Review: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part I

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.

So we have a series of books: The Hunger Games Trilogy. The trilogy has two great novels, and one crappy novel. “Mockingjay” is the crappy one. I’m sorry if you liked it, but I had to force myself to finish it. We’ve already seen the first two films made from the first two books, which were both pretty good movies. But now we get two movies out of this one crappy book. And for what reason? Because they know you’re going to pay double to see it.

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.

The story this time around focuses more on her struggles of leading an entire nation in revolution rather than just hanging out in the forest or on a beach trying to avoid death. Here, we finally get to see a little bit more about what kind of a person Katniss Everdeen really is. I always felt that the love triangle between her, Peeta and Gale was a bit ridiculous and was designed to be overly complex just for complexity’s sake. But a lot more goes into her and her feelings toward her two suitors this time around. And Lawrence absolutely nails it.

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.

Review: Rush

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★½

Ron Howard returns to the biopic genre that’s helped him win awards. Surely “Rush” will be another knockout film that will add many more statuettes to his trophy case, right? A 1970s set drama about Formula One racing drivers has to be exceptional. While “Rush” is an entertaining two hours, it does not live up to expectation.

“Rush” chronicles the rivalry between Formula One drivers James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Niki Lauda (Daniel Brühl) during the early-to-mid 1970s. Specifically, the movie focuses on the 1976 season, but not before giving us a little bit of back story on the two drivers. Hunt is a party animal and a womanizer. Early on, we see him putting his moves on an emergency room nurse (Natalie Dormer). He does settle down, at least for a short time, when he meets and marries British model Suzy Miller (Olivia Wilde).

Lauda, on the other hand, is a very focused and determined racecar driver. He’s here despite his family’s disapproval of his career choice. Since he comes from money, he’s able to buy his way into the lower tier Formula Three and eventually into Formula One. It doesn’t take long for teams to recognize his talent and he’s eventually signed by Ferrari. Eventually even Lauda finds love, with Marlene (Alexandra Maria Lara).

On the race track, both Hunt and Lauda are bitter rivals. Hunt thinks Lauda is too uptight at times. Lauda thinks Hunt needs to concentrate more on his driving rather than his image. Throughout the 1976 season, Hunt and Lauda are the two best drivers with Lauda taking a large lead in the points. That is until catastrophic disaster strikes during the German Grand Prix. Lauda wrecks his car on a rain soaked track causing him to miss most of the remainder of the season.

“Rush” does not follow the typical three-act story structure model most Hollywood studio pictures utilize. Screenwriter Peter Morgan, who has scripted other biopics such as “The Last King of Scotland”, “The Queen” and another Howard film “Frost/Nixon”, abandons this method that he’s used before in his screenplays in favor of a more free flowing narrative. The film doesn’t really suffer because of this. There are a few moments where the film feels like it’s taking its time trying to get through certain episodes of history. Overall, the lack of structure doesn’t really do much too negatively affect the film.

Director Howard has never stuck to one genre in particular during his wildly successful directing career. He’s done his share of biopics, including “Apollo 13”, “A Beautiful Mind” and “Frost/Nixon”. He usually has a fair grasp on his subject when it involves real life people. But with “Rush”, it feels that he never fully grasps the characters. There’s not much in these characters for you to become emotionally attached. The moments of empathy are evident but limited. The film only shines during the racing sequences. There might be a little too much CGI for my taste, but it’s all very well choreographed and seamlessly integrated, thanks in part to the talents of Oscar winning cinematographer Antony Dod Mantle. Credit is also due to Howard for being able to realize this vision, and to his longtime film editors Daniel P. Haley and Mike Hill. It leads to many exciting moments. “Rush” works the best when it’s on the racetrack rather than in someone’s house.

The performances from the two leads also help carry the film. Hemsworth proves he’s more than just an over muscled Marvel action hero. He does possess some real acting ability. He’s never really worked off of a great screenplay though. I’d like to see him do a film one day with a great script and see what he can do. He’s worked with many talented filmmakers; now he needs a screenplay. Even with the lack of depth written for him here, he still able to portray to character well enough that we do end up rooting for him at times.

The star of this film is German actor Brühl. He’s an actor I first saw in a small German film about ten years ago called “Good Bye Lenin!” where he turned in an amazing and emotionally charged performance. American audiences were first introduced to him as the war-hero-turned-actor in Quentin Tarantino’s “Inglourious Basterds”. His performance here is, not surprisingly, sensational. The film is being advertised on television and in trailers as being about Hemsworth’s James Hunt character, but this isn’t accurate. Brühl’s Niki Lauda is the star of the film. He’s magnificent in this film, and the only true bright spot in an otherwise average film. Now that Brühl is a recognizable face in American cinema, his career should really take off.

There’s nothing wrong with “Rush”; it’s an enjoyable film. Some parts might be a little drawn out, but they are few and far between. Otherwise, it has pretty quick pace. It’s a lot of fun during the racing scenes, but there aren’t too many to speak about. Most of the racing season is glossed over with montages to make room for more scenes of people sitting and talking. The advertisements show you exactly what this movie is all about. You won’t get anything more that what you’re expecting. That doesn’t mean it’s bad – because it’s not – but it’s far from the exceptional work we’ve come to expect from a film with Ron Howard’s name on the poster.