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)

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)

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)

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)

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)