Die Toten von Turin | Turmush musht (uzbek kino) | Турмуш мушт (узбек кино) | Comments: 0
Gladys Hamilton (Seattle) i was told that I can migos The Hunger Games: Catching Fire free download, but I did not believe, especially the year 2013 New York. Michael Whitehead (Lexington) Francis Lawrence The Hunger Games: Catching Fire free download Bluray at high speed, and even in the USA Cambridge.
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
DVD-rip 608x336 px 699 Mb mpeg4 668 Kbps avi Download
iPhone 480x320 px 1184 Mb mpeg4 1131 Kbps mp4 Download
Reviews
Katniss or Kantmiss. This sequel is a copy.
Spoiler Alert. Enjoy the movie first if you don't want to be sullied by another's opinion.

First, there is another movie in the wings and given the boffo box office of this meager effort will make millions more.

Let's see, how can we take a formula, alter it slightly and still keep the same thing? Make a sequel to "The Hunger Games" and call it "Catching Fire." We have a subplot involving the revolution that we thought was set off in the first movie. Obviously it wasn't but with Katniss' providing the impetus, rebellious elements are at work in this movie. One is reminded of the "Matrix."

In normal human existence, those that benefit give enough to those who don't so there will not be a revolution. Here, nothing is given back but propaganda. Kind of reminds me of the current American administration but that's not for this post.

It's all so formulaic and predictable. The whole goal is to get the "Whole World" to hate Katniss Let the floggings begin while showing Katniss in a wedding dress. Starve the people while showing Katniss at an elaborate dinner. This "let them eat cake" motive just doesn't work.

Potboilers are not new. Sinclair Lewis wrote "Kingsblood Royal" and it was a potboiler par excellence. But a potboiler inside a potboiler just gilds the Lily. Why? Here's my opinion inside of an opinion: There is simply not enough material to make three good movies but we want to stretch the franchise. So let's stretch the first concept from a pretty well done movie and see how much we can make without much effort. That what the producers must have been thinking. And make a fortune they did while elevating JenLaw into international stardom.

We know that our heroine will not be killed so this movie just drags through "The Perils of Pauline" but with supporting actors who do a good job of self sacrifice. We find out later in the film that they are all in on the joke but who cares. Supposedly nobody dies and they are all hiding in District 13 (Oh, those triskaidekaphobes.) as opposed to "District 9" which may have been more entertaining.

The acting is good and outside of the plastic "elite" roles, characters evolve to a degree. Actually, the characters do not develop in a sense but do coalesce due to extreme hardship. Supposedly they will all have to kill to survive but it sort of works if you don't pay too much attention.

Katniss as Xena warrior princess kind of works but Xena in a transforming wedding dress? Is she Xena or Kantmiss? The fake "marriage" theme just doesn't work if Snow and company are trying to kill her off. Now she's also the victim of a pregnancy which must be immaculate because there is no sex in this movie. But it is all a lie to get support for her plight from the populace that isn't so downtrodden that they can actually send help to someone else. What?

Now instead of individual protagonists, we have couples and these couples are past winners of the Hunger Games. I thought when you won the first time, you were set for life and your district was favored? What happened to that plot line? When did the couples start winning the stupid games? Supposedly there's only been seven gavels with one winner each so where do we get 24?

Fierce couples they are too. These are some really bad ass pairs who drop like paper tigers and operate like unintelligent zombies. At least the first crew were all thinking people and the games worked out in a way. But here, they face much stiffer competition from the environment that they ever do from any other person. The Mandrills are real, imagined? The mocking birds are real/unreal? When is a bite a bite and imagination can kill you if this were a "Fringe" episode where people were attacked by imaginary steel butterflies. Here the fog causes boils and the water cures but you can't drink it. You have to tap a tree. Just any tree?

Supposedly, this whole mess is watched by the "Whole World" and one wonders what statement is being made. If the winners are really a distraction, why would anyone not let the cat out of the bag so to speak? The winners obviously know that the whole thing is BS and they all seem to be pretty independent minded. During the introduction one of the winners Jena Mallone, I think, chastises the process and complains that she was promised an easy life but she's back in these stupid games. She challenges Snow during the games too. Now, that's pluck. Why not kill her? She's obviously telling state secrets and while no Snowden, her crime would be equally reprehensible to the elites.

There are no surprises. Don't we go to movies like this to be surprised at some point? Aren't we more satisfied when our plot-following senses are jarred out of sync and we are surprised and happy with plot twists? The only twisting thing here is the wire that Katniss shoots into the dome with arrows that fly higher than the sky.
2013-12-04
This iteration of BATTLE ROYALE is an OK film in it's own right, but will fall short if you expect it to compete with the original.
n case you want to compare the original to this version than you'll surely be disappointed. Now that we got that out of the way let's dive into the review.

This version of BATTLE ROYALE can best be described as a 1.5x fast forward version of the original film. The film hits most of the major plot points from the original with some changes here and there, and at about 90 mins the film runs quickly through the narrative, and it feels rushed and disjointed. While watching this film it almost felt as if the filmmakers assumed you watched the original, which is nice since the film hits it's high notes splendidly. The torture and death scenes are tastefully swept under the rug to allow in the PG-13 ticket-buyers, at least within the film's realm of 'reality'.

Jennifer Collins, who plays Katnis Everdean, is perfectly casted as a troubled male, Japanese youth who takes almost everything in his life for granted. The other cast members do a fairly good job acting as their Asian counterparts, while at the same time not giving them any nods (or actual credit)...

Without divulging too much of the plot, those who are afraid that this version is in anyways tamed will be pleasantly surprised by how intensely PG-13ish things get, and like the original film, you'll be disturbed yet fascinated to find out what happens next. Although I'm not a fan of the ending of the film it doesn't ruin the film at all. It more or less gives audiences, who have watched the original film, a fresh interesting take from the original.

Overall this iteration of BATTLE ROYALE is a solid interesting dstopian saga that will entertain anyone under the age of 16. But again, if you try comparing this film to the original than you'll obviously be disappointed.
2014-10-17
They fell short, way short. I was very bored, laughed a bit, that was it.
Let me say before I review this movie, that I did not read the books. I went into this movie as a moviegoer hoping that I would be pleased by the films adaptation onto the big screen. I loved the first movie, it was great and well done, but I am highly disappointed by this sequel. Of course, the acting was great, but the movie itself, was very boring and stretched out. I could care less if it is like the book or not, since I did not read. It had some funny parts in this movie but that was the only thing that caught my eye. There is pretty much 40-50 useless minutes at the beginning of the film before they even start the games. They use cheesiness throughout the film which makes it laughable and unbearable. Don't get me wrong, I went into this film expecting very highly of the film and was very disappointed. I went in believe what the "fan girls" of the movie said. They said it was "the best movie ever!!" or "very awesome!". Overall, don't waste your money seeing it in theaters. Wait until you can rent it at home or even watch it on television. It is not a must see movie as people suggest. Also, I only paid 3 dollars for my movie ticket to see this, so that is saying something. I probably won't even buy this on Blu-Ray even though I have the first one on a three disc special edition Blu-Ray.
2013-12-06
BATTLE ROYALE 2 wanna-be
This is not the worst remake in film history. I have never understood the idea of a remake at all. If a film, like "Battle Royale", is so good to start with why on earth do you want to try and improve on it? If you insist on tampering with perfection, why then do you have to try to recreate it in it's whole? There is nothing original here. Francis Lawrence put nothing of himself into this film.

They say imitation is the highest form of flattery, but this is ridiculous. There are a lot of sides to a parable as complex as Battle Royale II, and I suspect that Francis Lawrence may have wanted to explore them. Instead the studio forced him into sticking to a cheap imitation of the popular Japanese classic. Tatsuya Fujiwara turned in a performance that lead to one of the most memorable characters in film history and it would have been impossible for any actor, no matter how good to recreate that. The rest of the characters are stuck just as tight to similarly wooden imitations of the originals. It is almost painful to watch very talented actors (namely Donald Sutherland) have that talent stifled.

In the end, Francis Lawrence set out to pay homage to a great film. Instead he cheapened it, and created a movie that is not worthy of late night cable.
2015-03-11
Big disappointment (may contain spoilers)
I am so disappointed in this movie. I loved the first movie. This movie has maybe 5 minutes of plot spread out over 2+ hours. This movie should really have been a 5 minute epilogue on the first movie or, better yet, a 5 minute intro sequence on the next one - the impact would have been much greater.

The direction and production were flat and uninspired, the story non- existent (and if this matches the book as described in another review then I have no interest in the book either.) At the closing logo my first reaction was "Are you s****ing me, that's it?"

I am sad to see such a failure to reach potential, especially with an overall story line I find meaningful and important.
2014-06-03
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.
2013-11-25
Just (Awfully) Plain Surprised !!!.....
the tile of the movie should be "re-run of lost" but with different characters.

forget about getting a climax in any part of the movie, it took the movie most of the pre interval to relieve itself from the past (so that it can be in continuation with it first movie) and then it started to create the plot for the movie which took some time of the post interval as well.

all of the scenarios presented in the games (which finally began when the people were about to leave) were just modified form of big boss.

the action scenes were cut paste from movies like the planet of apes, the jungle, the rundown, lost (as mentioned) etc.

just when the plot of the movie was getting thicker, it ended !!!

to put it in a nutshell, life is short, so wait for other movies to get released and don't go by the fact that this movie made big bucks, twilight had a similar run (which is still an unsolved mystery *$&!!!).
2013-12-07
Worst than the first
First of all I have to start by saying I thought the first movie was a total rip off from a Japanese movie called Battle Royale. Same plot about some kids who are chosen to kill each other. The only difference between the two is that Hunger Games is a total Hollywood funded movie and Battle Royale is not. I didn't see ANYTHING different in the 2nd film than the first. I feel bad because my wife had paid for our movie tickets and I did not enjoy the movie at all. I don't see what the big hype and excitement is over these films. I also only read books about actual facts instead of fantasy so reading the books would serve no purpose. If you thought the first movie was mediocre then don't waste your money seeing the 2nd. With the cost of going to the movie theater your better off staying at home and maybe renting or downloading this when it comes out. I'm giving it a 1/10 and would give it a zero but the bar won't go that low.
2013-11-23
I actually liked it better than the original
I loved the movie, but what I don't like is that people think it's a ripoff of Battle Royale (which I guess is true, but not completely and exactly the same) Catching Fire is awesome, I loved the cast (especially the new ones) and the action is pretty amazing. But why do people think it's a ripoff of Battle Royale?!! It's not the same, sure it shares similar traits, but that doesn't make it a ripoff. But it's awesome, and sorry, but it seems better than Twilight (not completely sure, never saw Twilight, so I can't guarantee that.)

Anyway, the characters are awesome, the Quarter Quell is a twist that was awesome. And, no more shaky cameras (even though I didn't notice that very well.) This film is by far the best of the franchise. Even better than The Fault in Our Stars, though it didn't seem like it.
2016-06-01
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 .
2014-04-15
Roland J. Tran (Saint Paul) i was looking for a movie free The Hunger Games: Catching Fire download, as 720p to download it in 2013, one of the first Francis Lawrence Tallahassee. Clara J. Lovett (Buffalo) i love how they play Amanda Plummer, Alan Ritchson, Paula Malcomson, Sandra Ellis Lafferty, Liam Hemsworth , Sam Claflin, Nelson Ascencio, Lenny Kravitz, Willow Shields, Stephanie Leigh Schlund, Taylor St. Clair, Bruce Bundy, Jennifer Lawrence, Woody Harrelson, Jena Malone, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Jeffrey Wright, Donald Sutherland, Elizabeth Banks, Toby Jones, Josh Hutcherson, Stanley Tucci, Jack Quaid from the movie director Francis Lawrence 2013 Miami.
×