AVS Special Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Terminus and the Lake of Light
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Originally Posted by Shaded Dogfood :
This was quite good. It was amusing to read at IMDB a slew of comments panning the film, universally because the posters were bored by the first of the film. Perhaps they were uncomfortable about drawing parallels about the political symbolism of haves and have-nots, and maybe they just didn't find it had sufficient things blowing up real good.
Or perhaps they were just bored because it was boring? The first hour should have been subtitled as "catching hugs and tears" [and zzzzzzzzzz's]
Boring is to a great extent in the eye of the beholder (though some things are pretty universally regarded as boring). Likewise some things are considered good by a fair amount of viewers and are still disliked by many. Terence Malick films spring to mind.
Having been a movie consumer for going on sixty years, I can tell you that the films considered by the preponderance of learned people as being the greatest ever made frequently have pacing that makes the first hour of Catching Fire look like Christopher Nolan on crystal meth. Or: a lot of the time, in order to make a point that makes you think rather than just bathe you in sensation, the filmmakers have to slow things down. And if you reject things with a slow pace you will be missing out on the best movies have to offer.