nate-car I recently watched all four movies in a row, after watching them separately over the years... just in case I was missing something by not investing in the famous story and the entire epic as a whole. I now can't say I didn't try... Drab and depressing, I found all four Hunger Games movies missing almost all elements to make it memorable, enjoyable, fun, exciting, clever or 'epic' in any way. The concept from the get go made very little sense, the fictional world was not very well designed, and the rules of the universe weak and flimsy. I liked some of the cast and have been fans of several for years, but each character was hollow with very little true motivation, and the arks of their characters rarely moved beyond their first introduction. I actually lowered my stars scores after binge watching the series, because it seemed like a waste of time and the only thing it clearly indicated is, on my own personal scale '2 stars' means- "an ordinary movie that I don't want to and could not be easily convinced to ever watch again...". Which I have now given all four films.

Johnny H. Catching Fire perpetuates itself to be 'The Empire Strikes Back' of the Hunger Games canon, and on that front I can say it definitely succeeds there: the set-pieces are bigger the perils are raised to the next level and the baddies are hell-bent on destroying the last remnants of hope remaining in Panem.The first of three sequels to the original film, Catching Fire is far and wide the most beautifully shot of the franchise thanks to its utilisation of 35mm and IMAX-65mm celluloid cameras that makes the images on-screen wonderfully realised and applies the scope and scale of the action sequences. It makes you feel like the action is something monumental to behold.As far as sequels go, is this the best one ever made? No, but it's definitely up there for sequels from the 2010s, easily ranking on near-equal footing with other sequels like Skyfall and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2.

redinnelson Jennifer Lawrence's acting was jarring in the extreme. Every time she lost her s**t and her voice cracked like a 9 year old while she shouted her lines, the movie died a little for me. Otherwise I liked the setting and many of the other characters; Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Elizabeth Banks, Stanley Tucci, Philip Seymour Hoffman, I could go on.

CinemaCocoa 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.