I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Fun fact - the length of time it takes for The Hunger Games to start in this movie is 82 minutes. The length of "South Park - Bigger Longer And Uncut" (including credits) is 81 minutes. If you want to be entertained by this movie, I'd recommend playing both simultaneously and switching over to "Catching Fire" when South Park sadly ends. Plot - This movie is very boring for most of it. All of the events up until the Hunger Games start are boring, predictable (even if you haven't read the book), nonsensical, and forgettable. The story even when the Hunger Games actually starts is still pretty stupid but at least there's some entertainment to be had in the hilarious nonsense of stupid characters, continuity errors, bad effects all contributing to the poor execution of this sequel.Characters - Most of these characters act like total morons. None of them are very interesting. Most of the characters do the thing where they withhold information just to create some cheap conflict. I'm not a fan of watching stupid people run around on screen in idiotic situations. Some of the actors seemed to be into their roles, but most of them didn't seem to really care. Sights and Sounds - The sound design is ok, I guess. Most of the effects are very bad. The cinematography is terrible. The previous movie made so much money you'd've thought that they made enough money to buy a tripod. Evidently not as this movie is also extremely reliant on the handheld. The Games - The Hunger Games seem to be very improvisational even thought they're supposed to be a decades-old tradition. Everything is very random but at the same time simplistic. If you really think about any aspect of these movies they really fall apart. The story isn't very compelling or interesting or coherent. its mainly just a load of nonsense designed to entertain the target audience of 12-year-olds who liked the book.

This is "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" the biggest box office success from the year 2013 (five years old next year) and the second of four films from the Hunger Games franchise. Even if it did not get in at the Oscars for anybody, it managed a pretty decent deal of awards attention, including a Golden Globe nomination for the British band Coldplay. The director is Francis Lawrence, a prolific and successful music video director, and he returned for films 3 and 4 as well. The script is by Oscar-winning writers from "Little Miss Sunshine" and "Slumdog Millionaire". But for these names, the screenplay is quite a disappointment. I must say I have not read the books here or seen Battle Royale that many compare it to, but as a creative achievement the movie comes incredibly short. While running for incredibly long as this film almost makes it to the 2.5-hour mark. And in the center of it all is young American actress Jennifer Lawrence, who reprises her role as Katniss Everdeen. I must say I enjoyed the first film a lot, but I still felt that her casting was a gigantic error that kept the franchise from becoming something special. Then again, I do not like Lawrence in anything really I have seen her in and this certainly also includes her Oscar-winning performance. Incredibly overrated actress and the world finally starts beginning to see. She is a poor man's Renée Zellweger at best and Zellweger herself is pretty limited too.Back to this film here, the good thing is that Lawrence does not show one face expression as usual, but maybe 2 or 3 which is still not very much for a 2.5 hour film. But as bad as she may be, the script is even worse. Subtlety is a complete stranger to the writers here and the argument that the world the characters live in lacks subtlety altogether is not a valid explanation. It is fun though how the film tries to be as shocking as possible with one demonstrator being shot in the head early on, but the curtail closes right before we see it, so they can still get these 13-year-olds into theaters. Besides that, there is not much to the characters in here. Talented actors like Harrelson, Tucci, PSH (rip) and Edgerton are pretty much wasted because they would take away too much attention from miss Lawrence. One third into the film, the writers apparently realized that they had no more material/ideas to elaborate convincingly on the aftermath of the first film anymore, so what do they do? That's right! lets just have another Hunger Games edition right now. Who cares if this turns into a repetitive uncreative version of the first film then. And that's what it does. Apart from the fact that the rest of the film looked a lot like an episode of Survival Island with some (not so) special Sci-Fi effects added to it. It's basically nothing here but showing us how courageous, headstrong, yet vulnerable Lawrence's character it while the actress does not have 10% of the talent to make it look credible.Finally, the last shot with Lawrence looking straight into the camera makes obvious that there will be a third film because the ending is on a cliffhanger and Lawrence and Lawrence would return for another installment. This is really disappointing, but what can you expect and can you really blame them if millions of people head to cinemas despite the abysmal quality at times in this film. There is nothing refreshing or new in here and attention to detail or even love for movies and cinema is something I did not see in here at all. The occasionally entertaining moments of the supporting cast (especially the once again unrecognizable Tucci) just cannot make up for all the lengths and everything that is wrong with this film. I very much recommend you not to watch it.

This sequel makes up for a lot of its predecessor's glaring faults, yet somehow continues to paint its theme in the same unbelievable and contrived fashion. Having survived the Hunger Games, a gladiatorial arena fashioned by a tyrannical society called The Capitol, heroes Katniss and Peeta must deal with their limelight fame from those they despise, and the relationship they pretended to have to escape death. The Capitol's president however doesn't approve how every survivor can give the repressed people hope, and creates a new Hunger Games where only seasoned survivors compete to the death.I didn't like 2012's Hunger Games. I went into this sequel with trepidation, but I have to admit the first hour or so got me very interested! We have the Capitol actually flexing its muscles and giving our heroes and lower classes a hard time, they are actually competent villains for once. There are real consequences to the aftermath of the first Games, troopers raid towns, people are executed, even our heroine is shaken and brittle from the experience! The idea of Katniss and Peeta being thrown into a last- man-standing death match (for real this time) with seasoned veterans who hate them, all commanded by newcomer (and slimier than ever) Phillip Seymour Hoffman. I was pretty excited!But then the Hunger Games event began… and everything fell apart. Our combatants are unique, but about two thirds of them die off screen, and the real problem of fighting to the last man is dropped immediately. The Capitol again have no teeth, no guts and their Hunger Games as a concept continues to be completely redundant. I'm sorry, but I still don't understand. The Capitol are still incompetent villains at the end of the day, and it infuriates me! I like the idea that they are weak due to their overconfidence and complacency, but it has never been shown that the Hunger Games even works as a deterrent, it only seems to be a massive invitation for uprising and war. It makes no sense!There's also a twist at the end, I cannot say what it is, but it only compounds this complete inability by The Capitol, and actually undermines most of the threat that you initially felt earlier. I cannot comprehend watching this again… it would be even less convincing.(it also still irritates me that most of the actual killing in the Hunger Games happens off screen, although it is true this film has a little more brutality)This film does have a very good beginning, I like The Capitol's citizens, I like the heavy subtext of television control and celebrity worship that dominates the first hour. Jennifer Lawrence is still great as Katniss, the action is actually directed better here (less shaky- cam and rapid cuts) and for two hours and thirty, it didn't feel long. But god does it still wound me with its lackluster execution and its unbelievably not-threatening tyrants, and it all fell apart at the end.

You'd expect a merry-go-round in the sky, almost, the way people are on about Katniss Everdeen. I won the full set in a competition where mine was the winning review, thank you Raru South Africa, I do appreciate, I never would have seen it otherwise, the original box cover artwork of THE HUNGER GAMES reminded me too much of images I have seen of computer- animated Lara Croft and I didn't have this on my list of DVDs to obtain, but when my BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER review took first prize, I was real chuffed for the nifty boxset.Once again though, there's nothing really, really special in here. Come on, people, it's an average performance in a movie coming in well below what it should have been. I hasten to add, in all fairness, that those computer-generated mandrills... Ooh jeepers they made excellent excellent adversaries, the only real high point of the movie. Had the entire flick been that kind of edge-of-your-seat stuff...But Jennifer Lawrence is nothing extra-special in this movie. Do not get me wrong, I am not dissing her, no. But worthy of all this acclaim, for this... This? People, you are seeing way more in this than there actually is. Take another look at it. What it does do, is deliver a theme of televised blood sport, and this is what enthralls you lot. There is bound to be more. Of this (the DIVERGENT series aside) with better performances, and you'll see, though I most likely wouldn't, I prefer other kinds of story lines, I wouldn't be salivating over the blood games to follow.Notice that the poster artwork got recognition. Yeah, where are the days of the great poster artwork, like THE GAUNTLET, and the Roger Moore James Bond movies?In closing, I repeat, I do not mean it is a weak movie/weak performance. It is just, this is the first movie since THE EXORCIST where a movie with an actress headlining the show tops the box office. For this? Weren't there so many, many others so far, far more worthy?