The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
713 Reviews
Sort by:
9/10
A few things come to mind ...
realdjleandro25 January 2018
After watching The Hunger Games Catching Fire Movie a few things come to mind :

1) Ahhhh Jennifer Lawrence ( still drooling from the first film) 2) I see Woody Harrelson is still doing his best impersonation of Woody Harrelson 3) You see guys ? 'nice guys can get the girl ' .... at least until part 3 4) Poor Peta , dude be taking so much shit for Katniss ... He gets cut , electrocuted , almost drowns , attacked by killer monkeys , gets kidnapped .... WTF else is he supposed to do for her ? 5) Should be aptly titled 'Catching Peta' 6) Is like every dude in this movie super handsome ? 7) Damn , I better get my ass to the gym 8 ) Probably one of the best sequels ever released 9) Bigger and better than the first
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
The only great sequel to the original Hunger Games.
John William H.18 December 2017
Catching Fire perpetuates itself to be 'The Empire Strikes Back' of the Hunger Games canon, and on that front I can say it definitely succeeds there: the set-pieces are bigger the perils are raised to the next level and the baddies are hell-bent on destroying the last remnants of hope remaining in Panem.

The first of three sequels to the original film, Catching Fire is far and wide the most beautifully shot of the franchise thanks to its utilisation of 35mm and IMAX-65mm celluloid cameras that makes the images on-screen wonderfully realised and applies the scope and scale of the action sequences. It makes you feel like the action is something monumental to behold.

As far as sequels go, is this the best one ever made? No, but it's definitely up there for sequels from the 2010s, easily ranking on near-equal footing with other sequels like Skyfall and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Poor acting by lead character.
redinnelson12 August 2017
Jennifer Lawrence's acting was jarring in the extreme. Every time she lost her s**t and her voice cracked like a 9 year old while she shouted her lines, the movie died a little for me.

Otherwise I liked the setting and many of the other characters; Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci, Philip Seymour Hoffman, I could go on.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
The first sequel is already one too many
Warning: Spoilers
This is "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" the biggest box office success from the year 2013 (five years old next year) and the second of four films from the Hunger Games franchise. Even if it did not get in at the Oscars for anybody, it managed a pretty decent deal of awards attention, including a Golden Globe nomination for the British band Coldplay. The director is Francis Lawrence, a prolific and successful music video director, and he returned for films 3 and 4 as well. The script is by Oscar-winning writers from "Little Miss Sunshine" and "Slumdog Millionaire". But for these names, the screenplay is quite a disappointment. I must say I have not read the books here or seen Battle Royale that many compare it to, but as a creative achievement the movie comes incredibly short. While running for incredibly long as this film almost makes it to the 2.5-hour mark. And in the center of it all is young American actress Jennifer Lawrence, who reprises her role as Katniss Everdeen. I must say I enjoyed the first film a lot, but I still felt that her casting was a gigantic error that kept the franchise from becoming something special. Then again, I do not like Lawrence in anything really I have seen her in and this certainly also includes her Oscar-winning performance. Incredibly overrated actress and the world finally starts beginning to see. She is a poor man's Renée Zellweger at best and Zellweger herself is pretty limited too.

Back to this film here, the good thing is that Lawrence does not show one face expression as usual, but maybe 2 or 3 which is still not very much for a 2.5 hour film. But as bad as she may be, the script is even worse. Subtlety is a complete stranger to the writers here and the argument that the world the characters live in lacks subtlety altogether is not a valid explanation. It is fun though how the film tries to be as shocking as possible with one demonstrator being shot in the head early on, but the curtail closes right before we see it, so they can still get these 13-year-olds into theaters. Besides that, there is not much to the characters in here. Talented actors like Harrelson, Tucci, PSH (rip) and Edgerton are pretty much wasted because they would take away too much attention from miss Lawrence. One third into the film, the writers apparently realized that they had no more material/ideas to elaborate convincingly on the aftermath of the first film anymore, so what do they do? That's right! lets just have another Hunger Games edition right now. Who cares if this turns into a repetitive uncreative version of the first film then. And that's what it does. Apart from the fact that the rest of the film looked a lot like an episode of Survival Island with some (not so) special Sci-Fi effects added to it. It's basically nothing here but showing us how courageous, headstrong, yet vulnerable Lawrence's character it while the actress does not have 10% of the talent to make it look credible.

Finally, the last shot with Lawrence looking straight into the camera makes obvious that there will be a third film because the ending is on a cliffhanger and Lawrence and Lawrence would return for another installment. This is really disappointing, but what can you expect and can you really blame them if millions of people head to cinemas despite the abysmal quality at times in this film. There is nothing refreshing or new in here and attention to detail or even love for movies and cinema is something I did not see in here at all. The occasionally entertaining moments of the supporting cast (especially the once again unrecognizable Tucci) just cannot make up for all the lengths and everything that is wrong with this film. I very much recommend you not to watch it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Eh...
Carson Barker16 June 2017
I enjoyed this movie. I read all the books a long time ago. I hate Katniss. In the books, I only liked Gale. The second book I felt was just trying to keep the hype from the first book. There was no need for a second Hunger Games. She could have went a different way with that. Anyway I thought Lawrence did well like before. Nothing too fancy, but the costumes and locations were good. Above average movie that kept me entertained.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Fixes a lot of faults, but still lacking in proper bite.
CinemaCocoa13 April 2017
This sequel makes up for a lot of its predecessor's glaring faults, yet somehow continues to paint its theme in the same unbelievable and contrived fashion. Having survived the Hunger Games, a gladiatorial arena fashioned by a tyrannical society called The Capitol, heroes Katniss and Peeta must deal with their limelight fame from those they despise, and the relationship they pretended to have to escape death. The Capitol's president however doesn't approve how every survivor can give the repressed people hope, and creates a new Hunger Games where only seasoned survivors compete to the death.

I didn't like 2012's Hunger Games. I went into this sequel with trepidation, but I have to admit the first hour or so got me very interested! We have the Capitol actually flexing its muscles and giving our heroes and lower classes a hard time, they are actually competent villains for once. There are real consequences to the aftermath of the first Games, troopers raid towns, people are executed, even our heroine is shaken and brittle from the experience! The idea of Katniss and Peeta being thrown into a last- man-standing death match (for real this time) with seasoned veterans who hate them, all commanded by newcomer (and slimier than ever) Phillip Seymour Hoffman. I was pretty excited!

But then the Hunger Games event began… and everything fell apart. Our combatants are unique, but about two thirds of them die off screen, and the real problem of fighting to the last man is dropped immediately. The Capitol again have no teeth, no guts and their Hunger Games as a concept continues to be completely redundant. I'm sorry, but I still don't understand. The Capitol are still incompetent villains at the end of the day, and it infuriates me! I like the idea that they are weak due to their overconfidence and complacency, but it has never been shown that the Hunger Games even works as a deterrent, it only seems to be a massive invitation for uprising and war. It makes no sense!

There's also a twist at the end, I cannot say what it is, but it only compounds this complete inability by The Capitol, and actually undermines most of the threat that you initially felt earlier. I cannot comprehend watching this again… it would be even less convincing.

(it also still irritates me that most of the actual killing in the Hunger Games happens off screen, although it is true this film has a little more brutality)

This film does have a very good beginning, I like The Capitol's citizens, I like the heavy subtext of television control and celebrity worship that dominates the first hour. Jennifer Lawrence is still great as Katniss, the action is actually directed better here (less shaky- cam and rapid cuts) and for two hours and thirty, it didn't feel long. But god does it still wound me with its lackluster execution and its unbelievably not-threatening tyrants, and it all fell apart at the end.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Style Improves & Still True To Book
zkonedog5 March 2017
The first "Hunger Games" movie's popularity to each person ran roughly equal to their enjoyment of the written works. Essentially, how much you liked/disliked the book was exactly how much you liked/disliked the movie. With "Catching Fire", however, director Francis Lawrence actually turns in what may very well be a superior product to Suzanne Collins' tome.

For a basic plot summary, "Catching Fire" sees Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) back from their original Hunger Games experience now living on "Panem's dime" while on the promotional tour for the next games. When President Snow (Donald Sutherland) doesn't like the symbol that Katniss may be turning into, he rigs the upcoming Quarter Quell (75th edition of the Games) with a special new set of rules unprecedented in the history of the event.

While the first "Hunger Games" movie was impressive in its own right, I believe that "Catching Fire" is superior because it is a bit more "versatile". The original movie was very dark in tone and serious throughout. I have read all the books, so I completely realized that the tone is quite serious, but I really appreciated the lighter moments of "Catching Fire", those moments when I felt like it was okay to laugh or smile at something that was transpiring.

The main cog in making the machine work is Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss. Other great performances from characters like Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth), Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci), and Primrose Everdeen (Willow Shields) are packed with subtle nuances all their own, but it is truly Lawrence who holds this whole thing together. Her screen presence alone is a force to be reckoned with. Even if her portrayal of Katniss is quite a bit different (at least physical) from how she is portrayed in the books, Lawrence has easily made the character entirely her own.

Thus, while the first movie in this series whetted my appetite for more, "Catching Fire" satiated the hunger by mixing some brevity and wit into some deadly serious subject matter. It changes the style of the series-so-far while also staying pretty true to the source material.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
the production team was very professional
Ersbel Oraph28 February 2017
I watched the first one. And it was a disappointment. There are quite a few movies with the exact same story. And all I have seen are better than the Hunger Games. But I was told this is a revolutionary concept. So maybe the second one will show the revolution. Nope.

The production team was very professional. The main actress has the best face in her life. And, as prosthetic, it looks quite fake. I mean anywhere the light is placed in the scene, the highlights on her plastic face look the same. Still, it shows well on the film posters. The costumes and backgrounds were very creative. They needed a new world look, after Harry Potter and Star Wars and Star Trek and hundreds of others. And they have it. Only I find them terribly ugly. I don't know. Maybe they were supposed to be ugly to make the clothing in the districts look nice. Weird.

And that is about all. There is no revolution. The story probably follows the books. And the author just shows the privileged rich life spent so far. So the result is some sort of revolutionary Kens disobeying dictator Barbie.

The districts are poorer and poorer as the number increases. Yet people are all equally fit. The hunger games has people that are fat by any dictatorship standard.

I also disliked the use of token people that ended up enhancing the racism of the story. Sure, the blacks are the most poor. But not as poor as the star winners. In the end the poor whites are more miserable than the blacks. Than the districts seem to be racially divided. Than you get some black person in the crowd, yet probably the black person was neutered or something because nowhere outside the capital is there any race mixing.

What is worse is the revolutionary book about a revolution is teaching teens to be sheep. One can be close and unguarded next to the dictatorial figure and. And do nothing. Show some mild contempt. One can be on live TV and shout in equal measure useless and hysterical slogans. And they all go to their killing just like that. But they scare the system with a gesture. Anyway, the revolution is less in this movie than on the evening news.

Bottom line: a script that has more holes than Swiss cheese that teaches obedience and passivity. Even the Disney movies don't reach that low with the indoctrination.

Contact me with Questions, Comments or Suggestions ryitfork @ bitmail.ch
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
My favorite hunger games film!
snperera6 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This is such an intense and emotional ride and you better get on. The reason this is my favorite is because I believe Katniss has developed so much in this movie as a character. Spoiler Warning: She ends up having to go to the hunger games again. And when she does she shows that she will not let the Capital defeat her, no matter how many times she gets knocked down. I love the relationship between her and Peeta. He was always my favorite and he develops as a character as well. Spoiler Warning: I love the new addition of the character Finnick and he firsts seems like an enemy but than he turns out to be a good guy. This is such an action packed movie and it has a lot of heart. Really love this movie!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Superior sequel but never really ignited my fire
TheLittleSongbird5 February 2017
As said with the first 'Hunger Games' film (which had its plus points but didn't do much for me), the books are fun, scary, thrilling and moving though because being so rich in detail and characterisation they are difficult to adapt.

'The Hunger Games: Catching Fire' is a bigger and somewhat better sequel, but also could have been much better. It underwhelms as an adaptation still, with the basic details there but in need of more depth (not as badly as with the first film though), but again it's more problematic on its own. Not an awful film (neither is the first) but considering the talent and source material, there was real potential for it to be really good, and it doesn't quite do that.

Starting with the good things, most of the acting is fine. Jennifer Lawrence is terrific as Katniss, and she is brilliantly supported by Donald Sutherland and the late Philip Seymour Hoffmann bringing first-class villainy. The action is more exciting and tense and much less hindered by the hasty pacing and frenetic editing that marred the action in the first 'Hunger Games'.

Generally (apart from some dodgy special effects) the production values are slicker and even more ominous, the dystopian feel as nightmarish as ought. The score is thrilling and emotive, and there is more jeopardy and intensity, if happening quite late into the film.

However, 'The Hunger Games: Catching Fire' is crippled by an overlong and far too stretched running time, and sadly the material is not consistently interesting enough to justify it. The film does take too long to get going with a very draggy and uneventful first hour, before becoming more action-packed and tense halfway through where things really pick up. Then it comes crashing down again with an ending so abrupt that it feels like the film was released incomplete.

Once again, the writing does feel under-cooked, with some cringe-worthy moments and lacks edge or any kind of emotion a lot of the time. The relationship between Katniss and Peeta is still marred by anaemic chemistry and Josh Hutcherson failing to inject any charisma or life to his role. The scary intensity on the whole of the story is still lacking, as well as any insight on social commentary or satirical edge, too much of 'The Hunger Games: Catching Fire' still feels rather tame and undernourished, and despite better production values the direction is sloppy and often feels uncertain in the early parts.

In summary, bigger and slightly better but never really ignited my fire. 5/10 Bethany Cox
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Not All That Enticing
david-sarkies2 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
Somebody suggested that the best way of becoming a successful author was to write a dystopian novel where a group of teenagers rise up and overthrow the established order. I guess that had something to do with a number of similar series of books taking the young adult market by storm, and this was one of them. I guess that is something that appeals to the teenage mind, being able to stand up against and challenge the adult world – it's something that teenagers, ever since the teenager was invented as a marketing concept, have aspired to. I also guess it is what has been fueling the growing animosity across the generation gap, especially with the baby boomers against the millennials, and with us Gen-Xers caught in the middle.

Anyway, Catching Fire continues on from where Hunger Games left off, and I have to admit that like the first movie, this one wasn't all that inspiring. Katnis and peter are living in the Victor's Village in sector 12 and basically have everything that they want provided for them. However, they suddenly discover that as victors they still have jobs to do, and that involves traveling across all of the districts to promote the next Hunger Games. The problem is that Katnis' actions in the previous season has sparked off riots across a number of the districts, riots that Capitol is attempting to contain, through the use of force of course. The other thing is what to do with Katnis, because she has become a symbol for this rebellion, but they can't kill her because that would turn her into a martyr. So, they decide to throw another round of Hunger Games, but this one is a special one because it is the 75th anniversary since the first (of course), so this one has all the previous victors (or at least 24 of them) all sign up again, and as it turned out, each of the sectors, ironically, had two people win two of the last twenty four games.

This made me roll my eyes, namely because it turns out that this is basically the first film all over again, except that Katnis and Peter have just gone on to the next level. Okay, they weren't supposed to have special games, which has sort of upset a number of the victors, but they decide to go ahead with it anyway. Then there is this whole thing with Peter – are they in love or aren't they because it comes out that Katnis is basically ignoring him unless they are on camera, and when they are on camera they are all lovey dovey and pretending to be this couple for everybody to admire.

The funny thing is that these style of movies do tend to have the younger generation fighting the older generation – the older generation are tyrants and killjoys that are basically ruining it for all the younger people, and if the younger people where in charge then everything would be much better. I guess that is why older people tend to be conservative and younger people tend to be progressive – the older you become the more stuck in your way you tend to become. Actually, it is the younger people that tend to be the full on radical socialists who don't want to work and basically have the state provide everything for them – or simply want to get into politics to get a bit of the pie.

Okay, I'm not really sure whether this film is supposed to be political, but I can see the ideas behind it, and I guess it is stories like this that sort of build these ideas in the minds of the teenagers that they should rise up and overthrow the established order. Honestly, I'm a progressive myself, but what we have here are stories making the younger generation believe that they know better than people that have been around for a much longer and have made mistakes that they have learnt from. Mind you, I'm not necessarily suggesting that we stagnate, but the thing is that instead of instilling the young with these ideas that they should go out and overthrow the establishment, rather they should have older heroes that are much more circumspect in challenging the dystopian present. Mind you, that concept probably wouldn't appeal to the young adult market.

Oh, and as for the ending, well, once again it was pretty ordinary, and sort of came somewhat abruptly. Actually, they tried to do a cliff hanger, which I felt was really annoying, because it didn't seem to resolve anything, and Katnis' actions at the end actually made no sense whatsoever. Oh, and having all these people turn out to be rebels, and that there was an underground rebellion all along, it was just that they couldn't tell Katnis because, well, she couldn't keep a secret, and was too emotional, really made me roll my eyes. Anyway, it didn't stop me from going ahead and watching the next film in the series.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
decent
mattkratz2 January 2017
This wasn't too bad a sequel to Hunger Games, as it mostly continues the story of Catniss and her lover from the first movie and the saga they have to continue as being victors from the 75th Hunger Games. This features lots of action, romance, and a decent amount of character development, and some new characters, but it does go on a bit long and tends to drag a bit. If you are a fan of the series, you might not mind those last too bits. Jennifer Lawrence is once again a good choice in the lead role, and the cast does click, as it did in the first movie. If you are a fan of the series and Jennifer Lawrence, you might like this.

** 1/2 out of ****
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Better then the first one!
Daniel Aplin14 December 2016
"The Hunger Games: Catching Fire", is a more then solid sequel to 2012's "The Hunger Games". "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" begins as Katniss Everdeen has returned home safe after winning the 74th Annual Hunger Games along with fellow tribute Peeta Mellark. Winning means that they must turn around and leave their family and close friends, embarking on a "Victor's Tour" of the districts. Along the way Katniss senses that a rebellion is simmering, but the Capitol is still very much in control as President Snow prepares the 75th Annual Hunger Games, The Quarter Quell, a competition that could change Panem forever. The Quarter Quell for the seventy fifth games are that the tributes will be reaped from the existing victors. Katniss must make choices that will put herself and her family in danger of being killed. She and her fellow tribute Peeta must train once again for another games, but this time they must make allies as everyone who they are fighting against know one another, Katniss and Peeta are the outsiders. The Directing in this film is very well done and very smooth. "Francis Lawrence" boosted the game from the previous film in the franchise, which was directed by "Gary Ross". The difference between the two directors is that "Francis Lawrence" is a visionary which clearly stands out in the film. "Jennifer Lawrence" once again did a fantastic job as Katniss Everdeen but unfortunately "Josh Hutcherson" didn't quiet reach the heights of the last film as Peeta Mellark and its hard to say but "Josh Hutcherson" kind of sucks in this film. "Sam Claflin" did a fantastic job playing Finnick Odair as well as "Jena Malon" Playing another secondary character Johanna Mason. Although "Jena Malons" Johanna Mason was easily a scene stealer. Which bring me to the characters, the secondary characters in "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" are sensational and they have some enormous character development throughout the movie, as well as Katniss and Peeta. The Cinematography in this film couldn't get better, which is another improvement over the first movie as there is no shaky cam. "James Newton Howards" composition of the Score was amazing with the standouts being, "The Tour", "A Quarter Quell", "Lets Start" and "Arena Crumbles." There are 29 songs in the score. Lastly The Special Effects in this film are very good in some parts but noticeable in other parts. Overall "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" improved enormously over its predecessor with better acting by "Jennifer Lawrence", smooth directing by "Francis Lawrence", great characters and good special effects. I give 2013's "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" a 10/10.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Great, pulse-pounding and exhilarating.
matrixpolaris29 August 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The Hunger Games was great. Catching Fire is a masterpiece. Jennifer Lawrence is brilliant as Katniss, and Josh Hutcherson is great as Peeta. This film is a large improvement over it's predecessor, with less shaky can, and more scenes in District 12. They also toned down the love triangle, which is great. The addition of Phillip Seymour Hoffman's Plutarch Heavensbee is great, and the story-line is good as well. The Games were portrayed very well, and the action was pulse-pounding. However, the Careers were much less of a threat than in the first film, and Katniss doesn't do hand-to-hand combat at all. Those are the only bad stuff I can think of, since the film was great, and there wasn't a single dull moment in it. All the new tributes were interesting, especially Finnick, Johanna and Beetee. This film is great, and is a must-watch.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
not nearly enough fire, sorry
RavenGlamDVDCollector6 August 2016
You'd expect a merry-go-round in the sky, almost, the way people are on about Katniss Everdeen. I won the full set in a competition where mine was the winning review, thank you Raru South Africa, I do appreciate, I never would have seen it otherwise, the original box cover artwork of THE HUNGER GAMES reminded me too much of images I have seen of computer- animated Lara Croft and I didn't have this on my list of DVDs to obtain, but when my BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER review took first prize, I was real chuffed for the nifty boxset.

Once again though, there's nothing really, really special in here. Come on, people, it's an average performance in a movie coming in well below what it should have been. I hasten to add, in all fairness, that those computer-generated mandrills... Ooh jeepers they made excellent excellent adversaries, the only real high point of the movie. Had the entire flick been that kind of edge-of-your-seat stuff...

But Jennifer Lawrence is nothing extra-special in this movie. Do not get me wrong, I am not dissing her, no. But worthy of all this acclaim, for this... This? People, you are seeing way more in this than there actually is. Take another look at it. What it does do, is deliver a theme of televised blood sport, and this is what enthralls you lot. There is bound to be more. Of this (the DIVERGENT series aside) with better performances, and you'll see, though I most likely wouldn't, I prefer other kinds of story lines, I wouldn't be salivating over the blood games to follow.

Notice that the poster artwork got recognition. Yeah, where are the days of the great poster artwork, like THE GAUNTLET, and the Roger Moore James Bond movies?

In closing, I repeat, I do not mean it is a weak movie/weak performance. It is just, this is the first movie since THE EXORCIST where a movie with an actress headlining the show tops the box office. For this? Weren't there so many, many others so far, far more worthy?
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
BATTLE ROYALE 2 Gets Hacked to s&*t (and not in a good way)
ikissedaguru4 July 2016
First off, I'm a big fan of the original Japanese version of BATTLE ROYALE 2 (2003). This is one of those movies that stays with you long after you have watched it. When I heard of a remake for the American audience, I thought it would be great and would love to see what could be done with it. I went into seeing this movie very excited. It starts off similar to the Japanese version, but seemed to lack a bit of the eerie atmosphere the original had. The characters seemed a bit more likable in this version, so I started to get a bit more excited about it the further it went.

The story then take a left turn and seems very rushed once all of the action starts. The original version is a lot bloodier and contains a lot more violence. This version hints to the violence taking place but never shows whats going on. The ending, which in the original, is the part of the movie that sticks with you, is hinted to, but again, never shown. I recommend that if you do decide to watch this movie, what the original version first. Hey America, if you're going to do a remake, do it properly and don't hack a film to shite!
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Series goes from strength to strength
Aminul Hassan28 June 2016
Following on from the events of the first film, Snow organises a new Hunger Games featuring previous winners of the competition as his regime attempts to reassert control over Panem.

Despite the overlong run-time, we watch with great interest as Katniss transforms to become the reluctant symbol against the authoritarian establishment based in the Capitol. Katniss presents a headache to President Snow as she is someone who, rather than winning the games, has transcended them by beating the premise of the format. Thus, Snow believes that she needs to be dealt with. In a great inversion of more conservative gender roles, Katniss is the one that is busy undermining the regime while Peeta just mopes around. Moreover, I have yet to discover the purpose of the character of Gale. The love-triangle gets left to one side in this one and all the better for it.

Philip Seymour Hoffman is great as his character's arc takes an interesting trajectory- though its clear that he did not want anything to do with the costumes worn by everyone else- and Stanley Tucci is wonderful as the creepy, psychotic host of the whole 'show'. There is a hint of Heath Ledger's Joker in that role which must be a satire of the false, leering world of reality show television.

The final act was somewhat rushed and I had to read a plot summary of it to work out what I just saw. Despite that, I really enjoyed this and it sets up Mockingjay very well.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
What a waste of pixels and/or celluloid
sol roth5 June 2016
I only recently saw this movie and have nothing erudite to add about this huge pile of excrement that hasn't been said before.

Its overlong. 5 Minutes was all it needed to add to the plot line from the first Hunger Games. Even then the ending looked as if it was an afterthought, and an incoherent one at that.

If only there was a rating of zero, or even negative. It is now right down there with Armageddon as the worst movie I have ever seen. I only bothered to write a review so that I could vote and help drag down its current rating.

Message to the producers - there is no need to make any more in this franchise - oh $%^* you have!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
I actually liked it better than the original
Rose Santos1 June 2016
I loved the movie, but what I don't like is that people think it's a ripoff of Battle Royale (which I guess is true, but not completely and exactly the same) Catching Fire is awesome, I loved the cast (especially the new ones) and the action is pretty amazing. But why do people think it's a ripoff of Battle Royale?!! It's not the same, sure it shares similar traits, but that doesn't make it a ripoff. But it's awesome, and sorry, but it seems better than Twilight (not completely sure, never saw Twilight, so I can't guarantee that.)

Anyway, the characters are awesome, the Quarter Quell is a twist that was awesome. And, no more shaky cameras (even though I didn't notice that very well.) This film is by far the best of the franchise. Even better than The Fault in Our Stars, though it didn't seem like it.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Fun Popcorn Action Flick!
jackseptiplier4 April 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Jennifer Lawrence is obviously the best thing about The Hunger Games franchise and she is at her peak in Catching Fire. Many other supporting are outstanding also including Elizabeth Banks, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Josh Hutcherson and Woody Harrelson ,etc. Even before the whole games start, we go into great action scenes that will make you jump out of your seat. When we then get into the games, Oh boy! It will make you shiver, jump out of your seat again & again ,etc. I love this movie a lot as a Popcorn Flick and I don't really have any flaws with this movie except maybe a few and this gets a gets a 9/10 +Jennifer Lawrence +Action scenes +Hunger Games -shaky cam a bit
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Simon R Taylor3 April 2016
The Hunger Games returns for its second outing in this bolder, more focused sequel based on Suzanne Collin's novel.

This is another faithful adaption that is much more sure of itself. Donald Sutherland's chilling scenes as President Snow are terrifyingly creepy, while Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) is impossible not to adore. Elizabeth Banks and Woody Harrelson are much better utilised as Effie and Haymitch respectively, though arguably the greatest improvement is in the writing for Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) who finally grows a backbone. The new cast for the Quarter Quell are superb, particularly Jena Malone and Sam Claflin.

With the cast having better material to work with, their development is also better to track. Katniss continues her transformation from frightened girl to Panem's Joan of Arc, and the Peeta/Gale/Katniss love triangle tugs at the heartstrings where it could so easily have been clichéd and dull.

Visually, the arena is much more epic than in the first movie, and Collins' ambitious creation is brought to life despite its impressive scale.

Catching Fire is a big improvement. Not just an adaption that will gratify fans, this is a brilliant film in its own right.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Plot holes but entertaining
raymond-houser28 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers

I don't usually write reviews; but after reading many that compare this to Battle Royale, I thought it would be prudent to say a few words. In my opinion, comparing this series to Battle Royale is very irresponsible. It's like comparing American football to a game of catch.

Battle Royale was like the game of catch. It was a single aspect of the Hunger game series, elongated into a movie. The Hunger games is like a professional football game. Sure aspects of it bear similarities to the Battle Royale series, but there is a deeper and more engrossing story-arch.

The Hunger Games franchise isn't about the actual hunger games themselves, it's about rebellion. The Hunger Games are a single facet of a much larger, much more detailed story.

Both movie franchises are good, but they are very different. Please don't believe the people spouting off about plagiarism. They are flat out wrong.

In addition, the only real negative reviews, other than the people who don't understand what plagiarism is, are complaints about it "dragging on." This movie is about more than people running around killing each other. The people complaining about this issue should go watch Rambo movies. Not all movies are mindless action from start to finish. If you don't like to watch movies with an actual story, you will hate these movies.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
The Spark Begins a Revolution in "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire"
Adrian Val Olonan18 February 2016
It's nice that the sequel came out only a year later after the first one. The trailers just show bigger set pieces and SFX for the movie. And it's great that the trailers are honest. The follow-up increases the stake for everyone, including audiences.

Katniss and Peeta embark on a Victory Tour across Panem. They realize that their actions in the 74th Hunger Games inspire an uprising from the districts. Announcing the 75th Hunger Games will either encourage or discourage the rebellion.

Well, the 75th Hunger Games is kept secret by the book. But unfortunately, the trailers will tell you about it. I'll stay quiet about it. I'll let you know it by yourself. The movie is like 60% drama and 40%. Jennifer Lawrence is a great actress. She truly is deserving of an Oscar. I love how the arena becomes bigger and deadlier than the previous one. I love the twists of the arena itself.

Another cliffhanger, another sequel! Bring it on!
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Battle royale 2: requiem(Japanese movie) horrible remake
terrildavis-4405214 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The Japanese movie the Battle royale 2: requiem (which was actually pretty good) was stabbed slaughtered and murdered.. Thats all I can say.. I don't want to spoil the plot. the movie might have been better...

J-Lawn ==> not really OK..

James Newton Howard couple of glamor songs..

music OK..

its OK for an American effort not as a remake.

What's worse is that the back story that explains the reasons behind the erstwhile the presidents's wayward ways is way too sketchy and predictable.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Catches Fire and Blazes Afar.
Python Hyena14 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013): Dir: Francis Lawrence / Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Sam Claflin, Jeffrey Wright: Extraordinary followup to The Hunger Games. This one regards celebrity and reputation. Director Francis Lawrence hits hard immediately as Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark are celebrated celebrities due to their counter that allowed them both to survive the previous Hunger Games. President Snow resents this and decides that to avoid a rebellion by the districts then every past Hunger Games survivor is to compete in the next Hunger Games. Jennifer Lawrence is awesome as Katniss who is a figure of peace for the districts and the target for death for Snow. She defies the odds with bow in hand. Josh Hutcherson plays Peeta who must play off this forced romance for the public. Liam Hemsworth has more screen time but still unable to rise above being the district 12 boyfriend who is irritated with the whole Katniss / Peeta fiasco. Even getting severely flogged cannot render him beyond cardboard. Sam Claflin steals moments as an ally to Katniss. He starts out as an obnoxious portrait but eventually demonstrates his true colors especially when he loses a loved one during a poison fog. Jeffrey Wright and Jenna Malone play two mysterious gamers whom Katniss will have to decide whether to trust. The games itself springs savage monkeys, blood rain, mocking jays that screech the screams of loved ones. Spectacular special effects and electrifying costumes highlight our lust for celebrity and our yearning for someone else to make the difference. Score: 9 ½ / 10
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews