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

This movie was a lot better than the first movie in terms of story and emotion. The action was subpar and imo kind of sloppy like it was just an after thought.
I agree with one poster one of my favorite scenes was Johnna(sp) during the interview before the quell, she was awesome and funny, plus the part where she got undressed in the elevator:hrt:
I also really enjoyed the emotion of the first speech in District 11? where Thrash and Rue was from, very awesomely done.
 
I agree the action is subpar, but I am fine with it that Hunger Games is not an action film franchise. It has great story, and emotion, and beautiful/talented actress sometimes that's all you need to LOVE it.

Like Lost, was never about action, but one of the best TV series of all time because of exceptional story and emotion.
 
Last edited:
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.

It's not apple to oranges at all. Of course you don't need to have tons of violence to convey the themes, the issue is those themes don't hit as hard when the visuals are watered down. It's not as powerful a theme when you're cutting away or playing down the violence.
 
$161 million for the weekend in the US and $334 globally.
 
It's not apple to oranges at all. Of course you don't need to have tons of violence to convey the themes, the issue is those themes don't hit as hard when the visuals are watered down. It's not as powerful a theme when you're cutting away or playing down the violence.

Tell that to the author herself. As I said, her Underland Chronicles series explores the exact same themes as TGH, but has very little actual violence in it, and what violence it does have is no more graphic than what you would find in most Children's television programming... but its themes still resonate powerfully.
 
Tell that to the author herself. As I said, her Underland Chronicles series explores the exact same themes as TGH, but has very little actual violence in it, and what violence it does have is no more graphic than what you would find in most Children's television programming... but its themes still resonate powerfully.

But I'm not talking about Underworld Chronicles, I'm talking The Hunger Games.
 
^ The themes in both are the same - by the author's own admission - and the fact that she was able to convey said themes in TUC without depicting super-graphic violence disproves your assertion that the themes of THG were 'watered down' because the violence wasn't kept at a level that would've resulted in an R rating.
 
I'll add my two points to the issue of PG-13 vs. Rated R:

I understand where you are coming from, jmc. You want to more of the consequences of violence and of this world conveyed more through the games visually. You believe that making it R would make it more powerful. I'm not going to say that it will, nor will I say that it won't because honestly, it would depend on the director.

I say that because let's say this movie is R. With R, you run the risk of not having a filter (Yes, I know NC-17 exists but that's rarely used for violence), and without that filter, you risk the chance of actually diluting the themes of the movie and placing more of the emphasis and shift some (not all) of the audience focus from "Can Katnis Survive" to "How violent can they go?" and making the violence more of the appealing factor of the movie. We've seen that happen with Battle Royale, a movie known more for its violence it is than its themes of survival, fear of the young among other themes in addition to many other films that end up with misaimed fandom due to a visual misinterpretation of the subject matter.

In short, my answer is it depends on the director. But keep this in mind, and it probbaly definitely has been said. There's no way in hell these movies would ever have been R due to who the main demographic of this audience is.
 
tumblr_inline_mgoy9oYLO21ro2d43.gif


I didnt want it to end. My friend was seriously balling her eyes out and using my arm as a stress ball.
 
I think The Hunger Games movies are only ever going to be as good as their source material was. I find their source material to be fairly medicore in its execution, though the core ideas and themes are good. The films thus far don't stray far enough from the source material to really improve on anything, so you get something of a mixed bag when it comes to these adaptions.

That said, this is a very well made, entertaining film. The acting is solid all around, though I think Prim is still a horrible actress, Phillip Seymour Hoffman was picking up a paycheck in his final scene, and Hutcherson has all the down home charisma of a wet paper bag. He's frustratingly and somewhat awkwardly SO right for Peeta, and yet so very wrong at the same time.

The action isn't really anything special this time out, the violence having been pulled back a lot, and the brutality of events (other than that gas which turns people inside out) simply isn't felt, which is disappointing, especially since the film fails to make its characters desensitized to what they must do, especially Katniss. I found the 3D hologram thing kind of silly and perfunctory. Could have done without the killer baboons as well. Aside from that, it's a well paced film, does a good job developing the themes of the franchise, often in fairly subtle ways, and furthering the stories of the characters involved. I liked the glimpses of riots and unrest, and the behind the scenes plotting of Snow and Plutarch. That, and the lengths that one of them is willing to go to bring about change, was an element I'm glad they added to the film VS the book. I enjoyed Effie's "evolution", and thought that Banks was VERY good this time out. Sutherland was ice cold as Snow, just pitch perfect; there's a moment where he does something almost imperceptible with his eyes that is just fantastic. And of course, Jennifer Lawrence is good once again as Katniss, though she doesn't bring anything new or particularly nuanced to the role that wasn't in the previous film. I was a little less impressed with her in CATCHING FIRE, and felt like Katniss was a lot more melodramatic and less natural in her performance, but she's still very good in the role. Claflin is a solid Finn, and I really dug Joanna in her few key moments. While I get what they were going for, after being well paced throughout, I did think the film ended a little too abruptly and without a satisfying denoument.

I was struck by the way the second film more or less relegated the tributes to the back burner in favor of "Arena VS Heroes". It was an interesting approach, and while I remember it being there to some extent in the book, it was a lot more unbalanced here. The "love triangle" is really more an afterthought, and much like Peeta, is more or less as useless here as it was in the book.
 
I personally felt the action is better on every level in this film. Better technically and better as far as cinematic intensity goes. The only tense moment in the first film was the very start of the games. Nothing after that met those standards.

From very start of the games when the had to swim to the cornucopia, to the gas, the baboons, the spinning clock...it was all amazingly well realized. It felt more dangerous an unpredictable.
 
I'll add my two points to the issue of PG-13 vs. Rated R:

I understand where you are coming from, jmc. You want to more of the consequences of violence and of this world conveyed more through the games visually. You believe that making it R would make it more powerful. I'm not going to say that it will, nor will I say that it won't because honestly, it would depend on the director.

I say that because let's say this movie is R. With R, you run the risk of not having a filter (Yes, I know NC-17 exists but that's rarely used for violence), and without that filter, you risk the chance of actually diluting the themes of the movie and placing more of the emphasis and shift some (not all) of the audience focus from ''Can Katnis Survive'' to ''How violent can they go?'' and making the violence more of the appealing factor of the movie. We've seen that happen with Battle Royale, a movie known more for its violence it is than its themes of survival, fear of the young among other themes in addition to many other films that end up with misaimed fandom due to a visual misinterpretation of the subject matter.

In short, my answer is it depends on the director. But keep this in mind, and it probbaly definitely has been said. There's no way in hell these movies would ever have been R due to who the main demographic of this audience is.

Oh I understand there's a balance required completely. A director can easily overstep that line and throw the story into a mere violence spectacle. That said the opposite can also happen where a director is forced to dilute the story in order to fit within the boundaries of the rating system. My problem I guess actually comes down to the US rating system. There's this absurd gap of 4 years between two ratings in PG13 and R. Down here we have equivalent ratings but also have another '15' rating for films that don't quite fit the mold for either, it came about because films that were being given ridiculous ratings for slightly more violent and mature content. THG is the type of film that is too mature for a PG13 rating, but not so mature to be given an R rating, it's actually perfect for a '15' rating but unfortunately there isn't the will or desire to change the rating status quo in the US. I'm 100% sure a ratings change, either the introduction of a 15 rating or a lowering of the R rating will be better and beneficial for everyone.
 
Great movie, great performances, great pacing. Villains made me hate them which is something the first didn't. No shaky cam which was great, the games were more intense and more interesting. The ending could have been better but I don't think it was done greatly. Not bad but not great. Really my only complaint is too many scenes at night, especially the baboon attack. It was hard to see what was going on because it was just a bit too dark. Really great movie though, thankfully the writers were able to make the second good because the book sucked. This gives me hope for.the third because that book sucked too. 9/10 easily oh and I hope Wb was watching that guy who played Finnick, perfect for Aquaman

That would have just been an issue with your theatre, because there was absolutely no issue when I saw the film.
 
I also loved the CG and set design of the Capitol. Even the hotel they used for the Tributes is beautiful; I couldn't tell if it was CGI or a real place. Same thing with the exterior set for the Tributes intro and Snow's speeches.
 
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.

You don't understand. No one is saying that the movie as it is now should have been rated R. They are saying the movie would have been better if it was rated R and then it would have been able to show a lot more violence and adult themes.

Regardless of whether they are correct or not the point is irrelevant because there's no way the studio would throw away millions by making it rated R for the sake of "more impact".
 
spoilers


I'm surprised more people aren't disappointed with the ending. Having read the books I figured it would be somewhat controversial. Not just for the obvious reasons(see matrix/pirates..etc) but for the fact that they copped out of a games winner.

That being said I'm not surprised many people are enjoying the rest of the plot, it's juicy stuff and Francis Lawrence has more cinema in him than the last guy. This is the hit his career needed, though he should have cut and run because adapting that next book (cut in two) is going to ruin him. Focusing on the stadium danger and not so much the rival tribute danger gave the producers the opportunity to show more acceptable violence. Evil smoke works better for kids than half the stuff in the first film. Also this plot handles things in a more versatile way: it's not just katniss running from fire, but crazy smoke with a mind of it's own annnnnd aquaman carrying cat lady whilst dead weight peeta is...
how could this not be more engaging than the last.

So much is lost within the thought bubbles in these adaptations. The transformation of the Effie stuff in relation to the way katniss sees them. Considering where that goes in the future, it's a damn shame imo. I prey they go into Haymitch's games experience in the next one.
 
Last edited:
Wasn't there also a subplot about Haymitch making the rounds in the Capitol, trying to get support for Katniss and Peeta in the book?
 
Wasn't there also a subplot about Haymitch making the rounds in the Capitol, trying to get support for Katniss and Peeta in the book?
Yea, but I can see the rational for cutting that. Not only is it not pivotal but it's another carry over from the previous film.
 
Oh I understand there's a balance required completely. A director can easily overstep that line and throw the story into a mere violence spectacle. That said the opposite can also happen where a director is forced to dilute the story in order to fit within the boundaries of the rating system. My problem I guess actually comes down to the US rating system. There's this absurd gap of 4 years between two ratings in PG13 and R. Down here we have equivalent ratings but also have another '15' rating for films that don't quite fit the mold for either, it came about because films that were being given ridiculous ratings for slightly more violent and mature content. THG is the type of film that is too mature for a PG13 rating, but not so mature to be given an R rating, it's actually perfect for a '15' rating but unfortunately there isn't the will or desire to change the rating status quo in the US. I'm 100% sure a ratings change, either the introduction of a 15 rating or a lowering of the R rating will be better and beneficial for everyone.

All I honestly have to say is that no system will be perfect. I've said this in another thread, but introducing a 15 rating will help in some ways, but it will also create newer problems. Will PG-13 be as appealing a rating or will that be dead weight if PG-15 becomes a rating (kinda like how a G rating is pretty much dead weight)? Will Rated R still have the same appeal? What would be the line between PG-13 and PG-15? How much blood is too much blood?

I don't think a PG-15 rating would be better. I do think lowering the R Rating and making NC-17 more useful would be a better idea. Literally the only thing that separates them is sex and I think it's ridiculous. People can read if there's strong sexual content in the movie so I'd be all for completely changing NC-17. Lower the R rating to 15 and change NC-17 to NC-18 to distinguish themselves from the old rating.
 
Last edited:
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).
 
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).

While watching the movie, I just couldn't believe how much a father/son could look and talk and emulate eachother so well as Donald Sutherland and his son Kiefer. Yeah, I know Kiefer was not in the movie, but Donald had that sinister quality going on Kiefer had in Lost Boys.
 
I wasn't a fan of the first film nor have I read the books, but this was a surprisingly good movie. Great even and easily the best film I've seen this year.
 
I absolutely love Donald Sutherland (the man is seriously one of the finest actors of our time), but I felt like his character was too one-dimensionally evil (as I mentioned in my review), which disappointed me.
 
Has nobody watched this movie on the Hype? This thread is surprisingly inactive.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,286
Messages
22,079,298
Members
45,880
Latest member
Heartbeat
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"