Let me start off by saying that I was not thoroughly impressed with either of my viewings of the first Hunger Games film. The consistent shaky-cam really got to me, the pacing was poor at times, and certain elements cut out from the book turned me off a bit. But I read and enjoyed the book. It didn't wow me in the way that it did many of my peers, but I found it to be an entertaining read.
The same goes for Catching Fire, the second Hunger Games book. I consumed it in less than a day, enjoyed it, and moved on. So when I was told that not only were they exponentially increasing the budget for the film adaptation of Catching Fire, but also bringing the Imax cameras into the picture, I wasn't entirely sure what to expect. I mean, just the idea of getting another glimpse into the fascinating world of Imax footage was enough for me to preorder a ticket, so clearly I was sold. And my expectations got even higher as I saw how excited my peers were for the movie, and suddenly I realized that I too was incredibly to see how this movie unfolded.
And it was great. Easily one of the most satisfying pictures I've seen all year, and one of the most thrilling theater experiences I've had the pleasure of seeing in a really long time.
Catching Fire, for those who don't know, essentially revolves around the uprising that was hinted at during a few scenes of The Hunger Games, inspired by the relationship between Katniss, our main heroine, and a young girl, Rue. It details the struggle that the government, situated in the conveniently named Capital, has try to contain the unrest brewing in the poverty stricken outlying states. They try their best to use the popularity of Katniss and her partner Peeta to help calm things down, but it fails outright and they pretty much throw in the towel, tossing all of the prior victors of the Hunger Games into the arena in order to get rid of them and squash any sense of hope the people had of taking back their freedom.
The film runs almost two and a half hours, slightly longer than it's predecessor, with almost an hour set in the arena of the actual Hunger Games. Astonishingly, the pacing problems I had with the first film were essentially eliminated. There was not a single point during Catching Fire where I caught myself looking at my watch, wondering when the credits would roll. Instead, there is this constant pulsating feel of energy, generating momentum and keeping us all engaged. When the credits rolled on The Hunger Games, I honestly could have cared less if they made another one. When the credits rolled for Catching Fire, I desperately wanted to see what happened next, and clearly so did the rest of the audience. We all clapped in immense satisfaction.
Performances were top notch, with a cast of supporting characters that brought an unlikely sense of lightheartedness to the film - especially Jena Malone's bitterly sarcastic character, who brings a wealth of comedy to a couple scenes that prove to be extremely memorable. Phillip Seymour Hoffman brought all of the weight of an oscar winning actor to his role of Pluttarch Heavensbee, balancing gracefully a character brimming with intelligence as well as an embracing sense of destruction, dancing delightfully with Donald Sutherland's cold, unpleasant presence as President Snow. I even enjoyed seeing Elizabeth Banks return as Effie, a character who seemed entirely obnoxious and over the top in the first film, regardless of how she was portrayed in the source novel. In this movie, her over the top outfits and makeup make her seem more human than she appeared in The Hunger Games, and her character followed suit, showing off a significant amount of emotion that I wasn't totally sure she was capable of prior. Other memorable performances were given by Amanda Plumber, Jefferey Wright, Sam Clafin, Lenny Kravitz, and Woody Harrelson in their respective roles, and of course, both Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson played well together on the screen, as I'm sure you could have guessed.
Ultimately, I feel that this movie is twice the film the The Hunger Games was, with powerful performance, more coordinated action sequences, and far more interesting characters thrown in to the mix. It also serves as what I believe is a more faithful adaptation of the source material, leaving out far less than The Hunger Games did. My congratulations go out to Francis Lawrence and his entire cast and crew, as they have probably made the most entertaining blockbuster to come out this year, topping the likes of Star Trek, Iron Man 3, and Thor 2, something that I do not say lightly.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is a movie that I heartily recommend, as one of the year's biggest and best action blockbusters.
Tech Talk:
Approximately 50 minutes of the film was shot using Imax cameras on 15 perf 70mm film, giving an aspect ratio of 1.44:1, lasting from when Katniss enters the arena for the 75th Hunger Games, to about 5 minutes before credits roll. This sequence provides for one of the most exhilarating uses of Imax yet, ditching the constant switching of aspect ratios as seen in The Dark Knight Rises and Star Trek Into Darkness for a more continuous, and ultimately more satisfying Imax experience. Digital Imax theaters will see a slightly less open 1.90:1 aspect ratio when this switch occurs, however this does not diminish the effect of the Imax sequence. Therefore, because of this elongated sequence, I ask, no, I beg of you to see the movie in Imax in order to experience the film the way it was intended to be seen.
The same goes for Catching Fire, the second Hunger Games book. I consumed it in less than a day, enjoyed it, and moved on. So when I was told that not only were they exponentially increasing the budget for the film adaptation of Catching Fire, but also bringing the Imax cameras into the picture, I wasn't entirely sure what to expect. I mean, just the idea of getting another glimpse into the fascinating world of Imax footage was enough for me to preorder a ticket, so clearly I was sold. And my expectations got even higher as I saw how excited my peers were for the movie, and suddenly I realized that I too was incredibly to see how this movie unfolded.
And it was great. Easily one of the most satisfying pictures I've seen all year, and one of the most thrilling theater experiences I've had the pleasure of seeing in a really long time.
Catching Fire, for those who don't know, essentially revolves around the uprising that was hinted at during a few scenes of The Hunger Games, inspired by the relationship between Katniss, our main heroine, and a young girl, Rue. It details the struggle that the government, situated in the conveniently named Capital, has try to contain the unrest brewing in the poverty stricken outlying states. They try their best to use the popularity of Katniss and her partner Peeta to help calm things down, but it fails outright and they pretty much throw in the towel, tossing all of the prior victors of the Hunger Games into the arena in order to get rid of them and squash any sense of hope the people had of taking back their freedom.
The film runs almost two and a half hours, slightly longer than it's predecessor, with almost an hour set in the arena of the actual Hunger Games. Astonishingly, the pacing problems I had with the first film were essentially eliminated. There was not a single point during Catching Fire where I caught myself looking at my watch, wondering when the credits would roll. Instead, there is this constant pulsating feel of energy, generating momentum and keeping us all engaged. When the credits rolled on The Hunger Games, I honestly could have cared less if they made another one. When the credits rolled for Catching Fire, I desperately wanted to see what happened next, and clearly so did the rest of the audience. We all clapped in immense satisfaction.
Performances were top notch, with a cast of supporting characters that brought an unlikely sense of lightheartedness to the film - especially Jena Malone's bitterly sarcastic character, who brings a wealth of comedy to a couple scenes that prove to be extremely memorable. Phillip Seymour Hoffman brought all of the weight of an oscar winning actor to his role of Pluttarch Heavensbee, balancing gracefully a character brimming with intelligence as well as an embracing sense of destruction, dancing delightfully with Donald Sutherland's cold, unpleasant presence as President Snow. I even enjoyed seeing Elizabeth Banks return as Effie, a character who seemed entirely obnoxious and over the top in the first film, regardless of how she was portrayed in the source novel. In this movie, her over the top outfits and makeup make her seem more human than she appeared in The Hunger Games, and her character followed suit, showing off a significant amount of emotion that I wasn't totally sure she was capable of prior. Other memorable performances were given by Amanda Plumber, Jefferey Wright, Sam Clafin, Lenny Kravitz, and Woody Harrelson in their respective roles, and of course, both Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson played well together on the screen, as I'm sure you could have guessed.
Ultimately, I feel that this movie is twice the film the The Hunger Games was, with powerful performance, more coordinated action sequences, and far more interesting characters thrown in to the mix. It also serves as what I believe is a more faithful adaptation of the source material, leaving out far less than The Hunger Games did. My congratulations go out to Francis Lawrence and his entire cast and crew, as they have probably made the most entertaining blockbuster to come out this year, topping the likes of Star Trek, Iron Man 3, and Thor 2, something that I do not say lightly.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is a movie that I heartily recommend, as one of the year's biggest and best action blockbusters.
Tech Talk:
Approximately 50 minutes of the film was shot using Imax cameras on 15 perf 70mm film, giving an aspect ratio of 1.44:1, lasting from when Katniss enters the arena for the 75th Hunger Games, to about 5 minutes before credits roll. This sequence provides for one of the most exhilarating uses of Imax yet, ditching the constant switching of aspect ratios as seen in The Dark Knight Rises and Star Trek Into Darkness for a more continuous, and ultimately more satisfying Imax experience. Digital Imax theaters will see a slightly less open 1.90:1 aspect ratio when this switch occurs, however this does not diminish the effect of the Imax sequence. Therefore, because of this elongated sequence, I ask, no, I beg of you to see the movie in Imax in order to experience the film the way it was intended to be seen.
