![]() ![]() In the novel, this is okay because it's from Katniss' point of view. In the first film, we get only fleeting glimpses of this menacing character (which, I should add, does mimic the books). Take for example the character of President Snow. In some ways, it is allowed to because now we are familiar with the premises and characters, but the film goes beyond that to an extra level. In Catching Fire, we get a much more fluid arc which gives us the perfect amount of set-up before dropping us into the second installment of The Games, which now have considerably more meaning than just staying alive. Everyone wants to see people fighting, not sappy emotional moments from characters we don't even know yet. The lead up to The Games felt like a formality that they needed to get through so they could show us the action. Many things felled rushed, especially the backstory for the characters which was more or less only seen in brief flashbacks and allusions. In the first film, one of the key issues was the pacing. We got what we needed thanks to this wonderful sequel. It is a fun and interesting concept which matures with the audience from a usual action-filled romp into a political thriller which can inspire almost anyone. The Hunger Games is a series which, conceptually, deserves a well put-together film series. After an exciting, if not entirely fleshed out, first film, Catching Fire delivers on all the promises of intense action, compelling and intriguing story-line and dynamic relationships between the characters that we were all waiting for. Thankfully, Catching Fire falls squarely in the first category. ![]() On one side you have The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and The The Dark Knight (2008), and on the other you have Jaws II (1978) and Terminator Genysis (2015).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |