The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) - Part 1

[ComicChick]

I saw it today and I was thoroughly impressed. I thought it was a little better than the first one, and I thought it was better than the book itself. I didn't like the second two Hunger Games books as much as the first one, so I wasn't overly anticipating this, but I thought it improved upon the book. I'd say for The Hunger Games, the book is better, but for Catching Fire, the film is better. The only thing I missed from the book (since it was one of my favorite parts of the series) was seeing [BLACKOUT]young Haymitch in his Hunger Games[/BLACKOUT]. I was really disappointed they left that out. Phillip Seymour Hoffman seemed bored. I'm hoping he's a little more enthusiastic in the next film. Finnick was more or less how I imagined him to be, so no complaints there since he was one of my favorite characters from the books along with Haymitch. And I'm in love with Jena Malone now. She was awesome as Johanna. She stole the show during her scenes in the Capitol before the Quarter Quell started. Her performance actually pushes Johanna to my favorite characters, since I didn't care much about her in the books. I'm still wondering how they're going to stretch Mockingjay into two whole films, but if they can stretch The Hobbit into three films, maybe this could work.

i feel like part 3 will be

Spoiler

about peeta and johanna being tortured in the capital, learning the world of district 13. and hopefully some things that had been cut out of catching fire. i wanna see more revolt in the districts.

also, it'll probably end, or the latter half will be with them rescuing peeta and him constantly trying to kill her

 

[SuperJediHero]

The guy played District 1 male was Aquaman on Smallville

 

[SuperJediHero]

So is it safe to say that the consensus on this movie is that it's good? I have not heard any really valid complaints outside of people who just have an axe to grind with the series itself.

If you are not looking for Action-packed movie you should love it

 

[CB Fan]

Not really getting the whole "the first movie should have been rated R violent" argument. The book didn't get into heavy detail about the deaths so I didn't expect the movie to as there just isn't any need. In the book and movie you know what's going on so there isn't any need to show it graphically. This is Katniss' story told from her point of view aimed at young audiences PG-13 was a given .

 

[DarthSkywalker]

the target audience is young teen readers. that's the demographic who read the books, who were the fans, and who helped it reach a broader audience. i read it about 3 years ago, granted i'm not a teen. but for it to be a YA series and make it a series they can't even go see, would not have been too intelligent of a standpoint

You are right, The Hunger Games seems to also have a strong male following as well. And it would make little sense to shut out that crowd. Even if those that read the books when they were originally released are late teens, early 20, the entire point is to get that original age group again. It is what make Harry Potter so successful.

 

[Warhammer]

It was a great film.

 

[jacobed]

R rating for this would be completely and entirely unneccessary

 

[ComicChick]

You are right, The Hunger Games seems to also have a strong male following as well. And it would make little sense to shut out that crowd. Even if those that read the books when they were originally released are late teens, early 20, the entire point is to get that original age group again. It is what make Harry Potter so successful.

 

[Octoberist]

Shockingly good. Leaps and bounds over the first film, in which I also enjoyed.

9/10

 

[DirtyHarry]

Whoa. Way better than I expected

 

[DigificWriter]

Weighing in on this whole "The movie should've been rated R" thing... no, it shouldn't have been. There's nothing in either of the two films that is, honestly, any worse than what's in the Star Wars and Indiana Jones movies.

 

[jmc]

The difference is the themes of the Hunger Games are far more serious. It's about impact, a higher rating, especially of the previous film would have had far more emotional weight to it. Kids killing each other should be looked at with repulsion and sadness, instead it is watered down and bloodless which doesn't make it any different from any other PG action movie.

 

[DigificWriter]

A PG-13 rating doesn't 'water down' the movies' themes. You don't need to be super-graphic for the impact of 'kids being forced to kill other kids' to resonate.

 

[jmc]

A PG-13 rating doesn't 'water down' the movies' themes. You don't need to be super-graphic for the impact of 'kids being forced to kill other kids' to resonate.

Can you imagine Saving Private Ryan with a PG13 rating? The themes might remain but the impact isn't nearly the same. Kids killing each other for entertainment should be horrific, but Hunger Games is diluted. The only criticism of the first film I have is its lack of impact for the subject matter, and I believe it's a valid criticism because the story is played for real, it's not meant to be a fantasy adventure, it's meant to be a dystopian future where people are oppressed and are forced to partake in horrible events. Once you play it for real if you don't follow it up with visuals to suit you're not doing the subject matter justice, you are in fact watering it down.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

CF did $52m on Sat. Looking like it will exceed $160m for the weekend.

 

[terry78]

Looks like it's on track for being one of the top grossers of this year.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Looks like it's on track for being one of the top grossers of this year.

International numbers are apparently looking much better then the first film as well.

 

[Drizzle]

Looks like it's going to be a new record for a 2D release. If this were released in 3D, it might have even had a shot at topping The Avengers' opening weekend record.

 

[terry78]

Lionsgate knew what they were doing when they snatched this up.

 

[DigificWriter]

Can you imagine Saving Private Ryan with a PG13 rating? The themes might remain but the impact isn't nearly the same. Kids killing each other for entertainment should be horrific, but Hunger Games is diluted. The only criticism of the first film I have is its lack of impact for the subject matter, and I believe it's a valid criticism because the story is played for real, it's not meant to be a fantasy adventure, it's meant to be a dystopian future where people are oppressed and are forced to partake in horrible events. Once you play it for real if you don't follow it up with visuals to suit you're not doing the subject matter justice, you are in fact watering it down.

You're comparing apples to oranges.

I haven't read the books themselves, but AM familiar with the author thanks to the Underland Chronicles series she wrote for middle-grade readers and which explores the same basic themes as THG does (by her own admission, BTW), and the point of both series is to show how people are emotionally affected by wars (again, by her own admission), and you don't need to visually depict tons of violence in order to convey that thematic message.

 

[chaseter]

Pretty good movie, way better than the first. My only problem was that the plan aka plot twist really assumed a lot would happen.

 

[DACrowe]

Really? I have been to maybe no more than 5 IMAX movies, and I actually hate it, I much prefer the traditional screen. Last one I saw would have been Gravity, and I am just not impressed by the format, at all. Gravity will be the last time I ever shell out that extra money for IMAX. I don't care much for 3D either, and I loathe the D-Box that they are trying to shove down our throats. That's a fad that needs to go away, now! Nobody uses it. D-Box seats take up the best seats in the house, and you know what, they are always empty at every movie I have gone to that contains them. They are costing more money than they are making for the theaters.

It depends totally on the film. In general, I do not like paying for IMAX films that are not shot in IMAX (though the sound is amazing). That would include Gravity, Avengers and most of the films you've seen in "IMAX."

But movies actually SHOT in IMAX?

The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
Mission: Impossible 4 Ghost Protocol
Star Trek Into Darkness
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

It's a short list, but the IMAX used in all of those was stunning. Well maybe not Star Trek as it was all CGI anyway (and required dippy 3D glasses). But if you see those others on an IMAX screen with an actual 70mm it is stunning the level of clarity, depth and scope it creates. It is all consuming.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It depends totally on the film. In general, I do not like paying for IMAX films that are not shot in IMAX (though the sound is amazing). That would include Gravity, Avengers and most of the films you've seen in "IMAX."

But movies actually SHOT in IMAX?

The Dark Knight
The Dark Knight Rises
Mission: Impossible 4 Ghost Protocol
Star Trek Into Darkness
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

It's a short list, but the IMAX used in all of those was stunning. Well maybe not Star Trek as it was all CGI anyway (and required dippy 3D glasses). But if you see those others on an IMAX screen with an actual 70mm it is stunning the level of clarity, depth and scope it creates. It is all consuming.

Could not have said it better.

 

[Drizzle]

The fact that the entire Games sequence was shot in IMAX really heightened my enjoyment of the film.

 

[jacobed]

Can you imagine Saving Private Ryan with a PG13 rating? The themes might remain but the impact isn't nearly the same. Kids killing each other for entertainment should be horrific, but Hunger Games is diluted. The only criticism of the first film I have is its lack of impact for the subject matter, and I believe it's a valid criticism because the story is played for real, it's not meant to be a fantasy adventure, it's meant to be a dystopian future where people are oppressed and are forced to partake in horrible events. Once you play it for real if you don't follow it up with visuals to suit you're not doing the subject matter justice, you are in fact watering it down.

You seriously just tried to compare World War 2 to a fantasy story. No just no