A year after winning the 74th Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen and her partner, Peeta Mellark must go on what is known as the Victor's Tour wherein they visit all the districts. But before leaving, Katniss is visited by President Snow who fears that Katniss defied him a year ago during the games when she chose to die with Peta. With both Katniss and Peeta declared the winners, it is fueling a possible uprising. He tells Katniss that while on tour she better try to make sure that she puts out the flames or else everyone she cares about will be in danger. But unfortunately she fails to do that. So Snow decides to enact what is known as the Quarter Quell, the right to make a change to the Hunger Games, which he is allowed to do every 25 years. He decides to hold an edition of the Hunger Games wherein previous winners will compete again. Their mentor Haymitch thinks their best chance to survive is form an alliance with some of the others. They decide to align themselves with Finnick and his... Written by
Was the highest grossing film of 2013 in North America. It was also the first film with a sole female lead to top the annual box office since The Exorcist (1973). See more »
After President Snow drinks from his glass the backwash turns the drink bloody red, in the very next shot, from afar the champagne has turned back to golden colored. See more »
You fought very hard in the Games, Miss Everdeen. But they were games. Would you like to be in a real war? Imagine thousands of your people, dead. Your loved ones, gone.
What do I need to do?
See more »
The film's title doesn't appear until the start of the closing credits. See more »
I am at a complete loss as to why this movie has garnered such good reviews...
My wife and I saw the movie last night inside a packed theater. Upon the appearance of the credits following the movie, we overheard many fans of the first film lament how they found the sequel to be both boring and tedious. I must agree. While I was not a huge fan of the 1st film, I did find that it held my interest most of the time - despite having cringe-worthy dialogue and gaping plot holes. That said, I decided to give the sequel a chance after reading review-after-review praising the new film, most stating that the sequel was significantly better than the first. Say what?
Along with my fellow movie-goers, I found the first 2/3 of the movie to be an exercise in staying awake - bad dialogue (again) and even less character development than the first movie - all adding up to "I don't care what happens to these people!" Only when Donald Sutherland, Philip Seymour Hoffman or Woody Harrelson were on screen was I able to stifle a yawn - they're just fun to watch. Too bad their screen time was minimal...
The last 1/3 of the movie was far more interesting than the first 2/3 yet it seemed to be a replay (plot-wise) of the 1st movie. Curiously enough, I have watched several movies from the 1970's and 1980's with very similar plot-lines (some made-for-TV) that better held my attention and had significantly better dialogue. Perhaps if the time and money spent on over-the-top CGI and special effects was instead invested in creating a tight script with charismatic actors playing the leads, the result would be far more satisfying.
115 of 227 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?