User Score
7.9

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1105 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. Dec 20, 2014
    10
    Absolute perfection.Best of its series, best of its genre, beyond science fiction and adventure, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is a thrilling dark drama.
  2. Nov 30, 2014
    9
    This movie was a lot better than the first hunger games movie. it had a lot better plot than the first movie. They explained more, and it kept me entertained throughout the whole movie.
  3. Nov 23, 2014
    9
    A little better than the previous Hunger Games, Catching Fire gets all of the YA movie ingredients right, and treats them with the maturity and development they deserve. The shaky cam and bad cinematography that hurt the first film is greatly improved here, making this one the best of the series so far.
  4. Nov 23, 2014
    10
    Una película entretenida, que te deja con las ganas de ver "The Hunger Games: Mokingjay - Part 1", contiene una buena dirección artística, y el trabajo de Trish Summerville en el vestuario lo hace ser merecedor de no solo la nominación al Oscar si no también el galardón, esta película sin duda es una de las mejores del año, que en mi opinión, es mejor que "Gravity", y por mucho.
  5. 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
  6. Nov 17, 2014
    7
    Usually when I watch a film adaptation of a book I find it hard to enjoy it. I’ve read the source material and am often comparing it to the book. Maybe it’s the fact that the book isn’t as fresh in my mind as with other film adaptations of books, maybe it’s the fact that the filmmakers actually cared about making a good movie, or maybe its both but this is one of those rare moments where IUsually when I watch a film adaptation of a book I find it hard to enjoy it. I’ve read the source material and am often comparing it to the book. Maybe it’s the fact that the book isn’t as fresh in my mind as with other film adaptations of books, maybe it’s the fact that the filmmakers actually cared about making a good movie, or maybe its both but this is one of those rare moments where I really enjoyed the adaptation. Often in Hollywood the adaptation is either an massively trimmed down version of the story (ex. the later Harry Potter films and Ender’s Game) or excessive padding (ex. The Hobbit films) so it is nice to see a film that does it right. Not only is Catching Fire a really good adaptation of a pretty solid book and in doing so creates a far superior sequel that serves as The Empire Strikes Back of the franchise (although Empire Strikes Back is in a whole different ball game). Even though by the time I’ve written this review the film has been out for almost a year this is a must watch for Hunger Games fans (both of the book and the film). Fans will be delighted to see a faithful adaptation of the book that hits most of the key points and for the most part is the book they remember (with some exceptions but nothing too distracting or annoying). The story covers most of the key moments and doesn’t gloss over too much, the characters are given time to breath and are well acted, and the direction is far superior to its predecessor. Catching Fire is one of those rare sequels that is better than its predecessor and one of those rare film adaptations of books that does its job well. With the franchise having two good films under its belt I worry about Mockingjay. With the third book being my least favorite this could be to Hunger Games what Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3: The Last Stand, and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End where to their franchise the threequel that ruined everything. It doesn’t help that is being split into two films. For now lets enjoy the middle installment, which will probably be remembered as the best of the franchise and good film in its own right. If you love the book and are worried this film will ruin it don’t this franchise is in good hands shame I can’t say the same for the Hobbit films. Expand
  7. Nov 10, 2014
    8
    With a deeper exploration of the ones behind the Hunger Games, this sequel retains the glory of the book, adds an aura of political astuteness and obviously the brains and brawns of the cast.
  8. 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
  9. Oct 31, 2014
    10
    Prior to watching this: I have seen the first film but have not read any of the books.
    Review:
    Pros: We go through the same process again as per the first film, except now Katniss is stronger, the Resistance has arisen and the Games are not going to go according to plan. Great story and action. As good as the first film. Cons: Some repetition of the first film? 5/5 - Good enough to pay
    Prior to watching this: I have seen the first film but have not read any of the books.
    Review:
    Pros: We go through the same process again as per the first film, except now Katniss is stronger, the Resistance has arisen and the Games are not going to go according to plan. Great story and action. As good as the first film.
    Cons: Some repetition of the first film?
    5/5 - Good enough to pay to watch it in the cinema and buy the DVD.
    Expand
  10. Oct 19, 2014
    9
    The Hunger Games: Catching Fire begins as Katniss Everdeen returns home safe after winning the 74th Annual Hunger Games along with fellow tribute Peeta Mellark. Winning means that they must turn around and leave their family and close friends, embarking on a Victor's Tour of the districts. Along the way Katniss senses that a rebellion is simmering, but the Capitol is still very much inThe Hunger Games: Catching Fire begins as Katniss Everdeen returns home safe after winning the 74th Annual Hunger Games along with fellow tribute Peeta Mellark. Winning means that they must turn around and leave their family and close friends, embarking on a Victor's Tour of the districts. Along the way Katniss senses that a rebellion is simmering, but the Capitol is still very much in control as President Snow prepares the 75th Annual Hunger Games (The Quarter Quell), a competition that could change Panem forever. Expand
  11. Oct 15, 2014
    9
    Oh my goodness, this continuation is awesome and I can't wait for the next. The performance of the Cast, mainly Jennifer and Josh was incredible and the romance between Katniss and Peeta came so much better than the first movie, It would be horrible if Peeta die. The story during the course of the movie go getting better and better until the epic end. The story isn't disappointing and theOh my goodness, this continuation is awesome and I can't wait for the next. The performance of the Cast, mainly Jennifer and Josh was incredible and the romance between Katniss and Peeta came so much better than the first movie, It would be horrible if Peeta die. The story during the course of the movie go getting better and better until the epic end. The story isn't disappointing and the acting scenes is very good. I can't think in something that I would change. Expand
  12. 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
  13. 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 wholeUgh, 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
  14. Oct 1, 2014
    8
    Catching Fire has everything you would want from a blockbuster hit, but this movie is actually intelligently made with care. Some of the most important points from the book present themselves here, and subliminally the movie knows how good it is. All the actors and set pieces ooze confidence, and if you have not seen it yet, you should see it now.
  15. Sep 28, 2014
    7
    I don't think a movie aimed for teenage girls can be any better. In this view, 10/10 is deserved. But as an actual film, 7 seems fair to me. Maybe even 8.
  16. 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 inI 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
  17. Sep 2, 2014
    7
    A superb follow-up to the the first of the series, Catching Fire proves the trilogy's worth amidst Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings. By Catching Fire, Jennifer Lawrence is well on her way to become America's finest young actress--ever present here.
  18. Aug 23, 2014
    7
    This was definitely a step up from the first Hunger games. It gets deeper into whats going on outside of the games and that caught my interest. The ending makes you me believe the next one will be a step even better.
  19. 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 $$$ -Let's just throw in the same stuff we put in the first movie,Katness and Peeta get in the game again,they kiss,they **** Gale he's a looser,he didn't fight in the dome as Peeta did and because Peeta couldn't find a suitable girlfriend even after
    So producers be like:
    -So what do we do in this next movie?
    -Idk man I was busy buying stuff with the money we got from the first release $$$
    -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
  20. Jul 28, 2014
    7
    "Catching Fire" is a stunning improvement on its predecessor, undeniably more original and mature. The film at last deals with its dystopian premise, expressing points of view on several issues that have emerged in modern societies. Characters seem like they have grown up, and are ready to cope with the horror reality around them. I liked "Catching Fire" for not only condemning the"Catching Fire" is a stunning improvement on its predecessor, undeniably more original and mature. The film at last deals with its dystopian premise, expressing points of view on several issues that have emerged in modern societies. Characters seem like they have grown up, and are ready to cope with the horror reality around them. I liked "Catching Fire" for not only condemning the dystopian situation but also going on to overturn it. There are principles on how things happened in Panem established in the first film, that collapse here. Every aspect of the film feels better and more fresh, and, of course, its open-ended finale leads right to "Mockingjay". Expand
  21. Jul 21, 2014
    10
    Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss is spectacular, the hunger games catching fire is much better than its predecessor, is visually beautiful, it is a glory to see, Josh Hutcherson as Peeta is beautiful. THE HUNGER GAMES IS THE BEST YEAR EXPERIENCE. NO falls into clichés and stereotypes, is pure drama and action. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT SPECTACULAR OF THE WORD.
  22. Jul 19, 2014
    9
    Supera por mucho a la primera, posee unos mejores efectos visuales, un gran vestuario y maquillaje, aunque con un guión un tanto pobre, pero con actuaciones muy buenas, una magnifica dirección de Francis Lawrence, y es casi como si te leyeran el libro.
  23. 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
  24. Jun 16, 2014
    8
    I love the story and the special effects are good. The only bad side to this movie is that sadly we've been here before with the first film. I think I sort of went in knowing what this film was going to be like. I wouldn't be surprised if the last two movies are scored lower than the first two. I think the first one is the best. Whenever a new movie comes out you don't know what to expect,I love the story and the special effects are good. The only bad side to this movie is that sadly we've been here before with the first film. I think I sort of went in knowing what this film was going to be like. I wouldn't be surprised if the last two movies are scored lower than the first two. I think the first one is the best. Whenever a new movie comes out you don't know what to expect, will it be good, or will it be bad? No one knows until someone sees it. The one thing I've seen over the years is in all genres especially in action and horror films the special effects have gotten way better. Catching Fire is an awesome sequel, but if there's one Hunger Game film to watch over and over again, it's without a doubt, the first film will always be the best. Expand
  25. Jun 13, 2014
    8
    It kept me excited but also provided food for thought. I love how the whole of it reflects back on the viewer... we witness first-hand how seductively entertaining a show like Hunger Games would be. But while watching the show, we get the benefit of seeing through the lies and peaking into the backstage drama, which has more depth in this sequel. The ending surprised me. Recommended!
  26. Jun 11, 2014
    8
    First of all I'd like to start out saying that I think this second one was better than the first. What amazes me the most about this is that the movie/story/book/author/director were able to keep the whole series going with this book. Them thinking of a way to keep it going in such a clever fashion amazes me. This I think is better than the first because not only did it portray the storyFirst of all I'd like to start out saying that I think this second one was better than the first. What amazes me the most about this is that the movie/story/book/author/director were able to keep the whole series going with this book. Them thinking of a way to keep it going in such a clever fashion amazes me. This I think is better than the first because not only did it portray the story better but it did it in a way that gets me excited and suspended. Movie over book, but only for this second one, catching fire, for the first it would have had to be a whole different conversation. Expand
  27. Ed_
    Jun 11, 2014
    10
    Briefly: waited for a movie like that one for a long time.

    This Hunger Games film is much more about than killing. It's about love, deception, cruelty, politics, deception and humanity in a great mix. I'm extremely interested in politics and humanity, so this movie is absolutely for me. I enjoyed every minute of it. Actors are perfect, they know how and when they have to show emotions.
    Briefly: waited for a movie like that one for a long time.

    This Hunger Games film is much more about than killing. It's about love, deception, cruelty, politics, deception and humanity in a great mix. I'm extremely interested in politics and humanity, so this movie is absolutely for me. I enjoyed every minute of it.
    Actors are perfect, they know how and when they have to show emotions.
    Effects are also enthralling.
    All in all, creators had a lot of work with this film but achieved an unbelievably incredible sequel.

    Keep up the good work!
    Expand
  28. May 29, 2014
    7
    Once again I liked the pre-games dystopian sequences, but this times the games were more intense and the whole story becomes more complex. I like the fact that the plot moves from hunger games to revolution. Overall, this part is slightly better than the first movie.
  29. May 23, 2014
    10
    | Great improvement on the first film. A must-see if you’re a fan or want in on the hype! |
    +The emotion of the characters is brought on strong with compassion;
    +Avatar-grade scenery and animals… enough said;
    +Follows the novel very closely, +story is very understandable;
    -Some parts are left out.

    You can find more on this review at http://BLAZONREVIEWS.tk!
  30. May 22, 2014
    7
    This movie was 30% Train wreck. because when cattiness and peeta arrive in some other place, some guy got shot and I didn't know why? Now I know because they think he was causing trouble.
  31. May 12, 2014
    7
    Well i finally got around to watching The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and i have to say that it was more entertaining then the first installment of the franchise. Sure i liked the first one but i felt it lacked in a few areas so that's why i ended up giving it only a 6.5 out of 10. This movie improves were The Hunger Games lacked the directing acting, action, plot, Special effect, allWell i finally got around to watching The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and i have to say that it was more entertaining then the first installment of the franchise. Sure i liked the first one but i felt it lacked in a few areas so that's why i ended up giving it only a 6.5 out of 10. This movie improves were The Hunger Games lacked the directing acting, action, plot, Special effect, all better in this one. Its always good when a sequel can out do its predecessor it gives you a sense that the later installments can only get better and were this movie is leading to its looking like its going to be that way.

    Just like the first movie Catching Fire takes some time to get into the actual Hunger Games which i was a bit disappointed by but at least the first half was of the movie was more enjoyable this time around also its more so of a set up for things to come. Luckily the action scenes weren't in "shaky-cam" mode thanks to new director Francis Lawrence so we were finally able to see the kills something the first movie desperately needed. Still though the lack of action scenes was really disappointing i was hoping that there was going to be more of them especially because that was a big gripe for people with the first movie. The Fog scene was really cool but after hearing about the blood rain i wished we could have seen that.

    The main cast was all good as before so nothing really to catch up on them with but i do have to say that i fell in love with Jena Malone's character Johanna Mason she was a awesome kickass chick cussing on camera and getting naked in front of Katniss, Haymitch, and Peeta she stole the show for me really. Sam Claflin as Finnick was also a nice surprise because i thought that he was going to be the big douche this time around but i was wrong. Now we come to the late great Philip Seymour Hoffman his part in the movie is great no doubt about that it just sucks that he wasnt in the film more but im glad to see that we are still yet to see the rest of him.

    Overall i give it a 7.7 The end scene with Katniss crying then getting serious was awesome and definitely a great tone setter for the next movie.
    Expand
  32. May 10, 2014
    7
    very much darker than the last book and film director francis lawrence knew what to leave in the book it is impressively directed and wonderfully written by the creator of the dark world as well as great acting this is one film the cast and crew were very careful with
  33. May 2, 2014
    10
    It is not very common that a sequel turns out to be better than the original, but somehow here's Catching Fire, with an awesome performance by Lawrence and better CGI that makes this movie an amazing experience.
  34. 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 differentI 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
  35. Apr 20, 2014
    10
    this is a great 2nd movie to the hunger games except it has a stupid ending which means i cant wait till the 1 st par of mocking jay (a 2 part 3rd movie for the hunger games) to come out in november 2014
  36. Apr 19, 2014
    8
    Catching Fire has improved significantly upon the original Hunger Games film. Now we are presented with less shaky cam and more depth. However, the ending is still too deus-ex-machina-esque...
  37. Apr 18, 2014
    9
    The first 30 minutes of this movie I was wondering whit was getting such high praise. And then it started to pickup and now I know why. Once the hunger games part started it was so good. And the ending was great. I cant wait for the next one to come out.
  38. Apr 16, 2014
    9
    Besides from having some dull performances from some supporting cast members, having some unrealistic life-saving coincidences and the occasional lack of logic, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is better than its great predecessor, proving to be bigger and more thrilling and providing a powerhouse performance by Jennifer Lawrence and a fabulous performance by Stanley Tucci. A rare sequelBesides from having some dull performances from some supporting cast members, having some unrealistic life-saving coincidences and the occasional lack of logic, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is better than its great predecessor, proving to be bigger and more thrilling and providing a powerhouse performance by Jennifer Lawrence and a fabulous performance by Stanley Tucci. A rare sequel that surpasses it's predecessor, albeit not having the emotional impact of the original. Expand
  39. Apr 14, 2014
    10
    The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is definitely an improvement upon the first film. With a deeper emotional depth and a better look at the series themes, and let's not forget an amazing lead performance from Academy-Award-Winner: Jennifer Lawrence.
  40. Apr 12, 2014
    9
    A young-adult franchise movie that reflects concretely the message from the book with an almost prefect performance from Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen.
  41. Apr 11, 2014
    10
    I like science fiction. I like post apocalyptic stories. I like dystopian stories. I like smart original stories. I like the Hunger Games. It's a fine story about an Atheist utopia where everyone's happy and peaceful and life is good without gawd.
  42. Apr 3, 2014
    8
    Catching fire is a movie based on the second book of the hunger games trilogy.
    It actually managed to stay true to the source material even though it could be difficult to follow for newcomers. Some cuts had to be made in order to fit in the movie-time vs book-time but they do not harm the story flow.
    Katniss Everdeen is the main character, surviving the first deadly edition of the
    Catching fire is a movie based on the second book of the hunger games trilogy.
    It actually managed to stay true to the source material even though it could be difficult to follow for newcomers. Some cuts had to be made in order to fit in the movie-time vs book-time but they do not harm the story flow.
    Katniss Everdeen is the main character, surviving the first deadly edition of the hunger games and now trying to find a way to elaborate what happened to her while trying to move on with her life.
    What she doesn't know is that her actions are inspiring a revolt in the whole world, so she must decide if obeying the capitol rules or be the "mockingjay" and be the embodyment of the spark of the rebellion.
    The story is captivating from start to finish, new additions to the cast are welcome and well rounded enough to be likable and relatable.
    Main problem is that it ends on a big cliffhanger wich will see its resolutions in the two upcoming films.
    Expand
  43. 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 guessprobably 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
  44. Apr 1, 2014
    8
    Catching Fire tops it's predecessor in almost every way. The actors have grown more comfortable in their roles, as the acting has improved greatly. The special effects are far better than what we got the last time around. And Ceasar Flickerman is twenty times funnier. The first hour of the movie solely focuses on the political tensions of Panem, and it is very well done. I even got scaredCatching Fire tops it's predecessor in almost every way. The actors have grown more comfortable in their roles, as the acting has improved greatly. The special effects are far better than what we got the last time around. And Ceasar Flickerman is twenty times funnier. The first hour of the movie solely focuses on the political tensions of Panem, and it is very well done. I even got scared by President Snow. (Not to mention the Peacekeepers actually look intimidating now). We also get to know more about victors that have been reaped for the 75 Hunger Games. This is a nice change from what we got in the last movie, "Cato bad! Marvel bad! They big! Kill! Run!" When we get to the Games, the movie retains all of it's tension from earlier and adds a nice layer of action to top it off. And there's almost no shaky camera this time. The two Mockingjay sequels are going to have to work hard to not be overshadowed. Expand
  45. Mar 28, 2014
    10
    When I saw the first Hunger Games film, I enjoyed it but I went into it without reading the book at all. So I made sure that I read the books before the next film came out and I enjoyed the book enough to where I got really hyped for the Catching Fire movie and it was amazing!! I enjoyed this movie so much and it was a lot better than the first Hunger Games movie. It had some great dramaWhen I saw the first Hunger Games film, I enjoyed it but I went into it without reading the book at all. So I made sure that I read the books before the next film came out and I enjoyed the book enough to where I got really hyped for the Catching Fire movie and it was amazing!! I enjoyed this movie so much and it was a lot better than the first Hunger Games movie. It had some great drama and suspense to keep me captive around the action scenes. The locations were also cool and I liked that they seemed more open and fleshed out in this movie than the first film. The characters were good, the acting was good, everything in this film is great. This is a one of kind film that I think sci-fi and dystopia fans will really enjoy, even if they didn't read the book. Expand
  46. 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
  47. Mar 20, 2014
    10
    A wonderful thrill ride of a sequel that vastly improves the first film in every way! As a reader of the book, I'm proud to say I really enjoyed this. Bring on Mockingjay Part 1!
  48. 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 wherewhat 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
  49. 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.
  50. Mar 9, 2014
    10
    An absolute masterpiece. It kept me guessing and is filled with tension and emotion. The performances are fantastic and believable. The movie had me on the edge of my seat and constantly questioning things like who to trust, or how character relationships would/will turn out. As someone who has not read the books I have no idea what to expect next from this fantastic series, and the endingAn absolute masterpiece. It kept me guessing and is filled with tension and emotion. The performances are fantastic and believable. The movie had me on the edge of my seat and constantly questioning things like who to trust, or how character relationships would/will turn out. As someone who has not read the books I have no idea what to expect next from this fantastic series, and the ending has me begging for the next chapter. All in all I found "Catching Fire" to be an improvement in every way on the already fantastic original. It's a movie like no other and I highly recommend that you check this series out. I am completely blown away with how fantastic this movie turned out and I already had pretty high expectations. Expand
  51. Mar 8, 2014
    10
    It's living up to the name of the book in every details. So Hunger games : Catching Fire is good in all aspects. It's artificial but truthful when it talk about the world we are around. The scenario will not possible at all when thinking with today. But it is possible when all things concerned. It's truthful when comes to the human nature. So a perfect 10 is reasonable when the genre, theIt's living up to the name of the book in every details. So Hunger games : Catching Fire is good in all aspects. It's artificial but truthful when it talk about the world we are around. The scenario will not possible at all when thinking with today. But it is possible when all things concerned. It's truthful when comes to the human nature. So a perfect 10 is reasonable when the genre, the adaptation, story and the core message concerned. Expand
  52. 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 .
  53. Mar 3, 2014
    10
    I loved the first Hunger Games film, but I realized after watching it a second time it was merely a nice setup for something potentially greater. Catching Fire is excellent entertainment but it's the deeper plot and societal references that will grab you and keep you long after the action has faded. I didn't read any of the books, and as much as I'd like to after seeing the first twoI loved the first Hunger Games film, but I realized after watching it a second time it was merely a nice setup for something potentially greater. Catching Fire is excellent entertainment but it's the deeper plot and societal references that will grab you and keep you long after the action has faded. I didn't read any of the books, and as much as I'd like to after seeing the first two movies I almost want to hold off to maximize the impact of the movies. Maybe a "10" isn't a balanced score, but I am hard pressed to think of a movie in recent memory that had me so wired and on the edge of my seat. Jennifer Lawrence is fantastic and the cast surrounding her all turn in great performances as well. This Hunger Games is more visceral - I didn't want it to end, ever. We'll get Mockingjay to close out the trilogy and I was thrilled to hear that it will be a two-part movie. It's just sad to think that there can only be one more complete chapter in what has quickly become the coolest franchise since Harry Potter, especially as The Hobbit has turned out to be nothing special. To Danny Strong (screenwriter) I say: do us proud - Suzanne Collins' oversight will do wonders to keep the movies faithful, but it's your transition from literary fiction to silver-screen entertainment that needs to land the most. So excited. Expand
  54. Feb 23, 2014
    8
    It was really entertaining, Jennifer Lawrence is great in her role. Despite 2 hour long, it keeps you in expectation all the time. Definitely a must see
  55. Feb 18, 2014
    10
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I absolutely loved Catching Fire and how it was played out. It was so perfect how the whole arena was a a huge clock counting down the hours and with every new hour it was a new threat. It was way better then the first Hunger Games. I even read the book and the movie was a little bit different but I did wait for the movie and it was not disappointing at all! I hope they don't forget about Peter's Perl!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    xoxo Rues_Song!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Expand
  56. Feb 13, 2014
    8
    A major improvement over the first installment. It has a better plot, better twists, more action, and more drama. Above all, it delves more into the setting in which the story takes place, as well the themes behind the story itself.

    It also retains the aspects of the first movie, like the great performances by Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson, while adding new just-as-great ones,
    A major improvement over the first installment. It has a better plot, better twists, more action, and more drama. Above all, it delves more into the setting in which the story takes place, as well the themes behind the story itself.

    It also retains the aspects of the first movie, like the great performances by Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Harrelson, while adding new just-as-great ones, most notably the late Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jena Malone. The directing is also very very good.

    Very glad to have watched this movie, especially that i wasn't very satisfied with its predecessor. Looking forward to Mockingjay.
    Expand
  57. Feb 10, 2014
    9
    The second instalment has more drama, conflict, engaging characters, and a vicious arena. A way is found to return the champions to the battlefield. But nothing is really what it seems to be. There are layers under which the different characters are working.

    Catching Fire takes the conflict steadily away from being everything about who survives in the arena to the larger issue, which is
    The second instalment has more drama, conflict, engaging characters, and a vicious arena. A way is found to return the champions to the battlefield. But nothing is really what it seems to be. There are layers under which the different characters are working.

    Catching Fire takes the conflict steadily away from being everything about who survives in the arena to the larger issue, which is the tyranny of the Capitol. Katniss, for the sake of the audience, doesn't know much about what is being plotted in secret, mainly because she isn't the most discrete and patient of people.

    Gale Hawthorne is developed further before the focus once again returns to Katniss and Peeta. Both of them must form alliances if they hope to have one of them survive. Finnick and Johanna breathe some life into an otherwise stagnant narrative. They are both cocky and witty and peculiar, and talented in the art of killing. Beetee is skilled with the use of electricity. Haymitch is much more cunning and resolved this time around. He seems to have a purpose he is keeping from both Katniss and Peeta.

    President Snow wants Katniss to make the people of the districts believe that it was true love that made her want to eat the berries alongwith Peeta at the end of their previous expedition into the arena. People are taking her deathwish for a display of defiance. For her part she wants to cooperate so they would leave her and her family in peace. She just wants to live the rest of her life recovering from the mental damage she has suffered from killing all those people. But it isn't working and Snow finds another way for quelling the hopes of the inhabitants of the districts.

    Hoffman plays the new gamemaker hired by Snow. He is tasked with arranging Katniss's death so the whole issue about the mockingjay would go away. He lives up to his name in his last performance of his life. Sadly we won't be able to see his character in the next two instalments.

    The stakes are higher than the lives of both the characters. It is freedom that is the goal here and the movie ends in a way which would leave the viewers in no doubt about where the story is headed. The promise is large and I hope that they deliver. I know the last book was a bit underwhelming, so some modifications would have to be made to keep the following two sequels interesting. The theme discussed is the same as before_ human suffering though poverty, hunger, war and persecution.

    They did everything they could have with this instalment. The budget was bigger. The set design, visual effects, costumes and weapons more impressive. But the reason the movie succeeds is they also went bigger with the characters. They felt more lively and real. If this instalment is any indication, the next two films are going to earn huge sums of money too. Catching Fire has turned the franchise very lucrative.

    9.5
    Expand
  58. Feb 9, 2014
    7
    A hell of improvement since the last movie, but it still got a boring start & a low tempo, as the previous movie had. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire got a beautiful story, and the movie itself is very well made and it got some interesting and cool stuffs that you haven't seen in movies before, and the actors couldn't have been more awesome actually, and I really admire Donald Sutherland &A hell of improvement since the last movie, but it still got a boring start & a low tempo, as the previous movie had. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire got a beautiful story, and the movie itself is very well made and it got some interesting and cool stuffs that you haven't seen in movies before, and the actors couldn't have been more awesome actually, and I really admire Donald Sutherland & Philip Seymour Hoffman's spectacular performance in this movie, but I also love the drama in this movie!

    The bad thing about Catching Fire is the beginning, it wasn't unique at any way, a little boring & lengthy actually, and it continued to be lengthy for about one hour, until more things started to happen. The ending was beautiful and unique, but I felt that something really was missing in the ending, and it was quite stupid.
    My conclusion of Catching Fire is that it's a beautiful movie, but it got many deficiencies, such as the opening scene, the tempo, lack of action & that the movie is a little boring at some places, and I think that they could have done much more in this movie! The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is watchable, but it might not be recommended for those who likes movies with action, but it's a great movie overall.

    The Hunger Games: Catching Fire gets a 7/10
    Expand
  59. Feb 7, 2014
    8
    Whatever you say I am not a big fan of this franchise. I did not like much the first installment other than a decent entertainment. So this was another 'let it go' movie from me. But when the time came to see it, I was a little surprised of being better than the first. The second hour was good and before one was a mild slow. The real interest is the, follow-up movies from here on. The endWhatever you say I am not a big fan of this franchise. I did not like much the first installment other than a decent entertainment. So this was another 'let it go' movie from me. But when the time came to see it, I was a little surprised of being better than the first. The second hour was good and before one was a mild slow. The real interest is the, follow-up movies from here on. The end of this part created a curiosity for the next movies of the series. Looks like it would be very interesting with big changes in story than first two.

    The movie series supposed to be a trilogy, but you know it tasted big commercial success that mean big buck in filmmakers pocket. In 2013 this movie was the highest gross from north America. So like 'Deathly Hollows' and 'Breaking Dawn' this franchise following the same path by breaking the third volume into two. Whatever, I am expecting the third and the fourth movies 'Mockingjay part I and II' would have more exciting than previous movies with many twists and turns.

    It was so sad to hear about Philip Seymour's sudden tragic demise. His best parts are yet to come in the next movies of the movie series. The franchise told they wrapped most of his portions of the last two volumes and now they decided to make minor changes in his character. That's good to hear, hope he it will be an unforgettable show from the great actor.

    The end scene before the credits roll the logo of 'Catching Fire' changes into 'Mockingjay'. It was awesome, I just sensed some great is ahead. So like teenagers, it interested me and created curiosity. Looks like I got reason to watch 'Mockingjay' movies.

    7.5/10
    Expand
  60. 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,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
  61. 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
    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
  62. Feb 2, 2014
    8
    Great adaptation of the the world famous teen lit, more so thanks to another great performance by Jennifer Lawrence. The second half went into the same motions, with another dip into the 'arena' but for the first half of the film, we see the start of the rebellion and a surprisingly insightful view of 'heroes' and 'symbols' in such social revolutions.
  63. Feb 2, 2014
    7
    First thing I noticed about this film from its previous film is that Gary Ross did not direct this film, so it's obvious that we would see lots and lots of changes. The first change was the setting, in the first film District 12 was not so modern it seemed like District 12 was only couple of wooden houses and probably the only stone building was the Cathedral, but in the second filmFirst thing I noticed about this film from its previous film is that Gary Ross did not direct this film, so it's obvious that we would see lots and lots of changes. The first change was the setting, in the first film District 12 was not so modern it seemed like District 12 was only couple of wooden houses and probably the only stone building was the Cathedral, but in the second film District 12 was mostly of stone houses and buildings. The other thing I noticed but doesn't make sense is that "How is it possible for the game makers to see every little thing without a camera?".

    In the book the twist in the story was smooth and elegantly said but in the film it wasn't. One scene the game maker is with President Snow and the very next scene he is in the hover craft with Haymitch and people.

    I give 7 because I was impressed by the graphics and the overall flow of the film, I feel this could have been better with some logic. I wish the new directer keeps the flow and consistency the same with the up coming once.

    Overall it was a great entertainer and was not as gore as the previous one. I say it wasn't a waste of time and effort.
    Expand
  64. Jwv
    Jan 28, 2014
    8
    From the very start, you can see that Catching Fire is a much bigger production than The Hunger Games. It's a good thing the movie elaborates more on the relationship between Katniss and Prim, because we finally get to see some real feeling behind Katniss' motive, which is a thing that the book lacked. Secondly, I also like how the movie elaborates on the precarious situation the presidentFrom the very start, you can see that Catching Fire is a much bigger production than The Hunger Games. It's a good thing the movie elaborates more on the relationship between Katniss and Prim, because we finally get to see some real feeling behind Katniss' motive, which is a thing that the book lacked. Secondly, I also like how the movie elaborates on the precarious situation the president Snow is in, and how he copes with it. The movie does succeed in portraying an exotic lethal and especially dynamic arena, featuring great special effects, decors and non-stop action. The acting is good overall, although the two TV-commentators are amazingly flat characters, firing off meaningless and dull one-liners and acting ostentatiously. These are not the characters that Collins creates in the book that I criticize however, but the actual clumsiness by which the movie handles them. Actually every public appearance or speech of any kind is very empty of meaning and substance. In a repressive system where twelve districts are controlled (against their will) by a totalitarian regime, the power of propaganda should extend beyond the TV-set. What I mean is that not only the repetition of visual display of power is enough to sketch a believable world. The power of rhetoric is nowhere to be seen, which is a shame.

    The movie does in certain ways improve over the book (ie. providing different points of focalization) and it does a great job in compacting the book into a consistent two hour movie.
    Expand
  65. Jan 27, 2014
    10
    A must watch !, this movie is well done. This time there's no sharky cameras, that's an improvement. It's start only at the middle of the movie, but personally its a 2h30 film that passed so fast !
  66. Jan 26, 2014
    10
    "Absolutely sublime from start to finish and I will jam forks into my eyes if I ever use those words to describe anything again." - Yahtzee/Zero Punctuation
  67. 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.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
  68. Jan 24, 2014
    7
    I didn’t care for the first film but, at the behest of many friends and a girlfriend who loves the books, I gave this one a chance and actually found myself enjoying the experience. While I’m still not blown away by this franchise, I did think the story was much more interesting this time around and the introduction of new, more interesting characters, really helped get me into it.I didn’t care for the first film but, at the behest of many friends and a girlfriend who loves the books, I gave this one a chance and actually found myself enjoying the experience. While I’m still not blown away by this franchise, I did think the story was much more interesting this time around and the introduction of new, more interesting characters, really helped get me into it. Granted, I still have some issues like the action isn’t that satisfying, Hutcherson isn’t a very memorable actor (and it play havoc on his character) and a lot of Jennifer Lawrence’s performance came out like overacting to me BUT I still think it was a decent film. Expand
  69. Jan 24, 2014
    8
    ''Spectacular!'' ''Knockout.'' ''Explosive!'' Jennifer Lawrence is fearless. The Hunger Games:Catching Fire will take your breath away. One of the Best adaptation of the book I've seen. One of the Best Achievement. Francis Lawrence gives a suspenseful action film, It leaves you wanting more.
  70. Jan 22, 2014
    8
    A pretty decent follow up to the original, with less 'tween-spirit' and more mature themes. Again we see a lot of young kids being killed without really caring about their characters, however it does leave me wanting to see more.
  71. 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...
  72. Jan 22, 2014
    10
    This is one of those rare times when I have read the book and was pleased with the movie. The producers/directors did a fine job following the story and the actors did a great job making the characters true to form.

    Loved this movie!
  73. 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 makeThis 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
  74. Jan 20, 2014
    8
    This movie isn't exactly what I thought it would be. It missed out on some major and small parts like the first movie. I understand that the movie has to fit into 1-2 hours, but at least try putting in more parts and a tad bit more action in this movie. The makeup and costumes were outstanding, but the movie in general?... I'd give this an 8.
  75. Jan 18, 2014
    8
    The Hunger Games is now a powerhouse to behold. With Jennifer Lawrence's new found talent in brilliant acting she can hold this film on her back, and make the franchise as good as the books. Catching Fire was probably one of the most vital books in the trilogy and this movie holds up well. The new director change caused for a more balanced and thought out film. Jennifer shows that shes notThe Hunger Games is now a powerhouse to behold. With Jennifer Lawrence's new found talent in brilliant acting she can hold this film on her back, and make the franchise as good as the books. Catching Fire was probably one of the most vital books in the trilogy and this movie holds up well. The new director change caused for a more balanced and thought out film. Jennifer shows that shes not another bland Kirsten Stewart and she will need to grow on this in the coming films. 8/10 Great. Expand
  76. 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
    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
  77. Jan 15, 2014
    8
    this is a great movie that i found followed the book pretty well, i found that it had a entertaining story and an ended the EXACT same way that the 2nd book ended. If you liked the first hunger games movie, you're gonna like this one.
  78. Jan 10, 2014
    9
    While the first Hunger Games movie was a bit lackluster and disappointing, the 2nd film does justice to the book and the author. Jennifer Lawrence was a bit emotionless in the first film (although maybe Katniss really would've been like that), but she improves her acting for the second film. The other victors like Beetee, Finnick, and Johanna were great. (Johanna was especially funny!) TheWhile the first Hunger Games movie was a bit lackluster and disappointing, the 2nd film does justice to the book and the author. Jennifer Lawrence was a bit emotionless in the first film (although maybe Katniss really would've been like that), but she improves her acting for the second film. The other victors like Beetee, Finnick, and Johanna were great. (Johanna was especially funny!) The rest of cast is good too, even though I feel like characters such as Cinna and Prim weren't in the movie enough (but unfortunately you can't fit everything from the book into the movie). Besides the victors, the addition of Presidents Snow's granddaughter was a nice touch. Things from the book were adapted well for the movie, and to sum it all up this movie was really good. I can't wait for the next movie!

    The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 will be released November 2014 and Part 2 in 2015.

    If you liked this review, read my other ones on a wide variety of movies, TV shows, and videogames by clicking on my name, and please mark this review as helpful.
    Expand
  79. Jan 8, 2014
    7
    At the end of the first Hunger Games, we thought we could relax because our two heroes had won the games and managed to finagle their way out of having to decide which one would kill whom. Their threat to commit a double suicide rather than fight each other had led to the games being closed with two winners instead of only one, forcing the director of the games to commit hari-kari to saveAt the end of the first Hunger Games, we thought we could relax because our two heroes had won the games and managed to finagle their way out of having to decide which one would kill whom. Their threat to commit a double suicide rather than fight each other had led to the games being closed with two winners instead of only one, forcing the director of the games to commit hari-kari to save face. Now the two lovers are back in District 12, and their mandate is to tour all the districts to promote the 75th Hunger Games. However, the Nazi-like President Snow, played by Donald Sutherland, is getting restless and worried—Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) has become a symbol for the revolutionary spirit in Panem.

    Katniss's mockingjay pin has been adopted as the mark of the revolution, and the three-finger salute, the symbol of solidarity, is often raised in her presence. Snow wants her dead, but he fears her enough that he cannot kill her outright. Instead, he announces that the 75th year is a good excuse for a quarter-quell game, where the winners from all the previous 24 years will reunite and once again, fight to the death until there is only one man, or woman, standing. As Johanna Mason (Jena Malone) from District 7 notes, the players thought that after they won the game for their year, they would be rich and safe for life, and instead they have to go through the harrowing experience all over again. Ditto for the audience; it’s emotionally exhausting to have to go through the games all over again.

    This time the simulated reality includes poisonous fog, murderous monkeys, and bloody rain. The new games director, Plutarch Heavensbee (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman), seems to be keen on achieving Snow’s wish to make sure that Katniss is killed during the games. But the plot emphasis in Hunger Games 2 is not the games, even though they are revisited and are almost as unnerving as ever. In Part 2 of the Hunger Games, it is the revolutionary spirit of the people that is the main thrust of the film. President Snow is correct in his assessment that Katniss is a symbolic force to be reckoned with; the people are rallying around her, and the revolution is rumbling.

    The love story between Katniss and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) is at first dismissed as an act that the two devised as a sort of reality television show. Back in District 12, Katniss continues to pursue her amorous bond with Gale Hawthorne, played by Liam Hemsworth, her true love. But there is a twist in the plot when Katniss and Peeta reunite as an affianced couple who may end up having to kill each other at the end of the games. This time the romantic act becomes real.

    Hunger Games is a trilogy, and thus the open-ended finale to this film was unavoidable as we are obliged to wait for Act 3 to finish the story. However, the original Hunger Games did a better job of providing both a satisfactory ending and a lead-in to the next installment, whereas Hunger Games 2 seems to end, quite literally, in mid-air. The performances are strong and the sets are lavish, but much of the plot interest has been generated by the excellence of Part 1, whose mythic ambiance continues to enthrall. The Day of the Revolution is an interesting dystopian theme for Part 2, but the tension of the revolutionary idealism has been somewhat subdued in favor of the repetition of the games, which in this film are not quite as daring, intense, or as purposeful as the first time around. Nevertheless, the themes of social injustice are well executed once again—including the dictatorial suppression of civil liberties, the unacceptable distribution of wealth, and the insanity displayed by the bizarre fashion, make-up, and hairstyles of the extravagantly and absurdly rich.
    Expand
  80. Jan 7, 2014
    9
    The Hunger Games Catching Fire is an example of cinema done right. I went into the theatre pretty nervous that this movie would not live up to its expectations. The book had so much content that I knew wouldn't make it into the movie that I almost convinced myself before the movie started that it was going to be bad. I was completely wrong. The movie as a whole followed the book prettyThe Hunger Games Catching Fire is an example of cinema done right. I went into the theatre pretty nervous that this movie would not live up to its expectations. The book had so much content that I knew wouldn't make it into the movie that I almost convinced myself before the movie started that it was going to be bad. I was completely wrong. The movie as a whole followed the book pretty well going up into the hunger games. Sadly I haven't finshed the book because I'm not interested In Catnices love triangle being mentioned every page, which leads me to my next point. The movie doesn't force the love triangle stuff down our throats. The acting in all areas was amazing.

    But the movie isn't perfect. There were a few things missing that I think should have been added in the final cut. In the book, we learn how Haymich became a champion of the hunger games. We also learn a bit about the Avox's. These servants of the capitol have been branded traitors, had their tounges removed, and tasked with waiting apon tributes as they get ready for the hunger games. You can see them in the backround of some scenes but as far as the audience knows, they are just random people. These missing pieces dont ruin the puzzel, but they would make it more complete. Plus the Movie made a betrayal seem painfully obvious. The way the actor portrayed his character in a certain scene kinda ruined the surprise. The book did a better job of keeping that secret.

    Overall, despite the few hickups, The movie was spectacular. the arena was beautiful and the special effects looked somewhat realistic. I say somewhat because I have yet to see a movie other than Avatar that nails 3d effects and cgi flawlessly. The acting was great and the story was engaging. Now I knwo the next movie is going to be harder to see because it is the most gruesome of the trilogy, but after seeing this movie I think they can pull it off.
    Expand
  81. 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.
  82. Jan 3, 2014
    10
    Far better than the first one. Stunning visuals, interesting storyline & good acting all add up to make a pretty cool film. Haven't read the books but think I might give them a whirl after seeing the first two movies. Can't wait to see how the third one pans out!
  83. 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
  84. Jan 2, 2014
    9
    Jennifer Lawrence is everything. She delivers a fantastic performance that makes the audience believe in her character's anger and vulnerability. Her acting has improved since the first movie and it truly makes this movie believable and better than the first one. There were some scenes that needed to be fixed, but it's not that big of a deal for this #1 action movie of 2013.
  85. Jan 1, 2014
    8
    Far deeper in emotion and story than the first movie, and feels more interesting. There are politics involved and I loved the whole uprising, it feels like you're witnessing a revolution, some part of history.

    The Hunger Games: Catching Fire gets a 8.0/10
  86. Jan 1, 2014
    10
    Much better than the first movie and I really enjoyed that one. Unlike the Hobbit that is also showing at this time this movie follows the book fairly closely. I just re-read the series a few months ago knowing that this movie was coming out. I think that the special effects were well done and the acting was above average. I look forward to the third book part one?!
  87. 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
    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.
    Expand
  88. Dec 31, 2013
    10
    One of the best movies of 2013 I think it is even better than gravity. The movie captures the world of the hunger games in an amazing way, and I loved every bit of the movie.
  89. 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
  90. Dec 31, 2013
    8
    Beautifully shot and compelling throughout, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire captures the perfect essence and tone of the book while never straying away from it.
  91. 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 blandThese 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
  92. Dec 27, 2013
    9
    This is one of the best movies of 2013 in my opinion. I found myself intergued from start to finish and wanting more once the film was over. Gone is the shaky camera in combat. The movie follows the book perfectly with only one or 2 notable diferances. The acting is good all around which is necesarry to make a good movie. It is slightly dissapointing how much it feels like the firstThis is one of the best movies of 2013 in my opinion. I found myself intergued from start to finish and wanting more once the film was over. Gone is the shaky camera in combat. The movie follows the book perfectly with only one or 2 notable diferances. The acting is good all around which is necesarry to make a good movie. It is slightly dissapointing how much it feels like the first book/movie. Despite of that short coming it is a fantastic movie
    score
    9.6
    Expand
  93. Dec 27, 2013
    10
    It's just like the book, far better than the previous movie filled with drama and action! A must have and must see! It's easy to follow, emotional and brilliant!
  94. Dec 26, 2013
    7
    A very slow start for me....but the events before and during the ending was absolutely amazing. A great movie overall....
  95. Dec 26, 2013
    8
    A very very very strong 8.5 out of 10. November gave us the best blockbuster of 2013. Man of Steel was the best comic book movie of the year but this one surpasses it. I was very impressed. Big improvement over the first one. Great and better acting, great story, great characters especially the two leading ones, one of the best female characters ever, great twists, great pacing (it´s longA very very very strong 8.5 out of 10. November gave us the best blockbuster of 2013. Man of Steel was the best comic book movie of the year but this one surpasses it. I was very impressed. Big improvement over the first one. Great and better acting, great story, great characters especially the two leading ones, one of the best female characters ever, great twists, great pacing (it´s long but it doesn´t feel like it and you really don´t want it to end), spectacular scenes, emotive, deep, touching. It was so on point. There were so many subtle things I´m sure most people didn´t even notice. Even about sexuality, sexual orientation and male and female roles. Perfect film for all ages. So impressed. Expand
  96. 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
  97. 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
  98. Dec 23, 2013
    9
    The first movie was entertaining, but not a movie I'd want to see a second time. Some of the stuff, like Prim's name getting chosen was something we'd heard a thousand times. This movie is head and shoulders better; so many more surprises, better special effects, and at the ending, I couldn't stop smiling. (Not the ending right before the credits.) The point is, Catching Fire is an awesome film.
  99. Dec 23, 2013
    8
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The best dystopian fiction holds a mirror up to our own society, extrapolating current trends to extreme endpoints. Here, in a grim future America, the gaudy citizens of the Capital lead lives of leisure amid the glittering spires of their neo-classical metropolis while the Appalachian miners of District 12 carve a meagre living straight out of the Great Depression. Every year, they are forced to participate in their oppressors’ sadistic version reality TV (with brilliantly over the top X-factor style commentary): the titular Hunger Games, an annual gladiatorial combat between children, in which the sole survivor emerges as victor.

    The face of the revolution is the teenage Katniss (Oscar winner Jennifer Lawrence) whose strong performance drives a film which is otherwise far from subtle. Yet there’s no doubt that this film is thoroughly exciting and engaging. For a start, the young actors here are miles better than the cast of the cheesy ‘80s slasher flicks I’ve been watching lately.

    The visuals are fantastic and the cast is rounded out with both old and new blood, including Wood Harrelson as Katniss’ grizzled mentor, and Patrick Seymour Hoffman as the smooth talking new games master. Donald Sutherland returns as the villainous President Snow, his soft spoken exterior belying the brutal stranglehold he maintains on the populace.

    One year after Katniss and her fellow ‘tribute’ Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) won the last Hunger Games, the president decrees that this year’s competitors will be drawn from the existing pool of victors (who believed they had earned their freedom); as if to deny that the games are anything more than a ritual execution.

    So Katniss and Peeta must head back into the arena for a second round, facing twenty five years worth of combatants who’ve murdered their way out once already. While more time is devoted to the Games social impact and the brewing rebellion, there is a feeling that Catching Fire treads familiar ground. Much of the thematic material held true for the first film, and this instalment is little more than a continuation of the narrative. The biggest difference is that the battle is between veterans and not children.

    Gary Ross hands the directorial reigns to Francis Lawrence, whose back catalogue, including Constantine (2005) and I am Legend (2007) suggests a darker sequel, though Lawrence inherits much of the design and atmosphere directly from his predecessor. This is ultimately delivered, yet we are treated to the inevitably unsatisfying cliff hanger as the narrative heads towards its presumably epic conclusion in next year’s Mockingjay.

    The weakest part of the story is the attempted love triangle between Katniss, Peeta and Gale which started in the last film. It pales in comparison to the wider struggle of the story and is perhaps wisely downplayed. Gale (Liam Hemsworth, who somehow has third billing) is a childhood friend of Katniss, but feels like a redundant character, appearing in very few scenes to give the TV a jealous glance whenever he sees Peeta, who has infinitely more screen time, but says and does less than he did in the last film.

    The new police uniforms, a departure from the more standard half-visors seen in the first film, are a little too much like Star Wars storm troopers crossed with The Stig, and look downright bizarre when worn without a helmet. This undermines some of the intensity of the new police chief of District 12, who is otherwise brutal and intimidating.

    As far as run time is concerned, so many of these epic fantasy novel adaptations are a little on the long side. At 146 minutes, Catching Fire is only quarter of an hour shorter than the somewhat bloated The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, the other film I saw this week. How much of a problem this becomes depends on your investment in the source material. I’ve not read any of the novels, so as a casual viewer, this felt a lot longer than The Hobbit, but I can imagine a lot of people feeling the opposite. That’s fine, but it can alienate those on the periphery of the fan base.

    Alternatively, while I felt that some of the Harry Potter films had the potential to flash past in a series of semi-confusing vignettes for anyone unfamiliar with the books, I never felt lost in the narrative of this film, or the one that preceded it.
    Expand
  100. Dec 23, 2013
    9
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The movie is great. It's not a happy (silly) fairy tale featuring a prince finding a princess and live happily together but a dark society instead. The plot is amazing which follows the book (I think so, I skipped some parts for the book), the acting is good (at least it satisfy me) and the best thing is the theme of the story is not deleted when translating the book to the movie. It still features how dark the society is through comparisons (the Capitol's party and District 12), atmosphere (I hear Katniss's mum started to cry when she heard her daughter is going back to the games through TV) and conversations (the little girl in the tour told Katniss she thought being a tribute is glorious and wanted to join the games when she grew up). These scenes are memorable to me and they really makes me think of the society today. Of course, there are some scenes between Katniss and Peeta/Gale, but the overall message is obvious and memorable. I can't wait watching the last two films. 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.