The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Lionsgate | Release Date: November 22, 2013
7.9
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 1533 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
1,285
Mixed:
138
Negative:
110
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
8
aadityamudharApr 17, 2016
A development upon the first film in many ways, Catching Fire does require a little more subtlety in the delivery of its overall message, but still combines glamour with violence and fleshes out a universe that has proved to be captivatingA development upon the first film in many ways, Catching Fire does require a little more subtlety in the delivery of its overall message, but still combines glamour with violence and fleshes out a universe that has proved to be captivating and enthralling enough to maintain enough interest for the final installment.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
SrPepeNov 29, 2017
Sin duda esta es la mejor entrega de la saga. Una muy buena película, divertida, con una historia atrapante e interesante y unos nuevos personajes geniales.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
AANickFanAug 10, 2016
The best movie in the series. It scared the **** out of us when I watched it with my friends when we were about 10. filler filler filler filler filler
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
ErikTheCriticSep 26, 2018
It's brilliantly acted, powerful and emotional. The directing is smooth, more thought-provoking than the first, and is very faithful to the book.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
GiugiOct 2, 2022
This movie is very nice and valid especially for the nice tournament finds and for the great way in which everything has been staged the whole. For the rest the film entertains you and is well acted.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
AvmOnOct 22, 2022
It was much better than the first movie. It captured the atmosphere and events from the book well enough.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
8
Fixer84Mar 17, 2023
The best of the saga. Everything that was the first film, however good, has been made ten times better.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
MusiclyMadeDec 7, 2013
A development upon the first film in many ways, Catching Fire does require a little more subtlety in the delivery of its overall message, but still combines glamour with violence and fleshes out a universe that has proved to be captivatingA development upon the first film in many ways, Catching Fire does require a little more subtlety in the delivery of its overall message, but still combines glamour with violence and fleshes out a universe that has proved to be captivating and enthralling enough to maintain enough interest for the final installments.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
JacobNov 17, 2014
Usually when I watch a film adaptation of a book I find it hard to enjoy it. I’ve read the source material and am often comparing it to the book. Maybe it’s the fact that the book isn’t as fresh in my mind as with other film adaptations ofUsually when I watch a film adaptation of a book I find it hard to enjoy it. I’ve read the source material and am often comparing it to the book. Maybe it’s the fact that the book isn’t as fresh in my mind as with other film adaptations of books, maybe it’s the fact that the filmmakers actually cared about making a good movie, or maybe its both but this is one of those rare moments where I really enjoyed the adaptation. Often in Hollywood the adaptation is either an massively trimmed down version of the story (ex. the later Harry Potter films and Ender’s Game) or excessive padding (ex. The Hobbit films) so it is nice to see a film that does it right. Not only is Catching Fire a really good adaptation of a pretty solid book and in doing so creates a far superior sequel that serves as The Empire Strikes Back of the franchise (although Empire Strikes Back is in a whole different ball game). Even though by the time I’ve written this review the film has been out for almost a year this is a must watch for Hunger Games fans (both of the book and the film). Fans will be delighted to see a faithful adaptation of the book that hits most of the key points and for the most part is the book they remember (with some exceptions but nothing too distracting or annoying). The story covers most of the key moments and doesn’t gloss over too much, the characters are given time to breath and are well acted, and the direction is far superior to its predecessor. Catching Fire is one of those rare sequels that is better than its predecessor and one of those rare film adaptations of books that does its job well. With the franchise having two good films under its belt I worry about Mockingjay. With the third book being my least favorite this could be to Hunger Games what Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3: The Last Stand, and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End where to their franchise the threequel that ruined everything. It doesn’t help that is being split into two films. For now lets enjoy the middle installment, which will probably be remembered as the best of the franchise and good film in its own right. If you love the book and are worried this film will ruin it don’t this franchise is in good hands shame I can’t say the same for the Hobbit films.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
TVJerryNov 26, 2013
After Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) win the 74th games, they embark on a Victor's Tour. After that unpleasant expedition, they get dragged back into the 75th game. The first half of the film sets up the political andAfter Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) win the 74th games, they embark on a Victor's Tour. After that unpleasant expedition, they get dragged back into the 75th game. The first half of the film sets up the political and personal drama, while the jungle adventure is full of weird environmental challenges (as opposed to personal combat). Lawrence is grim and serious. So is everybody else for that matter. The effects are fine, but the only visual fun comes from Elizabeth Banks' fabulous fashions. The action is adequate without being especially exciting or remotely inventive. This sequel is a lot more about drama and relationships and much less about action and sci-fi dazzle. Probably more popular with fans of the books, since it serves to set up the coming conflict.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
aaronpaul121Dec 26, 2013
A very slow start for me....but the events before and during the ending was absolutely amazing. A great movie overall....
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
rafa14Nov 22, 2013
OK, I had already read this book and this movie qqas totally loyal to the book, so this is really good, because as fan I like to see a movie that is the same thing of the book. Other good point is the cast, they are very good. JenniferOK, I had already read this book and this movie qqas totally loyal to the book, so this is really good, because as fan I like to see a movie that is the same thing of the book. Other good point is the cast, they are very good. Jennifer Lawrence, it is fantastic again, she is sooo good that i can feel what katniss feel. Woody Harrelson, this man is amazing, because when he is acting the drinker haymitch he iso involved in character that it seemas tha he is realy haymitch. Josh Hutcherson, I had a doubt with him, but now I realize I was wrong about it. The movie it is really good, because we can bring it to our world when we compare the president snow with the people who thinks that they can do everything that they want and the capital is like USA a place that everybody wants to go and katniss the people that wanto fight for those who love. But of course that have some problems like there is some parts that would be interesting to show… Expand
3 of 6 users found this helpful33
All this user's reviews
7
ClariseSamuelsJan 8, 2014
At the end of the first Hunger Games, we thought we could relax because our two heroes had won the games and managed to finagle their way out of having to decide which one would kill whom. Their threat to commit a double suicide rather thanAt the end of the first Hunger Games, we thought we could relax because our two heroes had won the games and managed to finagle their way out of having to decide which one would kill whom. Their threat to commit a double suicide rather than fight each other had led to the games being closed with two winners instead of only one, forcing the director of the games to commit hari-kari to save face. Now the two lovers are back in District 12, and their mandate is to tour all the districts to promote the 75th Hunger Games. However, the Nazi-like President Snow, played by Donald Sutherland, is getting restless and worried—Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) has become a symbol for the revolutionary spirit in Panem.

Katniss's mockingjay pin has been adopted as the mark of the revolution, and the three-finger salute, the symbol of solidarity, is often raised in her presence. Snow wants her dead, but he fears her enough that he cannot kill her outright. Instead, he announces that the 75th year is a good excuse for a quarter-quell game, where the winners from all the previous 24 years will reunite and once again, fight to the death until there is only one man, or woman, standing. As Johanna Mason (Jena Malone) from District 7 notes, the players thought that after they won the game for their year, they would be rich and safe for life, and instead they have to go through the harrowing experience all over again. Ditto for the audience; it’s emotionally exhausting to have to go through the games all over again.

This time the simulated reality includes poisonous fog, murderous monkeys, and bloody rain. The new games director, Plutarch Heavensbee (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman), seems to be keen on achieving Snow’s wish to make sure that Katniss is killed during the games. But the plot emphasis in Hunger Games 2 is not the games, even though they are revisited and are almost as unnerving as ever. In Part 2 of the Hunger Games, it is the revolutionary spirit of the people that is the main thrust of the film. President Snow is correct in his assessment that Katniss is a symbolic force to be reckoned with; the people are rallying around her, and the revolution is rumbling.

The love story between Katniss and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) is at first dismissed as an act that the two devised as a sort of reality television show. Back in District 12, Katniss continues to pursue her amorous bond with Gale Hawthorne, played by Liam Hemsworth, her true love. But there is a twist in the plot when Katniss and Peeta reunite as an affianced couple who may end up having to kill each other at the end of the games. This time the romantic act becomes real.

Hunger Games is a trilogy, and thus the open-ended finale to this film was unavoidable as we are obliged to wait for Act 3 to finish the story. However, the original Hunger Games did a better job of providing both a satisfactory ending and a lead-in to the next installment, whereas Hunger Games 2 seems to end, quite literally, in mid-air. The performances are strong and the sets are lavish, but much of the plot interest has been generated by the excellence of Part 1, whose mythic ambiance continues to enthrall. The Day of the Revolution is an interesting dystopian theme for Part 2, but the tension of the revolutionary idealism has been somewhat subdued in favor of the repetition of the games, which in this film are not quite as daring, intense, or as purposeful as the first time around. Nevertheless, the themes of social injustice are well executed once again—including the dictatorial suppression of civil liberties, the unacceptable distribution of wealth, and the insanity displayed by the bizarre fashion, make-up, and hairstyles of the extravagantly and absurdly rich.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
beingryanjudeSep 2, 2014
A superb follow-up to the the first of the series, Catching Fire proves the trilogy's worth amidst Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings. By Catching Fire, Jennifer Lawrence is well on her way to become America's finest young actress--everA superb follow-up to the the first of the series, Catching Fire proves the trilogy's worth amidst Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings. By Catching Fire, Jennifer Lawrence is well on her way to become America's finest young actress--ever present here.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
moonman1994May 19, 2015
Although a very entertaining The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is not as exciting of a return to the world of the Hunger Games as one would like. A large flaw, like in the original film, is that the directing and writing seems to be centeredAlthough a very entertaining The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is not as exciting of a return to the world of the Hunger Games as one would like. A large flaw, like in the original film, is that the directing and writing seems to be centered around maintaining a PG-13 rating. However the movie is still solid and continues to have great acting jobs by the entire cast, and keeps the view excited to see the next installation in the series.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
StaticSpineMay 29, 2014
Once again I liked the pre-games dystopian sequences, but this times the games were more intense and the whole story becomes more complex. I like the fact that the plot moves from hunger games to revolution. Overall, this part is slightlyOnce again I liked the pre-games dystopian sequences, but this times the games were more intense and the whole story becomes more complex. I like the fact that the plot moves from hunger games to revolution. Overall, this part is slightly better than the first movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
oblique15Aug 23, 2014
This was definitely a step up from the first Hunger games. It gets deeper into whats going on outside of the games and that caught my interest. The ending makes you me believe the next one will be a step even better.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
TheRyanMcNeilNov 22, 2013
Catching fire knocks the original off the podium. Two things that need to be mentioned. 1. The visual effects were stunning. & 2. The actors. So many great names in this film! Woody Harrelson, Philip Seymor Hoffman, Donald Sutherland, andCatching fire knocks the original off the podium. Two things that need to be mentioned. 1. The visual effects were stunning. & 2. The actors. So many great names in this film! Woody Harrelson, Philip Seymor Hoffman, Donald Sutherland, and Jennifer Lawrence. So good, a great ensemble. That being said, I felt like there wasn't much excitement. As well as there wasn't much of Caeser. (The talk show host)
None the less. I would go see it in theatres for he effects. Can't wait for the next two films.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
bm2759Nov 28, 2013
Catching Fire is a great improvement of it's predecessor. It deliver's good action, is quite eventful, evokes strong emotions, and is of course entertaining. For those on the fence about this film it is a good watch.

Immediately uponCatching Fire is a great improvement of it's predecessor. It deliver's good action, is quite eventful, evokes strong emotions, and is of course entertaining. For those on the fence about this film it is a good watch.

Immediately upon commencement I could tell the budget was bigger. It really shows because the Capital is shown in greater detail than previously, enabling us to see the contrast between it and District 12. Special effects are more interesting, and costumes are poignant and beautiful. Nothing looks cheap or bad.

The depiction of Panem being an unhappy to live in, except those in the capital, isn't featured as much in this movie. Instead we see people rising up again the 'peacekeepers' who come down like a hammer. I was definitely convinced these guys don't mess around and brutally suppress resistance. That said you certainly feel for these people and understand their plight.

Though this is an eventful movie I perceived it's story to be too rushed. I haven't read the book but as a film it jumps from scene to scene where one minute Katniss and Peeta are on a train, then addressing a village, then on a train again, then suddenly back in District 12. It's too disjointed which prevents complete immersion into it's world. I understand this is representative of their experience but it doesn't change my perception of this rushed story.

One the better films in 2013 with some stand out moments which will leave you somewhat excited for part 3.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
TheApplegnomeFeb 9, 2014
A hell of improvement since the last movie, but it still got a boring start & a low tempo, as the previous movie had. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire got a beautiful story, and the movie itself is very well made and it got some interestingA hell of improvement since the last movie, but it still got a boring start & a low tempo, as the previous movie had. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire got a beautiful story, and the movie itself is very well made and it got some interesting and cool stuffs that you haven't seen in movies before, and the actors couldn't have been more awesome actually, and I really admire Donald Sutherland & Philip Seymour Hoffman's spectacular performance in this movie, but I also love the drama in this movie!

The bad thing about Catching Fire is the beginning, it wasn't unique at any way, a little boring & lengthy actually, and it continued to be lengthy for about one hour, until more things started to happen. The ending was beautiful and unique, but I felt that something really was missing in the ending, and it was quite stupid.
My conclusion of Catching Fire is that it's a beautiful movie, but it got many deficiencies, such as the opening scene, the tempo, lack of action & that the movie is a little boring at some places, and I think that they could have done much more in this movie! The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is watchable, but it might not be recommended for those who likes movies with action, but it's a great movie overall.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire gets a 7/10… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
RevRonJan 24, 2014
I didn’t care for the first film but, at the behest of many friends and a girlfriend who loves the books, I gave this one a chance and actually found myself enjoying the experience. While I’m still not blown away by this franchise, I didI didn’t care for the first film but, at the behest of many friends and a girlfriend who loves the books, I gave this one a chance and actually found myself enjoying the experience. While I’m still not blown away by this franchise, I did think the story was much more interesting this time around and the introduction of new, more interesting characters, really helped get me into it. Granted, I still have some issues like the action isn’t that satisfying, Hutcherson isn’t a very memorable actor (and it play havoc on his character) and a lot of Jennifer Lawrence’s performance came out like overacting to me BUT I still think it was a decent film.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
theseparatorDec 7, 2013
The fact that the Hunger Games stories are not crushed by their own weight is mystifying, and an achievement.
It seems crazy that a film whose ideology is as savagely brutal as the fictional Games would become such a hit. Despite all itsThe fact that the Hunger Games stories are not crushed by their own weight is mystifying, and an achievement.
It seems crazy that a film whose ideology is as savagely brutal as the fictional Games would become such a hit. Despite all its violent connotations and tyrannical regimes, the film comes off as the year’s pinnacle of entertainment. Maybe the allure lies in ourselves? We project ourselves on screen. We are Katniss fighting back against the oppressors. The film’s core audience is essentially the same demographic that would be sacrificed if such games were ever to become a reality, so maybe everyone is really just preparing for the future? When the Games start, we’ll know what to expect.

According to IMDB, Post-apocalyptic thrillers are not particularly big money makers; The Hunger Games franchise being the only series that nearly approaches real commercial heavy weights. The first two Hunger Games installments together hold the top grossing spots in the genre, but even then, they don’t come near grossing anything like the top 50 overall films. Avatar and Titanic are the top two. Both have over two billion worldwide gross. Still, Hunger Games has a hard-core devoted fan base that rivals even Twilight.

At the Los Angeles premiere of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, young fans camped out for three days just to be front and center on the red carpet, catching glimpses of the film’s stars.

The best scenes of the film visually were the ones shot in the districts. The New Yorker review describes these scenes like “Eastern-bloc depression…drained of vitality,” but Katniss is exactly the opposite. As a hero she is so strong that alleviates the vitality drainage. Once we leave the districts, the filmmakers deflect the intensity of the subject matter using Katniss as a distraction. Katniss keeps the film from being engulfed into an R-rated abyss. I love R-rated abysses, but they don’t draw fans like Jennifer Lawrence’s strong performances in these PG-13 flicks.

There were some weaknesses. The coincidence that Katniss and Peeta would be drawn back into the turmoil was too much, an obvious excuse just to get Katniss back in the ring. How is that we didn’t hear of these conflicts in the past film? Surely Katniss and Peeta would have the known the traditions of the world they live in.

Also, why are all the people in the capital dressed so outlandishly? How do they assemble for all public events in perfect symmetry? Why is the President’s only concern with the games? Doesn’t he have other duties?

What the story lacks in depth, and it certainly does lack, it makes up for in action-packed, well-shot scenes. Despite an appearance by Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the gamemaker, the curves thrown at the participants in this rendition of the Games weren’t as exciting as the first film.

The most annoying thing in the film was Peeta Malark. He is a weakling and not an interesting character. On the battlefield he hardly contributes. He seems to function only as a male counterpart to Katniss in the political spectrum as Katniss ends up fighting battles for two in the forest.

Overall The Hunger Games: Catching Fire was worth the price of admission, and at 2 hours 26 minutes, it flies by quick.… Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
7
pierremSep 28, 2014
I don't think a movie aimed for teenage girls can be any better. In this view, 10/10 is deserved. But as an actual film, 7 seems fair to me. Maybe even 8.
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
7
joaodestroyerNov 27, 2013
Overall it was a good movie...BUT, the ending was disappointing. I feel like it ended the movie while it still had some way to go. It's like you're talking in a conversation, and you end your conversation in the middle of it. It's justOverall it was a good movie...BUT, the ending was disappointing. I feel like it ended the movie while it still had some way to go. It's like you're talking in a conversation, and you end your conversation in the middle of it. It's just another moneymaker.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
AnotherGamerFRANov 24, 2013
The movie is only decent. The casts are ridiculously different from the novel ones and Francis Lawnrence fails to bring the thrill of the original novel. Still fun and worth the money if you enjoyed the novel
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
7
travellynMay 10, 2014
very much darker than the last book and film director francis lawrence knew what to leave in the book it is impressively directed and wonderfully written by the creator of the dark world as well as great acting this is one film the cast andvery much darker than the last book and film director francis lawrence knew what to leave in the book it is impressively directed and wonderfully written by the creator of the dark world as well as great acting this is one film the cast and crew were very careful with… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
INeedToPeeNov 26, 2013
Catching Fire takes what was wrong with the first film, and learns from it. This is the first true Hunger Games adaptation that captures the chaos of the games in full effect. Catching Fire's film direction and devotion to staying true inCatching Fire takes what was wrong with the first film, and learns from it. This is the first true Hunger Games adaptation that captures the chaos of the games in full effect. Catching Fire's film direction and devotion to staying true in story, makes me wish the first film was redone in this manner. Jennifer Lawrence and cast improve on their performances, and I am pleased to inform everyone that the camera-shake monster isn't in Catching Fire. Thank freaking God!… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
YossiNov 26, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If the ultimate goal was to entertain then catching fire accomplished then and the proceeded to exceed expectations. However In doing so I feel as a fan my intelligence was insulted. The cliffhanger if you want to call it that, I call it more of a ball buster) was the equivalence of driving a Ferrari on a race track and slamming on the breaks due to a squirrel crossing on the track. Great movie and because of that I'm planning on watching the 3rd one. I don't enjoy having my face slammed against the windshield when I was going to stop the car anyways.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
7
JkfissDec 5, 2013
Yea, Jennifer Lawrence is every mans fantasy. I would sure like to well..... you know. If you take her out of the picture, you can better evaluate this film. It is good or should I say entertaining. There are flaws. One, you have to see theYea, Jennifer Lawrence is every mans fantasy. I would sure like to well..... you know. If you take her out of the picture, you can better evaluate this film. It is good or should I say entertaining. There are flaws. One, you have to see the first film if you want to know what is going on. Given that every red blooded male has seen the first, let's strike that from the equation. This movie is well over 2 hours long, yet the games section seems short. That sticks in my mind. I guess they tried to put too many sub plots together to make the whole plot feasible. It doesn't go by slowly and the ending is super condensed. If you see this movie, your going to have to see the threequil.… Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
7
jppl1999Apr 12, 2014
A young-adult franchise movie that reflects concretely the message from the book with an almost prefect performance from Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
adi7991Feb 2, 2014
First thing I noticed about this film from its previous film is that Gary Ross did not direct this film, so it's obvious that we would see lots and lots of changes. The first change was the setting, in the first film District 12 was not soFirst thing I noticed about this film from its previous film is that Gary Ross did not direct this film, so it's obvious that we would see lots and lots of changes. The first change was the setting, in the first film District 12 was not so modern it seemed like District 12 was only couple of wooden houses and probably the only stone building was the Cathedral, but in the second film District 12 was mostly of stone houses and buildings. The other thing I noticed but doesn't make sense is that "How is it possible for the game makers to see every little thing without a camera?".

In the book the twist in the story was smooth and elegantly said but in the film it wasn't. One scene the game maker is with President Snow and the very next scene he is in the hover craft with Haymitch and people.

I give 7 because I was impressed by the graphics and the overall flow of the film, I feel this could have been better with some logic. I wish the new directer keeps the flow and consistency the same with the up coming once.

Overall it was a great entertainer and was not as gore as the previous one. I say it wasn't a waste of time and effort.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
7
IMAX500May 22, 2014
This movie was 30% Train wreck. because when cattiness and peeta arrive in some other place, some guy got shot and I didn't know why? Now I know because they think he was causing trouble.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
diogomendesAug 28, 2015
Good movie with great acting and excellent cinematography, and its themes are compelling. Could've been better, for sure, but this an otherwise emotionally resonant and an entertaining film that will appease fans of the novel source, as wellGood movie with great acting and excellent cinematography, and its themes are compelling. Could've been better, for sure, but this an otherwise emotionally resonant and an entertaining film that will appease fans of the novel source, as well as those who are unfamiliar with it.

Final Score: 7.5/10… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
EpicLadySpongeJan 3, 2016
For Catching Fire, the games for hunger are really on the rampage and it'll get trickier by movie by movie. Catching Fire, like its predecessor, doesn't really deserve that high score, but it's still a decent movie to watch.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
BarneyOnMTJan 5, 2016
WHAT I LIKED: It delves deeper than the first, tinkering with serious themes about political control and freedom. It's great to see the excellent cast and visuals back again too.
WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE: Once the games are being played, it feelsWHAT I LIKED: It delves deeper than the first, tinkering with serious themes about political control and freedom. It's great to see the excellent cast and visuals back again too.
WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE: Once the games are being played, it feels like a rather simular film to the first with fairly little to distinguish them visually, or in any way. It's also too long as a feature where the majority is spent repeating the games in simular fashion to the last one.
VERDICT: It may explore some themes, but it feels like a repetition of the last that's tinkering on the edge of a political thriller. Roll on part 3...… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
ZerpnosMar 16, 2017
İlk filmin aksine daha çok umut dolu ve aksiyonlu geçen, seyir zevki oldukça yüksek bir film olmuş. Gelecek filmlerin daha aksiyonu bol ve umudun çok daha fazla olacağını, şimdiden sezebiliyorum.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
CoreGamer1408Dec 16, 2018
Not as emotionally impactive as the battle royal when it was between teens and little children. This Hunger Games was more about seasoned veterans. The political shenanigans of the Capital in how they tired to keep the district inline wasNot as emotionally impactive as the battle royal when it was between teens and little children. This Hunger Games was more about seasoned veterans. The political shenanigans of the Capital in how they tired to keep the district inline was kind of more interesting than the battle royal itself. Still good, but not as strong as the first film for sure.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
M0NST3R_G4MINGMay 12, 2019
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is like its predecessor a good movie. But there were some things that disturbed me a bit, so I found the first part better.

Story: The story's really good. Jennifer Lawrence acted really well as Katniss again!The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is like its predecessor a good movie. But there were some things that disturbed me a bit, so I found the first part better.

Story: The story's really good. Jennifer Lawrence acted really well as Katniss again! The acting performances in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire are generally credible and very good. However, there is one thing in the story that bothers me extremely: In my opinion, the love story was destroyed. The love story was really good in the first part - and here everything became unbelievable and also very banal. That's what bothered me the most about the whole movie. That doesn't make the movie a bad movie at all. But the story could have been much better.

Effects and Others: The effects in the movie are really good, too. There's nothing wrong with that. I just think that the "Hunger Games" in the first part were better and more exciting. The ending in the second part was quite surprising and could have been a bit better.

Conclusion: All in all "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" is a really good movie. There are some story technical problems, which could have been better realized, but the movie is still good. Everyone who liked the first part will have fun here too!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
glommanSep 8, 2021
While it's not as good as its predecessor, it's still quite entertaining. It still feels way too polished for a mainstream audience, also it's still funny that so much time is dedicated to survival techniques, while nobody dies of thirst orWhile it's not as good as its predecessor, it's still quite entertaining. It still feels way too polished for a mainstream audience, also it's still funny that so much time is dedicated to survival techniques, while nobody dies of thirst or hunger in the actual games - ever.
A fun movie with the average bitter YA aftertaste… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
AWESOM-0Apr 27, 2020
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie wasn’t bad but I hope it develops and just doesn’t do more of the same in the next movie. If you could compare it to the Enders game story (which you really shouldn’t), this story doesn’t grow and mature enough to make me really enjoy it. Where as the Ender novels did both significantly. Overall, once I got past my issues with the hunger games story/novels I have found these movies enjoyable.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
mikesgold2KNov 16, 2021
Zgrabna kontynuacja jedynki, robiąca kilka rzeczy lepiej ale też wiele rzeczy gorzej od poprzedniczki. Historia jest nawet ciekawa zaś realizacja lepsza od 1
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
JJ2FAS4UDec 30, 2021
----------------------------------6.8/10-----------------------------------
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
netflicDec 9, 2013
This is a sequel to the movie "The Hunger Games", the second in a series of three, after a book trilogy with the same name.

I haven't read any of the three books but I saw and liked the first movie. Those who read all three books claimThis is a sequel to the movie "The Hunger Games", the second in a series of three, after a book trilogy with the same name.

I haven't read any of the three books but I saw and liked the first movie.
Those who read all three books claim that the second movie is much a better adaptation.
That very well may be but I liked the first movie somewhat better.

Taking into consideration the movie's genre (Sci-Fi, Action) I admit that it is done well: directing, cinematography and action.
Watching it for two and a half hours I did not feel bored. But the first movie had more surprises for me, maybe that is why I expected a bit more.… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
evanrmNov 23, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It was better than the first one... but exactly the same as the first one! More complete lack of tension! More non-violent fighting to the death! No blood! More hiding in the jungle for 90% of the time! (at least she wasn't up a tree the whole bloody time). More engineered killer mist/killer monkeys/killer waves! The only real difference between the two is that at the end of "Catching Fire" there's a potential rebellion.. and then the film ends! And then we get to await another money thieving two-part sequel!… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
lasttimeisawNov 27, 2013
THE HUNGER GAMES (2012, 7/10) is a harbinger of another monolith box-office knockout with quite different teen spirit from TWILIGHT franchise. Its dystopian milieux strike as a resounding backbone to carry its social onus which is unusual toTHE HUNGER GAMES (2012, 7/10) is a harbinger of another monolith box-office knockout with quite different teen spirit from TWILIGHT franchise. Its dystopian milieux strike as a resounding backbone to carry its social onus which is unusual to be seen among its peers. As the second part of the trilogy-turns-quartet (a lame strategy when shifts from the source novel to its cinematic adaption), CATCHING FIRE basically is an amped-up survival battle as its predecessor (with an elaborate overture to dovetail its storyline development), new helmer Francis Lawrence (I AM LEGEND 2007, 8/10; CONSTANTINE 2005, 7/10) barely achieves a middle-of-the-road tactic to fulfill his demanding task.

Since I tend to divide movie from its source material, I am a piece of blank paper towards the plot and its characters’ ominous destiny, so the great pleasure comes from newcomers (name-checking Sam Claflin and Jena Malone) in the series since it did pique my curiosity to know whether they will survive in the end, both actors are camera-friendly and vividly evoke laughters and empathy. So tracking back to the love triangle, Hemsworth’s part is tapering down quickly meanwhile J. Lawrence and Hutcherson manage to breakout from their asymmetrical relationship, although judging from all levels, she looks like a big sister (and caretaker) to him, but which also accomplishes an unorthodox heroine and hero pair against all odds. Tucci and Banks are as excellent as they could be with their flamboyant antics, while veteran Sutherland and Harrelson are unequivocally underemployed as the antagonist and the mentor respectively, plus the new blood Hoffman doesn’t seem to exhaust too much effort to accentuate the final twist.

So it all strips down to Jennifer Lawrence’s emotional curve out and out, save her swaying affections towards two boys, her awakening sense as a token of rebellion trudges through a laboriously-designed victories’ tour, which also gives Katniss (passively though) a strong conviction what will become her goal in the chapters to come, the great part of the story has just begun!

I watched it on an IMAX screen, and the effect is no more than satisfactory, during the game time, the CGI looks cheaper and faker than usual top-notch Hollywood output, the entire hue is also a shade darker in view of its 2D default, one can barely get the full idea what is happening during the high points. Brightness aside, the definition of the images is another disappointing factor. So maybe one crucial reason (my own conspiracy theory) is that the cinemas’ apparatus is not equivalent between here in Shanghai and in USA, where it gained raving reviews, but as far as I am concerning, the technique bloopers are too blatant to overlook, markedly mar the movie for me, but I will keep as loyal as possible for the remaining two successors (both will still be under the tiller of Francis Lawrence), just because Julianne Moore is on board now as a key role, god bless the mockingjay!… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
GreatMartinNov 22, 2013
Jennifer Lawrence has such an expressive face that you have to be sure it is her from one frame of film to the next. I am not a fan of films like "The Hunger Games" but her face and acting grabbed me in that first film just as it does inJennifer Lawrence has such an expressive face that you have to be sure it is her from one frame of film to the next. I am not a fan of films like "The Hunger Games" but her face and acting grabbed me in that first film just as it does in this sequel, "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" which is the second of 4 films that will make up the three volumes of the original story. Like most sequels this is more opf a holding pattern to set up the next two films. The film, Jennifer Lawrence and some of the supporting players will get you through this way too long film that could have easily been cut to run 2 hours instead of the 2 hours and 26 minutes.

The screenplay written by Simon Beaufoy and Michael deBruyn, based on the novel by Francis Lawrence (no relation to the actress) provide the screen with action, color, blood and just a few spots that drag. The production designer provides good background and costume designer certainly deserves accolades, including those that over the line.

This new film brings back 24 winners of previous games with only 1 who can win. The government seems to interfere more with the games than it did in the first film but this is because President Snow (Donald Southerland) of Panem sees Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) as a threat to his rule and wants to eliminate her thinking that will stop the brewing revolution. Katniss not only has to defend herself with the possibility of having to kill Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) who is in love with her but she is also put in a position of having to choose between Peeta and Gale (Liam Hemsworth) who confuses her with a kiss before she goes off to fight.

Stanley Tucci chews up the scenery more than he did in the first film while the makeup, wigs and costumes upstages the wearer of all 3 Elizabeth Banks. Woody Harrelson shines as the mentor of both Katniss and Peeta putting himself in position to betray one of them. Lenny Kravitz stands out, once again, as the designer of Katniss's dresses.

Newcomers to the franchise are Philip Seymour Hoffman who plays more calm than he has in other films while Amanda Plummer, Jeffrey Wright, Lynn Cohen and Jena Malone all bring strong characters to life as competitors in the games. Another game player is Sam Claflin who takes over the screen whenever he is on it, as a egotistical, handsome and, with a 6 pack stomach, gets quite a few sighs.

As an in between sequel to set up the last two films in the franchise "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" drags a bit here and there but then you can always look at Jennifer Lawrence's face as it almost imperceptibility changes.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
6
catcarloDec 26, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Fino a che questo resta il film di Attila (sì, cioè, di Donald Sutherland nei perfidi panni del presidente Snow), la seconda puntata della saga tratta dai romanzi di Suzanne Collins funziona in modo soprendente per essere un prodotto segmentato su di un pubblico adolescente. La vittoria congiunta di Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) e Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) nell’episodio precedente ha dimostrato che ci si può ribellare alla società un po’ nazistoide basata sui distretti sottomessi a un ferreo potere centrale: il tour della vittoria fa da scintilla per alcuni focolai di rivolta, così Snow (su viscido consiglio del Plutarch di un Philip Seymour Hoffman sottoutilizzato in maniera clamorosa) trova il modo di ributtare nella mischia la ragazza e il relativo compare di sventura con lo scopo di far fuori almeno lei inventandosi una sfida tra i vincitori ancora in vita. Tutta questa parte sostenuta da un più che discreto ritmo e da una sceneggiatura che riesce a coinvolgere anche lo spettatore di passaggio: c’è il consueto contrasto tra la miseria ovvero l’opacità dei distretti e lo sfarzo colorato della capitale, la scelta delle squadre per la preparazione ai giochi, la sfarzosa presentazione al pubblico in televisione sullo sfondo di scenografie (e all’interno di inquadrature) alla Leni Riefenstahl peccato solo che Stanley Tucci abbia meno spazio nei panni del luciferino presentatore Caesar, mentre Cinna (Lenny Kravitz) si inventa per Katniss un vestito ‘ribelle’ che gli costerà caro. Poi iniziano i giochi veri e propri, causando un vero e proprio crollo di interesse: il nuovo regista Francis Lawrence risparmia al pubblico i faticosissimi (per la vista) traballamenti della camera a mano utilizzata dal predecessore Gary Ross, ma si resta dalle parti del videogame di sopravvivenza pieno di effetti, ma con qualche trovata banale (la nebbia, le scimmie), i personaggi degli altri tributi delineati solo in maniera grossolana e persino i dialoghi che paiono qua e là tirati via. Di positivo c’è che questa seconda parte occupa meno di un terzo della durata complessiva e termina quasi di colpo con un mini-ribaltone dopo il quale manca solo la scritta ‘continua’ sullo schermo, ma, si sa, questo il prezzo da pagare alla trasposizione di successi letterari a puntate. A proposito di durata complessiva: due ore e mezza sono un po’ troppe, una bella bonifica di personaggi e situazioni avrebbe giovato al risultato finale, ma in questi casi il pubblico di riferimento non avrebbe perdonato le dimenticanze o le forzature rispetto al testo originale (così, però, una trasposizione di ‘Guerra e pace’ durerebbe almeno dodici ore…). Tocca perciò accontentarsi di una pellicola in cui la regia diligente di Lawrence che però funziona meglio, anche a livello complessivo, di quella di Ross mette per immagini una storia più coerente e attenta alle sfumature della ‘lotta di classe’ rispetto a quella del primo film, oltre a ridurre la violenza che vi serpeggiava in maniera eccessiva: merito di un team di sceneggiatori nuovo di zecca composto da due che non sono gli ultimi arrivati come Simon Beaufroy ("Full Monty", "The Millionaire") e Michael Arndt ("Toy Story 3", "Little Miss Sunshine"). Insomma, nel complesso il giocattolone si fa apprezzare più del suo predecessore e lo stesso devono avere pensato in produzione, visto che regista e sceneggiatori sono stati confermati per il capitolo finale (che, accidenti alle strategie di marketing, arriverà in due puntate). Ovviamente ci saranno anche tutti i personaggi chiave della vicenda con i relativi volti: da quello bello e intenso di Jennifer Lawrence a quello ruvido dell’ex ‘assassino nato’ Woody Harrelson (il cui Haymitch ha qui ridotto il consumo di alcool) per finire a quelli con meno presonalità dei giovani protagonisti maschili anche se il nuovo arrivato Sam Claflin (Finnick) alza un po’ la media. Da notare, infine, la furba colonna sonora: oltre alla partitura di James Newton Howard, ecco spuntare Coldplay, Of Monsters and Man, The Lumineers (tutti sui titoli di coda), The National e molti altri, inclusa Patti Smith.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
Mr_MuumiNov 24, 2013
Seems like Hunger Games is becoming the next Matrix trilogy. Interesting and original first movie, followed by sequel that continues the story where it should be left at. Catching Fire has it moments but essentially it is watered down versionSeems like Hunger Games is becoming the next Matrix trilogy. Interesting and original first movie, followed by sequel that continues the story where it should be left at. Catching Fire has it moments but essentially it is watered down version of the previous one.… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
spollardMar 16, 2014
Worse than the first one but still a decent movie. The first hour was interesting and really made you think but after that it turned into something everyone has already seen before. The game, not much different and not any better than theWorse than the first one but still a decent movie. The first hour was interesting and really made you think but after that it turned into something everyone has already seen before. The game, not much different and not any better than the game in the first one. Visuals are great and Jennifer Lawrence as usual is wonderful but in the end it is slightly above average movie with an 62.6 out of 100.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
NkWchungNov 22, 2013
The visuals for Catching Fire are amazing, I enjoyed the books and thoroughly loved the concepts but I didn't enjoy the movie as much as I had hoped. The acting from the majority of actors and actresses was bland and lacked personality so theThe visuals for Catching Fire are amazing, I enjoyed the books and thoroughly loved the concepts but I didn't enjoy the movie as much as I had hoped. The acting from the majority of actors and actresses was bland and lacked personality so the movie seemed to droll on.… Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
6
djb0990Nov 23, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I was very disappointed after reading the Catching Fire book. The movie was good, I was just expecting more out of the book, I feel if they had added on 10 more minutes, nearly all the books info would have been covered. There wasn't enough out of the training, Katniss' friend (the Avox) was never addressed, and there was more, but I'm having trouble remembering through my frustration.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
6
PlaidbearNov 26, 2013
The books are still better, although this movie was better than the first one. The plot here moved along well and it was entertaining and I was not bored to tears as in the first. All around a good but not great popcorn flick. See it for casual fun.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
zNeverSleepingOct 14, 2020
O longa cumpre seu propósito: estabelece um universo, desenvolve os personagens e dá background para a conclusão da saga.

A desfecho do longa funcionou bem. O plot deixa-nos com um "símbolo de interrogação" na cabeça, fazendo com que aO longa cumpre seu propósito: estabelece um universo, desenvolve os personagens e dá background para a conclusão da saga.

A desfecho do longa funcionou bem. O plot deixa-nos com um "símbolo de interrogação" na cabeça, fazendo com que a curiosidade para as continuações aumente consideravelmente. O desenvolvimento dos personagens é promissor, fundamentando muito a base para os filmes decisivos. Basta assistir os próximos para saber se o "preparo de terreno" realmente resulta em algo.

Audio: English, with portuguese subtitles. Q60T 50' TV Speakers
Quality: 1080p SDR [PrimeVideo]… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
Sosmooth1982Dec 28, 2022
Another boring movie. This whole fake relationship thing too is really annoying. The movie would be better without that. It kind of ruins the movie for me.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Rox22Mar 24, 2014
Kind of funny that the Hunger games of this movie only happen just over 80 minutes in. Plus this movie's version is ALLOT tamer and shorter than the first movie.

For the most part this movies real focus is the politic and the aftermath ofKind of funny that the Hunger games of this movie only happen just over 80 minutes in. Plus this movie's version is ALLOT tamer and shorter than the first movie.

For the most part this movies real focus is the politic and the aftermath of the first movie. Storytelling and character development of the central characters is done well enough. However, there is little development of side characters, which makes me wonder why did they bother to have so many?

The shaky cam of the first movie is gone, but then again there is little need for it either.

Overall:
Catching Fire does have a bit more plot and a better overall story arch than the first movie. It expands on the universe and leaves you wanting more (which is coming.) However, in the end Catching Fire failed to really impress and felt more like this should have been made into a epilogue for the first movie and a prologue to the next. On it's own, it mostly feels like filler that easily could have been condensed and could have used some better overall writing.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
MCS33Nov 24, 2013
As with many 2nd installments this falls short. Only "The Empire Strikes Back" ever got better. The first half is decent but then it falls apart. Doesn't live up to the book either...
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
5
Beowulf4862Dec 1, 2013
Too dark and dreary. Katniss's character is all over the place. Characters appear with almost no preparation for them. Confusing and guilty of a recent annoyance: same-face-casting. That is, too many characters either look alike or areToo dark and dreary. Katniss's character is all over the place. Characters appear with almost no preparation for them. Confusing and guilty of a recent annoyance: same-face-casting. That is, too many characters either look alike or are interchangeable. Makes the first film seem like GWTW.… Expand
2 of 6 users found this helpful24
All this user's reviews
5
AGKDec 26, 2013
(kissing noises) sorry I was kissing a girl a million times over which leads me to thew cons of this movie, it's a action sci fi sort of movie but there is so much kissing that it made me nearly fall asleep and it's long as hell but it wasn't(kissing noises) sorry I was kissing a girl a million times over which leads me to thew cons of this movie, it's a action sci fi sort of movie but there is so much kissing that it made me nearly fall asleep and it's long as hell but it wasn't all bad, when it actually got to the action it was great! seeing all that fighting kept me from drifting away into sleep, the action was just so good that made halo look like a and the futuristic stuff looked cool too! overall the movie is ok.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
fuulveNov 22, 2013
I didn't see a good acting from Jennifer Lawrence or anyone else, except Haymitch Abernathy and Octavia.
I didn't believe to this "hunger killers" that they participate in terrible game. Where they kill each other. This is bad.
Who thoseI didn't see a good acting from Jennifer Lawrence or anyone else, except Haymitch Abernathy and Octavia.
I didn't believe to this "hunger killers" that they participate in terrible game. Where they kill each other. This is bad.
Who those film amateurs who want to see a movie without meaningless idea and bad acting my advice will be not to see.
Movie for one time, maybe with a girlfriend in the cinema in another case, maybe better wait for DVD or BR. :)

I expected more from Jennifer as Oscar winner… Expand
2 of 10 users found this helpful28
All this user's reviews
5
LowbrowCinemaNov 27, 2013
THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE just never caught fire with me. Loved the first film but this just felt like a tepid remake. More of the same and I really missed so many of the intriguing sub-plots. We also totally lost the moral of a societyTHE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE just never caught fire with me. Loved the first film but this just felt like a tepid remake. More of the same and I really missed so many of the intriguing sub-plots. We also totally lost the moral of a society that has children killing other children. Again, CATCHING FIRE is simply tepid. Not bad but just middlebrow.… Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
5
VanillaSkyNYDec 10, 2013
I really enjoyed the first movie. It was new, exciting and entertaining. The one, for me, not all that wonderful. Don't get me wrong, the visual is stunning at times and the characters do have a certain intrigue about them. I'm not a fanI really enjoyed the first movie. It was new, exciting and entertaining. The one, for me, not all that wonderful. Don't get me wrong, the visual is stunning at times and the characters do have a certain intrigue about them. I'm not a fan of the series in that I've never read the books, and although I can't put my finger on why, about 20 minutes from the end all I could think was 'when is this going to end?'. Worth a watch though, it just didn't excite me all that much.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
Am19Dec 31, 2013
Could've been better, overall I think it's because the first movie was good and I expected the second to be better It seemed to drag out after an hour
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
jasper6333Nov 4, 2014
well i finally watched the movie and well i must say i am just dissapointed, the plot of this movie does not make a lot of sense. the ending is just weird. well okay lets shoot this barbed arrow at the lightning. the arena breaks down andwell i finally watched the movie and well i must say i am just dissapointed, the plot of this movie does not make a lot of sense. the ending is just weird. well okay lets shoot this barbed arrow at the lightning. the arena breaks down and wow there are the good guys, seriously how the **** did these guys know what Katniss would do and when, overall acting is mediocre. what a dissapointment… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
CPD98Nov 22, 2014
Otro rollo para adolescentes, como la primera, pero peor.
"En llamas" es un copiar y pegar de la original, mas aburrida aún si cabe.
La parte en que no están los juegos se hace lenta y pesada, no ofrece nada interesante, y cuando salen losOtro rollo para adolescentes, como la primera, pero peor.
"En llamas" es un copiar y pegar de la original, mas aburrida aún si cabe.
La parte en que no están los juegos se hace lenta y pesada, no ofrece nada interesante, y cuando salen los juegos... bueno, tampoco es que mejore mucho.
Llega al 5 raspado y da gracias, la gente que dice que esto es perfecto, en serio, sabéis poco o nada de cine.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
TokyochuchuJul 25, 2016
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is a poor sequel that has little in the way of payoff or excitement. Plus the ending leaves you with a very, very annoying cliffhanger. And the movie it's way overlong to boot.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
DocTJan 2, 2014
One of the most overrated movies. I don't know what intrigues people about this movie. It is an ok film but nothing spectacular. The first part was better in my opinion but again overrated
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
bigfoot6463Nov 22, 2013
This installment of The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, is missing the intense relationships that the first movie had between the actors built up to the games and during the games. you dont even know how half of the players of the game died. TheThis installment of The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, is missing the intense relationships that the first movie had between the actors built up to the games and during the games. you dont even know how half of the players of the game died. The movie is all mixed up and is impossible to follow at points. katniss seemed to have constipation throughout the movie. The ending of the movie was a buzz kill. Wont say anymore because I dont want to ruin it for people who did not see it yet. I will say that it does not come close to the first movie. Hope the director has something hidden in his pocket to bring this movie back to life.… Expand
6 of 18 users found this helpful612
All this user's reviews
4
captaindangerNov 27, 2013
It just didn't do it for me. Terrible acting, CGI wasn't great, and the romance took up way too much time. I should stop seeing the movies of books I like.
4 of 10 users found this helpful46
All this user's reviews
4
turdusmcflurdusNov 23, 2013
So I watched the first hunger games movie and at the end I just had to know what happened so I read all 3 books in a row. From reading the first book (after the film) I thought WOW, its just like the book. In fact its so much like the bookSo I watched the first hunger games movie and at the end I just had to know what happened so I read all 3 books in a row. From reading the first book (after the film) I thought WOW, its just like the book. In fact its so much like the book you could watch the film and start from book 2. So even with a new director on board I had high hopes for this film and hotly anticipated its release.

In this film they basically cut the book into 3 pieces, the victory tour and dissent, the game build up and finally the games. The first 2 parts were done very well, all except one major major major part where whilst talking to katniss in the victors village, president snow utters one sentence that basically made me say "what the and I'm sure everyone who read the 2nd book said the same.

As for the games.

They basically threw all the pages of the book about the games in the air and then randomly placed them into the film. not good… Expand
3 of 6 users found this helpful33
All this user's reviews
4
AngelicaNov 22, 2013
A long 'forepaly' and without a climax. Maybe because I never read the original story, it could not appealed me. Some of the plot seem to have bad logic.
2 of 7 users found this helpful25
All this user's reviews
4
ConstantineLXNov 25, 2013
Read the books several times after seeing the first movie for which I thought was slow and forgettable. Best scene was when Rue died (actual tear came). Jennifer was good but really didn't do anything aggressive enough like a Nikita typeRead the books several times after seeing the first movie for which I thought was slow and forgettable. Best scene was when Rue died (actual tear came). Jennifer was good but really didn't do anything aggressive enough like a Nikita type character. Her co-stars, Josh and Liam, were/are not on her acting level, hell Josh isn't even tall enough or good looking enough to be believable as a "love interest.' So, I ended up watching Battle Royale--the original. Had hopes of changes for Catching Fire. Like ebbs and flows of being caught up in the movie; pulling for Jennifer's character and her relationships. Show more intrigue in the politics with the Capital and the Districts. It's a YA book with depth that's not shown in the movie. Josh Hutcherson's character in the book, to me, is an Artiste with charm and striking flares of independence, but he plays him as "he" sees him: a wuss. He seems a bit insecure about his role (height difference, acting level, looks) which shows in his bland performance. Liam has no big role so it doesn't matter. Which districts did not believe the kids? One day of training? Director's decision: Do it like the book (reminder: it costs too much to add depth and meaning) and the fans will like it regardless. Lionsgate: Let's make monay! The Hunger Games Catching Fire is still forgettable but as boring as the first movie. Advantage: Book Trilogy.… Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
4
stasjoJan 6, 2014
i have learned that after watching the movie. its better to not over think it i am really disappointed i want my money back the only reason i'm glad i saw it because now i can understand the third one which hopefully better than the second one.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
ShenziOct 12, 2014
410 Simply because the first half of the movie is brilliant. Everything is laid out well and enjoyable.

Second half.. Is a horrible trainwreck. It's amazing to see something that has done this so well in the past flump at it now. The410 Simply because the first half of the movie is brilliant. Everything is laid out well and enjoyable.

Second half.. Is a horrible trainwreck. It's amazing to see something that has done this so well in the past flump at it now.

The second half provides a story that is all over the place and it's really weird how short it feels. It's like you get a smooth massage the first half and then the second half it feels like the movie is being forced into your head. Trying to make sense of what is going on.

It gets a 4 because it's the second half that is bad. It's kind of like cheap soda, it tastes sweet at first but then the horrible aftertaste makes you regret taking a sip… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
DoctorBarberNov 22, 2013
The first hour or so of this movie is wonderful. It really fleshes out the setting of the sci-fi dystopia seen only very briefly in the first movie. The second half is a train wreck of improbable circumstances and impossible to follow actionThe first hour or so of this movie is wonderful. It really fleshes out the setting of the sci-fi dystopia seen only very briefly in the first movie. The second half is a train wreck of improbable circumstances and impossible to follow action scenes. People just seem to... DO THINGS for no explainable reason. I've never seen a movie go from pretty good to horrible beyond saving so quickly. If you look closely you can spot where it happens. It's right around where the actual "Hunger Games" part begins.… Expand
16 of 46 users found this helpful1630
All this user's reviews
3
SpangleApr 3, 2016
Here is a sequel that lives up to the hype of the original. The Hunger Games: Saving Peeta is a worthy sequel to a really awful first installment. Equally as bad, this sequel features terrible acting, even worse writing, and a stupidly inaneHere is a sequel that lives up to the hype of the original. The Hunger Games: Saving Peeta is a worthy sequel to a really awful first installment. Equally as bad, this sequel features terrible acting, even worse writing, and a stupidly inane plot that shows Katniss rebelling against everyone she encounters and pouting for two and a half hours. Before I go further, Liam Hemsworth is a horrifically bad actor. Whew lad does he ever suck. The film is an entirely grating experience featuring the weirdo hair designs of the first film. Even worse though, it strands its actors in a hopeless wasteland of ineptitude that even the best actor would struggle to find success in. Ultimately, this feels more like a bloody version of Gossip Girl than it does a truly engaging dystopian science fiction film, which I feel like is not the goal. The dialogue is cringe-inducing and falls flat nearly 100% of the time. The ending is telegraphed from the start, so when it finally happens, you are left to roll your eyes and thank God it is over. Overall, Catching Fire is a bad movie that does have good special effects, but fails in every other arena. If this film were in the Hunger Games, it would be die second. The original would die first.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
Stabs_with_PudzNov 23, 2013
Winner of the Most Hyped Disapointment of the Year Award for sure.
Francis Lawrence attempts to fit all the features of the book into the movie whilst trying to stick to the 2 and a half hour limit, which results in it all looking half assedWinner of the Most Hyped Disapointment of the Year Award for sure.
Francis Lawrence attempts to fit all the features of the book into the movie whilst trying to stick to the 2 and a half hour limit, which results in it all looking half assed and rushed, that people seem to be talking over each other and it all goes to the point where I would be happier if they had just left it out, any character development the book had has been left out, most of the characters' actions get explained perfectly in the book, in the movie it leaves the audience confused. For some inexplicable reason everyone has taken up the practise of cussing at random, and for some reason one of Katniss's prep team was killed offscreen.
Please try harder in the future Francis Lawrence, for the sake of the fandom, humanity even.… Expand
14 of 37 users found this helpful1423
All this user's reviews
3
UnderTheRainDec 29, 2013
These films are unbelievably boring I'm told the books are epic but clearly something is lost in the adaption. The characters are bland at best and to be honest if they all died at the start of the next movie and were replaced but a crateThese films are unbelievably boring I'm told the books are epic but clearly something is lost in the adaption. The characters are bland at best and to be honest if they all died at the start of the next movie and were replaced but a crate full of painted gibbons they would be more interested. I haven't read the books but please someone tell me that they all die in the end...... bland bland bland lord of the flies meh… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
3
nicholasbertJan 16, 2014
My first guess is Jennifer Lawrence is regretting having signed the contract for these films now, as we've seen her in much better characters in Silver Linings and American Hustle, where she really had an opportunity to show how much she'sMy first guess is Jennifer Lawrence is regretting having signed the contract for these films now, as we've seen her in much better characters in Silver Linings and American Hustle, where she really had an opportunity to show how much she's good.

The film wants you to be concerned with Panem's troubles, but you just can't get involved. The advantage of the first one was that the Games themselves were crude and you didn't know what to expect, but in this one you know how it all will go already and you fail to be transported in the tributes' shoes. As for the ending, it was a crystal clear sign that this is just a transition film, a lot like The Two Towers was. My suggestion to filmmakers is to stop splitting films and make a very long one, be it 7 hours.

Just poor, not worth the money or the time, not interesting, not involving.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
3
JackValentineFeb 5, 2014
Catching Fire is another prime example of how Hollywood can truly bring out the worst in an adaptation of an already mediocre piece of writing.

The story picks up a few months after the events of the original, with the lifeless KatnissCatching Fire is another prime example of how Hollywood can truly bring out the worst in an adaptation of an already mediocre piece of writing.

The story picks up a few months after the events of the original, with the lifeless Katniss Everdeen and laughably stupid Peeta Milark, continuing across the country on the victory tour of the previous Hunger Games.

To think that they can now label lead star Jennifer Lawrence as an Academy Award Winner is criminal to boot, but the fact that any merit could be sung to her appalling performance as Katniss, makes me question the very stability of peoples comprehension and/or impression of what quality writing and quality performances look like when they are melded into one.

It's hard to rely on the supporting cast, when the majority of the male roles are there just to make teen girls salivate, and the few female roles that are not Katniss are obviously there for pure sex appeal, to keep those teen girls teen boyfriends interested through this near two and a half hour excuse for a film.

Miraculously, the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman, with only about twenty minutes of screen time, offers salvation for every scene he appears in.

I've asked friends that loved the film, what did they actually love so much about it. One told me, that she LOVED the special effects.
But in a year that has given us Gravity, I don't think a film like this can even be viewed as a success in the SFX department.
Especially not with those bloody monkeys anyway…

There are a few slow pan shots at the beginning of the film that would make you think otherwise, but before you know it, we're back to obnoxious closeups with shaky-cam included.

As I have said before, upon reading the books, despite the poor writing, I would have been happy knowing that the targeted audience would be reading something which touches on some darker geopolitical messages that are not present in other acclaimed books for the age group.
The fact is though, that no one cares about that when it comes to the big screen. No one's asking themselves the big questions like, "Is the Hunger Games something that can be justified at all?" or "Why do they doubt the perseverance of humanity?". No. The big question echoing around the theatre, is "OMG, who is hotter, Peeta or Gale? lol #whatahottie #teamGale"

A simply awful film.

A 3 out of 10.

Jack Valentine… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
kstud1Dec 7, 2013
I don't understand all the hype for these movies, they must be for those who read the books and want to see them acted out on screen.
The movie is completly boring with about ten minutes of action towards the end.
How many arrows does sheI don't understand all the hype for these movies, they must be for those who read the books and want to see them acted out on screen.
The movie is completly boring with about ten minutes of action towards the end.
How many arrows does she have anyway?… Expand
1 of 6 users found this helpful15
All this user's reviews
3
lukechristianscMar 5, 2014
as much as hobitt 2 sucked this sucks more . i love suzzane collin's hunger games and i love hunger game movie . but this one is needs improvement i love the first one but this one stinks FYI there comming out with part 2 .
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
3
BigZOct 7, 2014
Ugh, here we go again. Needless to say, I didn't watch this willingly and I am not wrong to have opposed watching it having now seen it. I have no experience with The Hunger Games books and perhaps that is what makes me so uninspired whileUgh, here we go again. Needless to say, I didn't watch this willingly and I am not wrong to have opposed watching it having now seen it. I have no experience with The Hunger Games books and perhaps that is what makes me so uninspired while watching the movies. Or maybe its the whiny teens with no acting skills or screen presence. Could possibly be the approach the director has on the whole absolute power over the people idea that through this movie makes it seem...fruity somehow. In any case, I find few things to like about this. It is better than Maze Runner, but that doesn't say much. Jennifer Lawrence just does not do it for me. The random mood swings and screams and freak outs from no where. Is she even mentally sound anymore? And this girl is the MOCKING JAY? The savior and leader of the rebellion? She just is not cast right as far as the female leader hardened warrior type she needs to be in a movie setting. You know, you are allowed to make movies based on popular books that still can help the non-reader keep up and understand what's going on and why certain characters do things. It isn't all that difficult. Up against its teen movie competitors, this isn't the worst. Not that that says much, I'm just bothered by movies so hyped up that are worth very little. Phillip Hoffman, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, all acting below their talents and abilities...ugh wasted. It was cool to see Lenny Kravitz and Stanley Tucci though.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
MargateExpertJan 1, 2014
I was surprised at how awful this movie was. Granted, the ongoing implosion of our culture and the erosion of our critical standards demand that movies like this one be taken seriously. Even so, I was unprepared for its lack of substance,I was surprised at how awful this movie was. Granted, the ongoing implosion of our culture and the erosion of our critical standards demand that movies like this one be taken seriously. Even so, I was unprepared for its lack of substance, depth, plot and narrative arc.

One scene in particular was striking for its pandering, ooh-ahh stupidity and lack of imagination. When the various warrior couples are introduced, it put one in mind of the build-up to the chariot race in "Ben Hur" (which I suspect was on the writers' undernourished minds when they banged out the script). In this case, however, the warriors seemed not so much menacing as silly. Nor were their actions and subsequent deaths tied in some clever way to their superbad qualities. The result was that none of the villains was particularly memorable. As for Donald Sutherland's villainy, everything he does and says is either poorly motivated or just plain obscure. It doesn't help that the love story is a boring mess.

Bottom line: The more you liked "The Avengers", a film with wit, a great villain and terrific dialogue ("You mewling quim!") the more likely you are to hate this film. It is just overblown swill.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
2
LJHayesSep 24, 2014
I don't get it. I just do not get it. The first Hunger Games was an unoriginal, monotonous mess. This film (while there are marginal improvements) is essentially a re-hash of the same thing. The first hour is almost a scene for sceneI don't get it. I just do not get it. The first Hunger Games was an unoriginal, monotonous mess. This film (while there are marginal improvements) is essentially a re-hash of the same thing. The first hour is almost a scene for scene re-enactment of the previous film just with a bit more of the bad guys doing bad guy things. Then finally the actual hunger games starts about 80 minutes in and 90% of it happens off screen while we're shown a bunch of exciting shots of our protagonists walking, sitting, climbing trees or struggling with their forced love triangle. It's a thrill ride.
A big TV in the sky tells us that a bunch of disposable background characters died off screen which I guess we're supposed to care about but I can't help thinking it would've been way more involving if the main characters had come into some kind of conflict with them at any point rather than facing off against CGI smoke and monkies.
Speaking of the main characters, there is no development on them from the first film. Katniss remains a sullen, brooding misery while Peeta continues to play the role of damsel in distress (much like the first film, almost every scene he is involved in features him moaning about something or needing to be rescued). The supporting characters like Finnick and Johanna are way more entertaining to watch since they actually have some semblance of a personality. Then there's Elizabeth Banks' horrific attempt at an English accent which is almost physically painful to the ear.
So while I have to admit that this is an improvement on the first film, that really isn't saying much. It is beyond me why this is so popular. The story has been done before, the characters are completely unrelatable and the visuals and writing aren't exactly exceptional.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
2
WheatersApr 26, 2014
I liked the original Hunger Games, but this second instalment was very disappointing. A lot of action at night, so we can't see what's happening. Too much of the movie was spent in the pre Hunger Games bit. The actual Hunger Games actionI liked the original Hunger Games, but this second instalment was very disappointing. A lot of action at night, so we can't see what's happening. Too much of the movie was spent in the pre Hunger Games bit. The actual Hunger Games action seemed too fake. It was action for actions sake, with no continuity or reason. Talking about continuity - every time you see Catniss, she has a different number of arrows in her quiver! Acid smoke that just stops, then magic water! Too ridiculous. I won't be watching the next instalment.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
Mike212Feb 6, 2014
Catching Fire is set a year after Katniss and Peeta survived the 74th Hunger Games; their actions in the Games sparked the fires of a rebellion throughout the districts. President Snow tries to quell the rebellion by using Katniss and PeetaCatching Fire is set a year after Katniss and Peeta survived the 74th Hunger Games; their actions in the Games sparked the fires of a rebellion throughout the districts. President Snow tries to quell the rebellion by using Katniss and Peeta and re-entering them in the 75th Hunger Games Anniversary alongside other veterans of the Hunger Games. Catching Fire has the premises of an amazing, dramatic and action-packed movie yet seems to fall flat when it’s meant to be at its best.

Don’t be mistaken, Catching Fire is not a bad movie and is a definite improvement over the Hunger Games. The larger budget and the directing skills of Francis Lawrence greatly improve the overall quality of acting and special effects seen in the movie. Yet dramatic moments such as the apparent deaths of a leading character is made stupid looking by Katniss’ weird crying face and the fact that the audience is not foolish enough to actually believe they would have killed them off. Jennifer Lawrence’s acting, along with some of her co-stars; falls flat at key moments of the movie even during the supposed Katniss actually falls for Peeta scene is stale. Then again I compare actors to Liam Neeson and the whole cast of Lord of the Rings, so maybe I’m setting too high a bar.

I’ve talked about some of the negatives now onto the positives; Sam Claflin as Finnick Odair is easily my favourite protagonist who competes in the Hunger Games. While he is not the best actor in the movie, that award goes to Woody Harrelson, he is the only one in the Games who you actually see fight other contestants and the mutated monkeys. President Snow the movies main antagonist is an easy competitor to Haymitch’s best actor spot; he may not have many lines in the movie but the ones he does he delivers perfectly and even just the close ups of his face show more emotion then Jennifer Lawrence’s entire performance. The special effects for the movie are a definite and obvious improvement from its prequel, which looked so fake it made Giant Shark vs. Mega Octopus look real.

Unfortunately I can’t go on with the good points of the movie because there are none left. So I will return to the negatives; plot twists. There is one major plot twist that is probably the most important thing in the entire movie, which I saw coming from a mile away, you can tell who good guys are and who the bad guys are in the movie because of the way they dress. If they look like they fell through Louie Spence’s wardrobe they are most likely the bad guys, the exception being President Snow. The ending of the movie is as weird as the way the people dress in the Capitol; it just seems to stop without any feeling of an actual conclusion. The Grey did the same thing but managed to pull it off because the Grey is a great movie, which just shows that that kind of ending does work and can make a movie excellent.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
snowwhite2115Nov 29, 2013
I am confused, saddened, and downright appalled at the hype for this "movie." I would have gotten up and left but I didn't drive. I have only walked out of one movie in my lifetime. This should have been the second time.

First, I supposeI am confused, saddened, and downright appalled at the hype for this "movie." I would have gotten up and left but I didn't drive. I have only walked out of one movie in my lifetime. This should have been the second time.

First, I suppose it's a feat, albeit negative, to appear both never ending and rushed simultaneously. There was so much unnecessary detail that the parts or moments that should have had more detail were sloppily and hastily thrown together just to make sense of what happened in the book. The viewers deserved more after sitting through all of the blandness that they had to endure leading up to the quell.

Second, the story line is unoriginal and generic. It bears little difference to every other high school novel in which a futuristic government has a sinister plan and plays the public like puppets, resulting in some "twist" where it is not all what it seems. Been there, done that.

The "funny" parts weren't funny. They were scarce thankfully, but the attempts in this movie to be humorous, sarcastic or witty were pathetic at best. Laughs in the theater were painfully random and misplaced, where I was left wondering who was more out of touch: the writers or the misguided and love struck viewers?

I could go on an on about my disappointment in this "movie," however, sitting through it once is bad enough and I'd prefer not to relive it. If I were to sum it all up in one sentence it would have to be "They are just trying too hard." The overabundance of detail, the separation into parts in an attempt to hide the fact that it's the same old story we've all read before just packaged differently, and the supposedly quirky and edgy names the characters were given just appear as weak pleas for acceptance. At times I wonder if the movie only is afloat because of the heartthrob status of its actors/actresses.

Overall, I give it a 1 for the presence of Lenny Kravitz, although honestly, the character was completely non-essential to the plot and it just seemed like he was there to add interest to the movie. However, the whole movie is so far gone that adding him is just the only drop in the bucket towards giving this movie any positive appeal at all.… Expand
4 of 9 users found this helpful45
All this user's reviews
1
NAQURATORApr 2, 2014
probably a good book and story, but translate this into a movie and you get nothing worth watching. The first movie was basically the tournament or the condemned with kids, bad story but still entertaining to watch. The only problem is I hadprobably a good book and story, but translate this into a movie and you get nothing worth watching. The first movie was basically the tournament or the condemned with kids, bad story but still entertaining to watch. The only problem is I had the same expectations from this movie, 1 hour of survival fights, since I just don't care about the story because of the first movie... Well guess what, in this one they fight like 20 min and for the rest they talk about their totally bizar society that doesn't hold together and for one reason or another I hated every single one of the costumes in this movie. It's like we're set back 50 years. So yeah if u liked the story good for you but if you just watch this for the sake of entertainment you're going to fall a sleep. I really can't figure out what it is exactly but I really didn't like this movie. In my opinion this is just a really bad movie.

just my opinion… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
1
MuryAug 2, 2014
So producers be like:
-So what do we do in this next movie?
-Idk man I was busy buying stuff with the money we got from the first release $$$ -Let's just throw in the same stuff we put in the first movie,Katness and Peeta get in the gameSo producers be like:
-So what do we do in this next movie?
-Idk man I was busy buying stuff with the money we got from the first release $$$
-Let's just throw in the same stuff we put in the first movie,Katness and Peeta get in the game again,they kiss,they **** Gale he's a looser,he didn't fight in the dome as Peeta did and because Peeta couldn't find a suitable girlfriend even after all that
-Yeah man! that's good! And let's say there will be a rebelion which will **** the Capitol but we won't show any of that lol
-Ooh that's good,let's keep all that for the 3rd one.Alright people,let's do this !
All that being said,wake up people! You've just watched a rerun of the first movie which could've contained all the new stuff if it was 20 mins longer.If there is anything I appreciate about this movie is that it taught me to trust my intuition when I think my gf likes someone else but she says I'm the only one.There is proof that she is most probably surely lying.Thx for reading :)… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
lilkillpappyJan 22, 2014
This film, like many of its kind, was made for one reason and one reason only. To make money. This film has no art, no honesty, no truth, zero passion. This is complete trash, just like Harry Potter. Garbage for kids. Just look at the acting,This film, like many of its kind, was made for one reason and one reason only. To make money. This film has no art, no honesty, no truth, zero passion. This is complete trash, just like Harry Potter. Garbage for kids. Just look at the acting, the actors gave extremely uninspired performances. I hate films like this. Doesn't matter though, they made a bunch of money, and they will make more films like this forever and ever, because idiots keep going to suck it up. Whatever.. Hope you all don't choke on your trash.… Expand
3 of 10 users found this helpful37
All this user's reviews
0
imthenoobJan 25, 2014
Catching Fire recycles everything we have already seen in the first film and adds nothing new to lay the groundwork for the future. The plot is as shallow as the characters and the acting suffers as a result. By the time I was halfwayCatching Fire recycles everything we have already seen in the first film and adds nothing new to lay the groundwork for the future. The plot is as shallow as the characters and the acting suffers as a result. By the time I was halfway through, I tuned it out and instead spent the rest of the time ragging on it with my sister.… Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
0
malakNov 30, 2013
Read the review, not the score
Honestly this is one of the best adaptation i have ever seen, there are a couple scenes from the book that i would have liked to see, but they hit it on the nail. Instead of trying to force the book to fit intoRead the review, not the score
Honestly this is one of the best adaptation i have ever seen, there are a couple scenes from the book that i would have liked to see, but they hit it on the nail. Instead of trying to force the book to fit into a movie, they took the book an re-wrote parts to make it s great movie, without losing any of the meaning in the book. This is easily the best movie i have seen this year.… Expand
6 of 25 users found this helpful619
All this user's reviews
0
eek13Dec 2, 2013
This isn't a sci-fi action flick. It is 2 hours of trying on outfits and lamenting about which man to love. Go for the one society tells me to? or go for the salt of the earth hunter. What a new theme!! Oh, and don't forget the 'I amThis isn't a sci-fi action flick. It is 2 hours of trying on outfits and lamenting about which man to love. Go for the one society tells me to? or go for the salt of the earth hunter. What a new theme!! Oh, and don't forget the 'I am humble, but damn I look good as a princess' storyline. very inventive. After you sit through the 2 hour drawl of the aforementioned, you get 20 solid minutes of psuedo action. Followed by a close up ending that would make JJ Abrahms in his pants. I lost 3 hours of my life that night.… Expand
8 of 15 users found this helpful87
All this user's reviews
0
FilmBratDec 15, 2013
With all great scripts sitting on shelves throughout Hollywood, it's a sad day for American culture when such a disturbing movie gets made. What next, a teenager gang rape trilogy whereby the victims get even at the end of the 3rdWith all great scripts sitting on shelves throughout Hollywood, it's a sad day for American culture when such a disturbing movie gets made. What next, a teenager gang rape trilogy whereby the victims get even at the end of the 3rd production? Innocent children slaughtering/killing innocent children should never be glorified in any culture. There's just no justification for such gratuitous violence. No way this movie should have ever received a PG-13 rating. I would argue that Hunger Games is more of a reflection on how sick Suzanne Collins is rather than the American culture. I'm forbidding our kids to even mention Hunger Games in our household.… Expand
3 of 14 users found this helpful311
All this user's reviews
0
victoratorJan 22, 2014
How is this piece of crap rated 8? The plot makes no sense, the acting is average. The movie itself is an idiotic boring cruel story. Are people really so stupid to enjoy this? It makes me sad...
2 of 22 users found this helpful220
All this user's reviews
0
angrylouisMar 19, 2014
what the hell is this the plot makes absolutely no logical sense they all speck like the editor speed there voices up extremely high oh and wait for this **** when there are fun survival fights they put it in **** pitch black!!!!!! why so iwhat the hell is this the plot makes absolutely no logical sense they all speck like the editor speed there voices up extremely high oh and wait for this **** when there are fun survival fights they put it in **** pitch black!!!!!! why so i had no idea what was going on all i knew that there was two people trying to fight these beasts from clearly something that is from matrix from where they change things in the arena and why the hell dogs what the **** so wait wait wait you can make anything like a t-rex or a **** mecha but you make dogs what the **** and all the people in the arena are clearly rip offs of characters from one of the best games in the world tomb raider the main boy and girl are clearly laura croft and peter the other geologist and its appoling and the president is the profit from bioshcok infinity and well everyone else is a dochue thus movie is terrible how could anyone **** up a such a good plot like this… Expand
2 of 2 users found this helpful20
All this user's reviews
0
HoraceBagusJul 18, 2014
Ya kids killing eachother, just what I wanted to see, sandy hook massacre must get even better ratings? You sick fuks? Me thinks not, no creativity whatsoever
2 of 4 users found this helpful22
All this user's reviews
0
Critic123456798May 17, 2020
Awful, meaningless, meaningless, mediocre ****
Book and film is a waste of time

Suzanne Collins - the most stupid ator rotten scum, without brains
0 of 4 users found this helpful04
All this user's reviews
next
Page:
More From This Movie

76 Critic Reviews

7.9 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 77 Project Hail Mary
2 75 Send Help
3 73 Hoppers
4 72 The Sheep Detectives
5 63 Normal
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL