"The Hunger Games 1" vs. "The Hunger Games 2": Is the original better? Or, did the sequel prove to be superior?

With the "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1" release date approaching (November 21), fans can't help but look back from the first two "The Hunger Games" installments. First, to refresh their memory from where the stories have left off so they can follow the tale of the third movie. And second, to make comparison. Let's check what others have to say.

According to E! Online, "Catching Fire" is better because of its costumes as these look "as fierce as the fights". Hero Complex wrote that Director Francis Lawrence said costume designer Trish Summerville "pulled it off in such a great way."

In the second movie, "The Hunger Games" supporters feel more emotions from Katniss Everdeen. She's no longer the unwilling tribute and the unenthusiastic victor that they see from the first installment. As Palo Alto Online says, "It brings to the fore how a reluctant heroine starts to change how she sees herself and the choices she makes."

"The Hunger Games 1" vs. "The Hunger Games 2": With all the past victors back in the Games, the (Quarter Quell) competition becomes tougher. According to Today, "'Catching Fire' catches fire more quickly than the original. Woody Harrelson's wonderful, quippy Haymitch Abernathy doesn't need to be reintroduced. It's never restated that he was a past 'Hunger Games' victor, and not having to rehash those kind of facts helps the plot flow."

People always think that the original is always the best (or the better, in this case). But if they are to compare the previous movies - "The Hunger Games 1" vs. "The Hunger Games 2" - it seems that fans, moviegoers, and experts alike appreciate the sequel more.

Watch "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1" on its release date (November 21) and begin to make another comparison. Can the third installment beat the first two?