by Trevor Kirkendall
For a big budget and over-produced film with “Hollywood”
written all over it, “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part I” is a well put
together film, rarely lacking in dull moments. I say “rarely” because there are
a few yawn-inducing moments here or there that probably could have been easily
left out. But overall, there’s a bit more genuine emotion coming through here
than you normally would see from they typical crap the studios have been
producing lately, which is nice.
★★★

“Mockingjay – Part I” picks up almost immediately where
“Catching Fire” left off. District 12 is gone. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer
Lawrence) is now hiding out in District 13 with former game designer Plutarch
Heavesbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), former Hunger Games victor Finnick Odair
(Sam Claflin), romantic interest Gale (Liam Hemsworth) and her former sponsor
Haymitch (Woody Harrelson). Her mom and sister are also there. But not Peeta
(Josh Hutcherson). He’s being held captive in the Capitol.
The story revolves around Katniss becoming the Mockingjay, a
poster child for the uprising among the various districts. The plan is put in
motion by District 13 President Alma Coin (Julianne Moore). She sends Katniss
out into the bombed out Districts with a propaganda filmmaker from the Capitol,
Cressida (Natalie Dormer) to get some footage of her that can be used to rally
the other Districts into fighting for the rebellion. But Katniss is cautious of
her actions because she knows the evil President Snow (Donald Sutherland) has
Peeta in a jail cell somewhere and torturing him. She doesn’t want him to die.
The biggest problem I have with this movie can be summed up
with the title: “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part I.” We can’t just get an
adaption from a book anymore; it has to be a series, or at the very least, it
needs to have “series potential.” So all those good books you read that begin
and end between the hardcover, forget ever seeing those on film. Unless some
poor screenwriter can somehow concoct a sequel. That’s really the only reason
Hollywood screenwriters exist anymore. What a pity.

After watching this film and investing two hours into the
story, we will now have to wait another 12 months before we get to see the
cinematic version of the second half of the series’ worst installment. I mean,
if they really wanted to split a book into two parts and make four movies,
“Catching Fire” would have been the appropriate candidate. But instead, we get
this one, the book with one of the most wretched conclusions of any book I’ve
ever read.
But it’s unfair of me to judge the film itself on the greedy
aspirations of the executives at Lionsgate. Despite having three separate
writers credited here (Peter Craig and Danny Strong on the screenplay and
author Suzanne Collins credited with “adaptation” whatever that means – I’ve
never seen anyone credited like that), the story is balanced out pretty well.
Aside from the aforementioned yawn-inducing moments, the script never feels
overinflated. It never feels like filler was jammed in just so that the story
could be stretched out into two full-length movies. It actually works well, and
yes, I am quite surprised by that, given the source material.
Julianne Moore is a nice addition to the cast this time
around, even though her role is reduced to just a woman sitting there during
some scenes and delivering morale-boosting speeches to her followers in others.
I pictured President Coin with a little more drive behind her. Apparently
that’s now how director Francis Lawrence saw the character. Oh well. Moore is
always so solid and it’s nice to see her getting a chance to showcase her
talents for what will no doubt be a large audience. But of course, the star of
the film is none other than Jennifer Lawrence. This is the role that made her a
mega-Hollywood superstar, after all.

She runs through the emotional gauntlet as well as she’s
ever done. For my money, she’s never been better than her breakout role in 2010’s
“Winter’s Bone.” Even her Oscar winning performance can’t touch that one. After
watching “Mockingjay – Part I,” I still think my assessment is true, but who
could have predicted a performance this good from a movie like such as this?
Not me.
I had already written this film off when I went into it, but
I must admit to being impressed. But the unfortunate thing is, I don’t feel
like I watched a whole movie. A story is a beginning, middle and end. This is
just a middle – a two hour second act. The third act is still a year away. I
can’t support the studio executives in their blatant cash grab attempts but
putting unnecessary yearlong breaks between movies like this. And it’s not
going to stop anytime soon either. But, I guess I can’t really complain too much
if the movies are good, especially from the studios. “Mockingjay – Part I”
isn’t bad. It just shouldn’t be two parts. And while there might be a little bit
more action in “Part II,” I just can’t get psyched up for it. At least not
right now. I guess I’ll conclude my “Mockingjay” review next November. Tune in
then.
No comments:
Post a Comment