Okay, the problem (my problem, not this film's) is that the events in and between the Hunger Games movies happen in relatively rapid succession from each other (moreso in this Part II), and tell a solid, continuous story. Even though the films have been released one a year, I watch a lot of movies between each screening. I don't generally play catch-up before sequels, and was unable to make last week's double-bill of Mockingjay Part 2 and its predecessor. And the part of my brain that I use for storing cumulative back-references etc is already pretty much full of the Galaxy Far, Far Away's events.
What this meant is that other than the "Here's the map, we're going there to kill him" segments, the moment the characters started referring to the minutiae of the ongoing plot, I sat there thinking 'Right, what the hell are they talking about again?'. I know the general gist, but my brain could barely remember the names of the characters I was watching, never mind ones they were alluding to off-screen. I guess this is what civilian audiences feel like watching Star Wars.
And as much as this fourth installment of The Hunger Games has a lot of plot-wrapping to do, the film takes its own sweet time getting there. There are some great action sequences on display*1, but far too much downtime in between them, as if the screnplay is frightened to build up too much momentum and peak too early. This pacing is fine for the actual story being told, but not so much for the film.
As with Hunger Games series in general, there are many aspects I enjoyed and more than a few I had problems with. Although my overriding feeling was 'wow, this really wasn't made for me…'
[ …and for all that fannying about getting across town in secret for half the film; couldn't they have just stolen some of those Stormtrooper-lite outfits?
Oh, and when they come back out of that building once the oil-lake's drained away, how come they're not slipping all over the place? ]
Oh, probably. As a Maze Runner kid, I'm probably the wrong person to ask…
It looks great on a big screen, and you'll already know if you want to make the cinematic committment.
I don't even think it's the best one of the series, in all fairness.
Why, this movie stars Captain Phasma herself, Gwendoline Christie.
*1 Oh, and as much fun as the sewer-battle is, it feels woefully out of place in a dystopian socio-political adventure movie. It also reminded me that I really must watch Aliens again…
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
It gives me no great pleasure to tell you how dispassionate I feel about Mockingjay Pt 1. In fact, I felt a lot worse about my state of mind until I re-read my reviews of the previous two installments and remembered how little enthusiasm I was able to raise for those, too. It's not that I actively dislike The Hunger Games, far from it in fact, but I just can't seem to connect with what it's got to offer. I don't want to fall back on blaming demographic differentials (ie, me not being a teenage girl), because I honestly don't think that's the case; I'm just not sold on this universe.
The first two Hunger Games films wielded a heavy-handed pastiche of reality television and consumer culture. That's all but disappeared in the first Mockingjay film, but if feels at times like there isn't enough to rush in and fill the resulting vacuum. This is structurally a very different movie and carries the general tone forward well, but it feels slightly too detached for me. Almost, dare I say, like a general rant against a political situation by someone who hasn't spent enough time working out what they specifically dislike. Too broad to make any succinct points, really.
On a more cinematic front (because that's what I'm here for iirc), I spent too much time thinking 'what, like in the Star Wars?' or 'what, like in The Matrix?' to get into the movie properly. Even I would expect me to draw these comparisons of course, but when the story centres around a charming, charismatic white-haired dictator ordering his white-armoured troops to quell a rebellion (like in the Star Wars*1), and that ragtag uprising evading detection of the state by living in an underground bunker, led by an equally charismatic leader who gives rousing speeches on a first floor balcony in a dirty looking basement to a bedraggled audience (like in the Matrix)… well sorry, I've already got those scenes allotted elsewhere. To be clear, I'm not shouting 'rip-off'; they're not concepts original to those other films by any means. I just think they could have been handled more… uniquely, that's all.
Jennifer Lawrence proves her acting credentials once again, as do pretty much all of the cast (Sutherland's a but moustache-twirly, but that's the role), and the production values are nothing short of mightily impressive. The score, the visual effects, the dialogue, all robust in a way which many A-list movies can only aspire to. I should also point out that Katniss's visit to the refugee hospital was an outstanding scene, as were the film's last two appearances from Peeta. If the film had maintained that level of heart and adrenaline throughout I'd have had more to latch onto. But ultimately, I just don't care enough about the characters for some reason. The feeling of Dystopia-Lite™ hasn't disappeared for me. *shrugs*
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 is well directed, well produced and well acted, and I'm genuinely interested to see the final film in the series; I just wish I could like it more.
Pulls all the faces, sells none of the feelings. So like the film, yes.
Most of the time, I'm afraid not. Although there are a couple of fantastic moments in there…
I imagine it probably does.
It looks great on a big screen, so cinema if you're going to see it.
Nope.
Hmm…
There isn't. Outrageous.
Is it just me who was disappointed that President Snow doesn't use the word 'ergo' more? Or 'concurrently'?
*1 And while I'm on the subject, it's just a shame that that particular era of the Star Wars Expanded Universe has recently undergone a soft reboot, as Julianne Moore would make a fantastic Ysanne Isard.
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
I must confess, I forewent the midnight-showing of this; there are only so many days I can do at work on three hours sleep, and the last one didn't exactly fill me with joy. So with plenty of screenings to choose from, I opted for a quiet afternoon slot, in which to enjoy the hormonal carnage of teenagers trying to stop sulking long enough to kill each other...
Except many/most of the things in the first installment which irked me seem to have been ironed out now. Oh, the dystopian future tropes are still layered on a little too thickly, with pseudo-Stormtroopers enacting the instructions of a moustache-twirling Donald Sutherland and beating the beleaguered population into submission (with some blistering over-acting from Patrick St. Esprit as 'The Commander Who's Allowed To Not Wear A Mask'). The good news is that the love story aspect seems more dialled down this time around, to the point where it's almost half-arsed when it does rear its head. It's to everyone's credit that it doesn't happen too often.
I can honestly say I enjoyed it more than The Hunger Games. With the set-up all taken care of in the first movie, it's a lot more coherently told, and with the exception of my grumble above, it's well scripted and acted, too. The set-pieces fit together almost seamlessly, and despite the recurring visual/thematic motifs, doesn't feel like a rehash of the story already told. But as much as I admired the craft, I just couldn't get into it. I didn't connect with any of the characters emotionally, so after that it's just a guessing game of who'll die next (still not enough expansion on Woody Harrelson's Haymitch for my liking, but it's good to see Elizabeth Banks getting slightly more to do as Effie).
If you enjoyed the first movie, you'll get a lot out of Catching Fire. It's a great expansion of the story, and earnestly told. It's just Not For Me™. Especially as I'm still not convinced about the psychology of teaming with 'allies' in a competition where there can only be one survivor.
Pretty much.
I didn't, but it wasn't for the want of them trying.
Probably. Your mileage will vary.
It looks great on a big screen, but you won't lose a lot by watching it on Blu-Ray.
No.
Probably not, if I'm being honest.
I'm pretty sure I heard one embedded during the baboon attack. Yeah, there's a baboon attack.
1) Am I the only one who thought Mags was just playing along until it was time to whip out 'the psycho card'?
2) How come the guards were killing people for giving the three-fingered salute and whistling Our Tune when Katniss and Peeta were touring the Districts, but it was okay when they won The Worst Raffle In The World in the town square?
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Well, there's a turn-up. From an incredibly dull looking trailer comes a film which I thoroughly enjoyed. The story itself is as 'reliable' as you'd expect, but it's structured so solidly that it really doesn't matter. It's classical adventure-fare, so will be ideally suited to a younger audience, and the U-certificate means there's little in the way of any real edge or threat. But at its core, Epic is a very well-told tale, with some beautiful visuals (even in the 2D version I watched), and that should charm you to some extent. It reminded me of a lot of things I'd seen before, both in animation and live-action, but never to the point where I thought it was directly ripping-off other stories (just, y'know, vaguely. Very vaguely, a lot of the time. I spotted a Podrace and a Death Star run in there, as well as elements of Back To The Future, but that's just me).
Thankfully, the humour (visual and scripted) is kept to a manageable level, and the eco-moralising I was expecting is all but absent. The voice-acting is pretty much spot-on, and Danny Elfman's score never oversteps the mark (both of which issues have derailed many a film in the past). Most importantly, it kept the smaller viewers engaged for the full-run, so it's working for its target-audience. Saturday afternoon can be a noisy, fidgety affair in a cinema, but once the lights went down there wasn't a peep. Obviously, this didn't stop one particular Dad checking his phone twice during the film, but you can't have everything. I blame the parents.
Epic is nothing you haven't seen before, but then, it's trying to save the forest, not step outside of it. Whether it has the punch to warrant a sequel or not remains to be seen, but as a self-contained family movie, you can't go far wrong.
A small thing to look out for: In the scenes when Mary Katherineisn't miniaturised, the Leafmen are rendered with a plasticky texture, making them look like toys. Once she's in their world, the character surfaces all feel real (as real as this movie gets, anyhow). I can't work out if this was an artistic decision or a marketing one. It's quite a nice touch, either way, although it does suggest a subtext that MK and her father are dreaming or hallucinating the entire episode. As we see several mushroom-people in the forest-kingdom, it's probably best not to dwell on that one too much...
It's representative of the look, but not really the feel.
Yes.
Yes.
If it's the animation you're interested in, cinema; if it's the story, you won't lose anything by watching at at home.
No.
At some point.
No.
What do you look for in an animated movie? Do you prefer a 'classical' story-arc, or do you like it when a film spreads its wings, but risks leaving its younger audience behind?
DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
Welcome to Dystopia 101, where oppressive governments and manipulative game-shows are the order of the day. The bad guys wear uniforms with face visors, and the common folk wear colour-desaturated clothes. A disaster/war/event will be referenced and/or explained at some point, and 'Hey! Isn't this just a little bit like our lives NOW??!? Sit wherever you like, I'll be round to scan your barcodes in due course…
The Plot: (from IMDB) "Set in a future where the Capitol selects a boy and girl from the twelve districts to fight to the death on live television, Katniss Everdeen volunteers to take her younger sister's place for the latest match."
A Preface: No, I haven't read the books. And in all honesty, I'm not pretty likely to, now.
The Good: Given everything I'm about to say about The Hunger Games, I'll state now that it's decently enough scripted and acted. Everyone's doing their best with what they're given, and I do appreciate that. The effects are fairly good (with the possible exception of those dogs near the end) and apart from the shaky-cam, it looks and sounds as good as it can. It's just that...
The Bad: Well, it's 'the story', isn't it? Like a huge messy car crash between The Tripods and The Running Man with Predators picking through the wreckage, but with the intrigue or adrenaline of none of them. I know it's aimed at teenagers, but they're not stupid. In terms of content, they're actually more demanding than their adult contemporaries. They have plenty of stuff to do apart from reading books for leisure, so don't patronise them with this. The idea of The Hunger Games being orchestrated by The Evil Government™ as a method to both distract and control the populace is so heavily layered-on that you almost don't notice the clockwork plot setup and character archetypes. Almost.
• The wardrobe department seem to have been told to stick to 'hey, doesn't everyone look whacky in the future if they're rich??', in a move that will ironically date the film faster than putting "2012" in the title.
• Poor Katniss, pulled out of her meagre existence by a rash decision and forced to fight for her life against 23 other teenagers. She's not a murderer, you know! Well, she's quite happy to hunt for food, but that's different. At the start of the film, she's trying to bring down a deer that, by her own admission, she can't possibly hope to smuggle back home to prep/cook/eat. Look, she's fine killing harmless animals just trying to get on with their day, but the moment she's faced with 23 unstable, hormonally-charged teenagers (22 of which she doesn't know) coming at her with knives and spears, well that's just not bloody well on!
• Actually, I say '22', she doesn't really know her fellow Dictrict 12'er Peeta much, either. She's seen him around, and that, but it's only after he admits that he's been stalking her for about five years that she decides she can trust him, and that a relationship would probably be a good idea as long as one/both of them's probably going to die, anyway.
• 'Look, Katniss has climbed up a tree. Shall I shoot her out with this bow-and-arrow?' 'Go on, then…' [shoots] 'Tch, I missed. I suppose we'll just have to wait at the bottom of the tree for her to come down. I mean, it's not like I've got a bunch of arrows here, and any ones that miss her can just be picked up again and re-fired. No, let's ALL wait under this tree and go to sleep at the same time with no-one keeping watch. That is literally the most effective thing we can do.'
• The overall predicability (sorry, 'reliability') is overshadowed only by the film's inconsistency. It's established at the start of the tournament that a cannon is sounded when one of the contestants dies so that they know their numbers have been reduced wherever they are. This signalling continues regularly until Katniss destroys the booby-trapped supplies at The Cornucopia and the contestant who was 'guarding' it has his neck snapped by his irate team-mate (no cannon), followed shortly by young Rue being throwing-daggered to death by a competitor (no cannon), and Katniss arrow-ing that assailant in return (no cannon). Then about twenty minutes later, someone dies and the shots start again.
• Given that The Games are literally a life-or-death situation, and that the 24 competitors quickly divide into uneasy alliances and hunt as packs, Katniss seems to have no problem in sitting and having a cry for about twenty minutes immediately following Rue's death. She actually picks a bunch of flowers to lay on her body, while the team of The Bad Guys™ are furiously wandering around nearby after their booby-trapped supplies have just been destroyed.
• There's a bit near the end where genetically engineered/enhanced attack-dogs are released into the arena. These are shown in a holo/digital form in the control room first, and on the controllers command they magically 'appear' and start pursuing the remaining contestants. Now I didn't see a hole in the ground where they came out of, and they were summoned in exactly the right place at an instant. This, coupled with the slightly dodgy animation of the dogs, made me wonder 'Is this a simulation? Will all of the contestants 'die', and we only find out afterwards that their Matrix-like trials in the dome have been the digitally recreated source of the TV-show all along and no-one's really been killed?' That would be a nice plot development... … No, apparently not. Well, it wasn't revealed in this film, anyway. So it looks like we won't be genetically engineering dogs until we can make them look slightly badly animated as well.
• At one point, we see the inhabitants of District 11 watching the action unfold on giant communal TV screens. They are so moved and touched by Katniss' bravery and moral fortitude, that they begin to riot, attacking the governmental guards that watch over them. And, you know, destroying / burning down their own homes in the process. Yeah, that'll show 'em.
• The contestants are baited with the dual-winners line by the games' creators, whereby rather than have a 'last man standing', a duo can win if they're from the same district (a device to get Katniss and Peeta working together), it's no surprise when this alteration is later rescinded (a device to get them to face-off after gaining each other's full trust). When they refuse to fight and are about to commit to a suicide pact, the gamesmasters reluctantly declare them both the winners, and we see that Donald Sutherland™ isn't at all pleased with this turn of events. But surely, any Evil Media Company / Government worth its salt would just have one of the winners discretely killed, then tell the public they died of an infected wound or something? Pardon? You don't want to burden the many unlikeable characters in the film with any common-sense actions or motives? Oh, it's a Cert 12A. 'Demographics'. I see.
• I've heard it said that a lot of the book-content has been cut for the movie. I don't know how many of the books are spanned in this two and a half hour Running-Man-Lite™, but I'm going to assume that Haymitch's backstory (As a mentor, he evidently knows a lot about The Games, and is clearly drinking to block something out, although this facet dwindles to nothing as soon as The Games begin) was a casualty of those cuts. I'm also going to assume that Effie's complete absence once the games are underway (and from the admittedly rushed ending) is also due to time restraints. Otherwise, that'd just be poor storytelling…
The Ugly: What the bloody hell have you done with Elizabeth Banks, Lionsgate? If you're telling me that in the future, all the hot women have to look like Vivienne Westwood, you can tear my card up right fucking now.
All-in-all: Oh look, it's probably not as bad as all that, but there's very little in The Hunger Games for me, and I'd be surprised if there is for you, either. There's a decent movie in there somewhere, but it's being weighed down with cliché and my firmly unsuspended disbelief.
Ideal if you're very young, or haven't seen many films.
DISCLAIMERS: • ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.
