MovieChat Forums > The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) Discussion > LOVED the first one, this one... not so ...

LOVED the first one, this one... not so much.


I've seen the first one twice; Once when it first came out on Blu-ray and once last week. I loved it both times (A lot of the time my views of films change after the second viewing, but not with The Hunger Games)

I watched Catching Fire earlier today and I thought, while still very good, it was not as good as the first film. Mainly because of the way it relentlessly bashes you over the head with explanations of what's going on in this world. Everything that was done in the first film was just the right amount, you get it and it's done brilliantly, in Catching Fire they feel the need to explain things that happened in the last film over and over, like the conversation between President Snow and Katniss near the beginning of this movie, I did not like that scene because all it is is saying everything that really does not need to be said.

I just mean like, take the Crane thing for example, how many times did they say in this film that he had basically been killed? At least three, once early on, once when Heavensbee is dancing with Katniss, and then again when Katniss strings up a dummy of Crane (which then also for some reason had to have his name written on it, as if we didn't already know.) All of this is completely unnecessary, the scene at the end of the first film where he is taken to a room with a bowl of poison berries was enough. It was done perfectly, and should have been left at that.

It just dumbs down everything for the audience this time as if we're stupid and are not paying attention.


Another reason I didn't like it as much as the first is that Catching Fire just seems a bit too... Hollywood? I don't know, it's just that the first film felt so real and genuine and (don't take the piss because of me using this word) gritty. Catching Fire just seemed a bit.. generic, too polished compared to the first film.

Also, nothing much really happens, I mean the first hour and a half is just the same stuff that was happening in the first one (Katniss and Peeta having to do like tours and *beep* and then we get another hunger games (that only last like, what, a day or two) and the people rebelling also started in the first film, so yeah, nothing new happens until the end when the rebellion starts - this whole movie could just be skipped until the end when it kicks off Mockingjay.

reply

I dunno if you read the books, but Katniss wasn't aware that Crane was executed for his actions in the 74th Games. I mean, it was clear for the audience in the first film but she was still in the dark. The Seneca part at the party was just a joke that Katniss caught on and the dummy part was just a symbol (Katniss just paints his name on the dummy in the book, not his hair and beard like in the movie; his appearance was one of the more recognizable parts of him in the films and non-readers would be confused if she just labeled his name "Wait- who's Seneca Crane again? Oh, he's the beard dude!").

Oooh, it you think nothing happens in this film, wait until you see Mockingjay Part 1. But I don't think these films aren meant to be standalones, just pieces in one, over-arching story.

reply

The scene with Snow presented new information to Katniss. That while the Capitol folks bought the star-crossed-lovers
story, the districts saw it as a rebellion. And he told Katniss that she and Peeta had to convince them that it was real.

The styles of Garry Ross and Francis Lawrence are certainly different. Ross gave the first film a more intimate feel.

reply