I saw HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE and, finally, I understand PEETA
December 9, 2013
Remember Balki from Perfect Strangers? It wasn’t a simpler time then, we were just simpler… like stupid “simpler”.
I saw HUNGER GAMES 2: ELECTRIC BUGALOO OF FIRE AND CARRYING OLD WOMEN ON YOUR BACK!
Rest in Peace, Mags.
I don’t know how to say this… but I’m not that into the Hunger Games.
I saw the first movie and thought it was entertaining despite its epilepsy inducing shaky cam. I didn’t think it was a “great” movie. It felt a TV movie more than a “film”. It was like a very memorable two hour+ episode of SMALLVILLE, but with better acting from Jennifer Lawrence. And, Jennifer Lawrence is really the only thing keeping this ship afloat because if she was a bad actress then these movies would SUH-HUCK. No one else is really giving that good of a performance outside of The Law and, more so, no one is really given the opportunity to do so.
The lesser characters have their moments, but they’re few and far between if that. Elizabeth Banks is comedic relief, Haymitch does the same thing in every scene and there are not many of them, Gail also does the same stuff with a whopping 3 minutes of screen time, and the rest of the characters are either forgettable or just don’t do anything. It’s no surprise that the whole thing revolves around Katniss, but that’s really all there is.
Nevertheless, the movie is pretty entertaining if you can stop yourself from thinking too hard on the subject matter at hand. I think most of the “logic” in the story is wildly flawed on the same level as I think the “logic” of MARVEL’S THE AVENGERS is flawed and I didn’t like that movie at all. So, while I wouldn’t consider myself a “fan” of The Hunger Games, I liked it in a general way, meanwhile I didn’t like “The Avengers”, “Elysium”, “Oblivion”, and so on and so forth because they’re all uninspired action movies with very little pinning the story together.
And let me jump in say something right here before anyone wrongly assumes why I’m not into the movie…
WOMEN CAN TOTALLY WIN THE HUNGER GAMES.
I did just mention a bunch of male movies that I hate. I HATED ELYSIUM. Back on topic, there are a lot of threads or discussions that are 100% misogynist and 100% fucking idiotic that a chick couldn’t win the Hunger Games. And that’s fucking CRAZY TALK.
I TOTES THINK CHICKS COULD WIN THE HUNGER GAMES.
It’s not an arm-wrestling competition between the greatest male arm-wrestler vs. the greatest female arm-wrestler. It’s a killing contest with weapons, AND it’s about surviving a weird nonsense world that tries to kill you too. Every death in the Hunger Games isn’t a one-on-one fight with bare hands. There are people dying from poisonous fog… RIP Mags, seriously you were my favorite… and poisonous fog would kill a 250 pound cagefighter with a XY dangle just as easily as it would kill some helpless lady these message board morons are all picturing. So, even if you picture women as being unable to kill with their hands, weapons, or whatever… all they would have to do is not get killed at some point and the Hunger Games arena could kill all these big tough males without her lifting a finger.
Another idea for the misogynists, what if all those sexy ab muscle having men just kill each other in the opening 10 minutes of the Games and there are only women left? That easily could happen. There are so many ways that a woman could win the Hunger Games that has nothing to do with the woman actually even doing something.
If a man or woman was as proficient with a long range weapon like a bow and arrow like Katniss is and has no issue shooting an arrow into a rampaging human enemy then of course they would be a likely favorite to win. That’s pretty much why they chose it that way for the books… also, chicks just love archery. Archery and horses and taking pictures and making plans and decorations … oh my Jeez … chicks love decorations. Can I get an a(wo)men on that?! WOOOOO!!!
Ok, so, girls could totally win the Hunger Games. They could win it even while being severely handicapped by having such glorious boobs and butts. I mean it sounds impossible, but I totally think it’s possible for a girl with her boobs and butt(s) to wins a Hunger Games.
So… now, that that is settled… let me talk about how this movie made me understand Peeta or more so Josh Hutcherson as Peeta…
First thing first…
Here are a couple of candid photos of Katniss/J-Law relaxing in her everyday life as a reference.
When I saw the first Hunger Games, I thought that Josh as Peeta didn’t make ANY FUCKING SENSE because he was supposed to be a love interest for Jennifer Lawrence and that DOESN’T MAKE ANY FUCKING SENSE. Reason being, Jennifer Lawrence is very sexy and gorgeous and Josh Hutcherson is perfect to play her little brother who isn’t very good at baseball, but she teaches him how to play because she’s a natural athlete besides being beautiful, popular, and smart and then he ends up hitting the ball once in the big game and then he feels proud about himself, which is the first time he can stop hating his big sister – J-Law – because you have to love yourself before you love anyone else and now he understands she’s only wanted the best for him and didn’t mean to rub it in his face that she wins at everything because she too tries very hard and practices and she’s just living with the exquisite body/face that God gave her and there’s nothing wrong with that, right?
So, I thought the director or writer thought that Josh was a suitable love interest for Jennifer Lawrence in the same way that we’re supposed to believe that Courtney Thorne-Smith would have banged Jim Belushi on “According to Jim”. Like in no fucking way would CTS bang Belushi, but it’s a leap of faith or just bullshit that we’re pretending she would for the sake of the show. That’s what I thought was happening in the Hunger Games. That could be what was happening, I don’t know, but I feel like in Catching Fire something else was happening.
NO ONE BELIEVES PEETA AND KATNISS ARE DOING IT.
FINALLY, PEOPLE ARE MAKING SENSE IN THIS MOVIE!
I mean I don’t understand why any of the Districts would choose life as slaves over open rebellion at all times, but, hey, what do I know. But those same people don’t buy that Peeta is putting it to Katniss and that makes sense to me. I don’t buy it, they don’t buy it, no one is buying it except for the weirdos like Stanley Tucci who I guess doesn’t really care whether or not it is real because he also would like to see these two get beheaded at any point. I’m rambling a little bit…
I thought that part of Catching Fire made a lot of sense to me that no one thought she would choose Peeta in real life, AND I think I understand Katniss’ fondness for Peeta…
A. She takes pity on Peeta.
B. You would get emotionally attached to anyone who you know is not going to kill you when everyone around you is trying to kill you.
Now, I get that.
If I had to make analogy… and I must… Catching Fire was a lot like SIXTEEN CANDLES with Katniss as Molly Ringwald, Gail is lovable hunk Jake Ryan, and Peeta is The Geek aka Anthony Michael Hall…
And I guess that makes Long Duk Dong…
This guy was the WEIRDEST.
The sugar cube scene/monologue was absolutely terrible. I mean I laughed a lot at it, but that was so fucking super odd. And beyond creepy. Who walks around eating sugar cubes?! I really liked the beginning of the movie with Katniss having PTSD, but Finnick’s PTSD that he eats sugar cubes that are meant for horses – seriously, fuck those horses, right?! – was sooooo strange.
AND… Finnick only got stranger from there!
The next time you see sugar cube eating Aquaman, he’s carrying around this mute old lady who looks absolutely bonkers. I could have watched a whole movie about Finnick carrying around Mags like a decrepit old skin smelling backpack and laughed my ass off for days. Also, Mags totally didn’t have to sacrifice herself. She could’ve just got caught by the poison fog and died. The sacrifice was unnecessary drama that is completely not mentioned again.
Also, Mags kissing Finnick straight on the lips means ONE thing and ONE thing only… Mags fucked Finnick. Mags totally deflowered Finnick. And judging by how Finnick looked and how old Mags looked, I’d guess Finnick lost his virginity at 16 to Mags who was around 105 years old.
So, what else with the Hunger Games?
PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN PLAYING PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN WAS FUCKING HILARIOUS.
They’ve got Elizabeth Banks dressed up like redic. They’ve got Donald Sutherland wearing Scarlett Pimpernel clothes and a beard with a long mustache. They’ve got Stanley Tucci look like he got gang raped by the Care Bears. And they even have J-Law dressed in some a-symmetrical future sweater to try and make her look different… but…
Philip Seymour Hoffman is introduced about 30 minutes into the movie looking EXACTLY like Philip Seymour Hoffman.
No weird beard like Wes Bentley had or dyed hair or colored contact lenses or weird jacket or anything. He just walks right up to Katniss looking the same way he would look if he were attending the Golden Globes and that’s it. That was severely stupid. At least give him an eye patch or something to make his character a fucking character and not that Philip Seymour Hoffman for some reason actually exists inside The Hunger Games. They might as well have gone even more esoteric and it turns out that after Seneca Crane died that the Capitol chose Alan Thicke as the next Games Master or whatever.
All in all, the movie was fine. It wasn’t boring and the scenes moved along pretty quick. More or less it was the same movie as the first one, but with no shaky cam and that’s really all we needed.
And, I liked Jena Malone.
So, whatever. I can’t believe there are two more movies of this, but what can you do.