The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2, mini movie review

Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

All good things must come to an end, right? And after a year we finally have The Hunger Game: Mockingjay Part 2.  This movie acts as a second part.  There's no set up.  No review.  Part 1 ended with Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) choking Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) after he was rescued from the Capital.  Part 2 starts with her getting her neck brace off to check for bruising and vocal damage.  That's all the lead up you get.  Rebellion is building throughout the districts, district 2, the soldiers of Panem, has yet to join the districts in support, and war is about to overtake the Capitol.  The center of Panem is about to become the new Hunger Games.

Mockingjay is based on the controversial book by Suzanne Collins.   Controversial because many fans didn't like it.  I almost didn't read Hunger Games at all because a friend told me not to bother with the series, as she didn't like the last book.  After several months of pondering I finally downloaded Hunger Games to my Kindle, and ironically Mockingjay turned out to be my favorite book.  It breaks from the formulaic structure of the first two novels, where the three act structure was 1. Deal with emotions in District 12, 2. venture to the Capitol for training, and 3. Survive the Hunger Games.

In Mockingjay Katniss finds herself in the secret, recently unknown District 13, and for a book that's actually slow in pace, this single book was split into 2 movies.  Honestly, there could have been one movie with a tighter plot.  Here we get a movie that's somewhat lackluster in parts.  The reasons why I love the book got lost in the movie's narrative and year long intermission.

Where in the first movie (stupid handheld jiggles aside, rendering Hunger Games unwatchable), it was nice seeing the story without hearing Katniss's thoughts and ponders.  In this new movie I started to miss her analysis and inner snark.  The final scene between Katniss and Gale (Liam Hemsworth), doesn't have the same "oomph" as the book.  The fact that I had to explain final points and character motivations to my Dad, who hasn't read the book, is proof story material got lost in translation.  The fact that this single book had to parts, and didn't fully explain or mention a couple points isn't good.  And also, some favorite moments from the book didn't even make the movie!!  Peeta's wedding cake for Finnick's wedding didn't make it!  All of Peeta's character development during his time in 13 didn't make the movie.  There's a few scenes, but it's not the same.

This movie is not a standalone.  And in all honesty, if you haven't watched any of the previous movies this movie would be a waste of time, it's that dependent on Part 1.  As a conclusion it works.  Is it a great sendoff to such a popular series?  I'm not sure. The final narrative in the book's epilogue was more impactful then the film.

I'm glad it's over.

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and for some thematic material.

Catching Fire: Movie Review

Rating: 5 out of 5 stars.

It's not often when a movie, in many ways, is actually better then the book.  The movie is Catching Fire, the followup to the wildly successful Hunger Games, based on the books by Suzanne Collins.

This movie starts off soon after the end of The Hunger Games, with Katniss Everdeen, played by Jennifer Lawrence, dealing with the emotional trauma of The Truman like death Show, where she was pitted against 23 other teenagers in a fight to stay alive, trying to become the lone victor.  Due to her cunning wits she manages to not only survive but save fellow competitor Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) in the process.  This act, threatening to eat poisoned barriers, was not seen so much as an act of love, but as an act of rebellion, and this rebellion is spreading like wild fire through the 12 districts.  A fire sparked by the girl known as the Girl on Fire.  She is, without wanting, the rebellions leader.  Her life is once again in danger as President Snow (Donald Sutherland) keeps a manipulative, controlling eye on her.

We see the districts, the struggle, the lavish Capitol, a more challenging Hunger Games.

Everything in the first movie is improved upon in the second.  What was wrong in the first has been righted, and director Francis Lawrence is to thank for that.

The annoying, shaky hand held camera used in the first movie has been replaced.  That was my biggest complaint in Hunger Games.  The shakiness, though I understand the symbolism Gary Ross was going for, had so much movement the movie became unwatchable.

Thanks to a smoother camera I was able to enjoy the performance of the actors.  Jennifer Lawrence is absolutely breathtaking and gripping as Katniss, completely in tune with her character.  You feel the horror right along with her as she opens the door and lets you in.  She shines.

Another fault I had with the first movie that was repaired in the second was the portrayal of the Capitol.  In the books the Capitol is over-the-top crazy, died skin and wigs, fashion and indulgence all the rage.  They tried to pull that off in The Hunger Games, mainly reflecting that through the character Effie (Elizabeth Banks), but in Catching Fire we see it with the extras as well, though Effie Trinket is still the Queen.

Catching Fire is smart and sophisticated.  Comparing the movies to Twilight is an insult.  The love triangles are not about a listless girl with her vampire and werewolf.  Katniss has substance.  She stands for and is something.  And the love triangle she finds herself in is intelligent and interesting, not selfesh.  She's a girl on the verge of changing the world, and love was never meant to be easy or simplistic.

I've seen this movie twice now, each time I was enthralled through the whole 146 minutes.  You don't feel the time pass.  No scene fills like an add in or throw away.  Everything is calculated and perfectly timed.  What's changed from the book adds to the story instead of takes away.  And the added scenes between Snow and the new game maker Plutarch (Philip Seymour Hoffman) are fascinating, adding even more tension to the film.

And there's a lot of tension in this movie.  I cried both times.   

MPAA: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some frightening images, thematic elements, a suggestive situation and language.

My Review of The Hunger Games

(Day 19 of the 365 day photo challenge) 

A little over a week ago I finished the Hunger Games Trilogy.  It took me 9 days to do it, and was fully consumed the whole time.  I've known about the book series for a couple years, and was about to purchase it when a friend said she didn't like the last book, and that the series would have been better without it.  This discouraged me.  Who wants to read a book and feel at the end that it was a waste of time?  Books are a bigger commitment then a movie.

So the final verdit?  I loved it.  Of course I had to get past the theme of the book, kids killing other kids, and the Mutts, I hate the Mutts, but it was interesting.  And even now I can't get the characters out of my head.  Reading the last book I can see why so many people didn't like it.  The ending isn't a fantasy ending, it's a realistic ending, and I appreciate it.    

Through the process of reading these books two things came to mind:  The Uglies book series by Scott Westerfeld and the Romans.  The first is a series of four books, another look at a post apocalyptic America, only a completely different take.  Think of the Capital in The Hunger Games on steroids.  These books are quite exciting; another page turner.  I don't want to give anything away. 

And the Romans.  Roman history is both interesting and depressing at the same time.  Suzanne Collins, who wrote the Hunger Games, has mentioned the Gladiators, which wasn't the first thing that came to my mind, but I can see it.  Men sent to their deaths as a form of entertainment.  What did come to mind was something I learned about in a college theater civilization class.  There was another form of entertainment Romans used slaves for. Slaves were used as actors in stage shows, and if there was a death scene, there was a literal death scene where one slave was expected to kill the other on stage.  And I learned that off the coast the Romans would fill two battle ship with slaves, and watch them battle each other, once again, to the death.  It's been many years since I've taken this class, and I would love to find my course book, but these two facts have stayed with me.

Would I recommend the Hunger Games?  I don't know, because there is such mixed reaction to what happened to some of the characters in the end.  Personally I'm glad I took the plunge and gave the books a chance, and they will go down as one of my favorite series of all time.

Happy Reading!

Sarah