The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014)

2/5

The third installment in the Hunger Games trilogy is--surprisingly--not the last, as you might expect from my use of the word trilogy. Instead, the producers behind the franchise are hoping to eke out every last cent possible from its fan base in the great tradition of Harry Potter and Twilight. It is worse off for it, as this film plods along slowly, without much purpose except to prepare us for the next one. It is not only painfully slow, it is also tremendously different in terms of style, mood, and thematics. The third Hunger Games movie could have been great if it ended the series, building on the momentum generated from the first two films, but it's not. Instead it's mediocre filler that prolongs the inevitable release of the finale.

This is (obviously) not an issue with the book, because the book doesn't end where the movie ends. If, in fact, the story benefited from being split into two parts, I presume the book would have been split into two books. It is not. It is one book. It is one story. If you need more time to tell the story you want to tell, make a miniseries instead of a movie. If you are unable to make creative decisions when it comes to editing, you are not a filmmaker. You are a moneymaker. And The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1, if you couldn't tell from the title, is a moneymaking grab.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951265/

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

4/5

Catching Fire, the second in Collins's dystopian series, delivers another extremely faithful adaptation. Like the book it's based on, Catching Fire is better than The Hunger Games. Ironically, watching this movie made me realize how bad the first one was. It probably deserved a 3/5, but I must have given it an extra 1 star because of my fondness for the book. Catching Fire, however, is more exciting and action-packed--with less of the morally-reprehensible kids-killing-kids storyline--than the first one. I probably would have enjoyed the movie even more if I weren't so tired going in, and I even nodded off a few times in the first half of the movie, but it maintained a perfectly tight pace in the second half.

The acting by all parties is surprisingly adept. Although by no means Oscar-worthy, Lawrence, Hutcherson, and Claflin all do their job at evoking emotions and making you care about them. You care not only that they survive the games but also that they satisfy their hearts' desires. The real treasure is the directing itself, which combines emotion, mystery, and action effortlessly. The script is taut and the editing lean. Although the runtime is well over 2 hours, it doesn't feel like there are any extraneous or wasted scenes (which litter the first one in an attempt to be "faithful" to the source material). It stands on its own as a good movie, independent of the phenomenon that is The Hunger Games. For anyone who enjoyed the books, this is an easy recommendation. I only wish the next one wasn't split into two parts.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951264/

Water for Elephants (2011)

3/5

I had low expectations for Water for Elephants, but it surprised me with its competence and adequacy. The movie starts with an elderly Jacob (Holbrook) telling a circus manager about the "greatest disaster in circus history." The younger Jacob (Pattinson) is studying to be a veterinarian when debt forces him to join the circus, where he meets up with charming but sadistic owner August (Waltz) and his star performer and wife Marlena (Witherspoon). There is supposed to be an instant attraction between Jacob and Marlena, propelling the events to follow in motion, but there is absolutely no chemistry between the actors. Waltz does a spectacular job, but his character is almost identical to Col. Landa in Inglourious Basterds, which made it less interesting and less terrifying to watch here. The cinematography was great and the visual impact of the movie was strong, but the story as a whole was about as thin as the romance. It's an entertaining diversion, but ultimately offers very little beyond that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1067583/

I Am Legend (2007)

4/5

I Am Legend is an exciting and entertaining thrill ride. The plot follows Robert Neville, the last human on earth after a viral epidemic wiped out most of the world and turned everyone else into monsters, on his quest to find the cure and save mankind. The first two thirds are exquisite, nail-biting tension, but in the final third it starts careening downhill. For me, this was not a problem. Mostly because I knew the ending before sitting down to watch it. I also knew that it disappointed many people. So when I actually did see it, I wasn't expecting any better--it didn't leave as bad a taste in my mouth as it did in others'.

I liked much of the filmmaking. The movie slowly reveals how the world devolved, it gradually allows the audience to experience the settings--the time and place--on their own terms. The pacing was excellent; it did a great job of describing how this nightmarish scenario all began while simultaneously maintaining an eerie sense of mood, a permeating unease that I absolutely relished. A lot of the dialogue and actions--of the humans and the monsters--seemed bizarre at first. And instead of explaining the "odd" aspects of their behavior, the movie lets the viewer generate the answers for themselves, especially concerning the monsters' social structure.

There were a couple of flaws. It seemed like a lot of scenes were unnecessary. Bob Marley's music, the voice-over radio transmissions, and Shrek the movie were all overused and repetitive to the point of irritation. The CGI was surprisingly seamless on the whole, which made it all the more shocking when you could tell which parts were CGI and which weren't (some galloping deer, the breaking glass, etc.). Also, the ending was a bit of a letdown, even knowing it would be a letdown. Still, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie and recommend it if you were already considering watching it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0480249/