Mockingjay -- Part 1 (a movie review (without the book) post)

So here we are at the third movie, and I'm still not reading the books. Which is not to say that I'm not enjoying the movies, I am. (Well, not the first one so much, but these last two have been quite good.) However, from what I've heard about the books, the reason I like the movies is because the focus has shifted from the love story to the politics, and it's the politics that I find interesting. Honestly, I don't care much for Peeta (who is like a puppy in a perpetual rain storm, all big eyes and whimpers) or Gale (with his constant angst about how Katniss likes Peeta better (and I would like Peeta better, too, if I had to deal with that, right up until I had to deal with Peeta)) and would have a difficult time with a book that obsessed over how the character couldn't make a choice between the two of them. But that's not the movie, so let's move on...

First, let's touch on Philip Seymour Hoffman. I've been a fan of his for a long time, probably owing to The Talented Mr. Ripley, though I first really took note of him in Twister. He gave a great performance in what was an otherwise horrible movie. It was enough to make me watch for him in other films. He was an actor that you could always count on for, at least, a good performance (or a great one, as seen in Capote). I was saddened by his loss. At any rate, initially, it was stated by Lionsgate that he would be digitally recreated for the completion of Mockingjay but, as it turns out, they scrapped that idea. Probably a wise choice, but I didn't know that when I was watching the movie and sat there being amazed at what I thought they'd done. Last word, he was great, as can be expected.

Jennifer Lawrence gave a performance equal to the one she gave in Catching Fire, which is no small thing since the movie hinges on her and her ability to be outraged by the actions of the capitol. The horror that Katniss feels over things like the white roses allows the audience to be outraged along with her. She's a talented actor already; it will be interesting to see where she goes.

The other standout performance was from Elizabeth Banks. She's been superb as Effie Trinket all along, but she really surpassed herself in this one. Effie, having been pulled out of her world and thrust into one which she doesn't understand, is completely out of sorts, and Banks pulls it off flawlessly while still being true to Effie in the process. I'd probably go see these movies just for Banks' performance.

The only complaint I might have about the movie is splitting it into two parts. I've come to a place where I'd rather have one long movie than have it split up. It's not just about the fact that I feel like I'm being milked by Hollywood when they do this, but it's just jarring to have the story stop like that, mid-arc. It's like hitting pause on something and never coming back to finish it. Well, not until months later (or a year in this case). Oh, that and the quinjet that they used. I mean, those VTOL jets they use in the movie look almost identical to the quinjets. Maybe one of the Avengers left one lying around somewhere.

These are really good movies, not quite great but, still, really good. After the shaky start of the first one, they have settled into a visually appealing, solid look for the world, a look which is split between something in the probably far future and a throwback to the turn of the 20th century. Backed by solid acting, this has become a tale, really, of what it's like to live as part of the 99% supporting the 1% in what they justify as a "symbiotic" relationship. I wonder if all parasites see themselves that way.

Catching Fire, still unbiased

For the appropriate background, you should go back and read my review of The Hunger Games. In brief, I have not and do not plan to read the books, so this review is based solely on my viewing of the movie.

Where the first movie failed to build a solid foundation for the world of the Hunger Games to stand on, Catching Fire came in to make that foundation more solid. Some of that is, for lack of a better term, accidental. For instance, the fact that Katniss and Peeta are the picture of good health (along with Katniss' family) is now to be expected, so that no longer worked against the movie. District 12 and its inhabitants were more rundown and dilapidated, so the contrast between Katniss and her fellow citizens (other than Gale) was more distinct. All of that was good and gave a more realistic feel to the movie than the last one had.

We got a broader view of the world in general and of the Peacekeepers in action, which was way more disturbing than the first movie would have lead us to believe. The second movie made us believe all the things the first movie only told us to believe. It's actually the whole "show vs tell" thing. The first movie tells us the people are oppressed, but Catching Fire shows us.

• It shows us when Gale is taken and flogged and Katniss almost shot.
• It shows us when the old man in District 11 is pulled from the crowd and shot in the head.
• It shows when Katniss and Peeta are offered the puking beverage so that they can continue to participate in the party.
• And it shows us when Cinna is beaten (to death, I presume) right in front of Katniss after the tube closes on her and all she can do is watch. And scream.

The political intrigue, almost absent from The Hunger Games, also elevates Catching Fire. Plutarch Heavensbee is a great character, and I was never quite sure what was going on with him. There was what I thought was happening, but Philip Seymour Hoffman was so good, I spent a lot of time doubting myself. Of course, Hoffman is great, and I was delighted to see him in the movie. Plutarch wasn't the only one playing games, but he was the primary one, and I almost felt sorry for President Snow and his inability to adequately play politics. Snow seemed to know one tactic: "Smash!" Or threaten to smash. Or kill.

The acting in Fire was much better than in Games.

• Lawrence really stepped into the part and made us feel the horror and rage of the things she was going through. Also the lost-ness in parts. She was impressive this time rather than just existing in the role.
• Woody Harrelson continued to be great as Haymitch.
• Elizabeth Banks moved beyond her makeup, which was actually rather impressive considering that you couldn't really see her face. The emotion she was able to bring through in relation to how she felt about the injustices that were happening was incredible.
• Stanley Tucci continued to be awesome.
• As I already said, Philip Seymour Hoffman was tremendous.
• Sam Claflin was really good.
• But the big surprise was Jena Malone. She was great!

The greatest success of the movie, though, was that it made me want to read the books. Almost. I'm still not going to read them, because, based on many of the things I've read about it, the movie fixes many of the problems from the first movie and from the books. The focus on the politics seems to be a movie thing not a book thing, and that's the stuff I really liked. So, still, not reading the books, but I'm slightly less set against them now. That's an achievement.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVAILABLE TODAY!
"Shadow Spinner: Collection 3: The Garden (Parts 13 - 21)"

This collection has a short story by none other than Rusty Webb, who also draws pictures and has drawn all of mine. It's a great story based on the world from The House on the Corner, and it has... but that would be telling. Hopefully, there will be more to come from this story line, later. At any rate, pick up Collection 3, read my stuff, read his stuff. After you've done all of that, go back and leave a review!