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/

Into the Wild (2007)

3/5

Sean Penn's Into the Wild is a touching story poorly told. Penn recounts, with a reckless abandonment of cinematic intelligence, young Chris McCandless's own reckless attempt to abandon society and live on his wits in the wild. The emotions he feels, the adventures he experiences, the people he encounters--all are striking and make this film as moving as it is. The rest is overlong dreck. The whole thing feels like one long montage, with little backbone to ground and support the story. While the cinematography was breathtaking, the editing was so rapid and hectic that it was hard to fully comprehend what was going on. Scenes extend for far too long or have no point. The music, excellent in its own right, often ruins the mood by coming in and out at times it shouldn't have. It always, and I mean always, seems out of place. Oh, and the acting was really good for the most part.

There is an extraordinary amount of inane voice-over narration that tries to make some sense out of the mess that is this movie, but it fails at that and simply pains the ears. Penn clearly does not know how to adapt, because its literary roots show in the frequent uncinematic moments that might work in a book but clearly fail in this movie. Still, it was enjoyable every now and again, and had the potential to really move an involved viewer, but it should have been 90 minutes instead of 150 and written (and directed) by someone who knows how to. Watch it if you're already interested, but I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it to someone.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758758/