The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

[WickedNik]

The first one

[BooBerry]

DM getting a little sassy I think... :shedance:.

[DMHead777]

[IrishG3nt]

Don't need it. Everyone has different tastes, different moods for different films and different motivation for watching certain movies. As a fellow movie lover, I thought you'd understand that. Not something I "should enjoy".

DM i think you "should" watch



I think we have the same taste in flicks





**sorry man that is me being an early morning dick!

[FrighT MasteR]

[SneakNi]

I liked the first one

[choptop2]

I read the first novel and saw the first movie both are just okay. Movie is probably better than the book. The books are terribly written. I gave up on the 2nd book 100 pages deep. It was so padded out because the author knew she had to stretch this shit into a trilogy. Of course hollywood want to stretch it even thinner to a tetralogy.

[tacticalbacon]

I thought so too, but it's actually quite different. BR was more focused on the violence and blood, where Hunger Games was more character/story driven. BR is still a far superior film, but Hunger Games was still entertaining. I think the fact that I went in with low-expectations really helped.

I think this was my problem the first time I watched Hunger Games too. I didn't know quite what to expect so ended up being disappointed when it wasn't what I thought it would be. Just re-watched it last night and I actually enjoyed it a lot more the second time around. I'm down for the sequel now.

[Frey]

I watched Hunger Games for extra credit in College Composition II. It was just ok at best. I know there was a totally different setup than others like it but for me after seeing Battle Royale (first nonetheless) it made Hunger Games look incredibly weak and unoriginal.

[FrighT MasteR]

Not a bad flick. Liked the first better, but this was entertaining.

[IrishG3nt]

I just like me some:

[FrighT MasteR]