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)

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)

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. (24/11/2013)

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)

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)