Friday, October 18, 2013

QftWo 10/14-10/20: Imposters #12 - Catching Fire

Easily one of the most anticipated movies of the year, Catching Fire is set to make a lot of noise next month, and it's not just going to be for the sight of Woody Harrelson with a gorgeous mane of hair. In the time since Jennifer Lawrence starred in its predecessor, The Hunger Games, her star has risen quite high, and quite quickly.

I was extremely skeptical of tGH. Only a sick day and a perverse sense of boredom got me to watch it. And, although I have no plans to see Round 2 in a theater, I do not expect it suck as I did the initial installment.

And I like the poster. The split image looks good, I like the eye-catching color scheme. Despite the lack of info that can be gleaned from the overall work, I really do appreciate the tagline. It's at least kinda cool, and I can't remember the last time that a poster's catch-phrase was (what seems like) a line from the film itself. This poster is a good job, in my opinion.


  1. Agreed. I think some of the problems you see with these subway posters is that the "main" poster design is in portrait orientation, while the subway ads are landscape. I think the landscape poster is kind of an afterthought, with solutions such as "make the stars' faces bigger!" or "slap some text on the right/lefthand side!" (or both!) applied.

    In this case, they just put two portrait posters side-by-side, and it looks better (even if the backgrounds don't quite match up. The logo is really well designed, and a kind of advertising that should be used more often in movie posters. I'd hate to give anyone ideas for marketing an Orson Scott Card movie, but the Ender's Game poster could have really used a well-designed symbol to use as a central image, instead of someone in a faceless spacesuit.

    So is the Hunger Games movie a recommend? I've had it at the top of my queue forever, but I've been dissuaded by its length and reputed bloodlessness.

    1. Well, with time - and the fact that more movies come out than ever - movies have been slotted into various categories. And, honestly, if you have no other reason to watch it, you can comfortably skip The Hunger Games.

      You and I have seen a lot of the same movies, and future dystopia made a big mark on both of us. Logan's Run and Rollerball are both enough, but a lot of younger viewers don't know them.

      Unlike me, however, you have the distinction of not having seen Battle Royale. My loving review of it is up here, but it does take a lot of the thunder out of tHG. And, also unlike me, you will take time to watch movies that you "should" watch...

      So maybe you should see Hunger, and then watch BR. And then you can opine on both in a way that's distinct from my own experience.

      Hunger Games isn't bad, it just doesn't feel as full as Logan's or Rollerball. If you're super-busy and looking for something to watch and have no other over-riding reason to see it, you can skip it. Battle Royale, though is a must watch no matter what.


Chime in!