Realização:
Francis LawrenceCâmara:
Jo WillemsMúsica:
James Newton HowardElenco:
Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Donald Sutherland, Woody Harrelson, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jena Malone, Sam Claflin, Jeffrey Wright, Liam Hemsworth (mais)Sinopses(1)
Este é o segundo volume da trilogia Jogos Vorazes, baseada nos romances de Suzanne Collins. A saga relata a aventura de Katniss, jovem escolhida para participar aos jogos vorazes, espécie de reality show em que um adolescente de cada distrito de Panem, considerado como tributo, deve lutar com os demais até que apenas um saia vivo. Neste segundo episódio da série, após a afronta de Katniss à organização dos jogos, ela deverá enfrentar a forte represália do governo local, lutando não apenas por sua vida, mas por toda a população de Panem. (Diamond Films)
(mais)Críticas (18)
After watching the first part of the Hunger Games quartet yesterday, I had minimal expectations today, so I was pleasantly surprised that the story made slightly more sense to me. What I also liked was Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance, as well as Donald Sutherland who was convincing as the ultimate bad guy. I’ve pretty much summed up all the positives. And now for the rest. What I’ve already noticed in the previous film was even more apparent this time around. Whenever Jennifer Lawrence was made up to look like a kind of Cleopatra, she stopped showing signs of life because the motionless thing she wears instead of a face took on a definitive (plastic) form. The film also included many exaggerated gestures, tons of speechifying that almost made me throw up, overblown romance, and errors in logic which I've already gotten used to. Still, I’m confused as to why coal was mined in District 12 when it was of no use to anyone. And if it was of any use, how could District 12 have been destroyed? That's a tough one. Yeah, I know, I'm too much of a nitpicker and I quibble over nonsense when it was really about love. I guess that's just me. Katniss Everdeen aka She Who Dances with the Lightning didn't win me over this time either, but I was intrigued by the water that could almost replace plastic surgery. I’m saying almost because I don't think it could replace collagen or silicone. / Lesson learned: if you want to take up archery, get a magnetic quiver; it's the only way you won't lose your arrows even during a breakneck fall.
()
Mais maduro e digestível do que o primeiro filme, durante o qual sofri literalmente. Pode ser esticado e sem um final satisfatório (apenas o atrai para o filme seguinte), mas é suficientemente divertido no enredo. Como uma aventura emocionante para um público jovem, entretenimento consistente, criado impecavelmente pelo diretor Lawrence. Os destaques do filme são as cenas épicas no estilo de Cleópatra na Praça do Capitólio.
()
It’s quite a paradox that the second Hunger Games was accused a priori by critics of being a teenage romance like Twilight, and yet, there’s hardly any romance in it, or rather, there is no more than in any other Hollywood blockbuster. In short, the romantic line between Katniss, Peeta and Hurricane has now been put in the background and serves only for a deeper portray of the characters and the emotional state of the heroes within the reality of a totalitarian system, instead of being the centre of it all. Other than that, it’s pretty brutal dystopian sci-fi. The leaders of the Capitol have turned from funny colourful clowns into unscrupulous totalitarian douchebags worthy of respect. The first half has excellent pace and tells us more about how that world works, while the socio-medio-political line doesn’t feel stupid. The weakest part is the one in the Arena, which needs to have several scenes with more action (up until then it’s mostly a conversational film) and it’s only a slight variation of the events of the first part. I understand why it had to be there, but it was more fun when the heroes were on the victory tour as mediators in the relationship between the oppressed public and the governing class. The ending, on the other hand, comes too suddenly; that which was only said would have probably been better shown in a couple scenes more. In any case, I’m looking forward to the next sequel.
()
I was really terrified of the two hours and a half of runtime, as I should’ve been. The first 30 minutes passed awfully slowly, I almost thought that I wouldn’t make it through and just give up on the movie. But I still thought that it would somehow get better and I’d start liking it, which happened in the end. Since Katniss made it into another arena, things started to get really fun. Maybe even more fun that in the first movie. From that point on, the remaining two hours flew by like a breeze and the movie suddenly became a successful blockbuster. That’s what made me so skeptical of the final two-piece movie. Because so far, the only thing I found fun about Hunger Games were the arena fights. Everything else from the politics to the war went completely over my head.
()
Unarguably better, but still not good (enough). Lawrence realizes that stiff, paper-rustling dialogs full of life wisdom and great truths can only be saved from ridicule by actors with a big A and so tries to sideline non-actor “J-14"-type heartthrobs like Hemsworth and Hutcherson as much as possible. And he manages to do this in the first half. However as soon as (upon entering the arena) he loses the chance to rely on Harrelson/Hoffman/Tucci//Banks and mainly Sutherland (earning great respect for giving such a fine performance one of the dumbest villains), he is lost and the entire movie with him. Suddenly he is left only with beauties with no talent and he is unable to hide their lack of talent even with emphasis on the solid action ingredient which fails because everything important (and interesting) happens off screen.
()
Hungry for more! Beautiful, tragic, absurd, darkly comic and visually spectacular! The 140 million budget was not spent in vain. The second installment of The Hunger Games is much more brisk, more action-packed, and much more entertaining than the previous one. I'm very satisfied and thumbs up. 80%.
()
Greater emotional richness, surprising creative courage, and a healthy self-confidence behind and in front of the camera. In most aspects, it's just as complete an explosion as the original (and even my favorite installment). In the wrong hands, it could easily have become a tearful prologue from the first half on, but fortunately, that did not happen. The spark slowly turns into a flame, and when Peeta becomes a clear leader and Johanna steals all the scenes in such limited space, Catching Fire is a winner. Although there isn't too much space devoted to the history of the Quarter Quell or the individual veterans over the extra fast-paced half-hour, thanks to a more coherent picture, it is almost the best film installment. But there would still be more to come.
()
It’s ridiculous and sad when one reads the reactions to the second instalment of The Hunger Games with a constant stream of disparaging comments because the film is primarily targeted at girls, even though those same people uncritically praise Marvel comic-book movies. In comparison with those, the positive aspects of Catching Fire are readily apparent, dispensing with the prejudices associated with the “chick flick” genre and even showing that, thanks to such books and films, today’s adolescents have much more complex and enriching role models than previous generations. Catching Fire uses the same production concept as top-tier comic-book flicks, so it also has a generous budget, a director who is rather more associated with dramatic titles than with a distinctive creative signature in terms of handling action scenes, and excellent or at least solid actors who give the characters individuality solely through their presence. Whereas in comic-book movies this is a way of humanising half-tone characters who never had more complex character traits but rather represented certain heroic or mythic ideals, here truly ambiguous personalities with far more thoughtful and non-formulaic natures are brought to life. Similarly, whereas comic-book movies draw their sophistication from relating to their own canon, traditional myths and the contemporary socio-political atmosphere, The Hunger Games does not thematise the heroic side of heroism, but its relativity and artificiality, thus revealing that the heroes of today are mere constructs or personalities exploited in the interest of a certain ideology (whether ruling or revolutionary) and then chewed up and spit out by PR specialists and the tabloid press. The heart of The Hunger Games is its central character, Katniss Everdeen, who is not a demigod from another planet, a billionaire dandy or any other kind of privileged pseudo-personality, but an ordinary girl with ambiguous personality traits who came into a world where she is forced to play a certain role. While plans for revolution are cooked up around her and grand speeches about destiny are made, she has her own motivation: an entirely anti-heroic, egocentric effort to ensure that she and her loved ones can get out alive and live their own lives. The conflict between the private and public worlds and between real personalities and marketing constructs form the core of Catching Fire’s narrative, which is strictly defined against the world of superficiality and fleeting glory. That can’t really be said about the stories of privileged heroes living in splendour. Of course, even in The Hunger Games, this criticism is relative and doesn’t reach the harshness or vitriol of biting satires or openly anti-consumerism pamphlets. But that’s not the purpose of the film. Rather, the aim of the film is merely to give young people – not just girls – a positive role model who frees them from the fallacies foisted on them by lifestyle magazines and dully conservatives films and series.
()
(menos)
(mais)
The continuation of Hunger Games has enjoyed much greater viewer favor, but my impression is exactly the opposite. Among the positives, I can include more reasonable editing and a larger budget, which was not just consumed by Jennifer Lawrence's and other participants' higher fees, but also contributed to better (more bombastic) effects. However, that is where the list of positives ends. The second installment needed to further explore the world of Panem and honestly, it only revealed greater shallowness and, I dare to say, stupidity. Creating dystopias that could be taken seriously was never Hollywood's strong suit, and here, given the target audience, the effort was not significant. The story does not bother with logic, and the dialogue seems even dumber than in the first film. President Snow, who was supposed to embody sophisticated all-powerful evil, instead appears as a stubborn old man in the early stages of senility, who adds fuel to the fire with primitive violence and demonstrations of tyranny, where he should manipulate and corrupt through intrigues, cooling down passions. Apart from Philip Seymour Hoffman, nothing really interested me about the second installment. Overall impression: 35%.
()
Better than its predecessor in every way. Instead of a positive shock from something unprecedented and new, there is only pure quality, supported by a juicy budget that brings excellent visual effects, a good dramatic storyline, and fantastic performances, especially from Jennifer Lawrence. It may only serve as a connecting bridge to the next installment, but if the quality continues to rise at this pace, there is nothing to be afraid of. An exceptionally dense and original experience.
()
A pleasant surprise. With the arrival of Francis Lawrence and the new screenwriters, the quality of Hunger Games has gone up a step, and suddenly it's an impressive and thrilling spectacle with pretty interesting characters and an ending that will simply make you want to watch the next films. Almost everything I complained about in the first film is better here. Although the plot heavily relies on reliable acting aces (I found the biggest joy from all the space Donald Sutherland got), and even Jennifer Lawrence and her group in the arena aren't bad at all.
()
Unfortunately, the bar set by the first part also characterizes the second part, although the story could and should have been more interesting, and the names of all the actors are still more than pleasing to hear. Formally almost at the level of the first film, still without much emotion and credibility of the sketched society – everything sounds cold and mechanical, in some passages too spectacular and, in particular, unnecessarily long. The scenes from the arena, which should have been the highlight of the film, act more as a necessary element to fulfil expectations and to create a strong enough stepping stone towards further sequels. And whereas in the first film the romantic chemistry between the central couple worked very well, here their relationship is hindered both by the constant presence of a third party and by overused phrases like "threat to the state" and "embodiment of independence". Fortunately, the visuals and sound design are almost flawless and the final twist is satisfying and hopeful enough to make me respect Catching Fire as a mere prelude and look forward to the coming of the great revolution. But they will need to work a bit harder :) 60%
()
The second installment of The Hunger Games is in many ways better than its predecessor, but it falls down on a somewhat more drawn-out first half that wasn't even that interesting in the book version. As soon as we enter the arena, though, things start to pick up, the tension could be cut with a chainsaw, and a viewer familiar with the source material, such as myself, is just waiting to see how the filmmakers handle it on the screen. Technically, I have no complaints and as far as the cast is concerned, I was satisfied. I must also not forget the excellent soundtrack topped off with three amazing songs during the credits. In short, a very well made sequel that does not disgrace either the book or its genre
()
It's a bit hammy in the details and feels a bit too funny in places, and the "run-up" before the film moves into the arena is also endless, but the characters and especially the final twist won me over 100% even after all these years. A good teen flick from my younger years that entertains.
()
As expected, Catching Fire doesn't particularly stand out from most of the high-budget ballast of the last year, mainly because of how terribly unambitiously the whole thing is directed, and its fundamental problem is that it's split into two different parts of completely different genres, whereas the switch doesn't surprise anyone because it's been expected all along. The flat revolutionary storyline is probably most amusing in how the oppressed working class achieves its greatest successes by being given a reality show and using its means of expression. Otherwise, though, top-notch casting, especially of the supporting roles: I either want to marry or kidnap Jena Malone. Despite all this, somehow, mysteriously, I think I want to know more about that world and I’m relatively interested to see how it develops.
()
Whether I want to admit it or not, the film is simply above average; visually, it’s a great spectacle, and unlike the first installment, it manages to convey some ideas fairly consistently. All the scenes fit together better, as if the creators made the first film just so we could develop a strong connection with the characters and empathize with them when things get intense. I’m not particularly enthusiastic or impressed, but I have to say that, in the end, the film pleased me.
()
Considerably better than the slightly infantile first installment. Despite its length, the movie does not cease to entertain, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. If I hadn't seen these two movies, I would have had the same opinion of this teen series as of the similarly presented Twilight. But not only is this series more sensible, epic, mature, logical and, most of all, watchable, there is also an essential differentiating factor: Jennifer Lawrence - the best actress of the current young generation, because the moment Lionsgate signed her on, they basically hit the jackpot.
()
It isn’t very often that I love a sequel so much more than the first part. It fell only very slightly short of perfection; shame about the rather bodged ending, but even so I give this a full set. The atmosphere and special effects were A+ standard. Both the story and the arena are better than in part one, although I liked them both more or less the same, but the sequel really was a little bit better. 5*
()
Publicidade