Movies you just recently watched

[Snagglebee]

I watched a raisin in the sun lately.

[Adsolution]

Whoops, sorry emshomar, I accidentally hit Submit instead of Preview and didn't notice, so I'm reposting this in its full form:

I watched "Hunger Games: Catching Fire," and for the most part, it just felt like the first all over again, but with different contexts and outcomes, whether that's a good or bad thing is up to you.

Having just come back from the theatre after seeing it now, I completely disagree, and not on whether it's a good or bad thing, but in whether it actually is a rehash or not, which I in no way see it as in the slightest, and to see it as a rehash I, personally, find to be the result of very superficial involvement of the viewer (at best). The only direct similarities the two shared were that they both contained the Hunger Games, but even then, both Hunger Games were very different:

- In the first installment, the actual Games took up the majority of the film, and were by far the main focus. None of the characters knew what they were up against, so their only incentive was to survive by whatever means, which, for most, meant ruthlessly killing like the inexperienced children that they are. The people were divided mostly into those who had the will to kill for their lives, and those who were too gentle to harm anyone and had no idea what to do. It was just another regular Hunger Games year, [until Katniss and Peeta, two people caught in the middle of those groups, finally did something groundbreakingly controversial.]

- In Catching Fire, the Games only comprised about the final third of the film, and the large majority of the focus was on the politics and development going on outside. Since, as their 75th anniversary special, [all the tributes were selected out of the winners of the last 24 Games, as opposed to the random 12-18-year-olds they pick for regular Games], most of them were considerably older and more mature, all of them were either incredibly intelligent, creative or powerful, most of them knew eachother very well already, and none were too happy at all about having to put their lives on the line a second time. The Games weren't so much a matter of survival as they were a collective effort to put a stop to them and fend off the far more extreme environmental hazards present, something clearly in place because the designers were partially aware of this; they had to force a victory within people who would naturally have none of it anymore to diminish hope in the public for a revolution after what happened the previous year, [and in the end, the experienced group outsmarted the designers.] - Of course, some were still in it to be the survivor, but it was very obvious that this was the minority and not really the point, as most of them were dealt with almost as soon as it started, as it became immediately evident who was on whose side, resulting in the allied group pummelled the lone wannabe-winners.

Normally, sequels have a tendency to completely revamp their setting, but rehash the plot, style and progression very closely. In Catching Fire, one of the reasons I feel it performs so incredibly strongly as a sequel is that the Games are still there (the hook, the chorus, the thing everyone remembers and highlights the series), but everything that took place within them and surrounding them are completely different, and on top of that, it wasn't even the primary focus of the film, rather moreso the conclusion/climax, which again creates a considerably new feel yet also an incredibly strong tie to the first that it couldn't exist without.


Now, on the note of how I felt about the movie:

In my opinion, for a sequel to The Hunger Games, Catching Fire is literally perfect, I do not think they could have done one single thing better than they did. Even from the standpoint of a standalone movie, it's extremely, extremely good. Not only do I feel it succeeds at acting as a dynamic and involved middle section in the overarching story, it succeeds at being just as brilliant as the first one, and I find it to be a very rare thing for both of those points to succeed so well at once.

Aside from a very minor complaint of mine (sometimes I think that the movie assumes you're almost too smart - as opposed to most movies of this kind assuming that you're a moron - with a couple scenes (not more than one or two) leaving me a little confused as to what they were implying), I quite literally perceive there to be no flaws (in every filmmaking respect) whatsoever in either of them.

With two lengthy, adventurous, grand, evocative, intelligent, and incredibly enveloping films that constantly succeed in (and surpass) doing everything right as both films and a franchise, I personally feel this to be one of the few best film franchises to have spawned in my lifetime.

[Keane]

Aye, sounds like a brilliant movie to me then. Will be going out to watch it next week. Have you read the books? I'm curious to see how they are putting it on screen this time as, in my opinion, the first one is one of the best book-to-movie movies ever, perfectly capturing the books atmosphere and not leaving out major aspects nor adding in unnecessary nonsense. Anyone who has read the books can probably agree that Catching Fire is with no doubt the best of the trilogy so I hope it lives up to my expectations again.

I just hope the third film won't be a let down. I mean the final entry is a fantastic book but definitely the worst of the three. I also feel like the first 150 pages are not movie material and I truly hope it doesn't end up like Deathly Hallows Part 1 for the first half of it all.

[Adsolution]

I've only read the first book, and I completely agree. From what I've heard from other people, Catching Fire is actually better in movie form than it is in book form. At the same time though, I also often see people arguing about which book was better, some claiming it to be just as good but lot more 'dynamic' and in-depth, while others claim it to be a mess with confusedly portrayed emotions. I can't say for myself as I've not read Catching Fire and Mockingjay, just relaying the info, but I'd love to hear your input on what the book is like.

[Master]

Hm, to each their own, I guess I've just not really been engaging with it.

[Adsolution]

To each their own in regards to fondness of it, of course, I would never say otherwise. I'm simply giving some concise reasons as to why it isn't a rehash of the first film with 'contexts and outcomes changed', because anything considered, it quite factually isn't in the slightest, and I think that believing it to be would likely be moreorless attributed to having watched the two installments a year and a half apart, resulting in a blurred image of the first, whilst simultaneously being so uninterested in both to the point of not following the plot on anything higher than a very basic level. I'm not saying that that's the case necessarily, but it's the only thing I can fathom when coming to that conclusion.

[Master]

Yeah, you're probably right, I don't know what's been with me lately when it's come to movies, but I don't really enjoy them in the same way I used to. Somehow, I get frightened when I have to go to the cinema, it's a peculiar trait I've picked up, and I rarely watch movies with the others when they're on TV.

[Adsolution]

Interesting, what kind of frightened, if I may ask?

[Master]

I get paranoid almost, as if something bad will happen, it's funny, because I don't have a fear of going out, yet whenever I go to the cinema I get such a feeling.

[Adsolution]

Heh, I suppose that's reasonable, given how cinemas have a very specific and prominent atmosphere, probably making it easy for certain moods to get tied in with it.

I've always found theatres and cinemas to be some of my favourite places to just be, as a stage (performing piano and whatnot) used to be the only way I could express myself, and the idea of seeing something for the first time in a cinema for instance just feels like an intimate experience; the darkness of the room with everyone there for close to the same reason makes me feel at home.

[Master]

Hm, that's an interesting take on the movie experience, I prefer the cosiness I get when I'm alone at home, I like being with people who share my views, but in the case of a movie theatre, there's also prats aplenty, and I don't feel all that comfortable being stuck in a chair for a long time.

[Reese Riverson]

I haven't been in a movie theater in years, and I don't have much desire to go to one either. One of the reasons being what Master had just said.

I'm plenty happy with my own home theater system for movies and games. I bought a new movie recently I need to watch, called Turbo.

[Keane]

I like to go out to the cinema every two weeks or so. In my opinion the big screen adds more to the experience and makes it come more alive. Especially with 3D. A movie like Hugo does not come across equally spectacular on a normal TV screen.

[Master]

Hm, I can watch 3D movies, but I don't really get much out of it barring a slight migraine, so I don't tend to go for the 3D if the option is there.

[Reese Riverson]

I don't really like wearing special glasses just for 3D. Plus I already wear eye glasses, so I don't imagine it would be comfortable wearing two. I have no 3D TV, but meh. Doesn't matter.

[Master]

Hm, I checked out the 3D on the 3DS, and while it worked, my eyes felt really tired after looking at it, so I turned it off, seems like my eyes aren't good at maintaining 3D effects.

[Reese Riverson]

You're not supposed to have the 3D effect full blast, if that's what you are doing. The slider determines the viewing distance. I keep mine at minimal or a hair over.

[Master]

No, I did adjust it accordingly, I just really couldn't maintain it without feeling some bad feeling, I'm afraid.

[Reese Riverson]

I do have a friend who prefers the 3D being minimum or off, which I can't really blame either of you. It can get eye straining, and that's not a wise thing.

[Master]

Indeed, though seeing as I've never owned a 3DS, maybe I just didn't have the time to properly adjust to it, maybe in the future, hm?