Search
Search results
Digital Compositing for Film and Video: Production Workflows and Techniques
7.0
Rate It
Book
Written by senior compositor, technical director and master trainer Steve Wright, this book...
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Doom: Annihilation (2019) in Movies
Jul 19, 2020
Pretty dire
Let’s be honest, the first Doom film was never going to win any Oscars but it at least had a lot of cheesy and fun charm alongside a fairly star studded cast. Sadly this reboot has no such qualities.
To start with, you can tell this is a very low budget film. The whole thing just looks cheap, from the poorly built sets to the costumes and props. It just has an overall feel of a cheap made for TV movie. And then there’s the cast and the script, both of which are incredibly dire. The acting for the most part is terrible, although I did have a soft spot for the rather over the top and hilarious Australian Winslow. One good thing about this is they at least use mostly physical effects, which is probably because the CGI is awful when it is eventually used. That said, some of the physical effects are pretty atrocious too. The creatures when they eventually show up (after the weird zombie like creatures that aren’t Doom in the slightest), they’re obviously just a bloke in a suit and a very badly made suit at that. The creatures aren’t scary, they’re just funny and actually reminded me of the bad guys you used to see on Power Rangers.
There are some films that are so bad they’re good, but sadly this isn’t one of them. This is just plain awful and really didn’t need to be made.
To start with, you can tell this is a very low budget film. The whole thing just looks cheap, from the poorly built sets to the costumes and props. It just has an overall feel of a cheap made for TV movie. And then there’s the cast and the script, both of which are incredibly dire. The acting for the most part is terrible, although I did have a soft spot for the rather over the top and hilarious Australian Winslow. One good thing about this is they at least use mostly physical effects, which is probably because the CGI is awful when it is eventually used. That said, some of the physical effects are pretty atrocious too. The creatures when they eventually show up (after the weird zombie like creatures that aren’t Doom in the slightest), they’re obviously just a bloke in a suit and a very badly made suit at that. The creatures aren’t scary, they’re just funny and actually reminded me of the bad guys you used to see on Power Rangers.
There are some films that are so bad they’re good, but sadly this isn’t one of them. This is just plain awful and really didn’t need to be made.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Leprechaun 4: In Space (1997) in Movies
Nov 15, 2020 (Updated Nov 15, 2020)
I found the first three Leprechaun films to be consistently average, but Leprechaun 4: In Space puts a brutal end to that middle of the road streak and aims straight for the gutter.
Once again, we have a sequel that has absolutely no relation to any of the previous films, is full of unlikable dicks, and has Warwick Davis doing his best to polish a turd, except this time around, there's not a whole lot he can do.
Moving the setting to space is certainly a novelty idea, and a clear indication that this film is not to be taken seriously, but the grandiose idea of spaceships require a half decent budget. The sets look cheap as hell, and the exterior CGI shots of the ship are beneath original PlayStation cutscene levels.
The characters are a bunch of misogynistic, unfunny tossers that aren't relatable in any shape or form. This movie goes in hard with the comedy angle, and granted, a few lines actually got me, but it's mostly misfire after misfire. Leprechaun himself is still just about tolerable, but honestly, even Warwick Davis looks done with this shit by now.
There is still some fun to be had with Leprechaun 4, but it's mostly a boring and lazy sequel. If you've seen the first three and are satisfied with the amount of limerick riddled material consumed, then you could probably give this one a skip and just enjoy your day instead.
Once again, we have a sequel that has absolutely no relation to any of the previous films, is full of unlikable dicks, and has Warwick Davis doing his best to polish a turd, except this time around, there's not a whole lot he can do.
Moving the setting to space is certainly a novelty idea, and a clear indication that this film is not to be taken seriously, but the grandiose idea of spaceships require a half decent budget. The sets look cheap as hell, and the exterior CGI shots of the ship are beneath original PlayStation cutscene levels.
The characters are a bunch of misogynistic, unfunny tossers that aren't relatable in any shape or form. This movie goes in hard with the comedy angle, and granted, a few lines actually got me, but it's mostly misfire after misfire. Leprechaun himself is still just about tolerable, but honestly, even Warwick Davis looks done with this shit by now.
There is still some fun to be had with Leprechaun 4, but it's mostly a boring and lazy sequel. If you've seen the first three and are satisfied with the amount of limerick riddled material consumed, then you could probably give this one a skip and just enjoy your day instead.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Jason X (2001) in Movies
Feb 1, 2021
Jason X might be trash, but by God its glorious trash.
At this point, we're in full blown "fuck whatever has happened in the previous films" territory, with liberal splashings of narrative bullshit just to get Jason into a space setting, as he's cryogenically frozen only to be unwittingly thawed 450 years later aboard a spaceship, where he is snapped out of his slumber by teenagers shagging in another room. It's damn good then, that Jason X knows just how silly it is. The first Friday the 13th movie to release in a post Scream landscape, its self awareness gives it a much needed pass, as Jason slashes his way through a suspiciously 2000s looking cast.
The set looks cheap as hell, the CGI is terrible, the script is overspilling with cheesy one liners and puns, most of the characters are generally forgettable or unlikable, but despite all of this, it's an incredibly enjoyable film. Kane Hodder is back (sadly, for the last time movie wise) as Jason and once again cuts an imposing figure (especially when Uber Jason infamously rocks up near the films climax) and just to top it off, there's an inexplicable David Cronenberg cameo near the beginning.
Jason X is obviously flawed, but it's a damn good time, isn't boring, and boasts some decent gore. A two star film that I would recommend to anyone. Final thought - it's weird that Jason has a full head of hair in this...
At this point, we're in full blown "fuck whatever has happened in the previous films" territory, with liberal splashings of narrative bullshit just to get Jason into a space setting, as he's cryogenically frozen only to be unwittingly thawed 450 years later aboard a spaceship, where he is snapped out of his slumber by teenagers shagging in another room. It's damn good then, that Jason X knows just how silly it is. The first Friday the 13th movie to release in a post Scream landscape, its self awareness gives it a much needed pass, as Jason slashes his way through a suspiciously 2000s looking cast.
The set looks cheap as hell, the CGI is terrible, the script is overspilling with cheesy one liners and puns, most of the characters are generally forgettable or unlikable, but despite all of this, it's an incredibly enjoyable film. Kane Hodder is back (sadly, for the last time movie wise) as Jason and once again cuts an imposing figure (especially when Uber Jason infamously rocks up near the films climax) and just to top it off, there's an inexplicable David Cronenberg cameo near the beginning.
Jason X is obviously flawed, but it's a damn good time, isn't boring, and boasts some decent gore. A two star film that I would recommend to anyone. Final thought - it's weird that Jason has a full head of hair in this...
LoganCrews (2861 KP) rated Foodfight! (2012) in Movies
Sep 21, 2020
"𝘈𝘨𝘰𝘯𝘺, 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘮𝘺 𝘭𝘰𝘺𝘢𝘭 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥... 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶."
Anti-cinema. Furry propaganda that bastardizes random corporate logos into hideous background characters for a crude mixture of ripoff film noir, shit-looking 𝘛𝘰𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 and... the Nazi Party? Sort of genius. But also the most compact measurable example of going through the Kübler-Ross five stages of grief. The best thing you can do with butt-ugly, endlessly questionable, ultra-filtered garbaggio like this is not to futilely attempt to reject its offerings into the minds of twisted, twisted individuals - but to fully embrace and accept it as a tonic, to make you feel better about yourself. One big hilariously bad sexual thrust of a children's film that isn't - in any capacity - suitable for children; at one point there's an extended 'steamy' dance routine where Dex Dogtective and Lady X strongly attempt to both fuck *and* kill each other at the same time. Horrible, half-finished food puns like "Let's strawberry jam outta here" and "Frankly my dear, I don't give a Spam" spin back into some kind of stupid subversion. Cold, lifeless, perturbing eyes staring back at you with an ominous silence that makes one want to crawl out of their own skin (pretty sure this triggered my fight-or-flight response multiple times over). Also the last 30 minutes is a sustained barrage of disgustingly rendered CGI puss. A closer experience to 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘎𝘰 𝘵𝘰 𝘋𝘪𝘦 than it thinks.
Anti-cinema. Furry propaganda that bastardizes random corporate logos into hideous background characters for a crude mixture of ripoff film noir, shit-looking 𝘛𝘰𝘺 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 and... the Nazi Party? Sort of genius. But also the most compact measurable example of going through the Kübler-Ross five stages of grief. The best thing you can do with butt-ugly, endlessly questionable, ultra-filtered garbaggio like this is not to futilely attempt to reject its offerings into the minds of twisted, twisted individuals - but to fully embrace and accept it as a tonic, to make you feel better about yourself. One big hilariously bad sexual thrust of a children's film that isn't - in any capacity - suitable for children; at one point there's an extended 'steamy' dance routine where Dex Dogtective and Lady X strongly attempt to both fuck *and* kill each other at the same time. Horrible, half-finished food puns like "Let's strawberry jam outta here" and "Frankly my dear, I don't give a Spam" spin back into some kind of stupid subversion. Cold, lifeless, perturbing eyes staring back at you with an ominous silence that makes one want to crawl out of their own skin (pretty sure this triggered my fight-or-flight response multiple times over). Also the last 30 minutes is a sustained barrage of disgustingly rendered CGI puss. A closer experience to 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘎𝘰 𝘵𝘰 𝘋𝘪𝘦 than it thinks.
Bex Heber (5 KP) rated Good Omens in TV
Jul 12, 2019 (Updated Jul 13, 2019)
I'm a long time Terry Pratchett fan and whilst I haven't read the book, David Tennant and Micheal Sheen were enough of a selling point. They did not dissapoint; the dynamic they have throughout is both entertaining and endearing. However I think this is in large part a credit to the actors rather than the show.
The writing often missed the mark for me, sometimes only by hair but many of the characters never really managed to find their stride. What surprised me most, is that where this was most felt was in dialogue taken directly from the book. Even watching as someone who hadnt read the book I found it noticable and then later confirmed it by reading The Guardian's review. It appears Neil Gaiman was reluctant to take too many artistic liberties, perhaps in tribute to Prattchett but it seemed to hurt the show as a result.
It worked in places, the opening narration felt distinctly and enjoyably Pratchett-esque but even in this case the narration began to become over bearing as it continued to feature heavily in later episodes.
Saying this, I can't pretend I didn't enjoy the show, watching David and Micheal caper around with ridiculous CGI and yellow contacts to boot was always going to be entertaining and there are moments of brilliance, but given the potential of such a ridiculous plot and ensemble, I found the whole thing mostly forgettable.
The writing often missed the mark for me, sometimes only by hair but many of the characters never really managed to find their stride. What surprised me most, is that where this was most felt was in dialogue taken directly from the book. Even watching as someone who hadnt read the book I found it noticable and then later confirmed it by reading The Guardian's review. It appears Neil Gaiman was reluctant to take too many artistic liberties, perhaps in tribute to Prattchett but it seemed to hurt the show as a result.
It worked in places, the opening narration felt distinctly and enjoyably Pratchett-esque but even in this case the narration began to become over bearing as it continued to feature heavily in later episodes.
Saying this, I can't pretend I didn't enjoy the show, watching David and Micheal caper around with ridiculous CGI and yellow contacts to boot was always going to be entertaining and there are moments of brilliance, but given the potential of such a ridiculous plot and ensemble, I found the whole thing mostly forgettable.
Sarah (7799 KP) rated Project Power (2020) in Movies
Aug 15, 2020
Great idea, shame about the execution
Jamie Foxx and Joseph Gordon Levitt in a film about superpowers, I couldn’t have been more excited. However sadly for Project Power, the film itself doesn’t live up to it’s premise.
The cast in this are great. You can never fault Jamie Foxx or Joseph Gordon Levitt, and you definitely can’t in this. Dominique Fishback puts in a great turn too and even Rodrigo Santoro hams it up the best he can with the material he has to work with. And that’s the problem with this film, the material, plot and execution are not very good and letdown everything else. The idea behind this film, a pill that gives you superpowers is genius, and something we haven’t seen before in the superhero genre. The way they subtly show physical changes in the characters who have taken the pills on multiple occasions is very well done and the general concept and science behind the pills is pretty believable. Even the CGI is pretty well done and the reveal of Jamie Foxx’s character’s powers towards the end of the film is quite a spectacle. It’s just a massive shame that the plot itself is rather plodding and lacklustre and it’d be completely uninteresting if it wasn’t for the action and superpowers.
Overall this was a decent entertaining sci-fi and not a bad watch, it just could’ve been so much better.
The cast in this are great. You can never fault Jamie Foxx or Joseph Gordon Levitt, and you definitely can’t in this. Dominique Fishback puts in a great turn too and even Rodrigo Santoro hams it up the best he can with the material he has to work with. And that’s the problem with this film, the material, plot and execution are not very good and letdown everything else. The idea behind this film, a pill that gives you superpowers is genius, and something we haven’t seen before in the superhero genre. The way they subtly show physical changes in the characters who have taken the pills on multiple occasions is very well done and the general concept and science behind the pills is pretty believable. Even the CGI is pretty well done and the reveal of Jamie Foxx’s character’s powers towards the end of the film is quite a spectacle. It’s just a massive shame that the plot itself is rather plodding and lacklustre and it’d be completely uninteresting if it wasn’t for the action and superpowers.
Overall this was a decent entertaining sci-fi and not a bad watch, it just could’ve been so much better.
Erika (17789 KP) rated Tenet (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020 (Updated Sep 5, 2020)
I saw this film, FINALLY; the first showing in IMAX on the 31st via 'Early Access'. It was completely amazing on IMAX and it definitely needs to be seen that way, since that was the film Nolan shot it on.
I was glad that a movie made me think and I gave all of my attention to it. Honestly, I was able to figure out a lot of it before it was revealed, but that wasn't a bad, Hint, whenever you think something is a weird continuity error, it's not, it's intentional. The in-camera effects (as Nolan calls it) were AMAZING, Only Nolan could convince a working airport to let him crash a real plane into a building. Directors should take note that practical effects will ALWAYS look better than CGI.
The cast was amazing, and John David Washington, holy cow does he have physical prowess. I love Robert Pattinson in almost everything, and I really liked his character.
I can't say at this point whether I absolutely loved it, or just like it. I had this same issue with Dunkirk, where I know I liked it, but not how much (BTW I loved it after the 2nd viewing). I've already booked my ticket to see Tenet again on Friday.
EDIT: I saw Tenet again, and now I know for sure, that I really liked it! I'm pretty sure Robert Pattinson is my favorite character in the whole film.
I was glad that a movie made me think and I gave all of my attention to it. Honestly, I was able to figure out a lot of it before it was revealed, but that wasn't a bad, Hint, whenever you think something is a weird continuity error, it's not, it's intentional. The in-camera effects (as Nolan calls it) were AMAZING, Only Nolan could convince a working airport to let him crash a real plane into a building. Directors should take note that practical effects will ALWAYS look better than CGI.
The cast was amazing, and John David Washington, holy cow does he have physical prowess. I love Robert Pattinson in almost everything, and I really liked his character.
I can't say at this point whether I absolutely loved it, or just like it. I had this same issue with Dunkirk, where I know I liked it, but not how much (BTW I loved it after the 2nd viewing). I've already booked my ticket to see Tenet again on Friday.
EDIT: I saw Tenet again, and now I know for sure, that I really liked it! I'm pretty sure Robert Pattinson is my favorite character in the whole film.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
May 13, 2019
JUSTICE FOR THE LEAGUE
Contains spoilers, click to show
As much as it pains me to acknowledge it, this film got slaughtered upon its' release (and has endured much ridicule ever since)! Personally speaking....I don't get why.
Everyone and their dog - in reviewing this movie, quote the poor CGI, the fact that Steppenwolf is an ineffective villain, the obvious mish-mash of two directorial styles, weak storyline, oh...and the whole moustache thing. Bore, bore, bore. If anyone comes up with a valid reason for why they hate this film that they haven't read anywhere else a dozen times before then I might entertain them......nah, I won't, because I loved JL!
The opening scene shows us some 'amateur' style recorded footage of a brief conversation with Superman - a very short sequence that was clearly filmed by Joss Whedon. And yes, it is very obvious - and would be to someone unaware of the whole 'moustache-gate' affair, that something's wrong with Henry Cavill's upper lip. Does that detract from the experience? Is it really that much a big deal? No, it is not. And that's all I'll say on that aspect.
There is a very basic plot concerning Steppenwolf and his return to Earth to reclaim the three Mother Boxes which - when brought together, form 'The Unity' with which he hopes to transform the planet and get back in favour with his nephew (Darkseid). These boxes were left on Earth a long time ago following a battle with Steppenwolf (shown in Flashback) and placed into the care of the Atlanteans, the Amazons, and the Tribes of Man. We are given this background exposition fairly early on in proceedings from Diana Prince (Wonder Woman) which effectively sums up the gist of the movie - no criticism there. The first half of the film concerns Diana and Bruce Wayne's (Batman) efforts to bring together a small group of Meta-Humans in order to tackle the imminent threat balanced against Steppenwolf's successful recovery of two of the Boxes. Do we need a more complex plot?
After an initial encounter with the villain of the piece in which the newly formed League are knocked on their proverbial backsides Batman comes up with a way to resurrect the deceased Superman, involving a Mother Box, the recovered Kryptonian Scout Ship, and the Speedforce. To quote The Flash (aka Barry Allen, aka Ezra Miller) things go a bit 'Pet Sematary-y' as the resurrected Man Of Steel goes up against the JL in a confused fit of rage. The sequence depicting the skirmish is a highlight of the movie, and anyone who got a little annoyed t how much Batman was hell bent on persecuting Supes in BVS will get some satisfaction from hearing the line "Do you bleed?"!
It isn't long before the Superman we all know and love (although perhaps not the one from his darker portrayal in the previous two movies in which he appeared) returns - thanks to some intervention from Lois Lane, and joins his fellow heroes in their final battle with Steppenwolf.
Simple plot I agree but this is a story about individuals coming together in the name of hope. Each character gives enough that the audience cares about them, even if some of them could have been given a bit more to play with (sounds like sequel material to me!). Wonder Woman effectively becomes the Leader of the team - exorcising her demons in the process (see her solo movie for more) and Gal Gadot is great.
The battle scenes are fantastic - the attack on Themyscira by Steppenwolf being one such example, and complemented by the CGI. Yeah, I've heard the whole 'poor CGI' thing but frankly.... whatever?! Had I not stupidly read the reviews before seeing the film I might not have spent the running time watching the villain and thinking "Is he a poor villain?" (I came away thinking "Nah, he worked for me!")
Henry Cavill didn't get half as much screen time as the other characters in the League and it looks as if most of the Zac Snyder material featuring his Superman ended up on the cutting room floor, but he is one of the highlights. I will agree with the critics that WB seriously messed up with their marketing strategy in which they essentially 'excluded him' from all promotional material. I now eagerly await for Man of Steel 2 where we'll get to see more of the 'fun' Supes that we got in this movie.
I saw this film three times at the cinema and now own on Blu Ray. Fantastic film for the JL's first outing on the big screen. And you know what?
You are allowed to enjoy both the Justice League AND The Avengers!!
Everyone and their dog - in reviewing this movie, quote the poor CGI, the fact that Steppenwolf is an ineffective villain, the obvious mish-mash of two directorial styles, weak storyline, oh...and the whole moustache thing. Bore, bore, bore. If anyone comes up with a valid reason for why they hate this film that they haven't read anywhere else a dozen times before then I might entertain them......nah, I won't, because I loved JL!
The opening scene shows us some 'amateur' style recorded footage of a brief conversation with Superman - a very short sequence that was clearly filmed by Joss Whedon. And yes, it is very obvious - and would be to someone unaware of the whole 'moustache-gate' affair, that something's wrong with Henry Cavill's upper lip. Does that detract from the experience? Is it really that much a big deal? No, it is not. And that's all I'll say on that aspect.
There is a very basic plot concerning Steppenwolf and his return to Earth to reclaim the three Mother Boxes which - when brought together, form 'The Unity' with which he hopes to transform the planet and get back in favour with his nephew (Darkseid). These boxes were left on Earth a long time ago following a battle with Steppenwolf (shown in Flashback) and placed into the care of the Atlanteans, the Amazons, and the Tribes of Man. We are given this background exposition fairly early on in proceedings from Diana Prince (Wonder Woman) which effectively sums up the gist of the movie - no criticism there. The first half of the film concerns Diana and Bruce Wayne's (Batman) efforts to bring together a small group of Meta-Humans in order to tackle the imminent threat balanced against Steppenwolf's successful recovery of two of the Boxes. Do we need a more complex plot?
After an initial encounter with the villain of the piece in which the newly formed League are knocked on their proverbial backsides Batman comes up with a way to resurrect the deceased Superman, involving a Mother Box, the recovered Kryptonian Scout Ship, and the Speedforce. To quote The Flash (aka Barry Allen, aka Ezra Miller) things go a bit 'Pet Sematary-y' as the resurrected Man Of Steel goes up against the JL in a confused fit of rage. The sequence depicting the skirmish is a highlight of the movie, and anyone who got a little annoyed t how much Batman was hell bent on persecuting Supes in BVS will get some satisfaction from hearing the line "Do you bleed?"!
It isn't long before the Superman we all know and love (although perhaps not the one from his darker portrayal in the previous two movies in which he appeared) returns - thanks to some intervention from Lois Lane, and joins his fellow heroes in their final battle with Steppenwolf.
Simple plot I agree but this is a story about individuals coming together in the name of hope. Each character gives enough that the audience cares about them, even if some of them could have been given a bit more to play with (sounds like sequel material to me!). Wonder Woman effectively becomes the Leader of the team - exorcising her demons in the process (see her solo movie for more) and Gal Gadot is great.
The battle scenes are fantastic - the attack on Themyscira by Steppenwolf being one such example, and complemented by the CGI. Yeah, I've heard the whole 'poor CGI' thing but frankly.... whatever?! Had I not stupidly read the reviews before seeing the film I might not have spent the running time watching the villain and thinking "Is he a poor villain?" (I came away thinking "Nah, he worked for me!")
Henry Cavill didn't get half as much screen time as the other characters in the League and it looks as if most of the Zac Snyder material featuring his Superman ended up on the cutting room floor, but he is one of the highlights. I will agree with the critics that WB seriously messed up with their marketing strategy in which they essentially 'excluded him' from all promotional material. I now eagerly await for Man of Steel 2 where we'll get to see more of the 'fun' Supes that we got in this movie.
I saw this film three times at the cinema and now own on Blu Ray. Fantastic film for the JL's first outing on the big screen. And you know what?
You are allowed to enjoy both the Justice League AND The Avengers!!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The Hunger Games franchise has come at a time that is almost certain to gather box-office success. After Harry Potter finished two years ago and The Twilight Saga bowed out just 12 months ago, teenagers and young adults have been craving for a new series of blockbusters to ‘sink their teeth into’.
The first film of this new dawn, based on Suzanne Collins’ successful book, was released in March last year and greeted with warm reviews and a staggering box-office performance, a gross just shy of $700m to be a little more precise.
However, rumoured tensions between director Gary Ross and studio Color Force meant that despite its impressive takings, he was not to helm its sequel, Catching Fire. Taking over from him is Francis Lawrence, director of I am Legend, Constantine and Water for Elephants, but can he better what preceded him?
The series centres around an annual ‘games’, in which people aged between 12 and 18 must fight to the death in a custom made arena, leaving only one victor, who is showered with riches for the rest of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence, returning to the series after her first Oscar win this year, plays Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young teen who fresh from winning the previous Hunger Games tournament alongside her beau Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson, travel through the land of Panem (a post-apocalyptic America) to spread their story and persuade others to take part in the vicious tournament.
However, after angering the Capitol, run by cold-hearted President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who becomes increasingly concerned that an up-rising is brewing, it is decided that previous victors must once again take part, to show that even they are not above the law.
For those fresh to the series, I warn you not to watch this film without seeing the first, as much of the plot will be near incomprehensible and your enjoyment will suffer as a result.
The film starts slowly, giving enough backstory before the inevitable return to the arena. Thankfully despite its large running time of 146 minutes, it never falters and after allowing the audience to see how the world has changed, it is back into the new and improved arena for the 75th Hunger Games.
Gone is the shaky handy-cam of director Gary Ross, and in its place we are treated to sweeping shots of numerous landscapes; from the coal-mining community of District 12, to the bright lights of the Capitol and even the large arena which has been given a radical overhaul to make it even more challenging than ever.
The acting is simply sublime by all accounts. Jennifer Lawrence, fresh from the honour of an Oscar plays Katniss with such a subtle grace that she is mesmerising to watch, a real treat for fans of J-Law and of course Suzanne Collins’ character. Liam Hemsworth returns to the series as Katniss’ secret love interest Gale, but he is sorely underused. Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta Mellark is as irritating as ever and lacks a backbone, but this is more to do with the script than Hutcherson’s abilities as an actor.
Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci also return, with the latter being a real stand-out in a film which is filled with quirky and unusual characters.
Those of you who have read my review of the previous film will know that I wasn’t a fan of its lacklustre special effects. Thankfully my prayers were answered and due to a budget that has almost doubled, the effects are glorious. The Capitol is perhaps the best use of the CGI, where the first film looked like a Star Wars: Episode I rip-off, here we really feel like the city is living and breathing for the very first time.
Unfortunately, it seems like the special effects team are still struggling with CGI fire as the computer generated flames are still laughable in their realism.
At 146 minutes, Catching Fire was always going to numb your backside, but you don’t care, the film is an absolute treat to watch. Director Francis Lawrence has retained the violent nature of the series despite its ridiculous 12A certification and manages to get around those limitations with style and flair.
Yes, if I was pushed I’d say it was a little over-long, the CGI flames still look ridiculous and the ending is far too abrupt, but if those are the only faults I can find in a film, then clearly it is more than worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/11/23/hunger-games-catching-fire-review/
The first film of this new dawn, based on Suzanne Collins’ successful book, was released in March last year and greeted with warm reviews and a staggering box-office performance, a gross just shy of $700m to be a little more precise.
However, rumoured tensions between director Gary Ross and studio Color Force meant that despite its impressive takings, he was not to helm its sequel, Catching Fire. Taking over from him is Francis Lawrence, director of I am Legend, Constantine and Water for Elephants, but can he better what preceded him?
The series centres around an annual ‘games’, in which people aged between 12 and 18 must fight to the death in a custom made arena, leaving only one victor, who is showered with riches for the rest of their lives.
Jennifer Lawrence, returning to the series after her first Oscar win this year, plays Katniss Everdeen, a plucky young teen who fresh from winning the previous Hunger Games tournament alongside her beau Peeta Mellark, played by Josh Hutcherson, travel through the land of Panem (a post-apocalyptic America) to spread their story and persuade others to take part in the vicious tournament.
However, after angering the Capitol, run by cold-hearted President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who becomes increasingly concerned that an up-rising is brewing, it is decided that previous victors must once again take part, to show that even they are not above the law.
For those fresh to the series, I warn you not to watch this film without seeing the first, as much of the plot will be near incomprehensible and your enjoyment will suffer as a result.
The film starts slowly, giving enough backstory before the inevitable return to the arena. Thankfully despite its large running time of 146 minutes, it never falters and after allowing the audience to see how the world has changed, it is back into the new and improved arena for the 75th Hunger Games.
Gone is the shaky handy-cam of director Gary Ross, and in its place we are treated to sweeping shots of numerous landscapes; from the coal-mining community of District 12, to the bright lights of the Capitol and even the large arena which has been given a radical overhaul to make it even more challenging than ever.
The acting is simply sublime by all accounts. Jennifer Lawrence, fresh from the honour of an Oscar plays Katniss with such a subtle grace that she is mesmerising to watch, a real treat for fans of J-Law and of course Suzanne Collins’ character. Liam Hemsworth returns to the series as Katniss’ secret love interest Gale, but he is sorely underused. Josh Hutcherson’s Peeta Mellark is as irritating as ever and lacks a backbone, but this is more to do with the script than Hutcherson’s abilities as an actor.
Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci also return, with the latter being a real stand-out in a film which is filled with quirky and unusual characters.
Those of you who have read my review of the previous film will know that I wasn’t a fan of its lacklustre special effects. Thankfully my prayers were answered and due to a budget that has almost doubled, the effects are glorious. The Capitol is perhaps the best use of the CGI, where the first film looked like a Star Wars: Episode I rip-off, here we really feel like the city is living and breathing for the very first time.
Unfortunately, it seems like the special effects team are still struggling with CGI fire as the computer generated flames are still laughable in their realism.
At 146 minutes, Catching Fire was always going to numb your backside, but you don’t care, the film is an absolute treat to watch. Director Francis Lawrence has retained the violent nature of the series despite its ridiculous 12A certification and manages to get around those limitations with style and flair.
Yes, if I was pushed I’d say it was a little over-long, the CGI flames still look ridiculous and the ending is far too abrupt, but if those are the only faults I can find in a film, then clearly it is more than worth the increasingly expensive price of a cinema admission ticket.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2013/11/23/hunger-games-catching-fire-review/
Kevin Phillipson (10072 KP) Jul 19, 2020