Write descriptive essay about The Hunger Games: Catching Fire movie 2013, write an essay of at least 500 words on The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, 5 paragraph essay on The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, definition essay, descriptive essay, dichotomy essay.
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Year:
2013
Country:
USA
Genre:
Thriller, Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi
IMDB rating:
7.7
Director:
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
Reviews
The Hunger Games: Catching Z's
Watching the second installment of the Hunger Games saga is like watching the fifth Harry Potter or the second Lord of the Rings movie. Annoyingly drawn-out, more of the same, not really worth the time save for a few important details which get used later on. Nothing really happens, it's all just gearing up for a grand finale which you know is coming, and which will pretty much rewrite the rules anyway.

Yes, the setting feels more natural. Yes, the Games are deadlier than ever. There's more futuristic gizmos like... forcefields! Yes, there is more more mature character depiction. But do we really need to *see* all this? From the first movie it was already clear that Panem's government is a nasty and callous dictatorship which does not shirk away from sadism (in the form of the Games themselves by forcing adolescents to compete). The patterns of repression are boringly stereotypical, complete with anonymous masked soldiers with big sticks and military hardliners who have testosterone for blood.

The entire movie could have been reduced to, say, Katniss and Peeta holding too many revolutionary speeches during their victors' tour; and Snow then (in a mildly interesting twist) accidentally killing Primrose, setting off the revolution. The effect is the same compared to what happens in the actual movie, but it only takes 15 to 20 minutes of your time instead of a gruelling 146. But then the audience wouldn't get to fawn at length over a good-looking and sportive natural female beauty, would they?

I am reminded of Paul Verhoeven's The Running Man which I saw a long, long time ago. The Hunger Games are in many ways strikingly similar... and although The Running Man isn't perfect either, it at least gets one thing very right: over and done with in a single movie. And now I hear that the third movie in the Hunger saga is to be released in two parts. Yay. Why have the audience pay once for a story when you can get them to pay four times, eh, Mr Marketeer?

Really, only see this at home. If at all. Or read the book—which by the way I haven't.
2014-08-04
Great!... if you're a fan of movie trailers
I wasn't overly impressed with the first Hunger Games movie but saw this one to let the series have another chance to win me over. Afterwards I'm afraid I think the first one was actually better.This felt like an extended trailer.

Game of Thrones and The Hobbit get a lot of stick for their fluff and filler but this film takes the gold. The plot progression from the first film to the end of this is insulting. the narrative focus on huge sections of drawn out breathy dialogue and superfluous story threads, followed by a half backed build up to and then unconvincing replay of the games from the first film, which no one seems very in to and the curtain falls on the same exposition we established at the end of the first film, in an abrupt, unfulfilling brick-wall anticlimax!

Story wise there's the ongoing duality of Katniss and Peter's (Peeta's!?) faux romance, but it's still as wooden as before with only token justification. Evil Colonel Sanders type President is being even more needlessly violent and oppressive to a vastly outgunned underclass and vacuous character redundancy Peeta needs saving more times then princess' Leia and Peach combined. A central element is how crucial Katniss is to some revolution you don't get to enjoy but exactly why is so weak and the plight so tangential to the main thread that it's difficult to get invested in.

The visuals and action are quite pretty but most of this is thanks to expensive graphics and at this point big budget films can't keep getting points for this. I'm told it's close to the book but again that's no justification for a boring film, and in a death match, can someone please tell me the point of all this teaming up!?

My Favourite, most genuine and emotive performance was given by supporting role Elizabeth Banks. Her brief but touching portrayal as the product of a superficial world trying desperately to communicate deep, empathic feelings beyond her experience was my highlight of the film. Her internal conflict and the face value absurdity of her gesture are a poetically haunting commentary of the Capitol's society, bravo!

Overall not worth the ticket price, probably more palatable to franchise fans.
2013-12-20
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.
2014-08-05
Don't believe the fangurls!
Not a good movie at all. How it gets an 8.2 average IMDb rating I'll never know. The dialogue is written for (and maybe BY?!?) 12 year olds; the story is, to be kind, contrived; and the acting/direction make you feel like you're watching one of those TV shows that somehow manages to have a huge budget but also low production values. Don't waste your time. Of course, the movie will haul in a ton of money and so everyone involved in making it will receive attention and accolades, but this turkey is definitely not going home with any of the big prizes this award season, except maybe a Razzie. How can the reviewers above think that this schlocky film is anything even remotely approaching some sort of cinematic masterpiece? Studio plants: that's the only explanation that makes sense, right?
2013-12-04
I wish you fans would be honest so others don't waste precious minutes of their lives
Slow, boring, disjointed, and those are the good points. Let's see, in the first movie, they went to the arena and fought to the death. In the second movie . . . . they went to the arena and fought to the death! Except in the second movie you have to go through about two hours of nothing to get to that point.

The nothing is really great, they live in a nicer house, they travel by train, they party, they travel by train, they whisper to each other a lot, they utter inane statements and pretend those are profound. I just saw it, and that's really all I can remember. What complete and utter dreck.

Oh, and when you get to the arena, it's about as stupid as it gets. But instead of talking about that incredibly boring part, let's talk about some idiocy. Plutarch is part of the revolution. He spends his whole time relaxing with President Snow, the leader of the enemy. How about just putting his hands around Snow's neck and chocking him to death? Or hitting Snow over the head with one of the many available objects?

And then there are all the twists. But why bother telling you because only someone with serious developmental disabilities would consider them to really be twists.

I've watched plenty of bad movies, but never have written a review. I am so aggravated with having wasted valuable hours of my life on this highly rated junk that I felt I had to try to save some of you who haven't yet fallen to the overly gushing fan reviews. SAVE YOURSELVES!
2014-03-15
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...

screenplayisles.blogspot
2014-05-04
Been there done that...
For a start: I liked the first movie. I didn't love it as other people did, but I certainly enjoyed watching it. This is the kind of movies I like to see in cinema and lose myself in the movie for 2,5 hours. So I went to the second Hunger Games with not too big expectations, but was certainly looking forward to it.

Let's make clear I've been rarely so bored in cinema. At a certain point I told my friend I was almost falling asleep, he checked his watch and saw the movie was going on for almost 90 minutes already and nothing mentionable happened! The first 90% of the movie is almost the same as the first movie, which was cool the first time but not interesting at all the second time. There are elections, there's a train ride to the capitol, she gets a dress that lights on fire when she spins, they enter in a chariot both on fire and the action in the games was almost the same (which supposed to be a special this time since it was the 75th anniversary). It was horrible to see almost exactly the same for over 2 hours. Besides that, the emotions didn't get to me. Was I supposed to care about her love-life, about district 12? I didn't, while I did care about little Rue dying in part 1. So emotion wise, the first was better in my opinion. Another thing that annoyed me was how predictable it was, nothing surprised or shocked me. I won't spoil anything, but there's not much to spoil except for the end. My advise would be to only watch the last 30 minutes of the movie, those were okayish and give me hope for a better third part. Last but not least, the CGI was not so good, I won't overreact it was okay, but from a movie this popular I expect top notch, and it wasn't.

Since I have a subscription to the cinema, it wasn't a waste of money. But it sure was a horrible waste of time. The best part of the movie was the trailer of The Hobbit 2. I like to go to great movies for a second or third time in cinema. The idea of having to watch this movie a second time gives me a headache.
2013-11-22
Unbelievably stupid in almost every sense
I have nothing good to say about this film, nothing at all. Catching Fire is a film made by an incompetent director based on a garbage script featuring soulless performances and edited in the most hamfisted way possible.

It only exists to appeal to the easily impressionable who mistake poorly implemented themes of violence and romance for depth and to vacuum as much money as possible from the YA audience.

The Hunger Games series is an entirely cynical enterprise with not one redeeming value, do not encourage such practices by paying money to see this film.
2014-02-03
wurst movie ending ever!
This is a movie made for money profit only. First one was made with passion and believe to make a good movie and thats the only reason why people actually went to see the second movie. Unfortunately, the story is rather boring and similar to the first movie. Not much happens, when you think the movie is going to start or really reveal some story they just end it mid scene. It was a true pain to the eye if you dare to be honest and not react in a way like well everyone says it was good so I think alike. I strongly recommend not to go see this in theater and wait for the last one in the hope they don't screw that over as well. Sure, we know it was going to end in an open ending but this movie does not follow the structure every book or movie should have, beginning, middle, plot/end scene. This is a good movie to watch on a lazy afternoon with you brain capacity on half speed.
2013-12-25
I already know they screwed this movie up, they sugar coated it by making it PG-13
I already know they screwed this movie up, they sugar coated it by making it PG-13 and they probably took out the sin city feel to it that the book had, and they took out all the blood and gore and toned down the mayhem AGAIN, BAD MOVE >:-(. now I'm just hoping they won't screw up the third movie because the third book was INSANE and I expect the movie to be that way too. I hope the third movie will be INSANELY gory just like the book and I REALLY hope it will get an R Rating, both parts 1 and 2 since they split it in half, if they do screw up the third movie which i'm SERIOUSLY hoping they won't do, I am NOT going to be a happy camper AT ALL
2013-12-02
Write descriptive essay about The Hunger Games: Catching Fire movie 2013, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire movie essay, literary essay The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire essay writing, narrative essay, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire 500 word essay, argumentative essay The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.
×