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/

The Hunger Games (2012)

4/5

The Hunger Games is more of a phenomenon than a movie, based on the first of Suzanne Collins's trilogy of books that took the world by storm. I won't bore you with the movie's plot, because you've probably already figured it out from the seemingly endless tide of people around you who have already read the books and can't stop chattering about them. The series is essentially a love story between Katniss (Lawrence) and Peeta (Hutcherson) with a little bit of action, violence, and political intrigue thrown in to spice it up. The story involves all three basic formulas for romance: 1) love triangle, 2) two people forced together by circumstance who fall in love, and 3) two people who love each other torn apart by circumstance. No wonder it's so successful.

As far as adaptations go, this one is fair. It takes no risks, aiming right in the middle of mediocrity to offend nobody, and indeed it fails at just about nothing. Unfortunately, it could have been really spectacular if helmed by a director with a vision. Instead, the director seems to harbor some sort of foolish fondness for over-editing and Shakicam shots, a term I coined myself to describe the silly trend of ignoring the revolutionary invention known as the Steadicam and going ultra-Bourne Supremacy on everything. The editing was by far the worst part about the movie, with Hemsworth's acting taking a close second. Not only is there split-second splicing of every action scene--making it impossible to tell what was going on--but the movie could have been cut to a more manageable 2 hours and have been just as satisfying, if not more so. As for the actor who played Gale, he was atrocious at line delivery. The only thing he did well was look down mopingly whenever Katniss and Peeta kissed, because apparently he has mastered that one skill set of neck flexion.

There are, however, some moving parts that carried over well from the book. One, my favorite, is Peeta's interview with Caesar (Tucci) and Katniss's subsequent reaction. Another is Katniss's first kill in the games, with an emotional tug that was cleverly flipped around from how it occurred in the book. The movie also added the character of Seneca Crane (Bentley), the Head Gamemaker, in a surprisingly intelligent way. Bentley, along with Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks, were absolutely fantastic in their roles and brought the characters to life. The movie itself is a must-see for anyone who's read the book. It's also a must-see for anyone who doesn't like being out of the loop, as this is the kind of movie that everybody will be talking about. If you don't care about any of those things, well, then you're probably not reading this review anyway. So go out and watch the movie; it's an entertaining ride and does its fair share to bring the book to life.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/

The Last Song (2010)

1/5

I officially hate Nicholas Sparks. The Last Song is manipulative, melodramatic dross (definition: worthless or dangerous material that should be removed) that is neither entertaining nor inspiring nor meaningful nor any positive adjective. Before I even get into my rant, this sentence serves as a "spoiler" alert, because I want everybody reading this to know that I must reveal plot points to effectively show how disgustingly bad this movie is. The plot follows an ugly New York vegetarian eco-terrorist teen (Cyrus) who starts up a summer romance with an ugly volleyball playing, aquarium-volunteering mechanic (Hemsworth) while staying in Georgia over the summer with her father (Kinnear) and younger brother (Coleman). She is nothing but a moody, unlikeable brat the entire time, even after she finds out that her father is dying of cancer. She befriends a troll/ogre/ghoul (Chaikin) but is cruelly betrayed by the uggo after a ludicrous misconception concerning her sleazy pyromaniac boyfriend (Lashaway).

The writing is preposterous, the acting by the two leads could serve as an ipecac replacement, and the directing should have a black box warning for increased suicidality. There is a scene where sea turtle eggs hatch and waddle into the ocean. The movie tries to play it off as cute, but it just looks like a horde of cockroaches are infesting our waterways. There is another scene where Miley Cyrus is at the funeral for her father. Her boyfriend walks into the church (late, for some reason) and a super-bright beam of sunlight penetrates her father's stained-glass window. Then she says--out loud--"Hi, Daddy." If it sounds as if this entire review is just me spitting venom, that's because this movie needs to be dissolved in acid and removed from the world of cinema; it makes me ashamed to call myself a film lover.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1294226/