User Score
7.9

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1078 Ratings

User score distribution:

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Nov 22, 2013
    3
    The first hour or so of this movie is wonderful. It really fleshes out the setting of the sci-fi dystopia seen only very briefly in the first movie. The second half is a train wreck of improbable circumstances and impossible to follow action scenes. People just seem to... DO THINGS for no explainable reason. I've never seen a movie go from pretty good to horrible beyond saving so quickly. If you look closely you can spot where it happens. It's right around where the actual "Hunger Games" part begins. Expand
  2. Nov 23, 2013
    3
    Winner of the Most Hyped Disapointment of the Year Award for sure.
    Francis Lawrence attempts to fit all the features of the book into the movie whilst trying to stick to the 2 and a half hour limit, which results in it all looking half assed and rushed, that people seem to be talking over each other and it all goes to the point where I would be happier if they had just left it out, any
    character development the book had has been left out, most of the characters' actions get explained perfectly in the book, in the movie it leaves the audience confused. For some inexplicable reason everyone has taken up the practise of cussing at random, and for some reason one of Katniss's prep team was killed offscreen.
    Please try harder in the future Francis Lawrence, for the sake of the fandom, humanity even.
    Expand
  3. Dec 1, 2013
    0
    wow i cant believe this is rated good its boring and the hype shouldent be here considering how bad the first one is just fan of the books giving it good rating that annoys me so much
  4. Dec 2, 2013
    0
    This isn't a sci-fi action flick. It is 2 hours of trying on outfits and lamenting about which man to love. Go for the one society tells me to? or go for the salt of the earth hunter. What a new theme!! Oh, and don't forget the 'I am humble, but damn I look good as a princess' storyline. very inventive. After you sit through the 2 hour drawl of the aforementioned, you get 20 solid minutes of psuedo action. Followed by a close up ending that would make JJ Abrahms in his pants. I lost 3 hours of my life that night. Expand
  5. Nov 22, 2013
    4
    This installment of The Hunger Games, Catching Fire, is missing the intense relationships that the first movie had between the actors built up to the games and during the games. you dont even know how half of the players of the game died. The movie is all mixed up and is impossible to follow at points. katniss seemed to have constipation throughout the movie. The ending of the movie was a buzz kill. Wont say anymore because I dont want to ruin it for people who did not see it yet. I will say that it does not come close to the first movie. Hope the director has something hidden in his pocket to bring this movie back to life. Expand
  6. Nov 30, 2013
    0
    Read the review, not the score
    Honestly this is one of the best adaptation i have ever seen, there are a couple scenes from the book that i would have liked to see, but they hit it on the nail. Instead of trying to force the book to fit into a movie, they took the book an re-wrote parts to make it s great movie, without losing any of the meaning in the book. This is easily the best movie
    i have seen this year. Expand
  7. Nov 27, 2013
    4
    It just didn't do it for me. Terrible acting, CGI wasn't great, and the romance took up way too much time. I should stop seeing the movies of books I like.
  8. Nov 29, 2013
    1
    I am confused, saddened, and downright appalled at the hype for this "movie." I would have gotten up and left but I didn't drive. I have only walked out of one movie in my lifetime. This should have been the second time.

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

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

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

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

    Overall, I give it a 1 for the presence of Lenny Kravitz, although honestly, the character was completely non-essential to the plot and it just seemed like he was there to add interest to the movie. However, the whole movie is so far gone that adding him is just the only drop in the bucket towards giving this movie any positive appeal at all.
    Expand
  9. Nov 23, 2013
    4
    So I watched the first hunger games movie and at the end I just had to know what happened so I read all 3 books in a row. From reading the first book (after the film) I thought WOW, its just like the book. In fact its so much like the book you could watch the film and start from book 2. So even with a new director on board I had high hopes for this film and hotly anticipated its release.

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

    As for the games.

    They basically threw all the pages of the book about the games in the air and then randomly placed them into the film. not good
    Expand
  10. Jan 22, 2014
    0
    This film, like many of its kind, was made for one reason and one reason only. To make money. This film has no art, no honesty, no truth, zero passion. This is complete trash, just like Harry Potter. Garbage for kids. Just look at the acting, the actors gave extremely uninspired performances. I hate films like this. Doesn't matter though, they made a bunch of money, and they will make more films like this forever and ever, because idiots keep going to suck it up. Whatever.. Hope you all don't choke on your trash. Expand
  11. Nov 22, 2013
    4
    A long 'forepaly' and without a climax. Maybe because I never read the original story, it could not appealed me. Some of the plot seem to have bad logic.
  12. Dec 15, 2013
    0
    With all great scripts sitting on shelves throughout Hollywood, it's a sad day for American culture when such a disturbing movie gets made. What next, a teenager gang rape trilogy whereby the victims get even at the end of the 3rd production? Innocent children slaughtering/killing innocent children should never be glorified in any culture. There's just no justification for such gratuitous violence. No way this movie should have ever received a PG-13 rating. I would argue that Hunger Games is more of a reflection on how sick Suzanne Collins is rather than the American culture. I'm forbidding our kids to even mention Hunger Games in our household. Expand
  13. Jan 22, 2014
    0
    How is this piece of crap rated 8? The plot makes no sense, the acting is average. The movie itself is an idiotic boring cruel story. Are people really so stupid to enjoy this? It makes me sad...
  14. Mar 19, 2014
    0
    what the hell is this the plot makes absolutely no logical sense they all speck like the editor speed there voices up extremely high oh and wait for this **** when there are fun survival fights they put it in **** pitch black!!!!!! why so i had no idea what was going on all i knew that there was two people trying to fight these beasts from clearly something that is from matrix from where they change things in the arena and why the hell dogs what the **** so wait wait wait you can make anything like a t-rex or a **** mecha but you make dogs what the **** and all the people in the arena are clearly rip offs of characters from one of the best games in the world tomb raider the main boy and girl are clearly laura croft and peter the other geologist and its appoling and the president is the profit from bioshcok infinity and well everyone else is a dochue thus movie is terrible how could anyone **** up a such a good plot like this Expand
  15. Jul 18, 2014
    0
    Ya kids killing eachother, just what I wanted to see, sandy hook massacre must get even better ratings? You sick fuks? Me thinks not, no creativity whatsoever
  16. Jan 1, 2014
    2
    I was surprised at how awful this movie was. Granted, the ongoing implosion of our culture and the erosion of our critical standards demand that movies like this one be taken seriously. Even so, I was unprepared for its lack of substance, depth, plot and narrative arc.

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

    Bottom line: The more you liked "The Avengers", a film with wit, a great villain and terrific dialogue ("You mewling quim!") the more likely you are to hate this film. It is just overblown swill.
    Collapse
  17. Sep 24, 2014
    2
    I don't get it. I just do not get it. The first Hunger Games was an unoriginal, monotonous mess. This film (while there are marginal improvements) is essentially a re-hash of the same thing. The first hour is almost a scene for scene re-enactment of the previous film just with a bit more of the bad guys doing bad guy things. Then finally the actual hunger games starts about 80 minutes in and 90% of it happens off screen while we're shown a bunch of exciting shots of our protagonists walking, sitting, climbing trees or struggling with their forced love triangle. It's a thrill ride.
    A big TV in the sky tells us that a bunch of disposable background characters died off screen which I guess we're supposed to care about but I can't help thinking it would've been way more involving if the main characters had come into some kind of conflict with them at any point rather than facing off against CGI smoke and monkies.
    Speaking of the main characters, there is no development on them from the first film. Katniss remains a sullen, brooding misery while Peeta continues to play the role of damsel in distress (much like the first film, almost every scene he is involved in features him moaning about something or needing to be rescued). The supporting characters like Finnick and Johanna are way more entertaining to watch since they actually have some semblance of a personality. Then there's Elizabeth Banks' horrific attempt at an English accent which is almost physically painful to the ear.
    So while I have to admit that this is an improvement on the first film, that really isn't saying much. It is beyond me why this is so popular. The story has been done before, the characters are completely unrelatable and the visuals and writing aren't exactly exceptional.
    Expand
  18. Dec 29, 2013
    3
    These films are unbelievably boring I'm told the books are epic but clearly something is lost in the adaption. The characters are bland at best and to be honest if they all died at the start of the next movie and were replaced but a crate full of painted gibbons they would be more interested. I haven't read the books but please someone tell me that they all die in the end...... bland bland bland lord of the flies meh Expand
  19. Dec 7, 2013
    3
    I don't understand all the hype for these movies, they must be for those who read the books and want to see them acted out on screen.
    The movie is completly boring with about ten minutes of action towards the end.
    How many arrows does she have anyway?
  20. Jan 2, 2014
    4
    One of the most overrated movies. I don't know what intrigues people about this movie. It is an ok film but nothing spectacular. The first part was better in my opinion but again overrated
  21. Jan 25, 2014
    2
    If it wasn't for the stupid commentary my sister and I did through out while watching this, I would have been bored to tears. Needlessly wrong, Cut out a ton of key things from the books that were essential to have, and the acting in this film was below average at best, Mainly because of the poorly written dialogue where it seemed that the actors/actresses took the film far too seriously.

    To say that this is better than the first film is an absolutely joke. Catching Fire flat out sucked.
    Expand
  22. Jan 16, 2014
    3
    My first guess is Jennifer Lawrence is regretting having signed the contract for these films now, as we've seen her in much better characters in Silver Linings and American Hustle, where she really had an opportunity to show how much she's good.

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

    Just poor, not worth the money or the time, not interesting, not involving.
    Expand
  23. Apr 26, 2014
    2
    I liked the original Hunger Games, but this second instalment was very disappointing. A lot of action at night, so we can't see what's happening. Too much of the movie was spent in the pre Hunger Games bit. The actual Hunger Games action seemed too fake. It was action for actions sake, with no continuity or reason. Talking about continuity - every time you see Catniss, she has a different number of arrows in her quiver! Acid smoke that just stops, then magic water! Too ridiculous. I won't be watching the next instalment. Expand
  24. Feb 5, 2014
    3
    Catching Fire is another prime example of how Hollywood can truly bring out the worst in an adaptation of an already mediocre piece of writing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    A simply awful film.

    A 3 out of 10.

    Jack Valentine
    Expand
  25. Feb 6, 2014
    2
    Catching Fire is set a year after Katniss and Peeta survived the 74th Hunger Games; their actions in the Games sparked the fires of a rebellion throughout the districts. President Snow tries to quell the rebellion by using Katniss and Peeta and re-entering them in the 75th Hunger Games Anniversary alongside other veterans of the Hunger Games. Catching Fire has the premises of an amazing, dramatic and action-packed movie yet seems to fall flat when it’s meant to be at its best.

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

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

    Unfortunately I can’t go on with the good points of the movie because there are none left. So I will return to the negatives; plot twists. There is one major plot twist that is probably the most important thing in the entire movie, which I saw coming from a mile away, you can tell who good guys are and who the bad guys are in the movie because of the way they dress. If they look like they fell through Louie Spence’s wardrobe they are most likely the bad guys, the exception being President Snow. The ending of the movie is as weird as the way the people dress in the Capitol; it just seems to stop without any feeling of an actual conclusion. The Grey did the same thing but managed to pull it off because the Grey is a great movie, which just shows that that kind of ending does work and can make a movie excellent.
    Expand
  26. Nov 25, 2013
    4
    Read the books several times after seeing the first movie for which I thought was slow and forgettable. Best scene was when Rue died (actual tear came). Jennifer was good but really didn't do anything aggressive enough like a Nikita type character. Her co-stars, Josh and Liam, were/are not on her acting level, hell Josh isn't even tall enough or good looking enough to be believable as a "love interest.' So, I ended up watching Battle Royale--the original. Had hopes of changes for Catching Fire. Like ebbs and flows of being caught up in the movie; pulling for Jennifer's character and her relationships. Show more intrigue in the politics with the Capital and the Districts. It's a YA book with depth that's not shown in the movie. Josh Hutcherson's character in the book, to me, is an Artiste with charm and striking flares of independence, but he plays him as "he" sees him: a wuss. He seems a bit insecure about his role (height difference, acting level, looks) which shows in his bland performance. Liam has no big role so it doesn't matter. Which districts did not believe the kids? One day of training? Director's decision: Do it like the book (reminder: it costs too much to add depth and meaning) and the fans will like it regardless. Lionsgate: Let's make monay! The Hunger Games Catching Fire is still forgettable but as boring as the first movie. Advantage: Book Trilogy. Expand
  27. Jan 6, 2014
    4
    i have learned that after watching the movie. its better to not over think it i am really disappointed i want my money back the only reason i'm glad i saw it because now i can understand the third one which hopefully better than the second one.
  28. Mar 5, 2014
    3
    as much as hobitt 2 sucked this sucks more . i love suzzane collin's hunger games and i love hunger game movie . but this one is needs improvement i love the first one but this one stinks FYI there comming out with part 2 .
  29. Apr 2, 2014
    1
    probably a good book and story, but translate this into a movie and you get nothing worth watching. The first movie was basically the tournament or the condemned with kids, bad story but still entertaining to watch. The only problem is I had the same expectations from this movie, 1 hour of survival fights, since I just don't care about the story because of the first movie... Well guess what, in this one they fight like 20 min and for the rest they talk about their totally bizar society that doesn't hold together and for one reason or another I hated every single one of the costumes in this movie. It's like we're set back 50 years. So yeah if u liked the story good for you but if you just watch this for the sake of entertainment you're going to fall a sleep. I really can't figure out what it is exactly but I really didn't like this movie. In my opinion this is just a really bad movie.

    just my opinion
    Expand
  30. Aug 2, 2014
    1
    So producers be like:
    -So what do we do in this next movie?
    -Idk man I was busy buying stuff with the money we got from the first release $$$
    -Let's just throw in the same stuff we put in the first movie,Katness and Peeta get in the game again,they kiss,they **** Gale he's a looser,he didn't fight in the dome as Peeta did and because Peeta couldn't find a suitable girlfriend even after
    all that
    -Yeah man! that's good! And let's say there will be a rebelion which will **** the Capitol but we won't show any of that lol
    -Ooh that's good,let's keep all that for the 3rd one.Alright people,let's do this !
    All that being said,wake up people! You've just watched a rerun of the first movie which could've contained all the new stuff if it was 20 mins longer.If there is anything I appreciate about this movie is that it taught me to trust my intuition when I think my gf likes someone else but she says I'm the only one.There is proof that she is most probably surely lying.Thx for reading :)
    Expand
  31. Oct 7, 2014
    3
    Ugh, here we go again. Needless to say, I didn't watch this willingly and I am not wrong to have opposed watching it having now seen it. I have no experience with The Hunger Games books and perhaps that is what makes me so uninspired while watching the movies. Or maybe its the whiny teens with no acting skills or screen presence. Could possibly be the approach the director has on the whole absolute power over the people idea that through this movie makes it seem...fruity somehow. In any case, I find few things to like about this. It is better than Maze Runner, but that doesn't say much. Jennifer Lawrence just does not do it for me. The random mood swings and screams and freak outs from no where. Is she even mentally sound anymore? And this girl is the MOCKING JAY? The savior and leader of the rebellion? She just is not cast right as far as the female leader hardened warrior type she needs to be in a movie setting. You know, you are allowed to make movies based on popular books that still can help the non-reader keep up and understand what's going on and why certain characters do things. It isn't all that difficult. Up against its teen movie competitors, this isn't the worst. Not that that says much, I'm just bothered by movies so hyped up that are worth very little. Phillip Hoffman, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, all acting below their talents and abilities...ugh wasted. It was cool to see Lenny Kravitz and Stanley Tucci though. Expand
  32. Oct 12, 2014
    4
    410 Simply because the first half of the movie is brilliant. Everything is laid out well and enjoyable.

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

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

    It gets a 4 because it's the second half that is bad. It's kind of like cheap soda, it tastes sweet at first but then the horrible aftertaste makes you regret taking a sip
    Expand
Metascore
75

Generally favorable reviews - based on 47 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 42 out of 47
  2. Negative: 0 out of 47
  1. Reviewed by: David Denby
    Nov 25, 2013
    50
    Yet, despite the good acting, the middle section of the film, set at the Capitol, is attenuated and rhythmless — the filmmakers seem to be touching all the bases so that the trilogy’s readers won’t miss anything.
  2. Reviewed by: Susan Wloszczyna
    Nov 22, 2013
    75
    With each on-screen chapter, the poor girl from District 12 continues to fulfill her destiny as an inspiration and a rebel fighter. She is but one female, but she's the perfect antidote to the surplus of male superheroes out there.
  3. Reviewed by: Ian Buckwalter
    Nov 22, 2013
    79
    Everything that felt clumsy in The Hunger Games has been improved upon here. That's most apparent in the clarity of the action, but it also extends to how efficiently the film establishes so many new ensemble members.