The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

User Score
7.9

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1186 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

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 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.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
  2. Nov 23, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I was very disappointed after reading the Catching Fire book. The movie was good, I was just expecting more out of the book, I feel if they had added on 10 more minutes, nearly all the books info would have been covered. There wasn't enough out of the training, Katniss' friend (the Avox) was never addressed, and there was more, but I'm having trouble remembering through my frustration. Expand
  3. 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.
  4. 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 aThis 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
  5. Dec 1, 2013
    5
    Too dark and dreary. Katniss's character is all over the place. Characters appear with almost no preparation for them. Confusing and guilty of a recent annoyance: same-face-casting. That is, too many characters either look alike or are interchangeable. Makes the first film seem like GWTW.
  6. Nov 22, 2013
    6
    Jennifer Lawrence has such an expressive face that you have to be sure it is her from one frame of film to the next. I am not a fan of films like "The Hunger Games" but her face and acting grabbed me in that first film just as it does in this sequel, "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" which is the second of 4 films that will make up the three volumes of the original story. Like mostJennifer Lawrence has such an expressive face that you have to be sure it is her from one frame of film to the next. I am not a fan of films like "The Hunger Games" but her face and acting grabbed me in that first film just as it does in this sequel, "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" which is the second of 4 films that will make up the three volumes of the original story. Like most sequels this is more opf a holding pattern to set up the next two films. The film, Jennifer Lawrence and some of the supporting players will get you through this way too long film that could have easily been cut to run 2 hours instead of the 2 hours and 26 minutes.

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

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

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

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

    As an in between sequel to set up the last two films in the franchise "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" drags a bit here and there but then you can always look at Jennifer Lawrence's face as it almost imperceptibility changes.
    Expand
  7. 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.
  8. Nov 22, 2013
    5
    I didn't see a good acting from Jennifer Lawrence or anyone else, except Haymitch Abernathy and Octavia.
    I didn't believe to this "hunger killers" that they participate in terrible game. Where they kill each other. This is bad.
    Who those film amateurs who want to see a movie without meaningless idea and bad acting my advice will be not to see. Movie for one time, maybe with a
    I didn't see a good acting from Jennifer Lawrence or anyone else, except Haymitch Abernathy and Octavia.
    I didn't believe to this "hunger killers" that they participate in terrible game. Where they kill each other. This is bad.
    Who those film amateurs who want to see a movie without meaningless idea and bad acting my advice will be not to see.
    Movie for one time, maybe with a girlfriend in the cinema in another case, maybe better wait for DVD or BR. :)

    I expected more from Jennifer as Oscar winner
    Expand
  9. Dec 9, 2013
    6
    This is a sequel to the movie "The Hunger Games", the second in a series of three, after a book trilogy with the same name.

    I haven't read any of the three books but I saw and liked the first movie. Those who read all three books claim that the second movie is much a better adaptation. That very well may be but I liked the first movie somewhat better. Taking into consideration the
    This is a sequel to the movie "The Hunger Games", the second in a series of three, after a book trilogy with the same name.

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

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

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

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

    I watched it on an IMAX screen, and the effect is no more than satisfactory, during the game time, the CGI looks cheaper and faker than usual top-notch Hollywood output, the entire hue is also a shade darker in view of its 2D default, one can barely get the full idea what is happening during the high points. Brightness aside, the definition of the images is another disappointing factor. So maybe one crucial reason (my own conspiracy theory) is that the cinemas’ apparatus is not equivalent between here in Shanghai and in USA, where it gained raving reviews, but as far as I am concerning, the technique bloopers are too blatant to overlook, markedly mar the movie for me, but I will keep as loyal as possible for the remaining two successors (both will still be under the tiller of Francis Lawrence), just because Julianne Moore is on board now as a key role, god bless the mockingjay!
    Expand
  12. Dec 26, 2013
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Fino a che questo resta il film di Attila (sì, cioè, di Donald Sutherland nei perfidi panni del presidente Snow), la seconda puntata della saga tratta dai romanzi di Suzanne Collins funziona in modo soprendente per essere un prodotto segmentato su di un pubblico adolescente. La vittoria congiunta di Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) e Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) nell’episodio precedente ha dimostrato che ci si può ribellare alla società un po’ nazistoide basata sui distretti sottomessi a un ferreo potere centrale: il tour della vittoria fa da scintilla per alcuni focolai di rivolta, così Snow (su viscido consiglio del Plutarch di un Philip Seymour Hoffman sottoutilizzato in maniera clamorosa) trova il modo di ributtare nella mischia la ragazza e il relativo compare di sventura con lo scopo di far fuori almeno lei inventandosi una sfida tra i vincitori ancora in vita. Tutta questa parte sostenuta da un più che discreto ritmo e da una sceneggiatura che riesce a coinvolgere anche lo spettatore di passaggio: c’è il consueto contrasto tra la miseria ovvero l’opacità dei distretti e lo sfarzo colorato della capitale, la scelta delle squadre per la preparazione ai giochi, la sfarzosa presentazione al pubblico in televisione sullo sfondo di scenografie (e all’interno di inquadrature) alla Leni Riefenstahl peccato solo che Stanley Tucci abbia meno spazio nei panni del luciferino presentatore Caesar, mentre Cinna (Lenny Kravitz) si inventa per Katniss un vestito ‘ribelle’ che gli costerà caro. Poi iniziano i giochi veri e propri, causando un vero e proprio crollo di interesse: il nuovo regista Francis Lawrence risparmia al pubblico i faticosissimi (per la vista) traballamenti della camera a mano utilizzata dal predecessore Gary Ross, ma si resta dalle parti del videogame di sopravvivenza pieno di effetti, ma con qualche trovata banale (la nebbia, le scimmie), i personaggi degli altri tributi delineati solo in maniera grossolana e persino i dialoghi che paiono qua e là tirati via. Di positivo c’è che questa seconda parte occupa meno di un terzo della durata complessiva e termina quasi di colpo con un mini-ribaltone dopo il quale manca solo la scritta ‘continua’ sullo schermo, ma, si sa, questo il prezzo da pagare alla trasposizione di successi letterari a puntate. A proposito di durata complessiva: due ore e mezza sono un po’ troppe, una bella bonifica di personaggi e situazioni avrebbe giovato al risultato finale, ma in questi casi il pubblico di riferimento non avrebbe perdonato le dimenticanze o le forzature rispetto al testo originale (così, però, una trasposizione di ‘Guerra e pace’ durerebbe almeno dodici ore…). Tocca perciò accontentarsi di una pellicola in cui la regia diligente di Lawrence che però funziona meglio, anche a livello complessivo, di quella di Ross mette per immagini una storia più coerente e attenta alle sfumature della ‘lotta di classe’ rispetto a quella del primo film, oltre a ridurre la violenza che vi serpeggiava in maniera eccessiva: merito di un team di sceneggiatori nuovo di zecca composto da due che non sono gli ultimi arrivati come Simon Beaufroy ("Full Monty", "The Millionaire") e Michael Arndt ("Toy Story 3", "Little Miss Sunshine"). Insomma, nel complesso il giocattolone si fa apprezzare più del suo predecessore e lo stesso devono avere pensato in produzione, visto che regista e sceneggiatori sono stati confermati per il capitolo finale (che, accidenti alle strategie di marketing, arriverà in due puntate). Ovviamente ci saranno anche tutti i personaggi chiave della vicenda con i relativi volti: da quello bello e intenso di Jennifer Lawrence a quello ruvido dell’ex ‘assassino nato’ Woody Harrelson (il cui Haymitch ha qui ridotto il consumo di alcool) per finire a quelli con meno presonalità dei giovani protagonisti maschili anche se il nuovo arrivato Sam Claflin (Finnick) alza un po’ la media. Da notare, infine, la furba colonna sonora: oltre alla partitura di James Newton Howard, ecco spuntare Coldplay, Of Monsters and Man, The Lumineers (tutti sui titoli di coda), The National e molti altri, inclusa Patti Smith. Expand
  13. Nov 24, 2013
    5
    As with many 2nd installments this falls short. Only "The Empire Strikes Back" ever got better. The first half is decent but then it falls apart. Doesn't live up to the book either...
  14. Nov 24, 2013
    6
    Seems like Hunger Games is becoming the next Matrix trilogy. Interesting and original first movie, followed by sequel that continues the story where it should be left at. Catching Fire has it moments but essentially it is watered down version of the previous one.
  15. AGK
    Dec 26, 2013
    5
    (kissing noises) sorry I was kissing a girl a million times over which leads me to thew cons of this movie, it's a action sci fi sort of movie but there is so much kissing that it made me nearly fall asleep and it's long as hell but it wasn't all bad, when it actually got to the action it was great! seeing all that fighting kept me from drifting away into sleep, the action was just so good(kissing noises) sorry I was kissing a girl a million times over which leads me to thew cons of this movie, it's a action sci fi sort of movie but there is so much kissing that it made me nearly fall asleep and it's long as hell but it wasn't all bad, when it actually got to the action it was great! seeing all that fighting kept me from drifting away into sleep, the action was just so good that made halo look like a and the futuristic stuff looked cool too! overall the movie is ok. Expand
  16. Nov 27, 2013
    5
    THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE just never caught fire with me. Loved the first film but this just felt like a tepid remake. More of the same and I really missed so many of the intriguing sub-plots. We also totally lost the moral of a society that has children killing other children. Again, CATCHING FIRE is simply tepid. Not bad but just middlebrow.
  17. Nov 22, 2013
    6
    The visuals for Catching Fire are amazing, I enjoyed the books and thoroughly loved the concepts but I didn't enjoy the movie as much as I had hoped. The acting from the majority of actors and actresses was bland and lacked personality so the movie seemed to droll on.
  18. 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 aRead 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
  19. Nov 26, 2013
    6
    The books are still better, although this movie was better than the first one. The plot here moved along well and it was entertaining and I was not bored to tears as in the first. All around a good but not great popcorn flick. See it for casual fun.
  20. Dec 10, 2013
    5
    I really enjoyed the first movie. It was new, exciting and entertaining. The one, for me, not all that wonderful. Don't get me wrong, the visual is stunning at times and the characters do have a certain intrigue about them. I'm not a fan of the series in that I've never read the books, and although I can't put my finger on why, about 20 minutes from the end all I could think was 'whenI really enjoyed the first movie. It was new, exciting and entertaining. The one, for me, not all that wonderful. Don't get me wrong, the visual is stunning at times and the characters do have a certain intrigue about them. I'm not a fan of the series in that I've never read the books, and although I can't put my finger on why, about 20 minutes from the end all I could think was 'when is this going to end?'. Worth a watch though, it just didn't excite me all that much. Expand
  21. Dec 31, 2013
    5
    Could've been better, overall I think it's because the first movie was good and I expected the second to be better It seemed to drag out after an hour
  22. 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
  23. Mar 24, 2014
    5
    Kind of funny that the Hunger games of this movie only happen just over 80 minutes in. Plus this movie's version is ALLOT tamer and shorter than the first movie.

    For the most part this movies real focus is the politic and the aftermath of the first movie. Storytelling and character development of the central characters is done well enough. However, there is little development of side
    Kind of funny that the Hunger games of this movie only happen just over 80 minutes in. Plus this movie's version is ALLOT tamer and shorter than the first movie.

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

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

    Overall:
    Catching Fire does have a bit more plot and a better overall story arch than the first movie. It expands on the universe and leaves you wanting more (which is coming.) However, in the end Catching Fire failed to really impress and felt more like this should have been made into a epilogue for the first movie and a prologue to the next. On it's own, it mostly feels like filler that easily could have been condensed and could have used some better overall writing.
    Expand
  24. Mar 16, 2014
    6
    Worse than the first one but still a decent movie. The first hour was interesting and really made you think but after that it turned into something everyone has already seen before. The game, not much different and not any better than the game in the first one. Visuals are great and Jennifer Lawrence as usual is wonderful but in the end it is slightly above average movie with an 62.6 out of 100.
  25. 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.
  26. Nov 4, 2014
    5
    well i finally watched the movie and well i must say i am just dissapointed, the plot of this movie does not make a lot of sense. the ending is just weird. well okay lets shoot this barbed arrow at the lightning. the arena breaks down and wow there are the good guys, seriously how the **** did these guys know what Katniss would do and when, overall acting is mediocre. what a dissapointment
  27. Nov 22, 2014
    5
    Otro rollo para adolescentes, como la primera, pero peor.
    "En llamas" es un copiar y pegar de la original, mas aburrida aún si cabe.
    La parte en que no están los juegos se hace lenta y pesada, no ofrece nada interesante, y cuando salen los juegos... bueno, tampoco es que mejore mucho. Llega al 5 raspado y da gracias, la gente que dice que esto es perfecto, en serio, sabéis poco o nada
    Otro rollo para adolescentes, como la primera, pero peor.
    "En llamas" es un copiar y pegar de la original, mas aburrida aún si cabe.
    La parte en que no están los juegos se hace lenta y pesada, no ofrece nada interesante, y cuando salen los juegos... bueno, tampoco es que mejore mucho.
    Llega al 5 raspado y da gracias, la gente que dice que esto es perfecto, en serio, sabéis poco o nada de cine.
    Expand
  28. 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
    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.