The Hunger Games: Catching Fire vs. The Hunger Games

12 comments

7 comments

on 11/28/2013

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is a really good continuation of the story that began in The Hunger Games, but a lot of it felt too much like a replay of the first movie. For that reason, I have to give a slight edge to The Hunger Games.

on 11/28/2013

This match-up, finally! Absolutely loved both of these. In my book, they're both worthy of my highest rating. That being said, I do think Catching Fire is the better movie. The filmmaking is stronger all the way around. While I liked the first book better, I prefer the second movie.

on 11/28/2013

I think Catching Fire is the perfect sequel and took things exactly where they needed to go. Also, it set up things perfectly for the next movie. That being said, I think both are highly enjoyable, although Catching Fire is the better movie.

on 11/30/2013

Definitely #2. I didn't even really like the first one. The second one managed to have better characters, directing and cinematography. Neither of them are particularly great, but the second one is by far the victor (now to pit it against the other victors...)

on 12/1/2013

They were both excellent, but the second movie definitely improved on the first

JRM
JRM

on 12/2/2013

Everything about the sequel was better -- everything.

on 12/2/2013

I like the more squeal than the first one second was better than the first one it's everything

on 12/2/2013

I'll go with the first one...but this could change in the future...

on 12/3/2013

Both are alright,i'm really not a hardcore fan when it comes to it. "Catching Fire" is the type of flick that you have to be careful to judge just yet. It really set up things for the next movie in brilliant fashion, like MasterOfMovies said, but before the "full circle" and the Mockingjay conclusion,it's hard to put any rating on it.

on 12/4/2013

I really loved both (despite the cringe-worthy love triangle in each), but I have to say, I liked the first one more. It just did a better job of showing the savagery and brutality of the Hunger Games. Still, I really enjoyed both, and I'm looking forward to the next two installments.

on 12/8/2013

I definitely preferred Catching Fire to the first one. Hunger Games gave an incredibly lame reason as to why Katniss would have the mockingjay pin, and made Peeta into a very weak character. Catching Fire strengthened Peeta a little bit, remained much more true to the novel, and whatever they changed actually made sense. It's kind of annoying because the novels practically read like scripts, and so when things are changed for no apparent reason it really irks me. For example, in the first one, there's an awesome scene in the book where on the train, Peeta knocks the drink out of Haymitch's hand. Haymitch realises that both of them have a will to win, and responds by saying that as long as they don't interfere with his drinking, he will do his best to help them win. This scene establishes that Peeta has the drive to win, and that Haymitch's alcoholism is as much a part of him as any other character trait. In the movie, Peeta makes an awkward attempt to grab Haymitch's drink, and Haymitch deflects him easily with a foot at his throat. This change makes Peeta seem weak, and throughout the rest of the training does nothing to earn Haymitch's respect. The only gripes I had with Catching Fire was I would have liked a clearer explanation for replacing the guards from District 12 for those who haven't read the books, and also they did'n't show them reviewing the tape of Haymitch winning his games, which I thought was a really cool part and helped to give more depth to his character. Other than those two minor wishes, I enjoyed Catching Fire much much more than the first Hunger Games.

on 12/18/2013

Catching Fire was definitely an improvement to the first one.

on 2/17/2014

catching fire was a good improvement

on 3/8/2014

The first one was pretty good, but Catching Fire was definitely better.

on 3/19/2014

Catching Fire was good, and it makes me sad when I see Philip Seymour-Hoffman, knowing he can't be in the remaining films. However, the 1st movie was far superior. It is always hard to top the 1st film of a franchise, as with Dark Knight and few others, but this is much like most where the 1st reigns supreme.

on 3/19/2014

Second one was by far better i thought

on 8/25/2014

Direction is the primary reason Catching Fire is better. Not something one would necessarily have thought, going in, from the director of I Am Legend, but in hindsight, Lawrence's previous film is pretty slick, too, just troubled. Ross did not direct the action well in the first Hunger Games. Catching Fire is just a much better-looking movie.

on 9/13/2014

The first film could have been better directed by a child. The colors, action, effects, actors, etc. were all horribly misdirected by Gary Ross. If you want to learn how not to direct your film watch the first Hunger Games.

on 2/24/2015

The sequel was better by a fairly wide margin. I'm very impressed by it.

on 9/25/2015

I enjoyed the first one more.

on 10/22/2015

Catching fire