The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

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. (26/01/2014)

I was really terrified of the two hours and a half of runtime, as I should’ve been. The first 30 minutes passed awfully slowly, I almost thought that I wouldn’t make it through and just give up on the movie. But I still thought that it would somehow get better and I’d start liking it, which happened in the end. Since Katniss made it into another arena, things started to get really fun. Maybe even more fun that in the first movie. From that point on, the remaining two hours flew by like a breeze and the movie suddenly became a successful blockbuster. That’s what made me so skeptical of the final two-piece movie. Because so far, the only thing I found fun about Hunger Games were the arena fights. Everything else from the politics to the war went completely over my head. (23/06/2015)

A pleasant surprise. With the arrival of Francis Lawrence and the new screenwriters, the quality of Hunger Games has gone up a step, and suddenly it's an impressive and thrilling spectacle with pretty interesting characters and an ending that will simply make you want to watch the next films. Almost everything I complained about in the first film is better here. Although the plot heavily relies on reliable acting aces (I found the biggest joy from all the space Donald Sutherland got), and even Jennifer Lawrence and her group in the arena aren't bad at all. (02/01/2021)

Unfortunately, the bar set by the first part also characterizes the second part, although the story could and should have been more interesting, and the names of all the actors are still more than pleasing to hear. Formally almost at the level of the first film, still without much emotion and credibility of the sketched society – everything sounds cold and mechanical, in some passages too spectacular and, in particular, unnecessarily long. The scenes from the arena, which should have been the highlight of the film, act more as a necessary element to fulfil expectations and to create a strong enough stepping stone towards further sequels. And whereas in the first film the romantic chemistry between the central couple worked very well, here their relationship is hindered both by the constant presence of a third party and by overused phrases like "threat to the state" and "embodiment of independence". Fortunately, the visuals and sound design are almost flawless and the final twist is satisfying and hopeful enough to make me respect Catching Fire as a mere prelude and look forward to the coming of the great revolution. But they will need to work a bit harder :) 60% (11/12/2013)

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. (21/11/2013)