The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Thriller, Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
IMDB rating:
Francis Lawrence
Amanda Plummer as Wiress
Alan Ritchson as Gloss
Paula Malcomson as Katniss' Mother
Sandra Ellis Lafferty as Greasy Sae
Liam Hemsworth as Gale Hawthorne
Sam Claflin as Finnick Odair
Nelson Ascencio as Flavius
Lenny Kravitz as Cinna
Willow Shields as Primrose Everdeen
Bruce Bundy as Octavia
Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen
Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy
Jena Malone as Johanna Mason
Philip Seymour Hoffman as Plutarch Heavensbee
Jeffrey Wright as Beetee
Donald Sutherland as President Snow
Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket
Toby Jones as Claudius Templesmith
Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mellark
Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman
Storyline: Six months after winning the 74th Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen and her partner Peeta Mellark must go on what is known as the Victor's Tour, wherein they visit all the districts, but before leaving, Katniss is visited by President Snow who fears that Katniss defied him a year ago during the games when she chose to die with Peeta. With both Katniss and Peeta declared the winners, it is fueling a possible uprising. He tells Katniss that while on tour she better try to make sure that she puts out the flames or else everyone she cares about will be in danger.
Type 1080p
Resolution 1920x1080 px
File Size 10084 Mb
Codec h264
Bitrate 640 Kbps
Format mkv
Type HQ DVD-rip
Resolution 720x400 px
File Size 1429 Mb
Codec mpeg4
Bitrate 1366 Kbps
Format avi
Type DVD-rip
Resolution 608x336 px
File Size 699 Mb
Codec mpeg4
Bitrate 668 Kbps
Format avi
Type iPhone
Resolution 480x320 px
File Size 1184 Mb
Codec mpeg4
Bitrate 1131 Kbps
Format mp4
Type Resolution File Size Codec Bitrate Format
1080p 1920x1080 px 10084 Mb h264 640 Kbps mkv Download
HQ DVD-rip 720x400 px 1429 Mb mpeg4 1366 Kbps avi Download
DVD-rip 608x336 px 699 Mb mpeg4 668 Kbps avi Download
iPhone 480x320 px 1184 Mb mpeg4 1131 Kbps mp4 Download

Not even vaguely in the same league a film as BATTLE ROYALE/BATTLE ROYALE 2
What did I expect? The Hunger Games concept is a copy of Battle Royal and starting with catching Fire it goes on to ripoff the inferioe sequel, known simply as Battle Royale 2: Chinkonka. When a writer is trying to develop the concept to be something else than young people killing each others - well - the result is quite boring. The events in movie were the first 15 minutes Battle Royale 2 expanded into full-movie length. In order to add some excitement they are adding small scenes that have nothing to do with the story or the story boarding.

I have forgot all about the characters from the last movie - and I don't care. The only thing I can do is to be amused/entertained by Donald Sutherland's evilness.

Jennifer Lawrence is not a bad actress at all - but her acting skills are not sufficient to save this movie alone. Although Philip Seymour Hoffman is/was indeed a great actor is role is to small as well to make any difference.

This movie is a disappointment - and they are "milking the cow" shamelessly.
1 in the film I was watching part, I've never read the books but boring I do not mean this term because people with real film culture, does not use such a large organization. I found the movie lacking in most important thing was action. Only the last 45-50 minutes of the movie action had. Te film into the stagnant and uninteresting until then developments passed. In addition, the desperation of the people in the film at the very front was the plan. They were so desperate that every event has a really unhinge and has reduced the credibility of the film. The visual effects, and in the last section action was very nice. I understand that action 3 intense in the film so shall it be. Rate a film based on the very bottom. The particular Thr, The Hobbit by The Desolation of Smaug Of. All personal'm thinking. Sincerely.
The Hunger Games: Catching an Uncredited BATTLE ROYAL II: REQUIEM Ripoff
First off, there's no mention or nods to the originals, either way, I don't think it would have saved this movie. Just because it's based on BATTLE ROYAL II doesn't mean it's made by Toei Studios. It's made by Lionsgate, which didn't licensed the rights to the BR2 characters from Toei years ago. Thus, any comparisons to other BR films such as the recent Thermea Romae are totally meaningless. And that is why it's such a mess. Toei had no control over what Lionsgate did with their source material.

For those not aware, this film was plagued by problems from the start. The director was all but banned from the set and editing room in the final stage of production, after which a good deal of the footage was dumped and re-shot. In the end, it was slapped together by one of the producers and a temporary director, and the results show: there is a disconnect between the first two acts and the third. It's almost like there are two separate movies trying to co-exist, and it doesn't work.

but oh god, the movie was just not good, but it wasn't bad either, there was some good effects and a pretty decent plot, but come on! the campy original is still the better one. If you are a BATTLE ROYALE fan, then watch this movie with caution Sorry it didn't make much sense, but this is one of the worst remakes out there
The crowds stuffing sold-out showings of Catching Fire strongly resemble the Capital citizens eagerly awaiting the latest Hunger Games battle.
After winning the seventy-fourth Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark return home to District 12. They go back to their old routine (kind of; they now live in the Victor's Village, and possess terrific wealth) with Katniss and Gale hunting together, Peeta baking and isolating himself, and Haymitch getting very drunk. Katniss shows major signs of post-traumatic stress disorder.

President Snow pays an unexpected visit to Katniss' house. Apparently, because her and Peeta broke the rules to survive the Games, they have ignited rebellion in the Districts, against the Capital. Snow threatens everyone Katniss loves, and tells her that on the upcoming Victory Tour, her and Peeta need to convince the public they are in love. This will show the Districts that their stunt with the berries was out of love, and not in defiance of the Capital.

The Victory Tour is a disaster. The Peacekeepers are murdering and terrorizing innocents, and Katniss and Peeta can only helplessly watch it all, forced to praise the Capital. When they get back home, the violence and repression against the population only escalates. Then the bombshell: for the seventy-fifth Hunger Games (a special "Quarter Quell" Games is held every twenty-five years) they will reap from the pool of past victors. Katniss and Peeta are both chosen, and so they are going into the Games a second time, in a new arena, with a murderous batch of past winners.

I saw "Catching Fire" in IMAX during a pre-screening, and then again in IMAX the following evening, on opening day. I had been looking forward to the film for months, but I kept my expectations low. I am unhappy to report that "Catching Fire" is not the success that the reviews would have you believe. In the end it was a really, really lousy movie.

When I saw the initial previews for Catching Fire, the teaser trailer and the first theatrical trailer, I was aflame with excitement. But the film itself was flavorless, too tame, too watered down, and too rushed. For a movie about teens locked in an arena, forced to fight to the death... I don't think I saw more than a cupful of blood, drawn by a weapon. This is absolutely unacceptable, because the violence plays a very critical part in the source material's themes: the glamorizing of violence, present day desensitization to violence, and the sensationalism of modern entertainment, among others. But instead of exploring these and other ideas in the film, the gamemakers - sorry, I mean filmmakers - just watered down the politics, and everything else that might have induced too much thinking, to appeal to the widest audience possible. (I was speaking with someone about the film after we saw it, and he put forth the idea that perhaps the thinning of the material was fiscally strategic. He suggested that maybe if the film was too complex, it just simply would not translate well into other languages. Since overseas gross is a gigantic portion of blockbuster film revenue, I thought this was an excellent point, and true to some degree.) Among the other simplifications was the story of the rebellion, and even, just the barbarism of those in the Capital. These two things, detailed extensively in the novel, had barely any depth in the film.

The film was severely brought down by the godawful music, which was very poorly integrated. I lost count of the number of scenes, where it would have had much greater emotional impact without the added music.

"Catching Fire" was overproduced and rushed. The CGI in the film looked very phony. But they filmed on location in Hawaii, and had a massive budget ($130 million-double the budget of the first film) so why are huge chunks of the arena made of obvious-CGI? Other than for, say, the baboon creatures, there is no reason why this film should have the amount of CGI it does. The excessive effects took away from the film's authenticity, and feeling. "Catching Fire" looks like a expensive, overdone Hollywood product.

The same thing that happened with the first film, is happening with "Catching Fire". The first film was highly anticipated, released to critical praise, and made boatloads of cash. Then as time went on, people's opinion of the film went down. People started to admit that it wasn't that amazing. Meanwhile, the studio pocketed the profits, and fast-tracked the sequel. The hype for the sequel was insane, and then it was released. The second film received even more critical praise than the first film, had a bigger budget, and made more money. And I can guarantee, time will go on, and once people are not high on the hype, they will realize that the film isn't so fantastic. But it doesn't matter, because the studio is pocketing the profits, and now pumping out two back-to-back sequels....

Sound like a familiar pattern? Yes. Yes it does. It sounds a little bit like... "The Dark Knight Rises" (2012)? And so many other ballbusters. Sorry sorry, I mean blockbusters. This happens really, really often, and it annoys me.

All one must do to learn the truth about "Catching Fire", amongst all the biased, bought-and-paid-for critics, and the delusional mooing public, is to observe. The truth can be gained from simple observation.

"Catching Fire" is slap in the face to any fan of the book. The sad irony of it all is that the crowds stuffing sold-out showings of Catching Fire strongly resemble the Capital citizens eagerly awaiting the latest Hunger Games battle. Meanwhile, the Capital elite - woops, I mean Hollywood - make obscene profit from it all, doing everything they can to make sure the current system stays in place...

BATTLE ROYALE 2 won't repeat, I mean sometime in a remake.
One of my all time favorite world cinema is the Japanese version of this movie. Remakes are okay, but some movies won't suit for recreation because of its masterpiece value, believing that won't come close for the second time. Just like Mona Lisa, Starry Night, Birth of Venus, The Last Supper and other arts, it should have left alone untouched. Like Japanese did, because it was their story after all. This American version was not very good, and very much commercialized with the multiple movies chopped into various 'parts' approach kind of ruined. If I had not seen the original, probably I would have liked it. I knew the twists and turns so I did not get the excitements in those parts. So those who are not familiar with the 2003 movie can definitely have a good time.

It was a copycat from frame to frame, many things were altered in this movie. The most laughable was to see English-speaking celebs fighting with knives, hammers and bare-hand like the Japanese style. What I know in American action theme is that they take a gun and bang bang. The first poster where Jenifer Lawrence stricks the same pose as Shuya nanahara was kind of funny, gives the impression of a comedy movie. I liked Jenifer in 'American Kung Fu Hustle' and yet again she was not bad in this film except if you compare him with his counterpart from the Japanese movie, Tatsuya Fujiwara. It is one of the best role he has ever played, sadly the movie was not received well due to many other reasons than her.
What a sad joke ..
Really childish movie, this planet is going dumber by the minute. Obviously the dudes well-connected enough to write for Hollywood can't … umm … write.

Just a few points: (1) not one intelligent (or at least funny) line of dialog in over 140 minutes; (2) The "Games" started after 81 worthless minutes; can't they afford to hire some reasonably intelligent dude to do some editing?; (3) The characters were one-dimensional (like in some fourth grader first attempt at writing): the big bro and the peace keepers-- ALL-EVIL, while Jennifer and her buddies were ALL-WONDERFUL; (4) The "Games" were ridiculously uncreative: poisonous fog that can be treated with water, really?!; (5) Not one twist during 146 min, except for the lame one (cuz it was overly expected, since it has to be at least some twist in any movie, right?) with the games director in the end.

If you're not part of the ridiculous tribe of low IQed 11-yo schoolgirls worshiping Bieber: RUN! My rating: 3/10
The Hunger Games Re-make
Having watched the first Hunger Games with some appreciation, I was decidedly eager to watch the second. How wrong I was.

The basis of the film is laid out fairly quickly. There is discontent among the enslaved Districts. Katniss' inadvertent televised defiance of the autocratic Capitol by surviving the Hunger Games has shown its yoked peoples that it is not invincible. Hope threatens to displace fear, and there are instances of open defiance, threatening to bubble over into full-blown insurrection. All that is needed is the touch-paper to be lit. However, fearful for the people and the retribution they will suffer, Katniss is unwilling to act as a symbol against the regime.

This amounts to the first twenty minutes of the film. "OK", you think. "Solid, if uninspired. So she reluctantly becomes the figurehead of a revolution which topples the dastardly government. " However, before proceeding down this well-trod path, the film-makers decide that we first need to watch a re-make of the first film, with the same actors.

Katnis finds herself obligated to fight in the next Hunger Games, and must go through the same routine of making the public gush over her to win favour and friends, train in high-tech, sterile quarters, and accept the impossibility of surviving the games against superior foes. The difference is that there is a rebel conspiracy among some of the contestants and Games' Chief-Producer to ensure Katniss survive.

However, when finally it is revealed to Katnis that the plan had always been for her to survive, even at the cost of others, I felt not the faintest murmur of surprise. The big twist wouldn't have registered on a CAT scan. Throughout the film it is alluded to (nay, explicated) without subtlety, ambiguity, or misdirection. For example, contestants keep dying on her behalf with no hint of reason. But this itself isn't even developed into an independent pillar of the film; the main body of which is unaltered i.e. fighting, surviving, and the nominal self-sacrifice of disposable fringe characters.

The other major failed attempt to distinguish this film from the first was to introduce a genuine love interest for Katniss. The first scene of the film sees Katniss saying goodbye to her beloved...I don't remember his name. His contribution is to play martyr against nasty Capitol stormtroopers, obliging Katniss to intervene to save him from summary execution. This is the last straw for the Capitol, who declare another Hunger Games – where Katniss will kill her "allies" and thus discredit her as a source of inspiration for the people. It was my feeling though, that the story could have got there easily enough without him. In terms of plot development he was only there to – in chess problem terms – "dress the board." Eventually he joins the rebellion (I think), and then isn't even referenced for the whole second half of the film.

One thing it did achieve was to thicken the theme of Peeta's unrequited love for Katniss, and her increasing – genuine or not?? - affection for him. I felt there was some body to this thread, which felt like it was actually being developed throughout the film - rather than merely another aching turn of the plot-wheel. What might be interpreted as a stolid performance by Josh Hutcherson, I thought did as much as it could to convey Peeta's character (as otherwise implied by the script). Decent, dutiful, un-querulous.

The CGI was dependable enough, if not ground-breaking. The Capitol was predictable grandiosity, symmetry and perpendiculars. One of the few fine moments in the film was the scene in which Katniss' twirls and in doing so burns off her innocuous frock, revealing her (unwittingly) attired to resemble a Mockingjay - the symbol of the Resistance - live on prime-time TV.

For me the best bit of the film is the performance of Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman, the host of the Hunger Games broadcasts. He was a welcome source of light in a film which can otherwise be summed up as dimly-lit and lugubrious. Loud, bright, strident, believably eccentric and garrulous; just a degree removed from the modern day chat show host, which lends some authenticity to the film as a meaningful commentary on the condition of society.

In sum though, the resulting film is one that makes promises on which it does not deliver. Once it was over, most of me was relieved, but the remaining part was still waiting for it to start. I felt cheated. Like buying a ticket to a fairground ride which is actually just a queue for a ride (C. South Park), or dumbly watching a frozen chicken slowly turning in the oven, and then being served it long before it's ready. My advice: If you want to watch Hunger Games: Part 2, wait for Hunger Games: Part 3
A ham-fisted carbon copy of the original BATTLE ROYALE II
I was actually one of the very few people who was excited about this movie. BATTLE ROYALE II(the original) remains to be one of my favorite films of all time. The philosophical messages, the Mise en scène, and the acting, they all came together beautifully. An American remake, created by the virtually unknown director Francis Lawrence made me feel as though this film had a lot of promise, and I was severely disappointed.

The first act of BATTLE ROYALE II had an immensely shocking ending with a purpose, the shocking ending was what made me and hundreds to thousands of other audience members alike with a face of shock and disgust as the credits roll. The remake attempted to up the scale without any purpose, and still managed to be the exact opposite of shocking.

All I'm gonna say is that it has something to do with R-rated content. The first act of BATTLE ROYALE II had a purpose for it's shocking conclusion, while the remake just kept trying to up the scale clumsily and ended up falling flat on it's face. The remake also extended the beginning, it showed more light to the protagonist and actually got us to hate the guy. BATTLE ROYALE II showed some light but the protagonist was still somewhat likable, at least compared to the remake.

The fascinating thing about the BATTLE ROYALE II is that you actually like the characters and you feel disoriented just like they do about being trapped inside a clock-shaped battle arena.

The remake was honestly just trying way too hard to be like the original rather than being it's own film and that's why it failed. I would actually recommend avoiding it if you're an aspiring filmmaker, purely for the shots that are made(The shots were ham-fisted. I have to say that). However as for story, acting, and as a movie as a whole? It was pretty bad.
battle royale 2 desecrated
Horrid. Where's the -5 rating? JLaw proved she cannot act. If this is one of her best works it really isn't saying much cuz her other ones are certainly no better or worse than this. A flat voice, no emotion. I like Donald but even here he doesn't do much for the film.T ake a look at Battle Royale 2: Revenge (2000) with Riki Takeuchi and tell me it is not the same! I watched The Hunger Games: Catching Fire last night and when it came to the fight scene with the clock arena, I thought I've seen that before, I mean exactly like that scene. Are there no rules against this kind of plagiarizing? The movie unfortunately drags out the pacing to fit three movies making even Donald Sutherland so beyond boring that I watched a lot of it at 1.5 speed (great feature). The story isn't interesting at all. At first I thought this should be good, but it never gets going. A movie can be slow and not boring, but not in the case. It was hard to stay awake and I watched it during the day.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
Honestly, I'm giving this 3 stars because I read a 2 star review and think I'm nicer than that.

This is a sequel to a movie that didn't make any sense from the start. Not only that, it contradicts many things that were set in the first one.

In my opinion, the story on this one gains points for not having 10 year olds fighting adults. On the other hand, it has 80 year olds fighting young adults, so... We also keep having pairs of contestants. I never got that. OK, yes, every District has two chances, but then they also never win. In the end, the winning District gets nothing and has one less person, so inside the arena both tributes are enemies too and fight solely for their own lives. How can they always fight together when they should be fighting each other?

At some point, Katniss has some sort of PTSD attack after shooting a bird. Then proceeds to ace a simulation without blinking.

This is one example. This movie, much like it's predecessor and anyone who voted it all the way up to the erroneous rating of 8.1, is screwed up. I never read the books and now I won't for sure. Everyone deserves a second chance, this was it.
Download The Hunger Games: Catching Fire movie (Francis Lawrence) -, the lowest price, high speed.The Hunger Games: Catching Fire full movie online.The Hunger Games: Catching Fire HD movie are available too (720p and 1080p). The Hunger Games: Catching Fire Thriller, Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi . The Hunger Games: Catching Fire movie download, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire movie hd download, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire full movie download, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire movie download 2013, watch online The Hunger Games: Catching Fire movie, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire movie download, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire movie DIVX download, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire movie download hd, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire 2013 hollywood movie download, download The Hunger Games: Catching Fire full movie