As bad as the first one, if not worse

Rating: 3/10 (30 September 2014)

As bad as the first Hunger Games movie, if not worse.
The first one was also a vastly over-rated movie. Clearly meant for teenagers: trite romance; contrived, hole-filled plot; Disney-style happy ending. (Though at 2 1/2 hours it is way too long for teenagers' concentration spans).
Take out most of the first hour or so, as this was all just padding and didn't develop the characters or plot much; give it a more realistic, gritty feel and take out the Disney romance, sentimentality and ending and this could have been a decent movie. In its current form it is boring and crap.
This one has less syrupy, Disney romance, thankfully, but doesn't really replace it with anything substantial. There are stabs at intrigue and the idea of an anti-government revolution, but none of these really go anywhere. Everything is just padding before, and a set up to, the survival fight. So, it is just the same as the first one, really.
If they had worked more on the anti-government stuff and not just made it all about some pointless action scenes at the end, it could have been an interesting movie.
As I pointed out with the first movie, if you want a good, gritty, Last Person Standing / Survival of the Fittest-type movie, watch Battle Royale instead. The Hunger Games movies are neither good nor gritty.