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
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
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.
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.
a passable prologue and a most disappointing ending ...
Really, this movie has a quite nice prologue ... but as it turns out its all prologue. We see the home front, then a tour of the provinces, followed by the splendour of the capital. A spectacular triumph for the survivors of the gladiatorial games of the past. All the competitors are given a nice blade-runner like intro sequence. They each have a 'special skill' (ie. sort of a super-power). Just in case you missed this, they get another intro via an all-live all-province glammed up TV interview. Very flash! But it is all building up to the 'games' and when we finally get to those games they are over before they really get started.

And it turns out this time its a team sport rather than a first person shooter type of game as in the first movie. Our heroine of course is pretty good with a bow (her 'super power'). But when it comes to choosing team-mates that's when the plot starts to fall down. In a fight to the death with no chance of a reprieve do you (a) choose the carnivorous teeth sharpened jugular biting woman from the district where they have to go head to head with large vicious baboons ('think beauty and the beast -- she's both') or (b) do you choose the nice little old lady who dabbles with healing herbs? Do you go for the guy who can throw a spear with enough force to mow down 5 holograms in a row or do you choose the weirdos in the corner puttering about with the arts & crafts who the others nickname "nuts and volts". Maybe 'Volts' is a misunderstood genius but the herb lady is so old and arthritic she has to be carried everywhere she goes, and her herbs are pretty much useless.

So OK, our heroine is pretty good with a bow but is not very smart and is useless at picking team-mates. But she has an adviser who should know what he is doing; who tells her 'stay away from nuts & volts ... and don't even think about that nice little old lady'. But who does she end up with as team-mates? How does this happen? Its not exactly clear. Supposedly they are planning the great 'revolution', but its not a revolution that our heroine wants any part of. She seems to have no political ideas, and no ideas on how to win the games. I'm quite partial to revolution and political ideas (like Terry Gilliam's Brazil) but actually there is nothing revolutionary or political in this movie. It makes Luke Skywalker look like he has a PhD in political science, so devoid is it of any real social commentary or political insight. OK, she comes from a remote mining district and so is not very well educated, and has little to no social skills or political savvy. And the older wiser authority figure is no Obi-Wan Kenobi who can tell her what is happening or given any useful advice (his special skill seems to be drinking straight from the bottle). And so she gets it into her small unthinking mind that she should sacrifice herself for her 'great love Peeta' (or as we would call him ... Peter). Never mind that she does not really care for him and that their 'love' is a ploy by the state to keep the masses contented. He is a bit like her gay best friend ... useless, no special skills of any kind, always falling over, running into force fields and that kind of thing ... but looks good on TV and and gives good motivational speeches. So of course he is on her team ... and when we finally get to the games she is constantly mumbling 'we have to save Peeta'. That gets old really fast! For 2 hours we wait for these great games to get started (which are supposed to entertain and thrill the entire world's population) and then all we get is a bit of wandering around in the jungle and mumbling about how 'Peeta' must survive. Even though the old lady with the herbs and who need a wheelchair is more likely to live longer than this toyboy! There is no fighting, no devious plots, no 'thumbs up or thumbs down' moments. What is the first thing that happens? 'Peeta' runs into a force field (despite having been given a tutorial about detecting force fields). He should have been blown to bits but seemingly by magic he is brought back to life (no, not by the herb lady -- that would have made too much sense).

Once they've wandered around the jungle a bit they need a plan. The 'game makers' have left a spool of cable lying about and 'Volts' immediately comes up with a 'plan' that is just a rehash of the one he used to win (by some miracle it seems) a previous game. Past games are of course televised and studied by all the gladiators, so anyone could tell you will end in disaster ... and of course it does turn out to be a complete disaster. But then just before being blasted to oblivion our heroine comes up with the idea of plugging an extension cord from the bedroom socket into the kitchen socket. Will this form the great infinite electrical loop that will destroy the world's electrical grid? All that will happen is that if you are not careful you will get a nasty shock and die. And we would say good riddance to them. But our heroine (as if by magic) survives the nasty shock, being only stunned ... but is mistaken for dead by the 'game makers' who helicopter her seemingly dead body out. Depriving us of the GAME! The title being "Hunger Games" ... and the so called 'games' end seemingly before they have begun. Games which we have waited more than 2 hours to get started. Now that is a disappointment!
An Wholesale RipOff of the Japanese Masterpiece, Battle Royale 2
The odds are definitely in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire favor in terms of box office and reception. I am a huge fan of the book and when I heard about the movie I just got excited as anyone could possibly get. Of course I still had some doubt. Every time I heard someone say it would be the "next Twilight" my heart would drop because Twilight is by far not anywhere close to the standard set by The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. However, I went into the movie with an open mind and was absolutely blown away by the shot per shot ripoffs of a Japanese movie known as "Battle Royale 2".

The cast that were chosen for the film was perfect. Jennifer Lawrence played Katniss with exceptional strength and even grace that made me completely buy her as being Katniss and could not imagine anyone else as the strong heroine. Woody Harrelson portrayed Haymitch with a respect for the character in terms of how the character truly feels about the Capitol and showing him as a man made bitter by his life,which in my opinion was pretty much what Haymitch was. And Donald Sutherland as the vicious President Snow was absolutely terrifying in the role. He brought on the same aura of malice and hatred that the character was easily able to create in the books. This is just the first movie and I cannot wait to see what else he brings to the table in future installments. Now I could go on and on about how superb the cast was because it is true. Everyone brought something great to the table but it was Jennifer Lawrence's portrayal of Katniss that held the movie very high up. The action and violence was also pretty gruesomea nd done just right so that it didn't go overboard but was faithful enough to the book that the violence wasn't undermined. The outcome of having Suzanne Collins (author of The Hunger Games) work with director Gary Ross to rewrite the script in the English language for the film version was probably one of the best things to happen for this film. It is superb plagiarizing at it's finest.

In closing, The Hunger Games is a faithful film adaptation to a great Asian flick that is superbly written, performed, and directed to create what will probably be one of the best films of the year. The action and suspense will have you on the edge of your seat throughout the film as well as surprise those of you who have read the books. This film is about two-and-a-half hours long but the pacing matches that of the book so that when it's over you'll feel like its only been an hour-and-a-half. It never drags on but is always on the move to something more exciting than the one before. This film will stay with you for years to come and will make you think a little more about what direction our society is going in.
Was excited, but was disappointed
all this movie does is give Hollywood another shot at more money. This is not the end of the districts, only the middle. When a movie ends and leaves you with wondering how the next movie will turn out, is pure profit for the movie makers. this movie is just part 2 of 5 movies soon to come to a theater near you. Plus is Jennifer, she is awesome. Want to leave the theater wondering what happens next? watch this one. I actually fell asleep to awake wondering if i missed half the movie and to my amazement, it was only 5 min. some cool parts, but predictable. and who are these other people that we want to survive, but then again, wonder if they are evil. this movie i feel is a scam. a scam to get you to go to another movie that is to be announced down the road. just like breaking bad. sometimes its best just to end the movie and move on.
A Waste of Money, I Felt Truly Ripped Off
OK, I'm not sure how I can review this one without dropping a few spoilers here and there, so I marked this one as "contains spoilers", just in case. First, you need to know the point of view from which I approached this movie...in order to understand why I rated it awful. I did not read the books. I did not read any of the books. In fact, I can't remember a single book I have read in the past 10 years or so. I *DID* however see the first movie in the series, Hunger Games. I went to see Hunger Games only because I'd read it was a really good movie. I was NOT disappointed. Hunger Games (the first movie) was one of the best movies I have ever seen! 10/10, simply awesome!!!

In fact, it was because I enjoyed the FIRST movie so much that I felt I definitely had to see the SECOND movie in the theater.

And so I went to the second movie knowing NOTHING about it, other than having remembered that the first movie was awesome...

The first hour or so of Catching Fire was pretty boring. But it was easy to sit through it, as it was building anticipation for the action that you knew was coming. And oh yes, there was plenty of action to come later. But just as quickly as the action started, the action ended.

In fact, as the credits were rolling, I was glued to my seat. I was refusing to believe that it was over.

I've had a couple of days to ponder how to review this movie. At first, I was thinking something along the lines of... "It seems like the producers ran out of money halfway through filming, but decided to release it unfinished anyway..." But later, I realized... What I'd just watched (Catching Fire) was actually a two-hour trailer for Hunger Games 3.

No conclusion of plot here, just setting up plot for a future movie. I paid 10 bucks to watch a trailer. I feel ripped off.
Stop comparing it to the original! We all know Catching Fire cannot match up!
This one is a Rip off, they changed some things and Americanised the movie. The part the American audiences might find most offensive in the original (Violence) is removed. Jennifer Lawrence is amazing, no one else would have been able to pull this movie off. I'll be surprised if he doesn't win any awards for his performance.

In broader terms The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is a doing something very interesting. The nature of the business is such that you cannot ignore the audience. The US audience has matured but not enough to fully appreciate a film like "BATTLE ROYALE". The mass audiences would never accept the disturbing theme. And although The Hunger Games 2 is a rip off, it needs to be argued that movies like these go a long way to introduce the American audiences to a higher level of acceptance of mature themes. The masses would probably reject BATTLE ROYALE today, but maybe in a few years, we might see originals with high octane story lines being accepted by the masses. But what also needs to be considered is that the conventional running around the trees in Hollywood movies don't attract the crowds anymore, audiences want something more and have begun appreciating change. People have started appreciating good cinema, and bold themes like The Hunger Games will go a long way,encouraging directors to make movies that embrace bold story lines.

It is unfortunate that Hollywood ripped off BATTLE ROYALE, but if that is the only way that the Indian audiences would get a glimpse of what the original was like, so be it.

This movie is worth a watch, if not for the soap opera elements, then for the classic its ripping off, if not for the new themes in Hollywood, then for Lawrences's acting.
The original BATTLE ROYALE II: REQUIEM ripoff
It has the time line and self-consciously-culture-smart soundtrack of Battle Royale 2, yet the campy fun and karaoke stylings of Twilight. Gary Ross takes this combination and makes it fun, instead of extra cheesy, and it is visually fascinating instead of the obnoxious MTV-video nightmare it could have been.

I found a poster that promoted the film as: Make to-do "Battle Royale 2" as "Sesamo street"!- I cared about the characters - and the cast of 'unknowns' have great star power and voices. Even though I knew exactly what would happen, the journey there was great. The cameos were fun. I love musicals as much as the next person, but this this thing was dead on arrival. it's a shame though, we needed a good movie about School violence and the happenings during the future. i'd appreciate a movie like that more, than this trash that really had no story. i can't even tell you what the film was about if my life depended on it. Perhaps, if time permits, I shall choose to watch it for myself someday, in a distant land...

I AM HELPLESS !!!! I do not know what else to say about this disgusting, unimaginable piece of human feces than "please save your time, your brain energy or whatever you might call it", and never ever watch this. If you just bought the DVD, go burn it. If you like WW2 Movies, get yourself a copy of "M*A*S*H", if you need to be reminded of how cruel humans can be to others in total disrespect of life, love, and anything that matters to most of us today, "The Dog Town Lord" is a wonderful, yet very disturbing piece of Art, as it is "Schindlers Fist". If you like good Fantasy Stories, maybe have some episodes of "Female Warrior Xena". Drama: "Driving Miss Daisy" is A MASTERPIECE !!! And if it so happens that you are an absolutely devoted fan of deep-brain-cell-destruction while-in-a totally-oblivious-state-of-mind, a copy of the rip-off games, jackass the movie 1,2 or (even 3 someday?) might be your choice of the moment.
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
BATTLE ROYALE for pg-Thirtweeners.
"The Hunger Games" is brilliant story told through the eyes of 16 year old Katniss Everdeen. It's also based on a Japanese movie. In this action packed Katniss is an independent girl who tries her best to care for her young sister and unstable mother. When her young sister Prim is chosen to take part in the deadly "Hunger Games", a fight to the death for safety, riches, fame, and freedom Katniss decides to take Prim's place to fight for her sister. The film takes place in the country of Panem which is a post apocalyptic North America. The acting was great. The cinematography was good also. The film was dramatic but not too over the top. It really showed the struggle that the characters faced throughout the film.

Common face it, this playoff of this movie has been done before. If you have any experience watching Battle Royale, produced by Kinji Fukasaku, this movie uses all its layup, and ideas to the fullest, with a mixture with The running man from 1987. Battle Royale though, is much more deeper and philosophical about the ideas that this movie tries to touch upon. I do not find this movie unbearable bad, sure it is entertaining, but it lacks originality and just steals ideas which has already been made and does it the Hollywood way, which in the end just come out as a faint copy.

What makes me frustrated is the ignorance people are showing that just hail this movie as good, cause they have not experienced motion picture outside U.S, and ignore the fact that this movie rips off altogether which has already been done before. If you liked these ideas and the dark perspective this movie tried to bring , and even remotely think this is a good movie, then watch Battle Roayle, and you will be amazed what had been created more than 10 years ago, with much depth and originality.

I also loved the cinematography used in the film. I thought when the camera shook really went well with the moments it was apart of. It heightened the sense of restlessness, hopelessness and chaos. It stuck with the movies theme of sacrifice, hopelessness and the need people have to survive. I loved when this particular use of the camera was used during moments of running because it really immersed me in the film. It made you feel like you were apart of the moment. The use of that type of cinematography also went well with fighting scenes in the movie, it really heightened the chaos that was going on in the scene. It also made the scenes more dramatic which is a good thing in a movie like this.

Overall I really enjoyed the movie. I've already seen it like three times and I would definitely watch it again. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone under the age of 12 because they might not be able to handle violence, but I recommend this movie to anyone who likes action drama and a little romance. Also to anyone who has read the series of books. They really keep true to the story except for a few changes, but the movie was great without them. "The Hunger Games" is a great movie that brought tears to my eyes and kept me at the edge of my seat. I truly enjoyed it, and I hope that more people see it because it is a great movie.

The movie start to build some character and some mystery but totally lacks out before the movie ends which is sad.
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.