The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2

bnt · 09-07-2015 10:58pm #1

Going out in Style, so it seems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quLnpNchAsg

robdonn · 10-07-2015 10:51am

I liked the first one, the second one wasn't as interesting (neither was the book) and, in typical fashion, splitting the final book into two movies has made Mockingjay drag so slowly and ruined it for me.

I'll still watch Part 2, when it's available outside of the cinemas, but I'm not as excited about it as I was the second one.

bnt · 23-07-2015 10:00pm

Still 4 months away, but we have a trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-7K_OjsDCQ

bnt · 17-09-2015 1:53am

Latest trailer: this one is potentially spoilerish for those who haven't read the books to the very end. Not explicitly, but it drops some hefty hints at a major incident in the final scenes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YddkQoxkZMQ

e_e · 17-09-2015 2:02am

Don't know the narrative of the novels so looking forward to seeing how this ends.

Really like what Francis Lawrence is doing, part 1 has to be the most low key blockbuster I've ever seen and it was all the better for it.

pixelburp · 17-09-2015 9:01am

e_e wrote: »

Don't know the narrative of the novels so looking forward to seeing how this ends.

Really like what Francis Lawrence is doing, part 1 has to be the most low key blockbuster I've ever seen and it was all the better for it.

Can't agree on that, Part 1 was one of the more blatant examples of Hollywood padding the last part of an adaptation with pointless busy work. A 2 hour wheel-spin with scenes clearly stretched beyond reasonable limit to meet the running time & justify the existence of this film; one of the few times I left the cinema feeling utterly mugged by the studio.

robdonn · 17-09-2015 10:09am

pixelburp wrote: »

Can't agree on that, Part 1 was one of the more blatant examples of Hollywood padding the last part of an adaptation with pointless busy work. A 2 hour wheel-spin with scenes clearly stretched beyond reasonable limit to meet the running time & justify the existence of this film; one of the few times I left the cinema feeling utterly mugged by the studio.

Still, not as bad as The Hobbit.

pixelburp · 17-09-2015 10:28am

robdonn wrote: »

Still, not as bad as The Hobbit.

Part of me stubbornly respects the decision to really double down - well, triple down I guess - on turning the The Hobbit into a multi-part adventure, and there was a concerted effort to recreate the epic scope and lightning-in-a-bottle that was the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Still a greedy failure mind you, but the attempt was there to broaden the story.

Mockingjay Part 1, on the other hand, felt utterly cynical and devoid of effort; lazily dragging pointless scenes out that had no business being there other than an attempt to get a feature-length film out of the footage.

Both of the above are cynical cashgrabs, but at least The Hobbit put some effort into their cashgrab.

Mickeroo · 17-09-2015 10:30am

Yeah Part 1 was very much half a film, though a very well made and enjoyable one.

I didn't think much of the third book at all, the films have been an improvement so far so looking forward to this regardless.

e_e · 17-09-2015 4:59pm

pixelburp wrote: »

Can't agree on that, Part 1 was one of the more blatant examples of Hollywood padding the last part of an adaptation with pointless busy work. A 2 hour wheel-spin with scenes clearly stretched beyond reasonable limit to meet the running time & justify the existence of this film; one of the few times I left the cinema feeling utterly mugged by the studio.

Honestly I'm used enough to non-mainstream films just being there to represent a very specific time and place rather than some overarching epic story with a 3 act structure. I appreciated MJ Part 1 on that level, not every big budget film needs to arbitrarily up the scale and insert pointless action.

Not even close to being as egregious as The Hobbit for me either. There's visual clarity, pacing, personal stakes, thematic exploration and subtle world building there that that series (ughhhh) lacked.

pixelburp · 17-09-2015 5:19pm

e_e wrote: »

Honestly I'm used enough to non-mainstream films just being there to represent a very specific time and place rather than some overarching epic story with a 3 act structure. I appreciated MJ Part 1 on that level, not every big budget film needs to arbitrarily up the scale and insert pointless action.

I never said anything about pointless action being the answer to the films problems: I think you're giving misplaced credit to a film for accidentally mimicking more languid productions; a film that was little more than an incredibly cynical exercise in cash-grabbing, by way of elongated filler and stalling 'til the next film.

Mockingjay part 1 had no reason to be and you could have jettisoned half its running time without losing any of the world-building, themes or stakes (unless you counted scenes like 'nameless black character walks slowly away from jet' or 'katniss teases a cat with a flashlight' as important

). I don't believe it was representing a very specific time and place, I think it was trying to waste our time while picking our pocket.

e_e · 17-09-2015 6:04pm

Eh I really wouldn't go that far but it is regrettable that we had to wait a year after an abrupt "to be continued". I'd say had it been 2 or 3 months people wouldn't have felt so cheated.

But as a film I also found a lot to appreciate in it. I'd actually compare it to the first 2 movies in the sense that I enjoyed the first halves of both a lot more when it was outside of the action. A whole film of character-driven downtime was perfectly alright for me.

johnny_ultimate · 24-09-2015 1:26pm

I had skipped the first part in the cinema, but decided to give it a watch since it popped up on Netflix recently. And I'd side with e_e here - as far as I'm concerned, it's the strongest chapter of the series so far.

Sure, for a 100 minute plus film it seems decidedly lightweight in terms of actual plot development. There's without question some wheel spinning afoot. Yet without the inconvenience of another round of the Hunger Games themselves, and mercifully liberated from the garish CG-spectacle of the capital, this takes plenty of opportunity to explore the complexities of the political subtexts and the ethical quandaries facing Katniss.

Indeed, given how outlandish and IMO ineffective much of futuristic world design has been in the series so far, the decision to have a film that has excised primary colours almost entirely feels like a peculiarly brave decision, and a welcome one at that. There's an artful ambiguity to the way everything is presented, with even the rebels coming across as a flawed, manipulative movement, and the Lawrences (director and actress) intriguingly probing Katniss' uneasy response to it.

I'm almost disappointed that the follow-up will almost certainly be heavier on the action and spectacle - while I can see the counter argument, I think the muted approach here is fascinating to see for a major young adult blockbuster franchise. This is the first time I feel the series has come across as something considerably more substantial than a neutered, family friendly Battle Royale - although in fairness the second film was a notable improvement over the first - and instead something with its own identity. Here's hoping that's not abandoned when the arrows start flying again.

bnt · 01-10-2015 12:26pm

I recently watched Catching Fire and Mockingjay I back-to-back. I've read the books, so I think they could have made Mockingjay one movie, albeit a long one, but the first part was worth the while. I think it serves to underline the media / propaganda aspects to the storyline, which are crucial.

The coming revolution in the film is not merely a war for territory, or assets, but it's a battle for hearts and minds, and who's to say which is more important? We live in an era in which we've seen the USA apparently win wars in the Middle East, yet fail to achieve the outcomes they set - outcomes which were themselves suspect. It's not enough to take a piece of ground, if you don't have the people on your side. If you haven't read the books, I won't spoil the ending, but I would suggest that you think about the subversive message in a story intended for a teenage audience.

bnt · 07-10-2015 3:13am

The official trailer is out: a good deal more substantial than the last one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SoKIqLEGhI0

I was wondering about the character Gwendoline Christie plays, Commander Lyme, at 1:02 in the trailer. From the book:

The commander from 2, a middle-aged woman named Lyme, takes us on a virtual tour of the Nut, its interior and fortifications, and recounts the failed attempts to seize it. I've crossed paths with her briefly a couple of times since my arrival, and was dogged by the feeling I'd met her before. She's memorable enough, standing over six feet tall and heavily muscled. But it's only when I see a clip of her in the field, leading a raid on the main entrance of the Nut, that something clicks and I realize I'm in the presence of another victor. Lyme, the tribute from District 2, who won her Hunger Games over a generation ago. Effie sent us her tape, among others, to prepare for the Quarter Quell. I've probably caught glimpses of her during the Games over the years, but she's kept a low profile. With my newfound knowledge of Haymitch's and Finnick's treatment, all I can think is: What did the Capitol do to her after she won?

e_e · 05-11-2015 8:00pm

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hunger_games_mockingjay_part_2/?search=mockingj

Very strong response so far.

Mr E · 19-11-2015 11:53pm

Slow enough in places, but I really liked it overall. It was probably the weakest of all 4, though.

Not a single f**k was given by that cat (you'll know the scene when you see it)

NachoBusiness · 20-11-2015 4:39am

Felt as if they rushed it.

Mockingjay Part 1 was excellent. Loved it. I liked all the Hunger Games in fact but this had me bored. So many times I thought 'Ah, here we go, it's gonna pick up now' and then it went to crap again. I bought into the story all along as I felt it was so well told. Even the cringey bits were palatable, but this was the opposite. All that was good about the other films seemed to get thrown out the window. It's actually annoyed me that it was so bad. Such a great build up from the previous films seemed not to be capitalized on at all. In fact, they have made such a poor attempt at ending the saga that I think they have actually tarnished the previous films as a result. If I was a teenage girl I think I'd cry. Kinda reminds me of Lost. Mostly the first five seasons were enjoyed and anticipation built up with each episode, but then the sixth season came along and left such a sour taste in people's mouth that it people almost forget how much they enjoyed seasons 1-5. They Season Six'd the Hunger Games is my point and I will never forgive them for it. So long Katniss.

mockingjaywhistle.mp3

Jasnah · 20-11-2015 10:01am

I thought it was very much the weakest of the four. Given that so much was happening, there should have been sufficient material to make a decent movie (I actually thought part one was decent in retrospect), but it all felt a bit dull, with only one or two standout scènes. Also thought the end was pretty meh, a sentiment shared by the rest of the cinema it seems, as people started laughing at how nicely they'd tied it all up. A bit more on the political aftermath and a deeper exploration of Peeta's re-integration to normal life were deeply needed imo.

johnny_ultimate · 20-11-2015 11:45pm

The opening and closing shots of a film are the most important, and this fumbles badly on both counts. The first, coming with barely even company logos to ease us in, is weirdly abrupt, as if it's presumed the audience has literally just finished watching the previous film (or, more generously, come back after a short piss break). The last - and indeed the final scene in its entirety - is an unwelcome example of the

JK Rowling school of epilogues, a brute force flash-forward that overarticulates what was more potently and ambiguously communicated in previous scenes. Indeed the shot right before it cuts to black for the superfluous epilogue would have been a great ending - 'happy', yet melancholic and uncertain too.

The stuff in between is better, for the most part. The ideological, political and moral ambiguity of the predecessor is retained and even built on, if frequently undermined due to the copious amount of arrows flying through the air. Katniss remains a refreshingly ruthless, human hero. The ghastly CG and cringey sci-fi stylings of the first two films largely remain abandoned in favour of a continued understated, gritty visualisation, even if the bizarre appearance of a 'tiger woman' jars badly with everything surrounding it. There's at least one excellent, tense action setpiece (well, until the

generic CG monsters

show up) that makes up for a clunkier one that preceded it. It's surprisingly unromantic at times, and the story to its credit regularly avoids giving all of its characters happy endings.

It is no doubt a glorified third act resolution following a film that benefited significantly from being isolated almost entirely from the titular games. The 'young adult' guff is still guff. But it's a solid ending nonetheless, with enough of interest to keep the viewer engaged despite the plethora of weakpoints. Just a shame about those opening and closing shots though - a little bit more care there, and Mockingjay Part 2 probably would have felt noticeably more satisfying.

Nervous Wreck · 21-11-2015 9:35pm

That just plain sucked.

spurious · 22-11-2015 12:14pm

I could have done without the Little House on the Prairie - the film as a whole I didn't enjoy as much as the others. Kind of disappointing.

theteal · 22-11-2015 12:24pm

This film doesn't deserve the effort of typing up an anyway detailed analysis. They split the 3rd part of the story into two films and still managed to rush the ending. A big fat meh. A shame too as I was quite interested in the franchise up to this point.

Bacchus · 23-11-2015 10:49am

I enjoyed this much more than the non-event that was Part 1. There are some genuinely exciting scenes in Part 2 and Peeta's transition is well handled. However, it still has massive problems. Before I get into those... the good...

It has probably the best scene the series. The scene in the tunnel was like a beautiful homage to Aliens. It built up the tension and then hit you hard on the action. The oil scene was great too, quite horrifying really that this is the kind of twisted stuff the Capital comes up with. While the grander context was quite silly (I'll get into that) the whole

refugee

thing was played out nicely and particularly resonated with the

current European refugee crisis. Rebels Katniss and Gale sneaking across the border pretending to be refugees

. The

parachute bombs were a shock too

. A lot of this movie was phoned in but I thought Peeta was great. His conflict and just how messed up he is, it was well played and well used. The whole

"real or not real"

bit was nicely done. Finally, on the positive side, it entertained me. I enjoyed it, I won't watch it again (like I would 1 & 2) but I'm not looking for my 2+ hours back.

To the not so good. The whole thing is a mess. For a start, the adventures of the lead character, Katniss, during this movie

have zero effect on the outcome of the war. Seriously, the rebels seemed to be getting on just fine without her mission to kill Snow which she never even comes close to achieving. All she did was run around a warzone for 90 minutes dismantling mines, running from traps and hiding

. Speaking of the rebellion... where was it? We see none of it. Also, it all seems to be going way too easy for them. The mighty Capital doesn't even seem to have put up a fight are resigned to simply retreat further and further. Another issue with the rebellion is, how is the front line so far ahead yet none of the pods are taken out? How did an army get through a minefield that our band of heroes struggle to slip past? Final issue, how do Katniss and Gale

go from being way behind the frontline to being ahead of it after spending a night in a bunker?

. Speaking of that

bunker, what's up with Lion-O's wife turning up... that was just weird

.

Now, to the ending. On the one hand it was all nice and clean and wrapped up in a parcel with a little bow (no pun intended)... BUT it was dull. The

swist that Coin was the end game big bad was a nice, though unsurprising, one. However, they telegraphed the ending. It was painfully obvious once Katniss voted yes that she was going to kill Coin, not Snow. Maybe it wasn't meant to be a shock but shock value is all that ending could have had going for it because nothing else in the final 20 minutes was that interesting. We didn't get to see the rebels topple the Capital so we needed some big ending. Instead, there's a forced twist that Coin want's the restart the Hunger Games, then she gets all evil dictator and Katniss puts an arrow through her

. Like I said, nice and neat and wrapped up but not very exciting.

On the very final scenes...

Fine acting from Lawrence as she breaks down and then finds herself again. It was a sweet end with her ending up with Peeta but I think they went one scene too long with it. The line of him asking "You love me. Real or not" and she replies "real" was the perfect ending, go to credits. The next scene though with them playing happy families was nothing, why put it in there. I've seen people on Twitter point out the final shot of Katniss mirrors her opening shot in the first movie which is nice but I preferred the previous scene.

Overall, enjoyable. Decent conclusion to the series that reached the highs of the first 2 (with the exception of the tunnel scenes) but they dropped the ball a bit in the final 20 minutes and played a very safe ending.

cerastes · 23-11-2015 10:55am

There was something about the first film, couldnt put my finger on it, until an old movie was on, well 80's old,
Doesnt the whole idea of this film remind anyone of The Running Man, which was on recently, maybe this has been brought up before, just made me think it was almost the same idea

pinkypinky · 23-11-2015 12:05pm

Ultimately, it was a mistake to make 2 films from the weakest book. The first part was over-long with little action, and then they had to elongate the action in the second to make it a reasonable length film.

Faithful, including the epilogue part. The

decision to kill Coin was not as telegraphed in the book but I think the target audience will still have been surprised by it

Thought Philip Seymour Hoffman's untimely demise was reasonably well handled. The scene where Haymitch reads a letter from him obviously had to be added, but I liked it, and the fact that they didn't

kill off his character

was a nice touch.

Overall, it was grand, but I'd be unlikely to ever watch it again, whereas the first Hunger Games film pretty much gets watched every time it's on Film 4.

Nervous Wreck · 23-11-2015 7:20pm

This movie ended more times than Return of the King.

TerrorFirmer · 23-11-2015 10:24pm

Terrible movie I thought - bad pacing, weak script, absolutely ludicrous and ridiculous story line, flat and often entirely unlikable characters, virtually no visual exploration of rebel or capital society or conflict whatsoever, cliche in so many ways.

I didn't like the first film too much, but retrospectively it's not so bad - the second film I was really impressed by and it absolutely ignited my interest in the series. But Mockingjay Part 1 was a farce, this limps behind though never quite reaching the same lows admittedly but hardly high praise.

I'd say a 3/10 would be generous and at least one of those points would be for the tunnel scene which is the only one I actually enjoyed. Total mess of a movie.

Liam O · 25-11-2015 5:49pm

I think everyone is being very harsh on it here. I read the books a couple of years ago after seeing the first film and normally i would be of the opposite opinion with regards adaptations of books I've read but this was better than the book imo.

There was a slight rush in the end and some stuff not as i pictured but the books are quite short themselves so there's plenty of that involved.

I feel the first is the weakest adaptation and the films got significantly better from Catching Fire on. They deal with adult themes and, as much as is possible for a 12A film, don't shy away from the distressing elements.

A gripe I would have is that one of the things I was enjoying that the films would show you more of the overall picture rather than just Katniss as you got in the books but at the end they slightly abandoned that for the tried and true fade out and fill in later. The story is that of Katniss I guess but a little more on the overall scope and effect of the war wouldn't have gone amiss.

Overall though I really enjoyed it, thought the tension was brilliant at times and it didn't shy away from the deaths of the characters. They weren't gruesome due to the cert but you got the picture. They weren't in Katniss' head like in the book so there was some hammy dialogue between Gale and Peeta but they didn't turn the love triangle into a farce as it could have been.

Overall it was better than I thought it would be and a worthy film to end the story imo.

speedboatchase · 30-11-2015 6:31am

First movie in years where - had I not been with my girlfriend - I would've left early and just looked up the rest on Wikipedia. Dreadfully dour and stretched.

By the way, anyone else felt it bizarre that the 'good guys' (rebels)

essentially decided to use a tactic that many ISIS could use - smuggle terrorists in under the guise of refugees?

johnny_ultimate · 30-11-2015 11:06am

speedboatchase wrote: »

By the way, anyone else felt it bizarre that the 'good guys' (rebels)
essentially decided to use a tactic that many ISIS could use - smuggle terrorists in under the guise of refugees?

That's part of the whole thematic arc of the last two films IMO. The shades of grey are what make them so intriguing - the "good guys" deserve their inverted commas, because their actions are in many ways as violent, authoritative and problematic as the force they're fighting against (more so even when they resort to more desperate tactics like the one you mentioned above). While there are definitely individuals who mean well, even then they find themselves straying from the 'right' path. That's what makes Katniss a fascinating protagonist - she's legitimately torn ideologically and morally, often forced to actions that she doesn't fully agree with. The final act of this film - up until that heartbreakingly redundant epilogue - sees her battling with the consequences of her deeds and uncertainty about the future. It's the sort of thematic and emotional ambiguity I find very thin on the ground in Hollywood blockbusters, and was interesting enough that it shone through despite the undeniable rough edges here (and the previous film was overall a braver, more subtle take on those very themes).

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2

Comments