Dark Jedi Master 007 Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 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. I think that it has to do with the fact that you value the medium of film a lot. So many book enthusiasts don't understand the medium or the point of an adaptation and so they end up demanding for everything to be on the screen and for faithfulness. Really, some of the best adaptations have strayed from the book (The Shining being the perfect example). And yet, you'll have people actually criticize those movies for not being like the book. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antovolk Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) Edit. Edited November 27, 2014 by antovolk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antovolk Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 (edited) I think that it has to do with the fact that you value the medium of film a lot. So many book enthusiasts don't understand the medium or the point of an adaptation and so they end up demanding for everything to be on the screen and for faithfulness. Really, some of the best adaptations have strayed from the book (The Shining being the perfect example). And yet, you'll have people actually criticize those movies for not being like the book. To add to that, book fans and movie fans have different priorities when approaching an adapted film like this, and this does happen with the creative team too, Francis and co have been quite vocal in interviews about how they want to please the book fans. To add to the endless sea of comparisons of these book v film priorities, here's a purposefully more fan-oriented review of MJ1 (poss spoilers) http://www.movies.com/movie-news/hunger-games-mockingjay-fan-review/17325?wssac=164&wssaffid=news&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter Edited November 27, 2014 by antovolk 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panda Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 I think that it has to do with the fact that you value the medium of film a lot. So many book enthusiasts don't understand the medium or the point of an adaptation and so they end up demanding for everything to be on the screen and for faithfulness. Really, some of the best adaptations have strayed from the book (The Shining being the perfect example). And yet, you'll have people actually criticize those movies for not being like the book. That's true, my problem with the Hobbit movies for example aren't necessarily that it strays from the book with all of the added content, but that I find the content that it does add to be blatantly quite bad and pointless. I also don't like being one of those people who say things like, "The movie was awful, this, this, and none of this actually happen in the story!" Film and book are two different mediums and thus they aren't going to be the same, a film adaption shouldn't be a word for word adaption of the book because what works on paper doesn't necessarily work on screen. I understand changing plotlines can be iffy, and I am definitely not always a fan of plotlines changing, but I can't make it a rule where the general plot stays in tact because then we would never have a movie like Jurassic Park which really only borrows the basic concepts from its novel. In general though it really depends on the novel if they should stay faithful to it or if major changes should be made. Some novels simply work better being put to screen while others don't (which is why changes need to be made). Also, some novels are very high quality and have great stories and so it'd be a waste to adapt them and not actually put the majority of whats in it on screen. Overall though, it's definitely not worth complaining if a movie isn't just like the book, only if the changes they make detract from the story being told on screen. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ethan Hunt Posted November 28, 2014 Share Posted November 28, 2014 Wow... Damn. Umm... Well I loved this movie. A+ (Full review later) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Breakspear Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 (edited) Man this movie was long for a two hour length lol. Still enjoyed it though! Wasn't as exciting or good as the other two but still worth going to the cinema to watch. It was great thematically and the acting was top notch. Peeta freaked me the fuck out when he attacked Katniss, damn son. Didn't like Katniss in the beginning when she was all "Peeta, Peeta, Peeta". Haven't read the books (yet) but hopefully the split is justified. I don't think this part was as good as a whole film as DH1 was. B+ Edited November 29, 2014 by Breakspear 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasmmi Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 About a year ago today I left a cinema thinking I may have seen the best film of the year in Catching Fire. Today... I've seen a decent-pretty good film. Parts of it were very good (most of the acting, the build up etc), but there were things that bothered me. The cat scene for example felt like something that belonged in a much worse film, Coin seemed completely lacking in charisma (although it felt like this was deliberate, but it was still slightly off-putting). The biggest issue was probably the ending. The ending was good, but in Catching Fire the ending was fecking perfect, it made you impatient for the next film. I felt the ending here to be pretty peril-less. If they had ended when Snow cut off their conversation or when Peter attacks Kat, that would have been pretty awesome, but when they did, was just kind of meh. There was still enough here though to suggest part two has potential for awesomeness again though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goffe Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 (edited) Seriously, what was the point of this? the film ended the same way it started. THG Part 1 feels like one of those super low budgeted (not in the sense it looks cheap) spin-offs/prequels released on internet right before/after the big one hits the theaters/homevideo. It could have easily been the first 60-80 minutes of one film. Long story short, it is solely a fan service. I like Francis Lawrence, he's good at making blockbusters, but he'll never be able to elevate a mediocre material like this one. One of the biggest flaws of the movie is the excessive exposition, especially in the insufferable first 30 minutes or the recap of the previous events ( ). No proper ending (or should I say climax?) pissed me, a lot. I know this is part 1, but they could have easily injected something more interesting in the last minutes. It is definitely more lackluster than other Part 1 films, even the Hobbit films looks less "hollow", despite being split in 3 movies. I could forgive for not having a proper ending if the film wasn't full of fillers scenes, boring and uninteresting filler, like Katiniss & Gale going out to the woods or Katiniss going out to her district for the first time after the bombing or the expository beginning. I usually don't nitpick plotholes, but one bothered me. If the dam was so important to the capital and its defense system, how the hell did a crowd of unarmed people were able to destroy it? makes no fucking sense. Peeta being poisoned subplot was lazy storytelling, the script is noticiably inferior to CF's. If this film (or should I say data, because it is really apparent that they changed it from film to digital, hate the glossy look) is somewhat watchtable, that is because of Jenifer Lawrence, she brings her A game here. However, the film ain't all meh, it had some great moments, such as breaking in the Capitol, searching from Prim, Peeta warning and the the Hanging Tree sequence. Those scenes/sequences all showed how great the film could have been if the book wasn't split in two. I give it a generous 55/100. Someone said that the film never recovered after Hanging Tree sequence, recovered from what? The first half was plain awful I heard at the end of my screening "that's it?" one said "what?" another said Edited December 1, 2014 by Goffe Ascending 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4815162342 Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 It's very competently made and there are plenty of nice character building moments, but when you look at it as part of an adaptation of a single book, there is no reason for the split. Chop 30 minutes off and graft 90 minutes from Film 2 on and there's your comprehensive Mockingjay. Moore rocked. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punishment Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 A good promotion for part 2; definitely a step (or two) down from the previous movies in the series. C or 3/5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Community Manager Water Bottle Posted December 7, 2014 Community Manager Share Posted December 7, 2014 Better than the Hunger Games but not compelling like Catching Fire. It's a fine film but nothing special. B 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted December 11, 2014 Share Posted December 11, 2014 Boring, uninteresting, filler and tedious. 5/10 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Boring, uninteresting, filler and tedious. 5/10 Have you reviewed IS yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted December 13, 2014 Share Posted December 13, 2014 Reviewed? No, I guess not. I still haven't seen it the second time yet. I'll write a review when I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blankments Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Better than I thought it'd be considering this forums' reactions. It was entertaining at points but severely lacks structure. It's one long first act with a good climax. Also, the best characters (Haymitch, Effie, Finnick, Joanna) are all underutilized in a way that feels odd. If you're gonna split the books, add in more stuff with them. The Plutarch stuff was good, but ultimately the film was just kinda aimless. J-Law was good, and Finnick when on screen was a highlight. Couldn't unsee Remy from House of Cards. Finally, Hanging Tree is super overrated here. The song was great when J-Law wasn't singing it lol. B 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAR Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 I actually liked it quite a bit. B+ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asyulus Posted January 4, 2015 Share Posted January 4, 2015 B+, the movie was overall good. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkelf Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Unnecessary. PSH was great though. 5/10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordmandeep Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 I think its quite clear the games were the attraction of the franchise. Take away the games and it just turns into the typical YA dystopian story line. B- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 I think its quite clear the games were the attraction of the franchise. Take away the games and it just turns into the typical YA dystopian story line. B- It actually isn't. I fucking loved the first half of CF and rank the first hour among the very best films of the decade. It was fascinating to watch. But MJ1 just didn't grab my attention, and the thought-provoking themes that the franchise has just didn't translate very well here (aside from a few standout sequences). I'm going to watch it on Blu-Ray soon, and we'll see if my C+ rating changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
