my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Author Topic: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire Marcel Birgelen Film God Posts: 3357 From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands Registered: Feb 2012 posted 11-23-2013 08:01 PM                     Tonight I got to see the recent installment of The Hunger Games, together with my girlfriend. She insisted on eating at a certain sushi place, so that limited the options of places to see it. We ended up seeing it in Digital IMAX. To me, that hurt a little, because most of this movie was shot in scope, is released in 4K and also features an Atmos soundtrack... The presentation was average D-IMAX fare: Overly loud, "non-retinaness" and screen-door effects included in the premium ticket price, but at least the picture was bright... Besides the mediocre presentation, there was one thing that really bothered me, I call it: Aspect Ratio Hell In the past it was the norm that the director/cinematographer/studio choose ONE SINGLE aspect ratio for the end product. In some cases, the end product was "open matte", so in that case, the projectionist choose the best aspect ratio, but still, that didn't change during the presentation. Besides technical limitations, I guess that's also part of common sense. Nowadays, it seems to be OK to switch around aspect ratios as they please, especially in IMAX presentations. And, the IMAX version of Catching Fire did exactly do that, although it wasn't as crazy as in other features like the last Batman or Mission Impossible movie. It went from scope to 16:9 as soon as "the games" started and went back to scope for the short period afterwards. From the grain in the picture (that transcends more like digital noise), it was quite clear to me that not all "screen fillers" were shot in IMAX. So, even if you still give a damn about proper masking, it's clear that today's movie makers don't... Let's get back to the movie itself. I didn't read the books, but my girlfriend did. She read all three of them and she pretty much liked it, she also liked the first movie. She's actually the prime reason I even watched it. No, I didn't expect much from this movie. That preconception is entirely based on the previous movie, which I found to be utterly boring. It started with the Reaping (the lottery, where they pull in the candidates for the Games), followed by some dead boring training scenes and then *finally* the Games, that also were mostly boring... Also, the cinematography of the last movie was just plain terrible. The shaky cam nonsense really put me off. So, after I saw the teasers and trailers of this Catching Fire thing unfold, I was becoming afraid that I would be facing a repetition of last years 2.5 hours borefest. But, I was pleasantly surprised. The second installment of this series far outshines the first one. Which, in the current universe of sequels, is a rather unique experience. As the victors of the previous Hunger Games tour the totalitarian nation of Panem as part of their victory tour, we get to learn this fictive "universe" much better. We learn that there is a revolution on the uprising, that was ignited by a spark of hope, after what happened during the last Hunger Games. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is slowly becoming the symbol of this revolution. President Snow (Donald Sutherland), together with the new gamemaker Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), devices a plan to get rid of her, without igniting a new revolution: For the next Hunger Games (which happen to be the 75th), the Tributes will be reaped from the existing pool of victors... The ensuing situation opens much more conflicts than in the first movie. Also, the characters gain more depth and become more likable in the process. And although the movie still spends considerable time on training exercises and then the Games itself, it's more engaging this way. Probably due to the fact that the sequels were not yet secured, the ending of the first movie was rather closed. This one, rather obviously ends on a cliffhanger. In overall, the movie was not nearly as boring as the first one, I actually enjoyed watching it. In addition to that, there is more good news: Due to the increased budget, they were now able to afford some Steadicam equipment. The end result is a far more stable picture, the shaky cam of yesteryear is largely gone.  |  IP: Logged Terry Lynn-Stevens Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1081 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Dec 2012 posted 11-24-2013 12:24 PM                     I can support the scope to IMAX format aspect shift, I think it is kind of cool and brings fun to the movie going experience. I do think that the days of the IMAX footage are pretty much done, there really wasn't all that much hype about the IMAX scenes in Catching Fire and as long as IMAX is not promoting the 15/70 experience when applicable, then it really makes no difference. What the Dark Knight and even Dark Knight Rises did was a once in a life time experience where even Warner got in on the hype and promoted the 15/70 experience on their websites etc. It really is too bad that IMAX does not see how important it would be to preserve this type of presentation for one-offs such as Catching Fire. I can live with digital IMAX for 95% of the time if they would just give us the film based experience when the director filmed it that way. I am surprised that IMAX put a 15/70 print in the IMAX Sydney location, they have recently installed the digital IMAX set up but kept the older projectors installed. One 15/70 print in each major market would be enough.  |  IP: Logged Terry Lynn-Stevens Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1081 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Dec 2012 posted 12-03-2013 07:39 AM                     I got to finally see Catching Fire. Although I liked the first Hunger Games better, the second part was pretty much the same movie until the final 20 minutes, then it took a few twists and turns which gave the movie a pretty damn good ending. I saw the movie in a purpose built IMAX auditorium that was located inside a large multiplex. The presentation was digital at this location as this location no longer presents in 15/70. It really is a shame that this movie was not presented in 70mm, it would of made good use of the IMAX scenes.  |  IP: Logged Sam Graham AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues. Posts: 1431 From: Waukee, IA Registered: Dec 2004 posted 12-05-2013 01:45 AM                        CINEMA: Megaplex at Valley Fair, West Valley, UT AUDITORIUM: 1 PRESENTATION: Mystery meat digital/Dolby ATMOS PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Who brings a toddler to a 9:30pm showing, let alone to a movie about killing? RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four) THE PLOT: A regime tries to avoid a revolution. Wackiness ensues. quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens Although I liked the first Hunger Games better, the second part was pretty much the same movie until the final 20 minutes, then it took a few twists and turns which gave the movie a pretty damn good ending. Yes. Exactly my feelings. The only thing I have to add is that the guards reminded me of storm troopers and made me think of this as a really good Star Wars prequel placed some time after the third one and before "A New Hope". Think about it. Throw Darth Vader into the mix and maybe some space ships and this would fit right in.  |  IP: Logged Terry Lynn-Stevens Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1081 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Dec 2012 posted 12-05-2013 07:34 AM                     Sam, I notice that you watched it in Atmos. How was the sound?  |  IP: Logged Sam Graham AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues. Posts: 1431 From: Waukee, IA Registered: Dec 2004 posted 12-06-2013 11:11 PM                        The best aspects of the Atmos soundtrack were the sounds of night critters surrounding you. That was when you kind of became conscious of the full surround experience.  |  IP: Logged Terry Lynn-Stevens Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1081 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Registered: Dec 2012 posted 12-07-2013 11:37 AM                     Same here, the night critters and anything in the jungle once the arena scenes begun were where the sound from the surrounds really kicked in.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.