The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

I think my biggest problem is this movie felt like it was 85% exposition, you rarely got to see this revolution they were talking about, and only in two instances did you really see any effects of it.  The scenes that were strong, such as The Hanging Tree, didn't tell you that people went and stormed the Capitol, it showed you it taking place, and that's what made it so strong.  The only way they could have actually pulled off this part 1 is if they did more to show you everything happening then hear dialogue about what was happening from Hoffman.

I agree with this. They should've shown more effects of the revolution (although, that might've actually added to the runtime instead of taking it away).

But I feel like the stuff with Katniss was compelling enough to make up for it.

 

[Jessie]

Saw it last night, Mehhhhh there was no plot, no goal nothing, some moments have tension, but overall its lacking because what is the tension building too?

 

DH1 still had a plot and was very good at attempting to deliver structure and 3 acts. I don't care if its a part one, you can still have 3 acts. I don't like not knowing where I am in the movie. As an audience member I should know/have a feeling when its the climax of the movie.

 

The cinematography was weak, CF was so pretty one of the biggest highlights of the movie. not sure why they went digital all of a sudden. The outside tree stuff looked really weak in terms of production value. The score was good though.

 

Gale is sooo boring, I really don't like him. Other than that everyone was good, but I almost laughed when Petta went all Sunshine at the end. My audience seemed to find it a bit weird too. I really wanted to like it but its literally just the first act of a much bigger movie.

 

Im very let down. CF was my favorite/ the best "blockbuster" of 2013.

 

C+ (79)

 

you always complain about digitally shot movies lol, why??

[RobinHood26]

you always complain about digitally shot movies lol, why??

 

Many know what they are doing. 

 

Oblivion, Elysium, Pacific Rim, Tron, Prometheus, Her, Skyfall, Life of Pi, Fincher, but lots of times it just looks well super digital if you don't know what you're doing. I've said it many times, film is like a visual effect. its a layer of fantasy between me and the screen. 

 

Digital makes the production value lots of times look cheaper. It looks ehhh. A good example is Fury/Monuments Men. Watch those 2 trailers back to back and you'll get what I mean. 

 

In this Hunger Games movie all the stuff in hospital rooms look like a Chapman Thesis film. Close ups and going from night to day is how you really tell though. Look at the tree climbing scene, it looks BAD. The close up of the stromtrooper in the rain is another good example. 

 

Lets look at new cheaper movies like comedies. They all look like TV shows now (The Wedding Ringer, Pitch Perfect 2). 

 

Its less cinematic, and takes me a little longer to get sucked into the world lots of times. Maybe I watch to many movies or have seen way to many college films.  

 

That pin the lead is wearing just looks a little to pristine (lots of stuff like that). Plus the last 2 were on film so the visual jump to this is distracting. 

 

It only really bothers me in Period pieces or blockbusters if done poorly. 

Edited November 25, 2014 by Jay Hollywood

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Many know what they are doing.

Oblivion, Elysium, Pacific Rim, Tron, Prometheus, Her, Life of Pi, Fincher, but lots of times it just looks well super digital if you don't know what you're doing. I've said it many times, film is like a visual effect. its a layer of fantasy between me and the screen.

Digital makes the production value lots of times look cheaper. It looks ehhh. A good example is Fury/Monuments Men. Watch those 2 trailers back to back and you'll get what I mean.

In this Hunger Games movie all the stuff in hospital rooms look like a Chapman Thesis film. Close ups and going from night to day is how you really tell though. Look at the tree climbing scene, it looks BAD. The close up of the stromtrooper in the rain is another good example.

Lets look at new cheaper movies like comedies. They all look like TV shows now (The Wedding Ringer, Pitch Perfect 2).

Its less cinematic, and takes me a little longer t get sucked into the world lots of times. Maybe I watch to many movies or have seen way to many college films.

That pin the lead is wearing just looks a little to pristine (lots of stuff like that). Plus the last 2 were on film so the visual jump to this is distracting.

It only really bothers me in Period pieces or blockbusters if done poorly.

I was just wondering : what do you feel makes digital work in Her or Finchers work?

Or is it too hard to tell?

[RobinHood26]

I was just wondering : what do you feel makes digital work in Her or Finchers work?

Or is it too hard to tell?

 

Its all about the story/world and the DP/team.

 

A movie like Her, digital is embedded into the story/tone/themes of the movie. Same can be said with Social Network. It seems like an artistic choice and it fits the movie for the look they want to achieve. 

 

A movie like HG they have already set up a world/tone so they are shooting digital because its quicker? cheaper? easier? but trying to convoy the same look. It doesn't work. 

[Empire]

Saw this tonight with a friend. I liked it, but it was a big step down from the previous two. The acting was good. Especially from Moore, JLaw, and Woody in his small part. I also thought Liam actually did a good job and was better than Josh in this movie. However, I did feel like enough happened in it for it to stand alone as singular film. They shouldn't have split up MJ into two films. It really just felt like a big setup for MJ2 at the end of the day. The ending seemed really abrupt. This is a very average book, so they shouldn't have stretched it to two films. They should have just made one 3hr long movie.

I would give it a.......

B-(83)

Edited November 26, 2014 by Empire

[K1stpierre]

I really think it should have been into two, but should of added more of the battles of Part 2 into Part 1.

[Empire]

I really think it should have been into two, but should of added more of the battles of Part 2 into Part 1.

Eh, I think it would have worked better as an epic 3hr series ending film.

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

 I also thought Liam actually did a good job and was better than Josh in this movie.

NO! NO! NO!

[Empire]

NO! NO! NO!

I disagree. I thought Josh wasn't that good in the movie actually. Liam was actually not boring for once.

Edited November 26, 2014 by Empire

[CloneWars]

I didn't hate this movie, but didn't like it either. It feels like an episode on television. Nothing special and easily disposable. This probably should have been one film. It just wasn't compelling.

 

C.

[iceroll]

Just saw it, I thought it was really great!

 

I don't understand the complaints about not enough action or not a complete movie or even boring. There were plenty of scenes to the other districts that were very well done and full of action, the trip to Commander Paylor's district where the hovercraft came in and bombed the hospital, the woodcutting district where they bombed the peacekeepers from the trees, the evacuation to the bunkers at district 13, and my favorite scene when they destroyed the hydroelectric dam. 

 

I can see why The Hanging Tree is such a popular song right now (currently #3 on iTunes, that that Lorde!), it's such a well composed song that just builds up with emotion and it suits the scene very well. There were great emotional moment too and I felt like even Gale got a little more depth, he realizes that Katniss only gives her attention when he's down or something. Obviously, going into a "Part 1" you know that they can't wrap up the story, but I thought the rescue scene overlaid with Finnick's speech was very suspenseful and climactic, and the ending with Coin's speech and Peeta's insanity was a good way to build up a tease of what's to come in Part 2.

 

Overall, I'd say:

THG: 9.2/10

CF: 9/10

MJ1: 9.1/10

 

THG and MJ1 had the best emotional scenes but CF had the best action by far.

[Noctis]

I disagree. I thought Josh wasn't that good in the movie actually. Liam was actually not boring for once.

What?

[iceroll]

BTW, did anyone else get the new Night at the Museum 3 trailer before their showings? It was kind of hilarious how they had the cats chasing the laser as a youtube video and then with the big metal lions chasing the flashlight in the trailer, and then in Mockingjay Buttercup chases the flashlight that Katniss shines.

 

Kind of a funny out-of-movie moment for me.

[Empire]

What?

Eh, that is how I felt. I know I am in the minority.

[CloneWars]

BTW, did anyone else get the new Night at the Museum 3 trailer before their showings? It was kind of hilarious how they had the cats chasing the laser as a youtube video and then with the big metal lions chasing the flashlight in the trailer, and then in Mockingjay Buttercup chases the flashlight that Katniss shines.

 

Kind of a funny out-of-movie moment for me.

That happned to me as well, and I thought it was funny. It kind of pulled me out of the film though.

[JohnnyGossamer]

I think, like with Potter, book enthusiasts will almost always lean toward two parts being the right play given their connection to the characters, whereas other will generally lean toward a single, epic film doing the job. One thing's for certain, splitting these flicks in two, no matter the material, reduces the overall impact/hype of the final installment. You never get an organic piece of filmmaking. Instead, you get something desperately trying to please the readers that also throws the GA a few bones too to keep 'em interested.

Edited November 26, 2014 by JohnnyGossamer

[GuardiaStar]

Josh Hutcherson had a great performance. The scenes were he was being tortured in the Capitol talking to Katniss, then at the end where he strangles her giving off the yet heartbreaking stone-cold killer vibe..

Jennifer Lawrence and Julianne Moore dominated the film, I loved Woody Harrelson if there was a Haymitch movie I would watch it. Elizabeth Banks was funny at key moments, Phillip Seymour Hoffman added so much to the film, I think even a more brilliant CF performance. Liam Hemsworth I think nailed some emotional parts as Gale. I mean when he was looking down at the row of corpses, how could you not feel something? I think Liam was definitely good in this one. My father even said that all performances were very good, because if you were able to tell if there was one weak performance, you could see then the whole movie would have fallen apart.

Edited November 26, 2014 by EverStar

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

 if you were able to tell if there was one weak performance, you could see then the whole movie would have fallen apart.

This isn't true. It depends on the role that the weak performer is playing. If JLaw sucks as Katniss, then the movie falls apart. But Hemsworth as Gale doesn't really play a huge part in this film (yeah, he has a lot of plot-driven moments, but in terms of moments where his character has to reveal emotion, he gets like 2). So it's easy to ignore him.

[The Panda]

I think, like with Potter, book enthusiasts will almost always lean toward two parts being the right play given their connection to the characters, whereas other will generally lean toward a single, epic film doing the job. One thing's for certain, splitting these flicks in two, no matter the material, reduces the overall impact/hype of the final installment. You never get an organic piece of filmmaking. Instead, you get something desperately trying to please the readers that also throws the GA a few bones too to keep 'em interested.

 

I agree with you, but what's weird is as a book enthusiast of the Hobbit I really dislike it being split up because there isn't enough material for three movies.