt genuinely put-off by this review: not due to your clear contempt for a story clearly inclined for understanding by teens, or his methodical use of advanced vocabulary and seemingly advanced meticulous sentence structuring to bolster his image and appear too pop-culture-savvy to appreciate (apparently cliché and overused) steadfast, sacrosanct values such as bravery and selflessness, but instead for its lack of relevance to the movie’s production quality and rather towards plot issues (?) such as Katniss’s compassion in saving Peeta followed by a roundabout feinging of love in an attempt to sway the districts and capitol (comedy gold). Why mock something written in the book and blame it on the movie? Review is in poor taste. Hectoring a movie that was intended for the audience that read the book for it’s lack in complexity in dialogue, which you described as hilarible and unspeakable, is dithering about an aspect that wouldn’t make the movie worse, and would place blame on the book’s dialogue that was scripted into the movie. Especially since “hilarible and unspeakable” seems to me as complete hyperbole for the kind of dialogue I heard when watching the movie, but possibly not for you seeing your extensive vocabulary base or bravado sentence length. Much of the communication in this movie is facially and emotionally expressed at great length (done very well due to the all star cast we can actually give the movie praise for), not to mention there is an overlying dystopian nature to the movie, but it seems all you got out of that was the crying? She was seventeen and was pitted to kill her way out of a death sentence. The acting was great. Katniss’s hurt is clearly visible to the audience, and it stands as a monument to her struggle. Use your intelligence to read the book before undermining the movie for crafting a story it never crafted.
But besides all of that, I still don’t comprehend how in a predominance of the comment section, well-spokenness justifies a stigmitization of CF. “If you *really* wanted to be like Katniss, to believe in the heroism she potentially represents, wouldn’t it be your duty to reject these movies both financially and philosophically?” This isn’t even relevant to the movie. Enjoy it for what it is: a dramatic uprising through a girl’s intensity – her willingness to survive and perpetuate the values that we respect as a people. No need to question the viewer’s moral fiber and incriminate yourself with the “non-intellectual”. I swear, some commenters’ antithetical attempts to seperate themselves from the mainstream are so obvious I can smell the rancor through my computer. The book is sanctimonius, so I suppose the cynicism towards the movie must be the route to bash any issues with the story itself and not the movie. Man. This looks like a YouTube comment section, not one for a *purely unbiased* movie review. Standing by a quote from Jonah Hill in ‘Get Him to the Greek’: “Nothing you say makes any sense. I understand that now, you’re smart so you make your insanity sound good, but it’s bullshit.” Watch other comments bubble up to bash this one.
good movie.
This is just a bad boring movie. With awkward lines and some bad acting.
Character and plot development are almost non-existent. The scene when they are crawling through the water to get the sores off their skin (from the fog). Horrible and cringe worth acting.
The argument that we should have all read the book, is irrelevant. A well made film should be able to successfully transfer the text to screen. Not merely be visual eye candy for those who have read the novel. If there is good character development in the novel (as everyone claims) then it should also be done in the film. period.
was bored and tired in the movie.