I think this instalment was the best movie in the series. It has the perfect balance of action and storyline. It expands the world with more backstory and characters, and the effects were better so it was more convincing and we felt like we were part of this world. The casting was quite fitting.
804 Reviews
Eight out of ten stars!
janewickline7 June 2020
I must say, I was worried about this one. Catching Fire is my favorite book of the trilogy, but cinematically it makes absolutely no sense. The Hunger Games reads like a screenplay--Catching Fire is a meandery epic full of worldbuilding and exposition for a war that won't even begin until Mockingjay. So I was pleasantly surprised to find that this installment of the hit franchise, directed by industry rookie Francis Lawrence, was maybe even more engaging than its predecessor.
Visually, it is a feat. The attention to detail is remarkable. Lawrence, along with screenwriters Michael Hardt and Suzanne Collins herself, manages to weave in all of the necessary set up to the upcoming war against The Capitol without it feeling tedious or heavy-handed. The new additions to the cast, most notably Philip Seymor Hoffman's Plutarch Heavensbee and Sam Claflin's Finnick O'Dair, are excellent, and the dialogue is much less wooden than, forgive me, the dialogue in the books sometimes is. Moreover, it is impressive that even with so many new people and so many moving parts, the central thread of Rebellion shines through.
Of course, with so much plot, so much to set up, one can hardly blame Catching Fire for falling short in the emotional department--as is, it clocks in at 2 hours and 26 minutes--but I did find myself wanting some steamier Peeta/Katniss action. I was disappointed by Lawrence's apparent disregard for the relationship between Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence, no relation) and Peeta (the incomparable Josh Hutcherson). To me, Catching Fire is about Peeta. It's the Peeta show.
Here's the thing: Katniss is supposed to be conflicted, not indifferent about Peeta. In the paper version, the reader, and by extension Katniss herself, feels truly torn between Gale and Peeta. She can't help but slowly fall in love with Peeta, who is so charming and funny and relentlessly Good. In this iteration, Katniss and Peeta have little to no chemistry, and Peeta only speaks when it is necessary to move the plot forward. Gale, on the other hand, is 6'4 and literally a Hemsworth. That he is a Hemsworth is no one's fault, I guess, but maybe Peeta should have been allowed to say some of the cute stuff he says in the books.
The "adults" in the cast--Woody Harrelson's Haymitch and Donald Sutherland's President Snow have much meatier roles than they do in the books. To their credit, they are fantastic. But I can't help but wonder how much more potent this movie could have been if Lawrence had trusted his young stars a bit more with the emotional heavy lifting.
Though it fell a bit short of exceptional, Catching Fire is by no means a Sophomore Slump, and I look forward to watching Mockingjay Part 1 on the big screen when it comes out!
Visually, it is a feat. The attention to detail is remarkable. Lawrence, along with screenwriters Michael Hardt and Suzanne Collins herself, manages to weave in all of the necessary set up to the upcoming war against The Capitol without it feeling tedious or heavy-handed. The new additions to the cast, most notably Philip Seymor Hoffman's Plutarch Heavensbee and Sam Claflin's Finnick O'Dair, are excellent, and the dialogue is much less wooden than, forgive me, the dialogue in the books sometimes is. Moreover, it is impressive that even with so many new people and so many moving parts, the central thread of Rebellion shines through.
Of course, with so much plot, so much to set up, one can hardly blame Catching Fire for falling short in the emotional department--as is, it clocks in at 2 hours and 26 minutes--but I did find myself wanting some steamier Peeta/Katniss action. I was disappointed by Lawrence's apparent disregard for the relationship between Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence, no relation) and Peeta (the incomparable Josh Hutcherson). To me, Catching Fire is about Peeta. It's the Peeta show.
Here's the thing: Katniss is supposed to be conflicted, not indifferent about Peeta. In the paper version, the reader, and by extension Katniss herself, feels truly torn between Gale and Peeta. She can't help but slowly fall in love with Peeta, who is so charming and funny and relentlessly Good. In this iteration, Katniss and Peeta have little to no chemistry, and Peeta only speaks when it is necessary to move the plot forward. Gale, on the other hand, is 6'4 and literally a Hemsworth. That he is a Hemsworth is no one's fault, I guess, but maybe Peeta should have been allowed to say some of the cute stuff he says in the books.
The "adults" in the cast--Woody Harrelson's Haymitch and Donald Sutherland's President Snow have much meatier roles than they do in the books. To their credit, they are fantastic. But I can't help but wonder how much more potent this movie could have been if Lawrence had trusted his young stars a bit more with the emotional heavy lifting.
Though it fell a bit short of exceptional, Catching Fire is by no means a Sophomore Slump, and I look forward to watching Mockingjay Part 1 on the big screen when it comes out!
This one stands above the others.
Sleepin_Dragon15 November 2023
Fearing an uprising over Katniss and Peeta's success at The Hunger Games, he changed the rules for the upcoming 75th games, the pair are right back inside the deadly games, only this time, the competition is much tougher.
With the release of the new film just around the corner, I wanted to revisit them all, my feelings haven't changed, I still think that this is the best of the lot so far, I think it's better than the original film.
I think it's a little slow to start, the impression you get early on is that it's an in depth look at life for Katniss and Peeta after the games, but when the twist comes, the film really does open up.
It's not overlong, I'm glad they didn't push it out any further.
There are some exciting sequences, these games really do provide a few thrills.
Jennifer Lawrence is excellent as Katniss, her performance for me is superior to her previous one, she's excellent, as are Philip Seymour Hoffman and Donald Sutherland. Toby Jones, still doesn't work for me here.
Best of the lot for me.
8/10.
With the release of the new film just around the corner, I wanted to revisit them all, my feelings haven't changed, I still think that this is the best of the lot so far, I think it's better than the original film.
I think it's a little slow to start, the impression you get early on is that it's an in depth look at life for Katniss and Peeta after the games, but when the twist comes, the film really does open up.
It's not overlong, I'm glad they didn't push it out any further.
There are some exciting sequences, these games really do provide a few thrills.
Jennifer Lawrence is excellent as Katniss, her performance for me is superior to her previous one, she's excellent, as are Philip Seymour Hoffman and Donald Sutherland. Toby Jones, still doesn't work for me here.
Best of the lot for me.
8/10.
The Definition of a Good Sequel
michaeltobrien2 June 2020
Ever since I first saw it in theaters, Catching Fire has been one of my favorite movies of all time. It's so much better than the first one. It explores the story's political conflict more deeply and greatly expands on the dystopian universe.
The new director gives it a fresh and improved vision. The first one had audiences criticizing the shaky and desaturated camerawork and this sequel fixed it. Even though one this movie involves Katniss and Peeta competing in the games again, it never feels like a repeat of the first one. They understand that viewers already know how the games work and take advantage of the chance to explore new concepts with it.
Catching Fire should be an example to all filmmakers of how to do a good sequel.
The new director gives it a fresh and improved vision. The first one had audiences criticizing the shaky and desaturated camerawork and this sequel fixed it. Even though one this movie involves Katniss and Peeta competing in the games again, it never feels like a repeat of the first one. They understand that viewers already know how the games work and take advantage of the chance to explore new concepts with it.
Catching Fire should be an example to all filmmakers of how to do a good sequel.
How to Do a Sequel Right
xx-slay-n-xx5 May 2020
There are two types of sequels. On one side you have The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and The The Dark Knight (2008), and on the other you have Jaws II (1978) and Terminator Genysis (2015). Thankfully, Catching Fire falls squarely in the first category. After an exciting, if not entirely fleshed out, first film, Catching Fire delivers on all the promises of intense action, compelling and intriguing story-line and dynamic relationships between the characters that we were all waiting for. The Hunger Games is a series which, conceptually, deserves a well put-together film series. It is a fun and interesting concept which matures with the audience from a usual action-filled romp into a political thriller which can inspire almost anyone. We got what we needed thanks to this wonderful sequel.
In the first film, one of the key issues was the pacing. Many things felled rushed, especially the backstory for the characters which was more or less only seen in brief flashbacks and allusions. The lead up to The Games felt like a formality that they needed to get through so they could show us the action. This is understandable. Everyone wants to see people fighting, not sappy emotional moments from characters we don't even know yet. In Catching Fire, we get a much more fluid arc which gives us the perfect amount of set-up before dropping us into the second installment of The Games, which now have considerably more meaning than just staying alive. In some ways, it is allowed to because now we are familiar with the premises and characters, but the film goes beyond that to an extra level.
Take for example the character of President Snow. In the first film, we get only fleeting glimpses of this menacing character (which, I should add, does mimic the books). In the novel, this is okay because it's from Katniss' point of view. In the film, we need an antagonist, and Donald Sutherland puts on a menacing performance in this role. In Catching Fire, we get to see that in its full development. Snow is at the same time fatherly and forbidding, gentle but powerful. He has that same appeal as Emperor Palpatine or Xerxes, ones who have no accountability and all the power and thus are beholden to no law or morality but their own. This comes through perfectly thanks to the phenomenal acting and fitting script.
At the end of the day though, we get out of the house and go to the theater for a movie like this because we want to see action. It's not shameful to want to see a bit of blood and battling every now and then. Well, let's just say we are not left disappointed. The Games have taken on a whole new life in this installment, and it feels that way. In the first film, The Games are nearly quaint. It is just a simple scenario for the combatants to do what they will, free mostly from egregious deus ex situations. Primitive and effective. In the sequel, it doesn't just seem like person against person, but instead the heroes versus the machine. It is the spark of the rebellion even before it is fully revealed to us. There are enough tricks and surprises of The Games to keep you on the edge of your seat the whole time, wondering how our protagonists will get out of this one.
Predictability is something that a film can suffer or thrive on. Have too much and your audience becomes bored, but too little and you risk raising the brow too high and going over too many heads. Catching Fire seems to find that perfect balance. I found myself often saying "Ah, I know what's going to happen here." and nearly immediately having it happen. I am not saying that as if I have some clairvoyant ability. What this film does it set the scenes up so tightly that you are rewarded for making guesses and allowed to feel like you've won by seeing the action in advance. It is not a cheap tactic either. They hit the mark here by giving you enough to work with but still leaving room for you to be excited and cheer when Katniss does the right thing. At the end, we are given enough of a cliffhanger leave us wanting more from the next sequel.
Catching Fire is what sequels should strive to be. It didn't fall into any of the traps of a well-known series with a good original. It took what made the books and the original great and built on them. It helps that the actors seem to feel natural in their roles and with each other, likely the product of much more time working together. A perfect mix of action, thrills, mystery and socio-political drama, Catching Fire is simply altogether a great film. With this trend in the series, I am excited to see what Mockingjay has in store for me.
In the first film, one of the key issues was the pacing. Many things felled rushed, especially the backstory for the characters which was more or less only seen in brief flashbacks and allusions. The lead up to The Games felt like a formality that they needed to get through so they could show us the action. This is understandable. Everyone wants to see people fighting, not sappy emotional moments from characters we don't even know yet. In Catching Fire, we get a much more fluid arc which gives us the perfect amount of set-up before dropping us into the second installment of The Games, which now have considerably more meaning than just staying alive. In some ways, it is allowed to because now we are familiar with the premises and characters, but the film goes beyond that to an extra level.
Take for example the character of President Snow. In the first film, we get only fleeting glimpses of this menacing character (which, I should add, does mimic the books). In the novel, this is okay because it's from Katniss' point of view. In the film, we need an antagonist, and Donald Sutherland puts on a menacing performance in this role. In Catching Fire, we get to see that in its full development. Snow is at the same time fatherly and forbidding, gentle but powerful. He has that same appeal as Emperor Palpatine or Xerxes, ones who have no accountability and all the power and thus are beholden to no law or morality but their own. This comes through perfectly thanks to the phenomenal acting and fitting script.
At the end of the day though, we get out of the house and go to the theater for a movie like this because we want to see action. It's not shameful to want to see a bit of blood and battling every now and then. Well, let's just say we are not left disappointed. The Games have taken on a whole new life in this installment, and it feels that way. In the first film, The Games are nearly quaint. It is just a simple scenario for the combatants to do what they will, free mostly from egregious deus ex situations. Primitive and effective. In the sequel, it doesn't just seem like person against person, but instead the heroes versus the machine. It is the spark of the rebellion even before it is fully revealed to us. There are enough tricks and surprises of The Games to keep you on the edge of your seat the whole time, wondering how our protagonists will get out of this one.
Predictability is something that a film can suffer or thrive on. Have too much and your audience becomes bored, but too little and you risk raising the brow too high and going over too many heads. Catching Fire seems to find that perfect balance. I found myself often saying "Ah, I know what's going to happen here." and nearly immediately having it happen. I am not saying that as if I have some clairvoyant ability. What this film does it set the scenes up so tightly that you are rewarded for making guesses and allowed to feel like you've won by seeing the action in advance. It is not a cheap tactic either. They hit the mark here by giving you enough to work with but still leaving room for you to be excited and cheer when Katniss does the right thing. At the end, we are given enough of a cliffhanger leave us wanting more from the next sequel.
Catching Fire is what sequels should strive to be. It didn't fall into any of the traps of a well-known series with a good original. It took what made the books and the original great and built on them. It helps that the actors seem to feel natural in their roles and with each other, likely the product of much more time working together. A perfect mix of action, thrills, mystery and socio-political drama, Catching Fire is simply altogether a great film. With this trend in the series, I am excited to see what Mockingjay has in store for me.
It's Not Battle Royale Because It's Not Supposed To Be
Mike-DD16 March 2014
An earlier reviewer compared this to the Japanese cult favorite Battle Royale and decided it was almost junk. I beg to differ - the film needs to be evaluated on its own merits and its own story. Battle Royale is a single story about merciless, wanton and senseless violence and depravity when the aim was simply to be the last to survive - a kill- fest, where the innovative ways of killing serve to shock and titillate the audience but do little for the plot. The Hunger Games however, is about oppression, fighting back and revolution. The Games, though pivotal, are still part of a larger story.
Compared to the first film, this one is definitely darker. The characters look even more despondent than ever, and if you thought there were few laughs in the first film, there is practically none in this. Even the brightly-lit scenes featuring cheering crowds and smiling hosts seemed dim, bleak and depressing. While enjoying the witty banter, you couldn't help but wait for the 'but...'. The feeling of doom and gloom persists from the start to the end of the film. It is not a bad thing though - it is not supposed to be a happy movie.
Many details and subplots were understandably cut from the film adaptation, but none that were critical to the plot of the film. However, a lot of the peripheral action that were in the book is missing here, hence, though the story moves quickly enough, there is always the feeling that for an action-thriller, there aren't enough fights or explosions. The ones they movie do have aren't exciting or grand enough.
But in terms of story-telling, the movie still works to move from the first film and prepare for the third. The seeds of revolution have been planted and watered, and we now prepare for the maturing and harvesting.
Jennifer Lawrence didn't do as well here as in the last film, probably because most of the growing needed has been done previously. Josh Hutcherson though, put in a better performance. While he may previously be the injured lovestruck puppy dog, his maturing into a more complex character in this movie means he starts carrying more of the film.
Emotionally, this movie affected me less than the last one. Maybe it's partly because I know what is coming, but that accounts for a very minor percentage. Mostly it's because the film is unable to engage your baser emotions - nothing that truly tugs at your heartstrings. The pervading gloom also seems to have sapped any ability to feel more despondent than you think you already are.
It is still a movie that can be enjoyed though, and I did enjoy it enough. Hopefully the next film will provide for more emotional variance. If you don't feel for the characters, you won't care about the film.
Compared to the first film, this one is definitely darker. The characters look even more despondent than ever, and if you thought there were few laughs in the first film, there is practically none in this. Even the brightly-lit scenes featuring cheering crowds and smiling hosts seemed dim, bleak and depressing. While enjoying the witty banter, you couldn't help but wait for the 'but...'. The feeling of doom and gloom persists from the start to the end of the film. It is not a bad thing though - it is not supposed to be a happy movie.
Many details and subplots were understandably cut from the film adaptation, but none that were critical to the plot of the film. However, a lot of the peripheral action that were in the book is missing here, hence, though the story moves quickly enough, there is always the feeling that for an action-thriller, there aren't enough fights or explosions. The ones they movie do have aren't exciting or grand enough.
But in terms of story-telling, the movie still works to move from the first film and prepare for the third. The seeds of revolution have been planted and watered, and we now prepare for the maturing and harvesting.
Jennifer Lawrence didn't do as well here as in the last film, probably because most of the growing needed has been done previously. Josh Hutcherson though, put in a better performance. While he may previously be the injured lovestruck puppy dog, his maturing into a more complex character in this movie means he starts carrying more of the film.
Emotionally, this movie affected me less than the last one. Maybe it's partly because I know what is coming, but that accounts for a very minor percentage. Mostly it's because the film is unable to engage your baser emotions - nothing that truly tugs at your heartstrings. The pervading gloom also seems to have sapped any ability to feel more despondent than you think you already are.
It is still a movie that can be enjoyed though, and I did enjoy it enough. Hopefully the next film will provide for more emotional variance. If you don't feel for the characters, you won't care about the film.
This movie is long, but it doesn't feel watered down or stretched out
cricketbat21 September 2018
From the acting to the sets to the special effects, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is an exceptional film. This movie is long, but it doesn't feel watered down or stretched out - there is plenty of story and action to fill the time. Plus, Jennifer Lawrence doesn't have to carry the movie on her own. The supporting cast does an excellent job, as well. This film can't really stand on its own, but it's still a fun ride and a well-done adaptation of the book.
Much better than the original
pinkled530 November 2013
The original Hunger Games left me feeling empty and unsatisfied. It lacked depth and substance. I almost skipped Catching Fire because of it but I'm glad I didn't.
Catching Fire has several things going for it that the original didn't.
1) A Great Bad Guy: Although Donald Sutherland was in the original his character was more of a token villain and the focus was on the rival contestants. In Catching Fire, we have a great bad guy that the audience can love to hate. There's real conflict and tension between Katniss and the President and this serves as a great foundation on which to base the film.
2) Excellent Conflict: The root of any drama is conflict and this has a lot of it. I loved the conversation between Katniss and the President in the early part of the film that sets the stage for the rest of the movie. Two opposing forces who hate each other but must tolerate the others' existence while secretly plotting ways to either eliminate or mitigate the threat the other poses. A cunning game of cat and mouse ensues as they engage in a battle of wits.
3) Interesting Characters: The relationship between Katniss and Peeta is complicated and interesting to watch as it develops on screen. Haymitch, the most interesting character from the original, continues to be entertaining. There are a lot of undeveloped characters in this film that I would have liked to have known more about (for example, Nuts and Bolts) but I am satisfied with the level of character development in this film.
4) Emotional Appeal: Although the actual hunger games portion of the movie is devoid of emotion, much like its predecessor, the rest of the film manages to engage your feelings. Katniss & Peeta's visit to the other districts to pay respect to the fallen tributes was interesting. Katniss' insistence on Peeta's protection and survival was believable. Her emotional breakdown in the end was quite stirring. I was surprised the film was able to achieve this connection with the audience.
All in all, this is one of those rare instances where the sequel is better than the original. That doesn't happen very often.
Catching Fire has several things going for it that the original didn't.
1) A Great Bad Guy: Although Donald Sutherland was in the original his character was more of a token villain and the focus was on the rival contestants. In Catching Fire, we have a great bad guy that the audience can love to hate. There's real conflict and tension between Katniss and the President and this serves as a great foundation on which to base the film.
2) Excellent Conflict: The root of any drama is conflict and this has a lot of it. I loved the conversation between Katniss and the President in the early part of the film that sets the stage for the rest of the movie. Two opposing forces who hate each other but must tolerate the others' existence while secretly plotting ways to either eliminate or mitigate the threat the other poses. A cunning game of cat and mouse ensues as they engage in a battle of wits.
3) Interesting Characters: The relationship between Katniss and Peeta is complicated and interesting to watch as it develops on screen. Haymitch, the most interesting character from the original, continues to be entertaining. There are a lot of undeveloped characters in this film that I would have liked to have known more about (for example, Nuts and Bolts) but I am satisfied with the level of character development in this film.
4) Emotional Appeal: Although the actual hunger games portion of the movie is devoid of emotion, much like its predecessor, the rest of the film manages to engage your feelings. Katniss & Peeta's visit to the other districts to pay respect to the fallen tributes was interesting. Katniss' insistence on Peeta's protection and survival was believable. Her emotional breakdown in the end was quite stirring. I was surprised the film was able to achieve this connection with the audience.
All in all, this is one of those rare instances where the sequel is better than the original. That doesn't happen very often.
Getting Things Right
billygoat107122 November 2013
We are now at the post Twilight/Harry Potter era, and The Hunger Games movies are the only young adult novel adaptations that have the same scale of fame of the two former series. And you know that the YA genre has become even worse nowadays; just pick up a random book, mix them with familiar elements that would please teenager hormones, and good to go. But Catching Fire is obviously different, and these are the reasons why it's much superior compared to those horrible drecks: it has strong ambition, it digs deeper within its themes, and simply tells a story. Thus it finally gets it right by deliberately showed all the interesting parts of the source material.
Everyone will most likely come for the action and the romance, but unlike the last film, this one has a wiser focus: sociopolitical satires. It explores how tyrannical the Capitol government is, and how the media amazingly helps covering their corruption. The context alone is of course immediately compelling, it makes a stirring conviction why they really need to go for a revolution. While it centers Katniss who has issues of her own, her compassion towards her family, friends, and the people of Panem has always felt genuine. Those kinds of emotions work remarkably than the love triangle she's stuck into.
The film once again benefits having Jennifer Lawrence in the lead. She's just incredibly engaging, that you would definitely root for all throughout. The rest of the cast remains as compelling as they were, same goes to the new ones somewhat. Francis Lawrence now handles the series. The camera may be less shaky, but there's always a sense of art in his direction, especially at the midst of silence. The pacing is effortlessly outstanding, which decently balances the drama and the thrills. The games has become a lot electrifying, it is more practical and have greater effect of danger than just characters trying to kill each other. It's a creative turn that goes full momentous until the end. The production and the effects are solid enough to make the exteriors of their world look intriguing.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire has a smarter vision and finally hits the right note. The first movie was entertaining, but it hardly bothers showing the actual point of these stories other than enjoying how the games were played. This sequel filled the blanks around the setting thus tells a far more interesting story. And it sure feels like an utter miracle for an awful year for YA films, then again a great young adult book adaptations have always been rare. Overall, it's easily the best one this year, and that is all what you need to know for a while since it's kind of hard talking about it without giving much away. I can't say it's flawless, but it is generally engrossing.
Everyone will most likely come for the action and the romance, but unlike the last film, this one has a wiser focus: sociopolitical satires. It explores how tyrannical the Capitol government is, and how the media amazingly helps covering their corruption. The context alone is of course immediately compelling, it makes a stirring conviction why they really need to go for a revolution. While it centers Katniss who has issues of her own, her compassion towards her family, friends, and the people of Panem has always felt genuine. Those kinds of emotions work remarkably than the love triangle she's stuck into.
The film once again benefits having Jennifer Lawrence in the lead. She's just incredibly engaging, that you would definitely root for all throughout. The rest of the cast remains as compelling as they were, same goes to the new ones somewhat. Francis Lawrence now handles the series. The camera may be less shaky, but there's always a sense of art in his direction, especially at the midst of silence. The pacing is effortlessly outstanding, which decently balances the drama and the thrills. The games has become a lot electrifying, it is more practical and have greater effect of danger than just characters trying to kill each other. It's a creative turn that goes full momentous until the end. The production and the effects are solid enough to make the exteriors of their world look intriguing.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire has a smarter vision and finally hits the right note. The first movie was entertaining, but it hardly bothers showing the actual point of these stories other than enjoying how the games were played. This sequel filled the blanks around the setting thus tells a far more interesting story. And it sure feels like an utter miracle for an awful year for YA films, then again a great young adult book adaptations have always been rare. Overall, it's easily the best one this year, and that is all what you need to know for a while since it's kind of hard talking about it without giving much away. I can't say it's flawless, but it is generally engrossing.
Disappointing.
Yellow-Psychopath27 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Yes, it is to me. Well, like most of you out there, I was so hyped for this film to come out, but tried to lower down my expectations, and when I finally saw it, it kind of left me dumbfounded, because of the ending. Of course, you can call me unfair in the first place because I haven't read the original book, but if this film is truly faithful to the book, either that the novel is not my cup of tea, or that the story elements doesn't translate well onto the screen. Yeah, my problem with this film is with some of the plot elements.
First of all, some of the scenes in the first half seems to just continue to drag on and on, until it gets boring, or at least, uninteresting. It really affects the pacing of the whole movie and doesn't make up for the real deal during the second half, which seemed a little too short, and rushed. The game can be quite intense, but instead of seeing tributes slaughtering each other, you mostly get the tributes forming a nice, friendly group, trying to avoid 'natural disasters', and then lots of talking. I mean the idea of the clock is unique and interesting, but it is completely missing the point of what the game is, or at least that's what the audience is seeing only. Most of the deaths are off-screen, otherwise they are deaths of man-made animals. Before you can say "Hey! What are they going to do after...", the plot twists, and it just suddenly ends, abruptly. Its like they are doing their best to remind you that there is another Hunger Games movie in the making, be sure to check that out!!! Seriously? Otherwise, the acting is really not bad at all, and it has some neat ideas. If you really love the book, you would most probably love this too, otherwise, you might not understand.
First of all, some of the scenes in the first half seems to just continue to drag on and on, until it gets boring, or at least, uninteresting. It really affects the pacing of the whole movie and doesn't make up for the real deal during the second half, which seemed a little too short, and rushed. The game can be quite intense, but instead of seeing tributes slaughtering each other, you mostly get the tributes forming a nice, friendly group, trying to avoid 'natural disasters', and then lots of talking. I mean the idea of the clock is unique and interesting, but it is completely missing the point of what the game is, or at least that's what the audience is seeing only. Most of the deaths are off-screen, otherwise they are deaths of man-made animals. Before you can say "Hey! What are they going to do after...", the plot twists, and it just suddenly ends, abruptly. Its like they are doing their best to remind you that there is another Hunger Games movie in the making, be sure to check that out!!! Seriously? Otherwise, the acting is really not bad at all, and it has some neat ideas. If you really love the book, you would most probably love this too, otherwise, you might not understand.
Let the flames begin...
arthurjf121116 November 2013
I was lucky enough to be able to watch the movie one week early, since it opened here in Brazil one week before the release in the US, and I must tell you this fellow The Hunger Games fans, even though my English is not even that good: Catching Fire is a GREAT experience, and one that improves over the first film in nearly every possible level.
When I first read the books, I thought that they were not only incredibly addicting and fun, but also with an important message for the youngsters (and every other person, age is not important) who read it, and that made it different from some of the other uninteresting YA books around. I really liked the trilogy, and when I watched the first adaptation, I was disappointed with some aspects and routes they went with it. It was not an horrible movie, at all, but it was not very faithful to the book and lacked the impact I found in the novel.
With that in mind, I kept my excitement in close watch with Catching Fire and went expecting a good movie and nothing more. I was welcomed with an excellent surprise: the movie followed the events of the novel whenever possible and brilliantly so, while managing to keep me on the edge of my seat, even though I knew what was going to happen the entire time.
I won't go into details about the plot of the movie, some fellow reviewers already did it probably better than I'll ever do and the chances you're familiar with it are high. So I'll go right into the review and my opinions on the picture.
Francis Lawrence was nothing short of an excellent choice for the director's chair: gone are the shaky camera action (one of my major problems with the first film) and welcome are thrilling and pumping action scenes that expertly convey the tension and ferocity of the moment. He managed to keep the violence and shock without ever crossing the line, and whoever read the books know how important this is; it's part of the plot, of the criticism and one of the main elements that make the whole point of the film. He keeps you interested and invested in the story even when nothing bombastic is happening, and that is a great achievement, something that really sets this sequel apart.
But Francis is not alone on making this movie special. His young and talented cast, lead by the always amazing Jennifer Lawrence, is ferocious and eager to invest in their characters, making you an ally (or an enemy) while watching everything unfold. Lawrence shows us again why she was the perfect choice to play the now iconic Katniss Everdeen: she makes you root for this young, brave lady every single minute of the struggle; with her sad, hopeless stare that pierces your soul to her ability to convey admirable strength when everything seems to be out of reach are phenomenal and she deserves the praise she gets.
The rest of the cast is uniformly good, but I have to highlight Jena Malone, who plays the explosive Johanna: her presence makes the screen on fire whenever she's in, mixing the perfect amount of attitude and humor. A particular scene involving an elevator and a fancy dress is at the same time hilarious and shocking, just like her character. Donald Sutherland also shines as the menacing president Snow, in a restrained performance that doesn't need too many words spoken to make you think twice on how dangerous he is.
The set pieces are also vastly improved upon: bigger, more ambitious and work perfectly in sync with the action to make for some really unforgettable moments. The arena looks beautiful and foreboding, hiding it's dangers behind the shining green water. So does the bizarre Capitol and the Districts, full of sadness and fear, two dichotomies in every aspect.
But what I really liked about the movie was that they didn't shy away from the political aspects from the novel and conveyed the despair and oppression imposed by the Capitol over the rest of Panem. It makes you think that all of this is happening around the world, in one way or another, maybe masquerade, but it is. It's sad that many teenagers are only in this ride for the hot action and beautiful people (some screaming girls in the movie theater I went only confirm this. They were not the majority, it was packed and most people were also extremely annoyed by it too - every time Finnick appeared it was a screaming hell). It has so much more to offer.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire not only improves vastly upon it's predecessor: it's a great cinematic experience by itself, touching on important topics about the modern day society without losing it's thrilling core. It's not perfect, but what it does right it goes right into the bullseye. Don't let the hype or the teen fury on this fool you: it is entertainment at it's best.
When I first read the books, I thought that they were not only incredibly addicting and fun, but also with an important message for the youngsters (and every other person, age is not important) who read it, and that made it different from some of the other uninteresting YA books around. I really liked the trilogy, and when I watched the first adaptation, I was disappointed with some aspects and routes they went with it. It was not an horrible movie, at all, but it was not very faithful to the book and lacked the impact I found in the novel.
With that in mind, I kept my excitement in close watch with Catching Fire and went expecting a good movie and nothing more. I was welcomed with an excellent surprise: the movie followed the events of the novel whenever possible and brilliantly so, while managing to keep me on the edge of my seat, even though I knew what was going to happen the entire time.
I won't go into details about the plot of the movie, some fellow reviewers already did it probably better than I'll ever do and the chances you're familiar with it are high. So I'll go right into the review and my opinions on the picture.
Francis Lawrence was nothing short of an excellent choice for the director's chair: gone are the shaky camera action (one of my major problems with the first film) and welcome are thrilling and pumping action scenes that expertly convey the tension and ferocity of the moment. He managed to keep the violence and shock without ever crossing the line, and whoever read the books know how important this is; it's part of the plot, of the criticism and one of the main elements that make the whole point of the film. He keeps you interested and invested in the story even when nothing bombastic is happening, and that is a great achievement, something that really sets this sequel apart.
But Francis is not alone on making this movie special. His young and talented cast, lead by the always amazing Jennifer Lawrence, is ferocious and eager to invest in their characters, making you an ally (or an enemy) while watching everything unfold. Lawrence shows us again why she was the perfect choice to play the now iconic Katniss Everdeen: she makes you root for this young, brave lady every single minute of the struggle; with her sad, hopeless stare that pierces your soul to her ability to convey admirable strength when everything seems to be out of reach are phenomenal and she deserves the praise she gets.
The rest of the cast is uniformly good, but I have to highlight Jena Malone, who plays the explosive Johanna: her presence makes the screen on fire whenever she's in, mixing the perfect amount of attitude and humor. A particular scene involving an elevator and a fancy dress is at the same time hilarious and shocking, just like her character. Donald Sutherland also shines as the menacing president Snow, in a restrained performance that doesn't need too many words spoken to make you think twice on how dangerous he is.
The set pieces are also vastly improved upon: bigger, more ambitious and work perfectly in sync with the action to make for some really unforgettable moments. The arena looks beautiful and foreboding, hiding it's dangers behind the shining green water. So does the bizarre Capitol and the Districts, full of sadness and fear, two dichotomies in every aspect.
But what I really liked about the movie was that they didn't shy away from the political aspects from the novel and conveyed the despair and oppression imposed by the Capitol over the rest of Panem. It makes you think that all of this is happening around the world, in one way or another, maybe masquerade, but it is. It's sad that many teenagers are only in this ride for the hot action and beautiful people (some screaming girls in the movie theater I went only confirm this. They were not the majority, it was packed and most people were also extremely annoyed by it too - every time Finnick appeared it was a screaming hell). It has so much more to offer.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire not only improves vastly upon it's predecessor: it's a great cinematic experience by itself, touching on important topics about the modern day society without losing it's thrilling core. It's not perfect, but what it does right it goes right into the bullseye. Don't let the hype or the teen fury on this fool you: it is entertainment at it's best.
"Catching Fire" Reeks of 'Almost' but ends with 'Could've Been'
kslsurfmusic24 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
(SORT OF SPOILERS...but not really)
50 Minutes of 65mm IMAX. The director who introduced the world to serious Will Smith (or re-introduced). And the hottest, most-wanted, A- List actress. And yet...
...you can't help but yawn. More than once, unfortunately.
"The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" opens months after the "The Hunger Games" (an awful excuse of an ode to Suzanne Collins masterpiece, even though she was heavily involved with production) as we find Katniss Everdeen suffering from extreme moments of PTSD. We watch her endure the fake, Capitol induced life and the desire for the simplicity of that in District 12.
The opening of the film is strong. Actually- almost near-perfect. Much darker and more visually attractive, these sparse moments give you a feeling that the film could actually live up to everything it should be. Francis Lawrence ("I Am Legend", "Constantine", "Water for Elephants") works hard to undo previous director Gary Ross' established bland visuals, and succeeds. But the cinematography can't save the shaky dialogue and pacing.
Watching Katniss and Peeta's struggle through the tour is beautiful. It really is. And the revelation of the Quarter Quell plays out exactly as you hope. It's after the emotional tension releases that we're left with a boring shell of a film. The acting breaks (even J. Lawrence's..sometimes), the pacing seems as though the writers gave up, and the visual effects...well, it's nice to see that the VFX artists from 1980 wanted to keep the same continuity between the horrid attempts in this film and the awfulness of the first one.
But, it makes a comeback...sort of. As soon as the Quell starts- BAM. You're back in it. The charming use of 65mm IMAX is a nice touch, but immediately reminds you, "oh yeah- I'm NOT watching 'The Dark Knight Rises'...I should probably re-watch that". Hawai'i is shown off beautifully, the VFX, again, are not. And the pacing feels rushed. Then slows back down. And then speeds back up. And then slows...and never finds it's balance again.
"The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" reminds me a little bit of when I first watched Christopher Nolan's "The Prestige". I was left with that "wait...what?!" feeling. The difference, however, is that "The Prestige" is supposed to feel like that. You want to watch it over and over. Films should be like that. Instead, "Catching Fire" leaves you feeling that you just want to move on. It can't find that perfect balance between beautiful, tragic, and slow; intense, bloody and fast.
It's an improvement from the first film, this is true. However, is it a great film? No. It is a film that has a beautiful opening and a perfect introduction into Francis Lawrence's interpretation of Collin's novel, that falls apart with dead pacing and laughable dialogue.
"Catching Fire" is forgettable (not box office-wise, obviously). But, hopefully, "Mockingjay" (slated to be a two-parter released within the next 2-3 years) will finally be The Hunger Games that the book establishes.
Third/Fourth times a charm, guys.
50 Minutes of 65mm IMAX. The director who introduced the world to serious Will Smith (or re-introduced). And the hottest, most-wanted, A- List actress. And yet...
...you can't help but yawn. More than once, unfortunately.
"The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" opens months after the "The Hunger Games" (an awful excuse of an ode to Suzanne Collins masterpiece, even though she was heavily involved with production) as we find Katniss Everdeen suffering from extreme moments of PTSD. We watch her endure the fake, Capitol induced life and the desire for the simplicity of that in District 12.
The opening of the film is strong. Actually- almost near-perfect. Much darker and more visually attractive, these sparse moments give you a feeling that the film could actually live up to everything it should be. Francis Lawrence ("I Am Legend", "Constantine", "Water for Elephants") works hard to undo previous director Gary Ross' established bland visuals, and succeeds. But the cinematography can't save the shaky dialogue and pacing.
Watching Katniss and Peeta's struggle through the tour is beautiful. It really is. And the revelation of the Quarter Quell plays out exactly as you hope. It's after the emotional tension releases that we're left with a boring shell of a film. The acting breaks (even J. Lawrence's..sometimes), the pacing seems as though the writers gave up, and the visual effects...well, it's nice to see that the VFX artists from 1980 wanted to keep the same continuity between the horrid attempts in this film and the awfulness of the first one.
But, it makes a comeback...sort of. As soon as the Quell starts- BAM. You're back in it. The charming use of 65mm IMAX is a nice touch, but immediately reminds you, "oh yeah- I'm NOT watching 'The Dark Knight Rises'...I should probably re-watch that". Hawai'i is shown off beautifully, the VFX, again, are not. And the pacing feels rushed. Then slows back down. And then speeds back up. And then slows...and never finds it's balance again.
"The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" reminds me a little bit of when I first watched Christopher Nolan's "The Prestige". I was left with that "wait...what?!" feeling. The difference, however, is that "The Prestige" is supposed to feel like that. You want to watch it over and over. Films should be like that. Instead, "Catching Fire" leaves you feeling that you just want to move on. It can't find that perfect balance between beautiful, tragic, and slow; intense, bloody and fast.
It's an improvement from the first film, this is true. However, is it a great film? No. It is a film that has a beautiful opening and a perfect introduction into Francis Lawrence's interpretation of Collin's novel, that falls apart with dead pacing and laughable dialogue.
"Catching Fire" is forgettable (not box office-wise, obviously). But, hopefully, "Mockingjay" (slated to be a two-parter released within the next 2-3 years) will finally be The Hunger Games that the book establishes.
Third/Fourth times a charm, guys.
Badly directed with poor dialogue.
fictiver25 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I went to see this movie after seeing that in IMDb, it got a rating of 8.3 out of 10. Even though I saw some bad reviews about it, I was certain that a movie that got such a high rating in this kind of site must have something to offer. My god was I wrong. Where do I begin?
Dialogue is poorly written and awkward at times. For example, when Peeta finds a pearl in the clam he just tells Katniss "For you" or something, and she replies with "Thanks" and takes the pearl. Wow. Just wow. What was the screenwriter or whoever writes that thing thinking? I honestly started laughing when I heard these lines.
Screen time is wasted and an hour and fifteen minutes into the movie, almost nothing happened and I started drifting away, something that has never happened in the first movie which I saw like three times. They did switch directors from the first movie, and it shows.
Unlike the previous Hunger Games, the sequel is plain boring, even in its most action-packed scenes, such as the toxic fog and the part where Peeta dies. So they manage to get past the fog and Peeta lives. Wooh, a twist! Everything that happens is so damn predictable and just uninteresting. Since over an hour passed until the games actually start, we don't get a chance to bond with the other tributes, and we just don't care about anyone except Katniss and Peeta. The part where the old lady runs into the fog in order to "save the others" could be much more emotional for the viewer if we only cared about her!
Also, ending a movie with a cliffhanger like this is just frustrating and plain lazy. This is something you can do in a TV series, where you get to see the resolution in the next episode in a week, but when done in a movie, it is clearly a way to force us viewers to watch the next sequel in order to get a satisfying resolution and cash-in on the way. In short, the ending is disappointing and doesn't resolve anything that happened so far. Did I just pay a full price for a prequel to when the story really kicks in to action?
I can go on and on about other things, such as the poor decision-making done by some of the characters (The bare-chested tribute knifing down the genius' wife while exposing himself to Katniss shooting him in the chest) or the stereotypical depiction of soldiers being sadistic, ruthless and unmerciful like robots instead of showing some small shred of humanity. I mean seriously, the Nazis weren't this cruel.
However, there are some good sides to this movie. Jennifer Lawrence acts wonderfully and does try to express some of Katniss' feelings. She does a great job. Josh Hutcherson gives a decent performance as well, playing the confused-from-love-and-fame Peeta. Other side-characters are depicted very well, and the overall acting in this film is superb.
Here and there there are some stronger scenes that save the movie from being a total bore, such as the fight against the baboons and Katniss and Peeta's first speech which was wonderfully acted.
Overall, this is a 5. There are some bright spots here and there in this movie, but they are just outweighed by the general boredom and heaviness of the rest of the film, and I found myself not giving a damn about nearly anything that happened on screen. Great acting and some strong scenes are burdened by poor dialogue and weak directing.
And that's pretty much it. I can't believe that this movie is believed to be one of 2013's best movies.
Dialogue is poorly written and awkward at times. For example, when Peeta finds a pearl in the clam he just tells Katniss "For you" or something, and she replies with "Thanks" and takes the pearl. Wow. Just wow. What was the screenwriter or whoever writes that thing thinking? I honestly started laughing when I heard these lines.
Screen time is wasted and an hour and fifteen minutes into the movie, almost nothing happened and I started drifting away, something that has never happened in the first movie which I saw like three times. They did switch directors from the first movie, and it shows.
Unlike the previous Hunger Games, the sequel is plain boring, even in its most action-packed scenes, such as the toxic fog and the part where Peeta dies. So they manage to get past the fog and Peeta lives. Wooh, a twist! Everything that happens is so damn predictable and just uninteresting. Since over an hour passed until the games actually start, we don't get a chance to bond with the other tributes, and we just don't care about anyone except Katniss and Peeta. The part where the old lady runs into the fog in order to "save the others" could be much more emotional for the viewer if we only cared about her!
Also, ending a movie with a cliffhanger like this is just frustrating and plain lazy. This is something you can do in a TV series, where you get to see the resolution in the next episode in a week, but when done in a movie, it is clearly a way to force us viewers to watch the next sequel in order to get a satisfying resolution and cash-in on the way. In short, the ending is disappointing and doesn't resolve anything that happened so far. Did I just pay a full price for a prequel to when the story really kicks in to action?
I can go on and on about other things, such as the poor decision-making done by some of the characters (The bare-chested tribute knifing down the genius' wife while exposing himself to Katniss shooting him in the chest) or the stereotypical depiction of soldiers being sadistic, ruthless and unmerciful like robots instead of showing some small shred of humanity. I mean seriously, the Nazis weren't this cruel.
However, there are some good sides to this movie. Jennifer Lawrence acts wonderfully and does try to express some of Katniss' feelings. She does a great job. Josh Hutcherson gives a decent performance as well, playing the confused-from-love-and-fame Peeta. Other side-characters are depicted very well, and the overall acting in this film is superb.
Here and there there are some stronger scenes that save the movie from being a total bore, such as the fight against the baboons and Katniss and Peeta's first speech which was wonderfully acted.
Overall, this is a 5. There are some bright spots here and there in this movie, but they are just outweighed by the general boredom and heaviness of the rest of the film, and I found myself not giving a damn about nearly anything that happened on screen. Great acting and some strong scenes are burdened by poor dialogue and weak directing.
And that's pretty much it. I can't believe that this movie is believed to be one of 2013's best movies.
A lot better than the 1!
UniqueParticle17 July 2023
I understand the praise definitely not among a favorite movie like someone else but quite excellent! I always appreciate Donald Sutherland his performances are superb one of the best of his was in JFK. The directing in Catching Fire is far better than part 1, Francis Lawrence is great his craft! Generally I'm not intrigued by the Hunger Games films they aren't really my cup of tea but I really like this one especially how shiny at the same it's dark too. One thing to appreciate is how these movies blossomed Jennifer Lawerence's career although Silver Lining's Playbook won her first major award. Great entertainment all around.
A Surprisingly Good Movie That Surpasses It's Predecessor In Every Way
cadillac2022 November 2013
I wouldn't exactly call myself a fan of the books, but I did enjoy Hunger Games, despite it's tweenie appeal. I'm a sucker for these kinds of things. Maybe it's the Battle Royale and Lord of the Flies fan in me. I did enjoy the first movie. It was a very well done adaptation. However, having read the entire trilogy, I feared that adapting the rest of the material would result in something similar to the books: terrible follow ups. As someone who takes the content of these books and the things that themes and stories they are trying to tell just a bit more seriously than the target age group might, I groaned and moaned throughout the novels, especially the last one. However, the film has done something I didn't think it could do: not suck.
That's right, the movie does not suck. In fact, it's actually quite good. So good that it out does The Hunger Games in nearly every way, something that is quite the opposite of the novel. Where the original movie, while good, also came off feeling like it was feeding that tweenie audience it was aimed at, something about Catching Fire feels far more serious and far more mature. The film picks up right where we left off. Katniss and Peeta are on their victory tour, while the rest of the districts are showing signs of civil unrest due to Katniss defiance of The Capitol, that oppressive government regime that forces districts to send their children to die. To send a message to the districts that the capitol is still evil, they devise a new Hunger Games, this time forcing past victors back into the arena. Because what is a Hunger Games movie without the Hunger Games.
The first film, at times, felt like it was doing too much to introduce us into this world. Everything felt like some kind of obvious plot detail. While I enjoyed the film, I often felt disconnected to it and the issues it tried to present. There was so much focus on details of the world and the games, that the presentation of the world seemed to take a back seat. Lawrence was the major saving grace, though even she wasn't perfect. All of this has changed. With the games essentially taking a secondary part in the film, there is a stronger emotional connection. It helps that all the actors involved are not only a bigger part of the film but seem to be more comfortable and are much more convincing in their roles. Where the characters of Effie and Haymitch and even Gale seemed purpose driven, with little more than a role to fill, here they feel more fleshed out. They have a greater impact and there is more of an emotional connection, from Haymitch's clear frustration between his contempt for the Capitol and his attempts to keep Katniss and Peeta alive, to Effie's attempt to keep everyone as a team and sure signs that she is struggling with the facts of Katniss and Peeta once again thrown into turmoil.
The performances are the primary strength here. They do deliver on the emotion that is necessary to drive this story and don't feel like they are catering just to tweens, with the poorly written love triangle of the novel and the more trivial elements that are apart of the kind of writing that comes with novels aimed at tweens. Catching Fire feels like a serious movie with a serious story to tell. At it's heart is Jennifer Lawrence, who seems like a completely different person here. Since the original movie, as an actor, Lawrence has had several projects and has even won an Oscar. And so, it is no surprise that she feels like she is at an entirely different level. She seems more natural as Katniss and her acting is far more convincing. She comes off as someone who is not only conflicted, but scared. Even so, she remains strong and determined. Much like the first movie, as Katniss, she proves to be among the best of role models for young folk.
But beyond the performances, everything just feels elevated. The story has a better focus on the growing revolution that is clearly starting. The themes are more apparent and focused on. Everything feels less obvious and more natural. Gone are introductions to this world and it's elements, replaced by a futuristic vision carried purely by it's story and characters. Even the games are better, with more exciting action, better effects, and better character interaction, helped by a cast of new characters as fellow tributes.
I do seem to be gushing about the film, and it's not one I had expected to like nearly as much as I did, but I have to admit it: this was a very pleasant surprise. My fear now is that the next films won't live up to this sequel. But, I will give them more of the benefit of the doubt, considering how much this film blew me away as far as surpassing expectations. As I said in my review for the first film, fans will love this, and non-fans may also find themselves won over.
That's right, the movie does not suck. In fact, it's actually quite good. So good that it out does The Hunger Games in nearly every way, something that is quite the opposite of the novel. Where the original movie, while good, also came off feeling like it was feeding that tweenie audience it was aimed at, something about Catching Fire feels far more serious and far more mature. The film picks up right where we left off. Katniss and Peeta are on their victory tour, while the rest of the districts are showing signs of civil unrest due to Katniss defiance of The Capitol, that oppressive government regime that forces districts to send their children to die. To send a message to the districts that the capitol is still evil, they devise a new Hunger Games, this time forcing past victors back into the arena. Because what is a Hunger Games movie without the Hunger Games.
The first film, at times, felt like it was doing too much to introduce us into this world. Everything felt like some kind of obvious plot detail. While I enjoyed the film, I often felt disconnected to it and the issues it tried to present. There was so much focus on details of the world and the games, that the presentation of the world seemed to take a back seat. Lawrence was the major saving grace, though even she wasn't perfect. All of this has changed. With the games essentially taking a secondary part in the film, there is a stronger emotional connection. It helps that all the actors involved are not only a bigger part of the film but seem to be more comfortable and are much more convincing in their roles. Where the characters of Effie and Haymitch and even Gale seemed purpose driven, with little more than a role to fill, here they feel more fleshed out. They have a greater impact and there is more of an emotional connection, from Haymitch's clear frustration between his contempt for the Capitol and his attempts to keep Katniss and Peeta alive, to Effie's attempt to keep everyone as a team and sure signs that she is struggling with the facts of Katniss and Peeta once again thrown into turmoil.
The performances are the primary strength here. They do deliver on the emotion that is necessary to drive this story and don't feel like they are catering just to tweens, with the poorly written love triangle of the novel and the more trivial elements that are apart of the kind of writing that comes with novels aimed at tweens. Catching Fire feels like a serious movie with a serious story to tell. At it's heart is Jennifer Lawrence, who seems like a completely different person here. Since the original movie, as an actor, Lawrence has had several projects and has even won an Oscar. And so, it is no surprise that she feels like she is at an entirely different level. She seems more natural as Katniss and her acting is far more convincing. She comes off as someone who is not only conflicted, but scared. Even so, she remains strong and determined. Much like the first movie, as Katniss, she proves to be among the best of role models for young folk.
But beyond the performances, everything just feels elevated. The story has a better focus on the growing revolution that is clearly starting. The themes are more apparent and focused on. Everything feels less obvious and more natural. Gone are introductions to this world and it's elements, replaced by a futuristic vision carried purely by it's story and characters. Even the games are better, with more exciting action, better effects, and better character interaction, helped by a cast of new characters as fellow tributes.
I do seem to be gushing about the film, and it's not one I had expected to like nearly as much as I did, but I have to admit it: this was a very pleasant surprise. My fear now is that the next films won't live up to this sequel. But, I will give them more of the benefit of the doubt, considering how much this film blew me away as far as surpassing expectations. As I said in my review for the first film, fans will love this, and non-fans may also find themselves won over.
Most of it is boring as hell.
AdultAudienceMember22 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Boring as hell until close to the end. We know Katnis and Peta or Petra or whatever are going to survive.
Upsides: Good acting by Lawrence, Hoffman, and Harrelson. Very good.
Downsides: Slow to develop. No character development of Peta. It is a set up for the next installment and nothing more.
Sutherland is one dimensional.
Glad I went to it so I can be ready for Part Three....The Where're Hungry for Some Excitement Games.
Unanswered Question: Since the guy playing Peta is a full 5" shorter than JL in real life, how did them make him the same height? He must have been carrying a cola case with him wherever he went.
Upsides: Good acting by Lawrence, Hoffman, and Harrelson. Very good.
Downsides: Slow to develop. No character development of Peta. It is a set up for the next installment and nothing more.
Sutherland is one dimensional.
Glad I went to it so I can be ready for Part Three....The Where're Hungry for Some Excitement Games.
Unanswered Question: Since the guy playing Peta is a full 5" shorter than JL in real life, how did them make him the same height? He must have been carrying a cola case with him wherever he went.
Great sequel
sehyezelic22 February 2020
The perfect adaptation
pvinue19 January 2014
The hunger games: Catching fire was, for me, the best out of the three books. Therefore, as you can imagine, I was really looking forward to watching this film, especially since it has an 8.2 in IMDb. I must say I was not disappointed. Sure, they left out a few awesome moments from the book; but had it been in the film, it would have been almost three hours long. I felt satisfied in that sense, unlike with the first one (7/10). I felt the first film was missing too many things and there were certain scenes that disappointed me.
Jennifer Lawrence is good in EVERYTHING!! So it goes without saying that she nails the Katniss role for the second time in a row. The other actors are very good as well, especially the one who plays Finnick. He is fantastic! The directing is a big improvement from the first one.
Not much else to comment on, except that you should totally watch this film despite having, or not, read the book. In conclusion: this is, easily, the best adaptation book-to-film I have ever seen.
Jennifer Lawrence is good in EVERYTHING!! So it goes without saying that she nails the Katniss role for the second time in a row. The other actors are very good as well, especially the one who plays Finnick. He is fantastic! The directing is a big improvement from the first one.
Not much else to comment on, except that you should totally watch this film despite having, or not, read the book. In conclusion: this is, easily, the best adaptation book-to-film I have ever seen.
Visually Stunning. Beautifully Tragic. A Masterpiece. (A book fan review)
lbrosprod22 November 2013
I first want to say that if you are a fan of the books, you will NOT be disappointed. Compared to the first movie adaption, this one soars, leaving the other movie to die out in the hot desert sun.
I had re-read the book a day before I saw it and so I could see what the critical changes were. I would know every fine detail they let out. I first have to let you know that every book-to-movie adaption can't have 100% of the book in their. Plus, the new director, Francis Lawrence, had to clean up the mistakes the first director left out. Another thing, all the very important and even some parts you might think Hollywood would oversee is stitched together.
This has to be the BEST book-to-movie adaption I have ever seen. The visuals, for one, is spectacular. $140 million budget was not wasted, that's for sure! The director packed every little intricate piece possible to make it THE BEST experience us fans could have.
The acting was phenomenal. Katniss is a lot more lively now, because Jennifer Lawrence finally understood her character. The whole cast, including Sam and Josh, were amazing. Even the actress who played Johanna Mason, was FUNNY!
The music, however, copied the first, because I bought the first soundtrack, so I know every little musical detail. They must have used the same music and added a few more. That was sad. But, it did fit with the scene.
The action and suspense will never leave you, as the ending is a cliff hanger, holding on for dear life! (Hunger Games book fans: you won't be disappointed with the ending)
Without a shadow of a doubt, this movie, Catching Fire, really does catch fire and immerses the audience in the Hunger Games. I was truly speechless after the film because it was just so beautiful and satisfying. You don't want to miss the best film of the year, and possibly the highest grossing film of all time!!!
I had re-read the book a day before I saw it and so I could see what the critical changes were. I would know every fine detail they let out. I first have to let you know that every book-to-movie adaption can't have 100% of the book in their. Plus, the new director, Francis Lawrence, had to clean up the mistakes the first director left out. Another thing, all the very important and even some parts you might think Hollywood would oversee is stitched together.
This has to be the BEST book-to-movie adaption I have ever seen. The visuals, for one, is spectacular. $140 million budget was not wasted, that's for sure! The director packed every little intricate piece possible to make it THE BEST experience us fans could have.
The acting was phenomenal. Katniss is a lot more lively now, because Jennifer Lawrence finally understood her character. The whole cast, including Sam and Josh, were amazing. Even the actress who played Johanna Mason, was FUNNY!
The music, however, copied the first, because I bought the first soundtrack, so I know every little musical detail. They must have used the same music and added a few more. That was sad. But, it did fit with the scene.
The action and suspense will never leave you, as the ending is a cliff hanger, holding on for dear life! (Hunger Games book fans: you won't be disappointed with the ending)
Without a shadow of a doubt, this movie, Catching Fire, really does catch fire and immerses the audience in the Hunger Games. I was truly speechless after the film because it was just so beautiful and satisfying. You don't want to miss the best film of the year, and possibly the highest grossing film of all time!!!
A mess made of a good story.......
krazeetea1929 November 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I was expecting so much, hoping that catching fire would be a step up to hunger games but wow, what a disappointment! The first half of the movie was lengthy with scenes that didn't add any value. The scenes were rushing into each other no smooth transition,there was no opportunity to build any relationship with the characters even Max when she gave up her life you didn't feel any sense of loss because we didn't get a chance to build any form of relationship with her.I believe that much emphasis was place on the arena, "the games"and nothing else and if one truly understand the underlying story (I didn't read the book but I understand the basic foundation of the story from part 1 which was brilliantly directed by the way) you would realize that it is much more than the games its a "revolution". President Snow kept on saying that she needs to be eliminated because she has become a beacon of "Hope" but you really didn't feel it at all, other than the scene at district 11, it was more of him saying that more than anything else. Overall the acting was really good but my gosh some of the lines were really bad, the scene where Peeta had hit the force field and was knocked unconscious and katniss reaction, especially when she said do you want to stand up...I was like what, the director didn't see this???? The ending was even worse! it could have ended in a similar fashion with more details it would have been more meaningful to see District 12 going up in flames rather than to hear about it. I don't think the director had a full understanding of what the story was all about.I have to give him props for arena scenes, the intensity, the thrill that was well done.
Great Sequel! 7/10
leonblackwood23 March 2014
Review: What an epic movie. It carries on from the first one and it ends up in the same place. From the success if the original Hunger Games, the director had a bigger budget for this movie which you can clearly see with the CGI and elaborate scenery. The storyline was put together well and the introduction of the new characters didn't spoil the franchise. It's just a shame that Phillip Seymour Hoffman won't be in the next one. I did find the ending a bit weird, but I think that was a deliberate choice for the director who has another 2 in the pipeline. There loads of intense action and drama throughout the movie which will keep everyone entertained and there are a few twists that keep the movie interesting. I can't wait to see the next one. Enjoyable!
Round-Up: The director was lucky to get most of the original cast because it wouldn't have been the same otherwise. Woody Harrelson stuck out from the rest and his unique wit brought a funny side to the movie, even though it is pretty intense. There are a lot of unanswered question a that should be answered in the next movie so I hope that it doesn't take years for it to come out. Anyway, this movie does take some time to warm up, but once it starts going it doesn't disappoint. At nearly 2 and a half hours long, the film doesn't drag or become boring throughout the movie which is a plus on the script writers and directors side. I just caught wait to see were they take this franchise,
Budget: $130million Worldwide Gross: $865million
I recommend this movie to people enjoyed the first Hunger Games. 7/10
Round-Up: The director was lucky to get most of the original cast because it wouldn't have been the same otherwise. Woody Harrelson stuck out from the rest and his unique wit brought a funny side to the movie, even though it is pretty intense. There are a lot of unanswered question a that should be answered in the next movie so I hope that it doesn't take years for it to come out. Anyway, this movie does take some time to warm up, but once it starts going it doesn't disappoint. At nearly 2 and a half hours long, the film doesn't drag or become boring throughout the movie which is a plus on the script writers and directors side. I just caught wait to see were they take this franchise,
Budget: $130million Worldwide Gross: $865million
I recommend this movie to people enjoyed the first Hunger Games. 7/10
Consider my mind...not blown...Demolished...
barendbkj21 November 2013
The entire year I've been waiting for this moment when The Hunger Games: Catching Fire would come out and I would go and see it. I had so many expectations going into the theater; was it going to be better than the first? Did they put everything that was in the book in the movie? Is it going to be worth it? Well I am pleased to say that the answer to all these questions are yes. This movie is by far one of the best franchise movies to date...Go suck it Twilight. Hunger Games Rule!! The acting was amazing, Jennifer Lawrence...I am in love, I don't know where she came from but she's from out of this world. They could not have casted a better Katniss, this girl it on fire! Josh Hutcherson might have grown up a bit and his portrayal of Peeta Mellark was outstanding. The rest was awesome, the victory tour, the parties, the tributes parade, the tributes, the arena, the obstacles in the arena, the CGI was memorable, and the emotion that these actors brought to the set was unforgettable.
It's way better than the first one. And I'm so glad they did this one justice. I wish I could give this movie a fifteen out of ten, because it's just fantastic.
If the second one was this good...then I cannot wait for Mockingjay Part 1 and Part 2. It's gonna be epic...
It's way better than the first one. And I'm so glad they did this one justice. I wish I could give this movie a fifteen out of ten, because it's just fantastic.
If the second one was this good...then I cannot wait for Mockingjay Part 1 and Part 2. It's gonna be epic...
You can't wait next series.
mirraz-2665422 January 2019
Unnecessarily long, poorly directed and mostly boring
Kaanb4 December 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I have neither seen the first movie, nor read the book. So I should admit that I am an outsider to this Hunger Games hype. However, high expectations for this sequel among the fans and high rating at IMDb tempted me to watch it. The first thing I do not really get is 8.3 rating here. My ratings and IMDb ratings have never fallen that apart in recent years!
The first 1:30 hours, (ie complete duration of a regular feature film) is definitely one of the most boring fist halves I have ever seen. The story evolves but without any strategic emphasis or proofs on none of the important plots of the story. The directing was so weak that I would not understand a real uprising is baking among the districts, if president Snow had explicitly informed us about that risk previously in the opening. The Victors' Tour meeting scenes were definitely far from adequate to reflect the revolutionary atmosphere in the districts.
Jennifer Lawrence's performance is one of the good things in the movie. In fact, in some parts her lead was the only reason to stay focused. But despite her acting performance we could not get her actual view of the events. The hope she creates in the people, or what she really cares, even her indecision between two man was not properly explored. And considering this superficial character building for the lead role, I am not surprised none of the other characters had a chance to become real. Shallow characters wasted a lot of drama during the film, especially in the more intense action scenes. Director's understanding of character building is having mere close-ups on beautiful face of Katniss Everdeen.
President Snow can not escape from the fate of being a shallow character. While Snow is the symbol of the authoritarian government, his character was only partly revealed and the director misses the valuable moments with sub par dialogs between Snow and his grand daughter, or others to create a solid portrait of a man of power and loneliness.
Finally, in the second half, the action starts. Despite the quality of the cinematography even action scenes can not surround you enough. As an important example, the idea of poisonous fog is a brilliant one, but the chase between the spreading fog and Katniss and her allies is not thrilling or even believable at all.
The final is the worst part. The whole final scene rushed into a mere couple of minutes to miss and ruin many important aspects of the story. Revealing the revolutionaries, explaining the whole grand plan behind the 75th hunger game are all squeezed into 2-3 sequences in the last 5 minutes. This short and economical final is of course a choice of director Francis Lawrence but then why did he kill us by boredom of around two and a half hours?
And of course the final scene is like a teaser of a TV series for inviting the audience to the third hunger games. No Sir, movies should be complete even if there will be planned sequels. There is a start and an end to the movies, at least the ones I prefer to watch.
So, why I still gave it a 5/10. I think this very poorly directed story is indeed interesting and progressive. The Capital, suppressed and poor districts, growing feeling of injustice, police terror, authoritarian and corrupt government and dictator Snow. All make up a good setting for a dystopian yet realistic sci-fi atmosphere. But director trivializes this brilliant story. Still Jennifer Lawrence leads the movie with her strong character. Cinematography is good, despite lacking in drama especially in action scenes. So the story would have really made it big in the big screen. But in the hands of Francis Lawrence, it became a boring and long sci-fi flick.
While I was leaving the theater, I was still trying to understand why it got 8.3 from IMDb. Fans?
The first 1:30 hours, (ie complete duration of a regular feature film) is definitely one of the most boring fist halves I have ever seen. The story evolves but without any strategic emphasis or proofs on none of the important plots of the story. The directing was so weak that I would not understand a real uprising is baking among the districts, if president Snow had explicitly informed us about that risk previously in the opening. The Victors' Tour meeting scenes were definitely far from adequate to reflect the revolutionary atmosphere in the districts.
Jennifer Lawrence's performance is one of the good things in the movie. In fact, in some parts her lead was the only reason to stay focused. But despite her acting performance we could not get her actual view of the events. The hope she creates in the people, or what she really cares, even her indecision between two man was not properly explored. And considering this superficial character building for the lead role, I am not surprised none of the other characters had a chance to become real. Shallow characters wasted a lot of drama during the film, especially in the more intense action scenes. Director's understanding of character building is having mere close-ups on beautiful face of Katniss Everdeen.
President Snow can not escape from the fate of being a shallow character. While Snow is the symbol of the authoritarian government, his character was only partly revealed and the director misses the valuable moments with sub par dialogs between Snow and his grand daughter, or others to create a solid portrait of a man of power and loneliness.
Finally, in the second half, the action starts. Despite the quality of the cinematography even action scenes can not surround you enough. As an important example, the idea of poisonous fog is a brilliant one, but the chase between the spreading fog and Katniss and her allies is not thrilling or even believable at all.
The final is the worst part. The whole final scene rushed into a mere couple of minutes to miss and ruin many important aspects of the story. Revealing the revolutionaries, explaining the whole grand plan behind the 75th hunger game are all squeezed into 2-3 sequences in the last 5 minutes. This short and economical final is of course a choice of director Francis Lawrence but then why did he kill us by boredom of around two and a half hours?
And of course the final scene is like a teaser of a TV series for inviting the audience to the third hunger games. No Sir, movies should be complete even if there will be planned sequels. There is a start and an end to the movies, at least the ones I prefer to watch.
So, why I still gave it a 5/10. I think this very poorly directed story is indeed interesting and progressive. The Capital, suppressed and poor districts, growing feeling of injustice, police terror, authoritarian and corrupt government and dictator Snow. All make up a good setting for a dystopian yet realistic sci-fi atmosphere. But director trivializes this brilliant story. Still Jennifer Lawrence leads the movie with her strong character. Cinematography is good, despite lacking in drama especially in action scenes. So the story would have really made it big in the big screen. But in the hands of Francis Lawrence, it became a boring and long sci-fi flick.
While I was leaving the theater, I was still trying to understand why it got 8.3 from IMDb. Fans?
A Total Surprise Of A Film
TheFilmGuy17 January 2014
So, for a long time, I avoided The Hunger Games. I had seen and loved Battle Royale, and I felt like The Hunger Games would be a more PG version of that. But I decided to watch the first film, and I was pleasantly surprised. I enjoyed it. But this one is even better. I walked out of this film really pleased. It does have similarities to the first film, but I think this one does everything better. It has a lot of really interesting twist and turns to the story to keep me wanting to know what happens. The film ends in a way that really leaves you wanting to see the next film so you can find out how the rest of it plays out. I would say this film can appeal to both men and women, with it's mix of action, drama, and romance, and that works to it's advantage. If you enjoyed the first movie, you will love this one. This is how blockbuster movies should be made. Entertaining, but done in a way that feels like effort has been made.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
