The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Greater emotional richness, surprising creative courage, and a healthy self-confidence behind and in front of the camera. In most aspects, it's just as complete an explosion as the original (and even my favorite installment). In the wrong hands, it could easily have become a tearful prologue from the first half on, but fortunately, that did not happen. The spark slowly turns into a flame, and when Peeta becomes a clear leader and Johanna steals all the scenes in such limited space, Catching Fire is a winner. Although there isn't too much space devoted to the history of the Quarter Quell or the individual veterans over the extra fast-paced half-hour, thanks to a more coherent picture, it is almost the best film installment. But there would still be more to come. (12/15/2013)

Unarguably better, but still not good (enough). Lawrence realizes that stiff, paper-rustling dialogs full of life wisdom and great truths can only be saved from ridicule by actors with a big A and so tries to sideline non-actor “J-14"-type heartthrobs like Hemsworth and Hutcherson as much as possible. And he manages to do this in the first half. However as soon as (upon entering the arena) he loses the chance to rely on Harrelson/Hoffman/Tucci//Banks and mainly Sutherland (earning great respect for giving such a fine performance one of the dumbest villains), he is lost and the entire movie with him. Suddenly he is left only with beauties with no talent and he is unable to hide their lack of talent even with emphasis on the solid action ingredient which fails because everything important (and interesting) happens off screen. (01/26/2014)

Catching Fire is more mature and bearable than the first installment, which I had to suffer through. It’s too long and brings no satisfying conclusion (it only compels you to watch the next part), but it’s entertaining enough. It’s not a bad adventure fun for young audiences, and Francis Lawrence’s directorial craftsmanship shows no flaws. The best part of the movie is the epic scenes à la Cleopatra on the Capitol square. (11/22/2013)

Better than its predecessor in every way. Instead of a positive shock from something unprecedented and new, there is only pure quality, supported by a juicy budget that brings excellent visual effects, a good dramatic storyline, and fantastic performances, especially from Jennifer Lawrence. It may only serve as a connecting bridge to the next installment, but if the quality continues to rise at this pace, there is nothing to be afraid of. An exceptionally dense and original experience. (11/23/2013)

It’s quite a paradox that the second Hunger Games was accused a priori by critics of being a teenage romance like Twilight, and yet, there’s hardly any romance in it, or rather, there is no more than in any other Hollywood blockbuster. In short, the romantic line between Katniss, Peeta and Hurricane has now been put in the background and serves only for a deeper portray of the characters and the emotional state of the heroes within the reality of a totalitarian system, instead of being the centre of it all. Other than that, it’s pretty brutal dystopian sci-fi. The leaders of the Capitol have turned from funny colourful clowns into unscrupulous totalitarian douchebags worthy of respect. The first half has excellent pace and tells us more about how that world works, while the socio-medio-political line doesn’t feel stupid. The weakest part is the one in the Arena, which needs to have several scenes with more action (up until then it’s mostly a conversational film) and it’s only a slight variation of the events of the first part. I understand why it had to be there, but it was more fun when the heroes were on the victory tour as mediators in the relationship between the oppressed public and the governing class. The ending, on the other hand, comes too suddenly; that which was only said would have probably been better shown in a couple scenes more. In any case, I’m looking forward to the next sequel. (11/21/2013)