Read Negative User Reviews for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

3

DoctorBarberNov 22, 2013

The first hour or so of this movie is wonderful. It really fleshes out the setting of the sci-fi dystopia seen only very briefly in the first movie. The second half is a train wreck of improbable circumstances and impossible to follow actionThe first hour or so of this movie is wonderful. It really fleshes out the setting of the sci-fi dystopia seen only very briefly in the first movie. The second half is a train wreck of improbable circumstances and impossible to follow action scenes. People just seem to... DO THINGS for no explainable reason. I've never seen a movie go from pretty good to horrible beyond saving so quickly. If you look closely you can spot where it happens. It's right around where the actual "Hunger Games" part begins.… Expand

16 of 45 users found this helpful1629

All this user's reviews

0

angrylouisMar 19, 2014

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 iwhat 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

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

2

LJHayesSep 24, 2014

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 sceneI 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

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

3

nicholasbertJan 16, 2014

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'sMy 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

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

0

eek13Dec 2, 2013

This isn't a sci-fi action flick. It is 2 hours of trying on outfits and lamenting about which man to love. Go for the one society tells me to? or go for the salt of the earth hunter. What a new theme!! Oh, and don't forget the 'I amThis isn't a sci-fi action flick. It is 2 hours of trying on outfits and lamenting about which man to love. Go for the one society tells me to? or go for the salt of the earth hunter. What a new theme!! Oh, and don't forget the 'I am humble, but damn I look good as a princess' storyline. very inventive. After you sit through the 2 hour drawl of the aforementioned, you get 20 solid minutes of psuedo action. Followed by a close up ending that would make JJ Abrahms in his pants. I lost 3 hours of my life that night.… Expand

8 of 16 users found this helpful88

All this user's reviews

0

HoraceBagusJul 18, 2014

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

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

2

MargateExpertJan 1, 2014

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,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

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

3

UnderTheRainDec 29, 2013

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 crateThese 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

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

1

snowwhite2115Nov 29, 2013

I am confused, saddened, and downright appalled at the hype for this "movie." I would have gotten up and left but I didn't drive. I have only walked out of one movie in my lifetime. This should have been the second time.

First, I supposeI am confused, saddened, and downright appalled at the hype for this "movie." I would have gotten up and left but I didn't drive. I have only walked out of one movie in my lifetime. This should have been the second time.

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

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

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

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

Overall, I give it a 1 for the presence of Lenny Kravitz, although honestly, the character was completely non-essential to the plot and it just seemed like he was there to add interest to the movie. However, the whole movie is so far gone that adding him is just the only drop in the bucket towards giving this movie any positive appeal at all.… Expand

4 of 10 users found this helpful46

All this user's reviews

3

Stabs_with_PudzNov 23, 2013

Winner of the Most Hyped Disapointment of the Year Award for sure.
Francis Lawrence attempts to fit all the features of the book into the movie whilst trying to stick to the 2 and a half hour limit, which results in it all looking half assedWinner of the Most Hyped Disapointment of the Year Award for sure.
Francis Lawrence attempts to fit all the features of the book into the movie whilst trying to stick to the 2 and a half hour limit, which results in it all looking half assed and rushed, that people seem to be talking over each other and it all goes to the point where I would be happier if they had just left it out, any character development the book had has been left out, most of the characters' actions get explained perfectly in the book, in the movie it leaves the audience confused. For some inexplicable reason everyone has taken up the practise of cussing at random, and for some reason one of Katniss's prep team was killed offscreen.
Please try harder in the future Francis Lawrence, for the sake of the fandom, humanity even.… Expand

14 of 37 users found this helpful1423

All this user's reviews

0

lilkillpappyJan 22, 2014

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,This film, like many of its kind, was made for one reason and one reason only. To make money. This film has no art, no honesty, no truth, zero passion. This is complete trash, just like Harry Potter. Garbage for kids. Just look at the acting, the actors gave extremely uninspired performances. I hate films like this. Doesn't matter though, they made a bunch of money, and they will make more films like this forever and ever, because idiots keep going to suck it up. Whatever.. Hope you all don't choke on your trash.… Expand

3 of 10 users found this helpful37

All this user's reviews

0

malakNov 30, 2013

Read the review, not the score
Honestly this is one of the best adaptation i have ever seen, there are a couple scenes from the book that i would have liked to see, but they hit it on the nail. Instead of trying to force the book to fit intoRead the review, not the score
Honestly this is one of the best adaptation i have ever seen, there are a couple scenes from the book that i would have liked to see, but they hit it on the nail. Instead of trying to force the book to fit into a movie, they took the book an re-wrote parts to make it s great movie, without losing any of the meaning in the book. This is easily the best movie i have seen this year.… Expand

6 of 25 users found this helpful619

All this user's reviews

0

FilmBratDec 15, 2013

With all great scripts sitting on shelves throughout Hollywood, it's a sad day for American culture when such a disturbing movie gets made. What next, a teenager gang rape trilogy whereby the victims get even at the end of the 3rdWith all great scripts sitting on shelves throughout Hollywood, it's a sad day for American culture when such a disturbing movie gets made. What next, a teenager gang rape trilogy whereby the victims get even at the end of the 3rd production? Innocent children slaughtering/killing innocent children should never be glorified in any culture. There's just no justification for such gratuitous violence. No way this movie should have ever received a PG-13 rating. I would argue that Hunger Games is more of a reflection on how sick Suzanne Collins is rather than the American culture. I'm forbidding our kids to even mention Hunger Games in our household.… Expand

3 of 14 users found this helpful311

All this user's reviews

3

kstud1Dec 7, 2013

I don't understand all the hype for these movies, they must be for those who read the books and want to see them acted out on screen.
The movie is completly boring with about ten minutes of action towards the end.
How many arrows does sheI don't understand all the hype for these movies, they must be for those who read the books and want to see them acted out on screen.
The movie is completly boring with about ten minutes of action towards the end.
How many arrows does she have anyway?… Expand

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

0

victoratorJan 22, 2014

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...

2 of 22 users found this helpful220

All this user's reviews

2

imthenoobJan 25, 2014

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 thisIf 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

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

3

lukechristianscMar 5, 2014

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 .

0 of 3 users found this helpful03

All this user's reviews

1

NAQURATORApr 2, 2014

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 hadprobably 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

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

0

Critic123456798May 17, 2020

Awful, meaningless, meaningless, mediocre ****
Book and film is a waste of time

Suzanne Collins - the most stupid ator rotten scum, without brains

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

3

SpangleApr 3, 2016

Here is a sequel that lives up to the hype of the original. The Hunger Games: Saving Peeta is a worthy sequel to a really awful first installment. Equally as bad, this sequel features terrible acting, even worse writing, and a stupidly inaneHere is a sequel that lives up to the hype of the original. The Hunger Games: Saving Peeta is a worthy sequel to a really awful first installment. Equally as bad, this sequel features terrible acting, even worse writing, and a stupidly inane plot that shows Katniss rebelling against everyone she encounters and pouting for two and a half hours. Before I go further, Liam Hemsworth is a horrifically bad actor. Whew lad does he ever suck. The film is an entirely grating experience featuring the weirdo hair designs of the first film. Even worse though, it strands its actors in a hopeless wasteland of ineptitude that even the best actor would struggle to find success in. Ultimately, this feels more like a bloody version of Gossip Girl than it does a truly engaging dystopian science fiction film, which I feel like is not the goal. The dialogue is cringe-inducing and falls flat nearly 100% of the time. The ending is telegraphed from the start, so when it finally happens, you are left to roll your eyes and thank God it is over. Overall, Catching Fire is a bad movie that does have good special effects, but fails in every other arena. If this film were in the Hunger Games, it would be die second. The original would die first.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

WheatersApr 26, 2014

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 actionI 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

JackValentineFeb 5, 2014

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 KatnissCatching 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

2

Mike212Feb 6, 2014

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 PeetaCatching 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

1

MuryAug 2, 2014

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 $$$ -Let's just throw in the same stuff we put in the first movie,Katness and Peeta get in the gameSo producers be like:
-So what do we do in this next movie?
-Idk man I was busy buying stuff with the money we got from the first release $$$
-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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

3

BigZOct 7, 2014

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 whileUgh, 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

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews