🎦 The Hunger Games: Catching Fire full movie english download, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire full movie download mp4 in english, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire full movie free download in english. 🎬
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 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
Unavoidable - like the plague - not a good thing.
***I think this contains spoilers*** Is it just me who didn't think this film was better than the first? All the scenes were drawn out and there were so many stupid and unimportant scenes slotted in. (Referencing the 'favourite colour' scene.)

Despite the fact everything was explained so a twelve year old could understand. Not only did it pretty much copy the first film. It started with Gale and Katniss hunting, like the first. All of it was a cliché and barely anything unpredictable. It's a shame that Jennifer Lawrence is incapable of making her role good. Just plain good. Nope, she's too bad an actress for that. After seeing this film, I doubt I will ever go to see another 'Jennifer Lawrence' film again unless my friends drag me to it. Save your money, do NOT spend your money on this, you will regret it. It's an awful film which contains: Clichés Plot holes the size of the state of Texas Ignored subplots Flat, boring characters Unrealistic ideas (I don't CARE if it's the future, some of the stuff is just plain stupid) Lack of acting skills. Only Phillip (R.I.P) could really do some decent acting. Even then, it was ONLY decent. Phillip was a brilliant actor, he let himself down in this film by not giving the best performance, but oh well. Finally, the most horrible thing of all: Overall. If I could rate this film, it would not even get 6 on IMDb. It'd get less than Disaster Movie, at least 1.2 stars. Do not see this film, unless of the age 12-14. If you're older, it's not a good idea. The film is not suitable for you. Honestly, the plot devices and conveniences are like they've been written by a (profanity removal) 12 year old. I feel as if the director didn't make this or his inner 12 year old allowed the script. I have no clue how Jennifer accepted the stupid childish ramble in her lines. Yes, the lines are all childish ramble. Nothing deep or clever placed into the script. It's effortless, but it is not well written. Jennifer Lawrence seriously needs to learn to pick appropriate roles. She's not a bad actress, but this is making me think she is.

I'm not sure if the film is so bad because the books weren't great, but even so, this film should have been written properly to make sure the script made sense. If you want a good film... watch The Lego Movie, you'll enjoy it way more than this and so will your children.
Hollywood's Greedy Ripoff of the first Act of the Japanese Cult Classic, Battle Royale II: Requiem
This is a great example of a Hollywood budget that was utterly wasted. The reason you go to a movie like this is not to have the pivotal action scenes left up to the imagination. The acting is atrocious. It seems to be making fun of itself at times, which is just sad. Is it SNL or is it a 15 dollar per ticket Hollywood feature? It's odd because this movie cost 125 million dollars and yet it has all the special effects of a made for TV movie...

I just finished watching "Maze Runner" which was surprisingly good for what it was, and I was shocked to find out that it only had a $34 million budget. Honestly, there was 2-3 times the action and excitement in Maze Runner vs Mockingjay.

I like Hunger Games for a lot of reasons but this movie just dropped the ball big time, it is boring, it adds nothing of real note to the story, and it makes the actors in it look bad.
Very disappointing
To be fair , the first was borderline but I'd heard good reviews for this.... don't listen to them. Just utter drivel. A poor mans Battle Royal... and that's OK as films go. Concept is quite good but fails miserably in the delivery and story. Can't wait to miss the 3rd instalment. Apparently I need another 6 lines of text to point out the flaws in this film. Well I suppose we could start with asking "Did she fire six arrows or 42 " ... maybe a few extra were found that weren't necessary to include in the story. Then lets also look at the physics/power of a bow, the size of a reel of cable and other such stupidity thats included in the film. Fine, its fantasy but at least try to obey the basic laws of physics/mass etc .
As bad as many of the real reviews say
I'm not a Harry Potter fan and haven't read the books. But I will admit that they did a great job of polishing those films, making the dialogue reasonably natural and the characters show chemistry and depth.

The entire Hunger Games films are almost devoid of real emotion. It's almost as though there is BAD and GOOD. Katniss is GOOD. The others in the Games are mostly BAD. None of them seem to be concerned about the impending death that virtually all will face, just acting bad. The dialog seems stilted and what you'd expect from a child's book.

Thinking about the logic of the plot and the uprising (whatever that is supposed to mean and we never get a feeling that the poor districts have mounted any sort of problem that the ridiculously wealthy can't handle.

The acting is intentionally over the top to show the badness. Stanley Tucci does a fine job, as always, but it's so over the top to be completely absurd. Even The Running Man did a much better job than this.

A friend who read the books said that all the characters were written this paper thin. It's as if you must check all brains at the door and do not think about whether anything really makes sense if you give it more than 2 minutes of thought. The Games themselves don't seem to exist except to create a spectacle for the reader or viewer. This is like pitifully bad science fiction that is geared towards 5-7 year old audiences who mostly don't understand things too deeply.

This film is a colossal waste of time unless you are a fan of this silly series. If you're renting, make sure you can accomplish something else at the same time so you don't feel like it's a total loss.
Let the flames begin...
I was lucky enough to be able to watch the movie one week early, since it opened here in Brazil one week before the release in the US, and I must tell you this fellow The Hunger Games fans, even though my English is not even that good: Catching Fire is a GREAT experience, and one that improves over the first film in nearly every possible level.

When I first read the books, I thought that they were not only incredibly addicting and fun, but also with an important message for the youngsters (and every other person, age is not important) who read it, and that made it different from some of the other uninteresting YA books around. I really liked the trilogy, and when I watched the first adaptation, I was disappointed with some aspects and routes they went with it. It was not an horrible movie, at all, but it was not very faithful to the book and lacked the impact I found in the novel.

With that in mind, I kept my excitement in close watch with Catching Fire and went expecting a good movie and nothing more. I was welcomed with an excellent surprise: the movie followed the events of the novel whenever possible and brilliantly so, while managing to keep me on the edge of my seat, even though I knew what was going to happen the entire time.

I won't go into details about the plot of the movie, some fellow reviewers already did it probably better than I'll ever do and the chances you're familiar with it are high. So I'll go right into the review and my opinions on the picture.

Francis Lawrence was nothing short of an excellent choice for the director's chair: gone are the shaky camera action (one of my major problems with the first film) and welcome are thrilling and pumping action scenes that expertly convey the tension and ferocity of the moment. He managed to keep the violence and shock without ever crossing the line, and whoever read the books know how important this is; it's part of the plot, of the criticism and one of the main elements that make the whole point of the film. He keeps you interested and invested in the story even when nothing bombastic is happening, and that is a great achievement, something that really sets this sequel apart.

But Francis is not alone on making this movie special. His young and talented cast, lead by the always amazing Jennifer Lawrence, is ferocious and eager to invest in their characters, making you an ally (or an enemy) while watching everything unfold. Lawrence shows us again why she was the perfect choice to play the now iconic Katniss Everdeen: she makes you root for this young, brave lady every single minute of the struggle; with her sad, hopeless stare that pierces your soul to her ability to convey admirable strength when everything seems to be out of reach are phenomenal and she deserves the praise she gets.

The rest of the cast is uniformly good, but I have to highlight Jena Malone, who plays the explosive Johanna: her presence makes the screen on fire whenever she's in, mixing the perfect amount of attitude and humor. A particular scene involving an elevator and a fancy dress is at the same time hilarious and shocking, just like her character. Donald Sutherland also shines as the menacing president Snow, in a restrained performance that doesn't need too many words spoken to make you think twice on how dangerous he is.

The set pieces are also vastly improved upon: bigger, more ambitious and work perfectly in sync with the action to make for some really unforgettable moments. The arena looks beautiful and foreboding, hiding it's dangers behind the shining green water. So does the bizarre Capitol and the Districts, full of sadness and fear, two dichotomies in every aspect.

But what I really liked about the movie was that they didn't shy away from the political aspects from the novel and conveyed the despair and oppression imposed by the Capitol over the rest of Panem. It makes you think that all of this is happening around the world, in one way or another, maybe masquerade, but it is. It's sad that many teenagers are only in this ride for the hot action and beautiful people (some screaming girls in the movie theater I went only confirm this. They were not the majority, it was packed and most people were also extremely annoyed by it too - every time Finnick appeared it was a screaming hell). It has so much more to offer.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire not only improves vastly upon it's predecessor: it's a great cinematic experience by itself, touching on important topics about the modern day society without losing it's thrilling core. It's not perfect, but what it does right it goes right into the bullseye. Don't let the hype or the teen fury on this fool you: it is entertainment at it's best.
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.
Let them starve. That'd be more entertaining.
I have been assured that 'The Hunger Games' books are better than the films. After seeing an endorsement from Stephanie Meyer saying 'The Hunger Games is AMAZING!' and watching both of the films I can't say I'm convinced that it was ever a story worth telling, let alone filming.

Catching Fire is long, narcissistic, dumb, nonsensical, slow, and many other things.

American born actress Elizabeth Banks ends up sounding like an English person trying and failing to do an American accent rather than someone who naturally has one?

Lenny Kravitz as Katniss' fashion designer was the strangest piece of casting since Rihanna in Battleship. He gets beaten up just as Katniss is ascending into the game room, and like almost every other event in the movie you don't really find out why it happened. It is just an excuse to cue in Jennifer Lawrence for some more jaw out, mouth open, gurning at the camera. She looks like a bland office intern, rather than a seventeen year old firecracker.

There are many other unanswered questions. Why is the magical wire allowed into the game? Why is the game trying to kill the participants when the original point was for the Capitol to enjoy watching them kill each other? Why bother being sentimental by putting an elderly lady into the game to only then have her wander off into some poisonous mist and not be spoken about again? Why must Katniss stay alive to save her boring family? Are the answers in the book? Probably. Will finding the answers make the film any better? Probably not.

It's the kind of heavy handed allegory that eventually makes you feel like anyone portrayed as a victim in it probably deserves the fate they are dealt. The only saving graces are Philip Seymour Hoffman who rises miles above anyone around him, one scene that resembles Hitchcock's 'The Birds' and another that resembles 'Black Swan' which serve as reminders of bigger and better films that never felt the need to resort to the hero and heroine telling each other what their favourite colours are.

Green and orange apparently.
Battle Royale 2 with Cheese
Its sad to see plagiarism being supported by so many people... ---This, to me, is the real moral to the story of The Hunger Games 2.

I refuse to put more than a one due to plagiarism, but...

The Good: The costume designer was Fantastic! For the most part, I felt, the acting was a bit higher than average.

The Bad: Worst idea ever to transform this premise into a kid/teen book and film.

Stop shaking the camera.

The Terrible: Suzanne Collins plagiarizing, Koushun Takami's novel Battle Royale; makes me feel all the worse after reading author Koushun Takami comments on being plagiarized. Koushun Takami is a stand up guy even after someone blatantly stole from you.
The Real Hunger Games: Battle Royale
Say what you will about the new unofficial remake of "The Hunger Games"—one thing it's not is rebellious. A key to the film's success is that it only flirts with real violence, pain, and outrage—in the end, it's a family film, which offers parents a chance to bond with their kids over the bewildering nastiness that is adolescence. If it's rebellion you want, you're better off seeing the Japanese film "Battle Royale," made in 2000 and newly available on DVD in the U.S., which anticipated "The Hunger Games" and, in many ways, bettered it. "Battle Royale" is also about a group of teen-agers murdering each other in a gladiatorial contest. But its extreme violence and candor—it was nearly banned by the Japanese Diet—lets it say the things "The Hunger Games" can't quite bring itself to say.

"Battle Royale" was also adapted from a best-selling novel, and the two films tell similar (and similarly senseless) stories. "Battle Royale" takes place in a dystopian version of present-day Japan, in which a massive disconnect between the generations has led to the passage of the Millennium Education Reform Act. The Act requires that, each year, a ninth-grade class be transported to a deserted island, where they will murder each other until only one student survives. (The film opens with a shot of last year's winner, a smiling girl in a school uniform, dripping with blood.) The first half-hour of "Battle Royale" is extraordinary and surreal. One minute, the students are horsing around on the bus, on the way to what they take to be a field trip; the next, a creepy teacher is giving them a murderous civics lesson. "Because of folks like Kuninobu here," he says, pointing to one of the students, "this country's absolutely no good anymore. So the bigwigs got together and passed this law: Battle Royale. So today's lesson is you kill each other off until there's only one left…. Life is a game, so fight for survival and find out if you're worth it!" With that, the students are armed, and the killing begins. (Unlike "The Hunger Games," "Battle Royale" is funny and self-aware: each kid's backpack includes a randomly chosen weapon, and the two most likable kids are cursed—they receive a pot lid and a pair of binoculars.)

In terms of violence, "Battle Royale" is to "The Hunger Games" as punk is to emo; in "Battle Royale," the killing is relentless, shocking, cruel, and bloody. In an early scene, two earnest girls stand on a bluff, using a megaphone to suggest that everyone put down their weapons, get together, and make a peace pact; they are machine-gunned from behind, and their killer uses the megaphone to broadcast the agonies of their death to the entire island. In another scene, a boy suggests to a popular girl that they might make love, so that they won't die without losing their virginity; when he threatens to force the issue with his crossbow, she wrestles him to the ground and stabs him repeatedly in the groin. Quentin Tarantino cast this actress, Chiaki Kuriyama, as Gogo, the mace-wielding schoolgirl, in "Kill Bill." He's said that "Battle Royale" is the one film released since he started making movies that he wished he'd made.

If it's your sort of thing, this violence makes the film dramatically more entertaining than "The Hunger Games," which, because of its PG-13 rating, must be evasive and sentimental about the pain and killing that is supposedly its subject. But the violence also makes "Battle Royale" more horrifying and, in a disturbing way, more realistic and trenchant. Where "The Hunger Games" offers only a gentle critique of the culture of competition, "Battle Royale" is a terrifying, endless howl of protest. This, the film suggests, is what the adult world is really like: it starts with a period of longing and uncertainty, in which you wish, pointlessly, that things were otherwise; it progresses through a series of (literally) gut-wrenching and heart-stopping betrayals and compromises; and then it culminates in a slow, painful, lonely, and humiliating death. In the explanatory text at the beginning of the movie, we're informed that things are this way not because some apocalyptic event has destroyed society but simply because of prolonged economic malaise and unemployment. "Battle Royale" isn't a postapocalyptic movie. It thinks of itself as taking place in today's world. Near the end, an intertitle offers some very sincere advice to the teen-agers in the audience. "No matter how far," it says, "run for all you're worth. Run!"

Does "The Hunger Games" contain in it, somewhere, the darkness of "Battle Royale"? Probably not (although Jennifer Lawrence's breakout film, "Winter's Bone," just might). The hopefulness in "The Hunger Games" is what ultimately makes it feel like a product designed for kids by their parents. It's typical of parents, really, to try to turn every tragedy into a positive experience. "Battle Royale," with its existential pessimism, seems truer to the teen-age id. As George Eliot pointed out in "Middlemarch": "If youth is the season of hope, it is often so only in the sense that our elders are hopeful about us." "Battle Royale" gives expression to that most teen-age of feelings: refusal.
A work only of duty
Sadly, we see this more and more often: An okay premise, pi..ed away. The movie is from start to end a mishmash of good acted moments, piled together like all your favorite spices, and then blended together in a porridge that is just not good for anything.

The overall storyline is usable for a 1st act, maybe..

It baffles me, when amazing actors like Woody, says yes to something like this. They have contracts of course, but they are not slaves.

I could have watched three episodes of Star Trek instead of this, and remained a richer person.

Stay away, wait for the final act and then FF this turd.
See Also
📹 The Hunger Games: Catching Fire full movie english download, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire full movie with english subtitles free download, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire full movie download with english subtitles. 📀