The Hunger
Games was a huge box office hit two years ago. Millions of people watch Katniss
Everdeens fight for survival against other children. It was a cruel game for
the rich for the simple sake of enjoying themselves. A brutal world as portrayed
in other media like “Battle Royal”. The novel adaptation was decent at best,
but for the second installment everything is different. Most prominent change was
the director from Gary Ross to Francis Lawrence. Who thought this would change
everything about the movie… in the best ways!
The first
movie had many flaws. The biggest for me was the crappy cgi-effects, that felt
like ones for low budget movies. They were simply not suitable for a movie of
such potential and felt like the producer tried to put barely money into this
project. The second mistake was the photographic direction. There were so many
scenes which were barely watchable through all this extreme shaking. Both
critics are now gone. Francis Lawrance knows how to handle an epic story well.
No more shaking, instead he uses quite fantastic pictures to portray Katniss
struggle. You really can feel epicness in some of the shots, which was never
like that in the first one. Also the cgi-effects are done better, but not on
par with high profilic movies like marvel ones.
In
conclusion: The movies does everything better than the first one and adapts the
novel faithfully. Unfortunately the second book itself wasn’t that good and that’s
the problem of the movie. The directors did the best he could in a small time
frame, which is quite impressive seeing how many flaws the production had for
him. Everyone who wants to watch a good Young Adult movie or liked the first
one will like this one.
LOL, I totally agree with you about the crying. The crying scenes got old after a while and lost any impact about halfway through the film. Overall, I liked Catching Fire, but it didn't blow me away or anything. I am deeming it one of those 'Reaction Movies.' I mean, what is with these directors/editors that think they must show a reaction shot after EVERY SINGLE line of dialog? So annoying. It slows down the story and it's like telling the audience, "Hey, we're going to show you this character's face for a whole ten seconds, because you're supposed to laugh/be sad/be surprised/be shocked here." NOOO! We're not idiots. Let the dialog and action speak for itself. Maybe they just wanted to get their 9 million dollars' worth out of Jennifer Lawrence, or maybe it was the script, I don't know. And in the books, Katniss' character is really feisty and downright ornery most of the time, but I don't think the directors have portrayed this very well at all. In the movies, Katniss just runs around saving/protecting people. They don't show much of her inner conflicts (i.e. her resentment toward her mom; having to choose between two guys, etc). The producers might have been worried that her character wouldn't be sympathetic enough for audiences, but that's how she is the books. Katniss is not very sympathetic int he beginning of HG. I only come to like her gradually.
ReplyDeleteThe inner thoughts process is something the movies really miss and I actually don't know how to reproduce these without showing her face a lot more and giving her some mind speaking. Then the viewers would more understand her struggles and decisions. Its not like I don't understand her but it would be easier if they explained a bit of her changing attitude a bit more.
DeleteAs stated Katniss is never the nice girl who fights for humanity. All the time she doubts everyone and can't decide anything herself. Hamitch and Peta keep her alive. She is better than Bella from Twilight, but the only female character that gives off some fighting spirit is Hermione from Harry Potter, without acting like a total b*tch.
Great post about Hunger Games. I just saw the movie and I really enjoyed it.
ReplyDeleteCheers.
Thanks! I really appreciate you compliment. :-)
Delete