Isn't Lionsgate still technically an independent studio? They might've had to pinch pennies a bit on the first.

It's not just the actual money spent, it's the visual design aesthetics.

I can understand not liking the design of the districts, or the capital (everyone pictured something different while reading the book) but the second half of the film takes place in a forest. What kind of visual aesthetics are you expecting?

I wonder what Lawrence will have inherited from Ross and co. and what will be new?

It's technically an arena, with the forest as part of it.

I was referring to the stuff outside of the arena. But it's not like the arena stuff exists in a vacuum.

Or lack thereof ... there was virtually no creativity exercised. It looked exactly like a 13-year old would have imagined it looking.

I can understand the flat, lifeless look of the Districts; however that look should not have carried over to the Arena. Much like the color shift in The Matrix (from the real world to the Matrix), the Arena should have had a sharper, more vibrant look to it as Catniss was "coming to life" in the Game. Even the Capitol, which should have looked like a rave, had a flat, dull look to it.

Isn't that a little highbrow for Sesame Street?

I have an old, probably expired gift card for a Regal cinema, but I've never actually seen one. Wrath of the Titans was about as exciting as watching paint dry. How do IMAX "blowups" work on the digital IMAX, the so-called LIEMAX? Do they just increase the resolution or something?

Digital IMAX is 2k. No need to increase the resolution.

Huh. Wouldn't that be a step down from regular 4K? IMAX is supposed to be a step up.

Gravity was flat out proof that Digital "lie" IMAX is actually legit. No regular theater screen can match the experience.

Lie IMAX was phenomenal with Gravity. The brightness and sound were phenomenal. Also from my understanding, IMAX has both 2K and 4K digital projection configurations, not sure if that's dual on both of them or if they're counting the 4K configurations as 2 x 2K.

In other news, this now has 63 reviews on rottentomatoes, currently sitting at 94% (59 "fresh", 4 "rotten") with a 7.7/10 average.

"The steady action footage alone is enough to make this an improvement over the first installment."

2hr 26m long.

shockingly, one of those 'rotten' reviews came from Rex Reed, who called it "Excessive, over-produced, obscenely over-budgeted and utterly pointless,and an overrated trillogy" he also spent the first paragraph complaining about the 3D of the first movie, but yet it was never in 3D... you would think someone at the New York Observer would tell him it wasn't
http://observer.com/2013/11/up-in-sm...-tired-rehash/

And yet somehow he writes professionally? I get it if he disagree with you or I, but the facts straight!

He didn't say he watched the first one in 3-D ... but it was a really odd placement for a completely unrelated personal rant.
In some regards I will agree with his ill-placed statement. 3-D when used as a gimmick (i.e., throwing things at the viewer) sucks. When it is used to layer depth into a flm it can be masterful. The opening sequence to Star Trek: Into Darkness was beautiful ... until a spear flew off the screen.

I am alittle perplexed by this comment though:
How can a critic who has been around as long as he has state it is original and overlook the (rip off?) obvious influence of Battle Royale?

I was wondering if they edited his review because I saw what he was going for as well, so maybe it's an edit?

131 reviews now, sitting at a 92% with 121 positive, 10 negative reviews. 7.6/10 average score.