The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

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% (10/12/2013)

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. (23/11/2013)

The continuation of Hunger Games has enjoyed much greater viewer favor, but my impression is exactly the opposite. Among the positives, I can include more reasonable editing and a larger budget, which was not just consumed by Jennifer Lawrence's and other participants' higher fees, but also contributed to better (more bombastic) effects. However, that is where the list of positives ends. The second installment needed to further explore the world of Panem and honestly, it only revealed greater shallowness and, I dare to say, stupidity. Creating dystopias that could be taken seriously was never Hollywood's strong suit, and here, given the target audience, the effort was not significant. The story does not bother with logic, and the dialogue seems even dumber than in the first film. President Snow, who was supposed to embody sophisticated all-powerful evil, instead appears as a stubborn old man in the early stages of senility, who adds fuel to the fire with primitive violence and demonstrations of tyranny, where he should manipulate and corrupt through intrigues, cooling down passions. Apart from Philip Seymour Hoffman, nothing really interested me about the second installment. Overall impression: 35%. (31/01/2022)

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. (15/12/2013)

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)