Check
- Mark movie as favorite
- Dislike this movie
- Add movie to watchlist
- Mark movie as owned
- Check movie
- View the official lists that include The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
- Visit IMDb page
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)'s comments
Order by:
- Info
- In lists (433)
- Comments (33)
- Friends
- Activity
- Checks (30064)
- Favorites (1254)
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 33
KuroSawWhat
Book fans will be happy to hear that Catching Fire is extremely faithful to the novel and really delivers what you're looking to see. Don't miss it!Everyone else should definitely be aware that this is the Empire Strikes Back of the Hunger Games trilogy. It continues the thoughts from the first film, does a bit of its own thing, and sets up the next [two] movie[s]. So don't start any Back to the Future Part II-style complaints--I warned you!
All the performances are excellent, and the new director handles the series with aplomb. They get more in-depth with the world of Panem, which was definitely lacking in the previous film, and explore further themes on how the Games are used to manipulate the populace. There's lots of good allegorical references to our society going on, if you care to take notice of it. Catching Fire's story is much darker in tone than Hunger Games was, with some very intense and frightening scenes, so think twice about bringing youngsters who aren't old enough to handle it.
It does suffer a bit from middle-child syndrome, not leaving a super impact, but if you enjoyed the first film, you'll enjoy this one, as well.
CSSCHNEIDER
The Good:A much better film than it's predecessor, it's just far more interesting with the social backdrop playing a far more substantial part in the overall story.
The performances are strong all around with Jennifer Lawrence bringing her game again. Also it was a treat to have Jena Malone in this. I wish she was in everything.
The Bad:
Even with how good this was, I cannot shake the, at times, overwhelming blandness to certain aspects of this series. It was all over the book and the first film, it's lesser here, but something about this series feels wholly generic and blase.
devilsadvocado
Ignoring all the childish aspects of this production, the libertarian in me really enjoys the broader story and themes of the trilogy. I just wish they could spend less time on the love triangle and more time on the inner workings of the capital and the revolution. Alas, this one is for the kiddies and the kiddies need their kissies and melodrama.mandapuspi
Am I the only one who likes The Hunger Games more than Catching Fire?MFORCE310
Well, I'm a fan. Pretty much agree with u/latautuu. In many ways I thought it was spectacular and a huge improvement on the first film.However, I had many of the same emotions I had about the first film. I definitely think the PG-13 rating has an impact on the subject matter. The action was definitely more engaging this time around, and Francis Lawrence is clearly a better fit for the franchise, but the movies just aren't brutal enough. Plain and simple, the whole plot revolves around this brutal system the citizens are trapped into. How are we supposed to really fear and hate them if we don't get a genuine impression of what the characters see. Just my opinion.
Additionally, I simply think these movies are most interesting BEFORE the games start, not during them. In the first film I really think the way the games were handled was pretty uninspired. This time they were much better all around, but I think the movies really shine during their first hour or so.
At the end of the day though, I was really impressed with it's bold style of storytelling and faithfulness to the book without being dragged down by it. Great film.
lachyas
I'm in the minority on this one, I enjoyed the first movie more. The buildup just takes way, way too long here. I understand the need to establish a larger world beyond that of the Games themselves, especially given what is to follow in the next two (urgh) movies, but I just can't get over how boring and lifeless the first hour and a half of this film feels. On top of this, when we finally get into the Hunger Games everything feels really rushed, and, while the film still pushes the rating of PG-13 to the absolute limit, none of the action here comes close to the brutal and visceral cornucopia scene from the first movie.On the bright side they nailed the character of Finnick, who is my favourite from the books, thanks mostly to a great performance from Sam Claflin. But given the reliance of the film on the Games scenes for entertainment value and emotional impact, I think the filmmakers have a lot of work to do in order to make the next two movies even remotely workable, and I'll be shocked if they manage to pull it off. Oh well it's still a fairly entertaining watch for the most part, and it's impressively faithful to the novel, but after reading the reviews I couldn't help but feel a little disappointed by the pacing of the movie.
It's all verse and no chorus.
StigAnder
I liked the first one. This was more of the same but with less emotional weight. Take the old woman character, for instance. I won't spoil anything, but the way that Katniss interacts with her before the game sets up something that is never brought back to the story later. We are also told that she has a special bond with one of the other characters, which has minimal relevance in the end. Ultimately her only role in this is to get the plot from A to B in one sequence, but even that feels like it should hold more weight than it does.I know this is just one part of the film, but I think it exemplifies how this sequel has more adaptation problems than the first one. Also, with more Hemsworth this time, I think it suffers from not having enough elements to make us care about any of the relationships between Katniss and the "love interests". There is no character to replace Rue, and my hopes of P.S. Hoffman to bring something more to this series were not met. I won't even go into how the "Hunger Games" arena is inferior to most other sic-fi concepts in so many ways, because that's not exclusive to this part of the series.
That said, there are a lot of good performances in it and the political elements were a bit more fleshed out this time. I am however not gonna bother more with these movies. My cinema crowd was noticeably bored during half of the screening, but I know they will be back next time around.
Scratch47
(Just to state, no I haven't read the books!)Having watched the first film and found it interesting yet not absorbing, I can say this is a slight improvement but with many of the same issues. The political elements have been stepped up from the one-note outrage of the original, a greater focus on the fascist martial law and defiance in Panem attracted my interest and shocked sympathy, but didn't have quite enough texture or depth to truly absorb me. Similarly, Katniss' romantic entanglements struck as a agreeable addition to a character who only ever seems to have to be able to react to desperate situations, but even Jennifer Lawrence's excellent performance can't raise those elements above simply being a necessary addition to the plot. Also, trimming 20 minutes or so, plus evening out and speeding up the pace some would have helped immeasurably, as the film does feel more like a book adaptation rather than the more adult thriller it skewed towards at the start, and as it stands, only really speeds up when it careens too fast into a sudden ending meant to set up the series finale.
That said, there are quite a few enjoyable things. Donald Sutherland chews the scenery wonderfully, Elizabeth Banks adds some nuance to a pleasingly conflicted character, and Stanley Tucci makes for a great snivelling toad too. Whilst the whole film still hinges on the outrage of injustice and tense desire for revenge, now there's more of a focus on reality TV culture and vicarious living which, though still rather shallow, adds a curious revulsion. The technical elements are all top drawer, I particularly enjoyed the costumes. Plus I'm still left surprised at how such a dark, political series that focuses on children murdering each other in a dystopic fascist state could get such commercial momentum, particularly when it's aimed for children, but in the minds of irredeemable cynics such as myself, that can be read as a poison pill jeer in the face of a history emerging from violent adolescense. Overall, thanks to some great acting and a little progression, this series has largely escaped comparisons to Battle Royale, but it still has some ways to go to truly fulfill its' potential.
Marcus Fenix
Literally too long, until the games begin Nothing happens. Its like Drana, Drama, Drama..Bullshit Bullshit Bullshit Bla Bla Bla. And after this they made Mocking Jay Part 1, which was an absolute waste of time, caz nothing happens there either. This is when you have Content enough for 2 movies but decide to make 4, Just caz your Greedy AF and want to milk the business as much you can, Hey HG producers! Do me a favor, go and join Twilight producers in your Milion Dollar Mansions in Beverly Hills and never make anything again!Siskoid
Katniss Everdeen returns in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, second in the trilogy, as she's forced to participate in an "All-Stars" season of the Games. It's all her fault, really. Her defiance in the previous games has given the people hope that the regime could be overthrown, which has just made things worse. The third chapter is no doubt the "Revolutions" story, while this is necessarily Hunger Games "Reloaded", bringing more of the same, but I shouldn't compare it to the Matrix films that way. This sequel is much better than those, even if I can't quite call myself a fan of the franchise. It's fine, I'm just not very excited by the slow pacing. I don't just mean how long it takes the film to get to the arena (again), but that every scene seems to start a second too early and end a second too late. It's decontracted. Works for the human story, but a little slow for something that resolves with an action-oriented act. The fact she has more All-Star allies this time around means there are more people to care about, but the reality of the arena means the outside threats they face feel as random as ever. I'm not even sure they're believable in the context of what happens at the end.IreneAdler
I have to say, I didn't think I'd ever really like the Hunger Games movie series... but the first part was just good enough to make me want to see the second one.Nice sequel, entertaining story, good actors (loved Philip Seymour Hoffman - we miss you!) and an ending that makes you wanna watch the next part.
All in all, not among my absolute favorites, but really not bad... and yes, I'm going to watch the third part as well.
aniforprez
the first one was hit and miss. this one overcomes all that and gives us an excellent show.the scared method which the first movie was filmed to hide all the violence to make it more kid friendly have been almost done away with. the violence is now almost graphic and sometimes even uncomfortable to watch. the plot has a steady buildup with a good but not overt emphasis on the brewing of the rebellion in the other districts. despite that the first half of the movie is devoted to the backstory, it doesn't feel too long and is a great character building exercise.
when the hunger games truly begin, the pace changes almost completely but manages to make this switch work because though it is jarring, this is how the character too feels. tension mounts to a climax setting it up for the sequel which promises more intrigue and secrets than is seen on the surface.
technically the movie is sound. no more shaky hide-the-violence cam, good cinematography, good score and quite good acting on everyone's part though aquaboy (i dont know the spear/trident kid's name) felt a little hammy
8/10
i'm actually curious about the books now :)
frankqb
Markedly improved over the first instalment, Catching Fire is cruises comfortably throughout the film never insulting the audience's intelligence. I was skeptical given the concept of the film, but its differences to the original is what sets it apart (and an improved use of CGI and the remarkable Stanley Tucci).3.5 stars out 4
Joker of Gotham
Not an overrated movie.I like the first but this was so much better.
Jenifer lawrence has became one of my favourite actress, the girl is fantastic in her acting, Peeta was better, the fights in the games were better, a big improvement on the first movie and I like it a lot.
4.25/5
woodsmoke
I didn't read book. Films are good but one nonsense point is ruining this concept.Isn't there anything intresting in capitol than The Hunger Games ? It seems like everyone is following a killing game which is perform once in a year. TV Shows, President , people...
Showing items 1 – 15 of 33