Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Brendon Jones It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Casey Duggan It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

yaxleycratler Way better than the first. I trouncing more characters having a cooler arena. It's everything I ever wanted in the second installment. Katniss and Peeta's love grows as well as people's support of the Mockingjay. Snow starts to become the villain by blackmailing Katniss with a video of Gale kissing her, even though Gale initiated the kiss. The arena for the games is intricately designed and i couldnt fet iver how cool ot was. They introduce new characters that will be featured prominently in the next two installments.

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.

TheLittleSongbird As said with the first 'Hunger Games' film (which had its plus points but didn't do much for me), the books are fun, scary, thrilling and moving though because being so rich in detail and characterisation they are difficult to adapt.'The Hunger Games: Catching Fire' is a bigger and somewhat better sequel, but also could have been much better. It underwhelms as an adaptation still, with the basic details there but in need of more depth (not as badly as with the first film though), but again it's more problematic on its own. Not an awful film (neither is the first) but considering the talent and source material, there was real potential for it to be really good, and it doesn't quite do that.Starting with the good things, most of the acting is fine. Jennifer Lawrence is terrific as Katniss, and she is brilliantly supported by Donald Sutherland and the late Philip Seymour Hoffmann bringing first-class villainy. The action is more exciting and tense and much less hindered by the hasty pacing and frenetic editing that marred the action in the first 'Hunger Games'.Generally (apart from some dodgy special effects) the production values are slicker and even more ominous, the dystopian feel as nightmarish as ought. The score is thrilling and emotive, and there is more jeopardy and intensity, if happening quite late into the film.However, 'The Hunger Games: Catching Fire' is crippled by an overlong and far too stretched running time, and sadly the material is not consistently interesting enough to justify it. The film does take too long to get going with a very draggy and uneventful first hour, before becoming more action-packed and tense halfway through where things really pick up. Then it comes crashing down again with an ending so abrupt that it feels like the film was released incomplete.Once again, the writing does feel under-cooked, with some cringe-worthy moments and lacks edge or any kind of emotion a lot of the time. The relationship between Katniss and Peeta is still marred by anaemic chemistry and Josh Hutcherson failing to inject any charisma or life to his role. The scary intensity on the whole of the story is still lacking, as well as any insight on social commentary or satirical edge, too much of 'The Hunger Games: Catching Fire' still feels rather tame and undernourished, and despite better production values the direction is sloppy and often feels uncertain in the early parts.In summary, bigger and slightly better but never really ignited my fire. 5/10 Bethany Cox

ikissedaguru First off, I'm a big fan of the original Japanese version of BATTLE ROYALE 2 (2003). This is one of those movies that stays with you long after you have watched it. When I heard of a remake for the American audience, I thought it would be great and would love to see what could be done with it. I went into seeing this movie very excited. It starts off similar to the Japanese version, but seemed to lack a bit of the eerie atmosphere the original had. The characters seemed a bit more likable in this version, so I started to get a bit more excited about it the further it went.The story then take a left turn and seems very rushed once all of the action starts. The original version is a lot bloodier and contains a lot more violence. This version hints to the violence taking place but never shows whats going on. The ending, which in the original, is the part of the movie that sticks with you, is hinted to, but again, never shown. I recommend that if you do decide to watch this movie, what the original version first. Hey America, if you're going to do a remake, do it properly and don't hack a film to shite!