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. (16/12/2013)

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. (22/11/2013)

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. (26/01/2014)

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)

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)