The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 1 (2014) film review

Year: 2014
Running Time: 123 minutes
Director: Francis Lawrence
Writers: Suzanne Collins (based on the novel by), Peter Craig and Danny Strong (screenplay)
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Liam Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Julianne Moore, Donald Sutherland, Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, Sam Claflin, Natalie Dormer, Jena Malone

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay- Part 1 will be released in Australian cinemas on November 20 and is distributed by Roadshow Films. To be released in the United States on November 21 and the United Kingdom November 20.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay- Part 1 takes place in the days following the dramatic finale of The Hunger Games in which Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) was rescued and taken to the once thought destroyed, District 13. While Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and President Alma Coin (Julianne Moore) expect Katniss to be grateful for her rescue, all she can think of is how Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) is now in The Capitol as a hostage and must be rescued. They inform her that they wish to make her the Mockingjay, the face of the rebellion against the Capitol to free the people of Panem. Katniss is hesitant at first, until she sees the destruction of her home, District 12 and agrees to become the Mockingjay with the condition that the victors being held hostage are brought to District 13.

Unlike the first two films in The Hunger Games franchise, Mockingjay- Part 1 has lacked the excitement and feeling of importance in the lead up that one feels it should possess to maintain the enthusiasm for the phenomenon. Making the final book in The Hunger Games trilogy written by Suzanne Collins into two separate films was always going to be problematic from a narrative and excitement point of view as it is only the half telling of the explosive final book. As the third but not final film in the series, the release of Mockingjay- Part 1 isn't as anticipated as the first and second films and without a doubt as the final film to be released late 2015 will be. The initial The Hunger Games film was highly anticipated as the popular and much loved novel was being introduced to the screen, as was Catching Fire because of the pressure to maintain the high standards set by the first film and the finale is always awaited for the obvious reasons.

What this has meant for the film is that it was going to have to be something truly special to prove that just because it is only half of the finale, it deserves as much love as every other film in the franchise. The verdict is that Mockingjay-Part 1 is a fine film, but still has the resonating feeling that it is a bridge rather than an island. It merely feels as though it is connecting Catching Fire and Mockingjay- Part 2 rather than it being a film that could stand alone if it wanted to. This was an inevitable problem of the final book being split into two and one that was always going to be an enormous challenge to overcome. However, it is easily recognised that Mockingjay would have either been incredibly rushed or at a running time of close to four hours had it been one film so the idea of having a two film finale cannot quickly be dismissed as a negative. Writers, Peter Craig and Danny Strong have done a fine job of fleshing out the right aspects of the book for the film and have left the story hanging promptly for the final film.

Mockingjay- Part 1 has a rather different feel to it than the first two films as Mockingjay is more about the aftermath of The Hunger Games rather than the games themselves.  The film gives an accurate depiction of the hardships inflicted on civilians by warfare and of the creation of hope in such times. The visuals of the destroyed District 8 and 12 are incredibly moving, but they are also a spectacular CGI creation. The action that ensues is brief, but well constructed and suspenseful. The film also does a wonderful job at demonstrating how hope is built in such a time, which includes an interesting insight into the creation of propaganda. The process can almost seem comical at times, but the end result is one of the utmost sincerity. The scene in which Katniss sings "The Hanging Tree" is a beautiful, peaceful moment in the film and the musical score throughout the whole film is quite beautiful.

In Jennifer Lawrence's third outing as Katniss Everdeen, she proves that she has not lost momentum with the character and that she is growing with her. From the opening moments of Mockingjay-Part 1, Lawrence once again gives a wonderful performance as a character who has trouble relating to most people as a result of the hardships she has been through and has incredibly complex internal battles taking place. It is a rather solemn and cheerless performance, which is exactly what the film calls for.

Mockingjay-Part 1 has an incredible cast and the majority do a wonderful job. Josh Hutcherson is on screen for a very short amount of time in comparison to his co-stars, but makes a great impact with the time he has. Liam Hemsworth, on the other hand, doesn't give much in his performance, which is surprising as he has a great deal to do in the film.

Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket gives a performance quite unlike that of the past Hunger Games films. As times have changed, Effie doesn't seem to be the same woman she was as she has been deprived of her luxurious clothes and make-up. However, Banks proves that it is not the clothes that make the character as she is still the complete embodiment of the eccentric Effie in manner and posture even when wearing the plainest of outfits. Natalie Dormer as Cressida becomes a character quite unlike those she has been known to play and proves her versatility as an actor.Donald Sutherland is the perfect brand of evil as President Snow and one looks forward to seeing a great deal more of him in Mockingjay-Part 2.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay- Part 1 is placed in an interesting situation in relation to the other films in it's series. It's anticipation isn't as great as it's place and existence ensures that it will not be the strongest nor most entertaining film of the franchise, which is proven to be true. However, the subject material is fleshed out as much as it can be and what the film does well, it does very well.

7/10

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

 

Year: 2013

Running Time: 146 minutes

Director: Francis Lawrence
Writers: Suzanne Collins (book), Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt (screenplay)
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Stanley Tucci, Lenny Kravitz, Willow Shields, Sam Claflin, Jena Malone

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is now showing in Australian cinemas and is distributed by Roadshow Films. Opening in the UK on the 21st of November and in the USA on the 22nd of November 2013.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is without a doubt one of the most highly anticipated films of the year. Fans of "The Hunger Games" book trilogy by Suzanne Collins and 2012's The Hunger Games have been anxious to see whether Francis Lawrence's direction do the second instalment to The Hunger Games the justice it deserves.

Everyone can breathe a sigh of relief. Catching Fire is a wonderful follow up to the first film and in many ways actually better. Francis Lawrence has done a great job directing a very well adapted screenplay by Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt and has created a suspenseful and very emotional at times film. Jennifer Lawrence shines in her second venture as Katniss Everdeen and is surrounded by a number of intriguingly well-rounded characters.

After winning the 74th Hunger Games, District 12's victors, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) are about the embark on their victor's tour of the districts. Although the two are still carrying on their love affair for the cameras in order to stay alive, Katniss is confused about whether she does have feelings for Peeta outside the arena, or if she is meant to be with her long time best friend, Gale (Liam Hemsworth). However, Katniss has more pressing matters than her love life at the present time. President Snow (Donald Sutherland) has his eye on her every move as his citizens see her as a beacon of hope and her actions have inched the districts closer to a rebellion. With the 75th Hunger Games approaching, Snow does the unthinkable and announces that the pool of tributes will consist of past Hunger Games victors, which means that Katniss is definitely heading back into the lethal world which haunts her dreams every night.

With an influx of young adult book series being made into films and not all of those adaptations praise-worthy, Catching Fire is in a class of it's own. Not only is it a wonderful adapted screenplay, but it is one of the rare second films that may well be better than the first. Lawrence was a perfect choice for director for the second film as he has brought out the best in his actors and by doing so has made the characters personalities stronger by showing their raw emotions in a more powerful way than what we saw in The Hunger Games.

A lot happens in Catching Fire's 146 minutes. Such a running time would normally seem like an eternity in a movie theatre, but every scene is essential and contributes to the greater picture. In addition to that, every scene is intriguing and creates some sort of emotion. There is also a great deal more tension and suspense leading up to the finale than in the first film. The ending is done absolutely perfectly as you feel you are at the very height of suspense, and it leaves you wanting more and wanting the third film, Mockingjay Part 1 to be released sooner rather than later. It is an incredible thing for a film to be two and a half hours long and to leave you wanting more.

There are a great deal of close-up camera shots of the characters throughout the film, particularly of Katniss. These close-ups allow the audience to grasp every bit of emotion the character is feeling and you are able to tell so much by looking closer. There are also some very fast camera movements whilst in the Hunger Games arena. Although these can be a tad dizzying at times, it feels as though they were employed to represent the mayhem that the Hunger Games arena creates and the sense of always being on the look out and on edge. The actual landscape shots of the Hunger Games arena are also quite stunning.

The centre and heart of the film is absolutely Jennifer Lawrence. From the very first shot, Lawrence is perfection. When we first see her sitting beside the lake, we understand so much just by looking at her. Just from seeing her facial expression, we can tell that she is psychologically exhausted and still very much recovering from her time in the arena. Her performance packs a bigger punch than that of the first film and is much more emotionally charged. She is truly brilliant and the perfect heroine. What is so great about her Katniss is that she is effortlessly strong and a beacon of hope by being the person she is. It would be so easy to seem corny when acting as a symbol of strength, but there is absolutely nothing corny about this performance at all. Lawrence is just a powerhouse from beginning to end and her last scene is a perfect example of this strength.

Josh Hutcherson does well as Peeta, and continues to be such a likable character. Liam Hemsworth has a greater role as Gale than in the first film, and he also does very well with what he has been given. Both Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks, as Haymitch and Effie are both full of character and are a pleasure to watch. Donald Sutherland is particularly terrifying in such a subtle way, and it is the subtlety that makes him so unsettling as President Snow. Lenny Kravitz is an audience favourite as Cinna. His performance, like Sutherland's, is subtle rather than over the top, but his loyalty and love he shows for Katniss is so endearing. Jena Malone is also wonderful as tribute, Johanna Mason. Johanna was again a character that could have been made to seem corny, but Malone is so natural and real in this role and her obvious anger actually makes her very likable.

While Catching Fire is a wonderful film, it is still not a stand alone film and it is absolutely crucial that you see the first film before you see this one. That shouldn't come as a huge surprise as this is part of a trilogy, not a sequel so it can hardly be seen as a negative aspect of the film. For those who love The Hunger Games movie or books, there is no disappointment to be had here.

8.5/10



You may have also seen Jennifer Lawrence in.....
Silver Linings Playbook as Tiffany
X Men: First Class as Mystique

You may have also seen Liam Hemsworth in.....
Paranoia as Adam Cassidy

The Master (2012

The Master

Year: 2012

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Laura Dern

Before I begin my review….

It’s the most wonderful time of the year…..

I love Christmas, but I am not talking about Christmas. I am talking about a film lover’s Christmas which is awards season!

So for another film which has Oscar buzz surrounding it, The Master. What is my opinion of the Oscar buzz for it after seeing it? Well, I’m not convinced it is the film that is going to win the big one, although it will most probably be one of the ten films in the running. Paul Thomas Anderson should receive a nomination for Best Director, but I don’t think the film has the same suspense of those films chosen for the number one honour in the past few years and may be a tad too confronting.

The acting is the main draw for this film. I am fairly certain that Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams will all earn nominations for this film. It is going to be a big year for the Best Actor category. Including Phoenix, I can see four actors who are going to be up there for the category. That being Daniel Day-Lewis for Lincoln, Anthony Hopkins for Hitchcock, John Hawkes for The Sessions and Phoenix for The Master. As I haven’t reviewed the other films as yet, it is impossible for me to determine who will win, but as far as Phoenix is concerned, he does give a brilliant performance. However, as he has made his dislike for awards season and everything to do with it known, his chances may have been slaughtered significantly as it is more than likely he would ruffle some feathers of those who make the final decision.

I’ve always been a great admirer of Phoenix’s acting so his outspoken opinion on the matter of nominations and top honours did not really impress me, as I would love to see him win an Academy Award one day, but I would like to see him win it in a gracious and grateful manner.

On the other hand, Hoffman is a big chance for Best Supporting Actor and very much deserving. Adams could well be nominated for Best Supporting Actress and if she does it will be the fourth time she would have been nominated in the category. Even though she was very good, I am not convinced this year will be her year. Again, I will make a more accurate opinion when I see all the other films which have nominees. Rumour has it it may well be the year of Anne Hathaway for Les Miserables.

Review

                The Master is Paul Thomas Anderson’s long awaited follow up to his superb There Will Be Blood. His new film contains the same brilliance in direction and knockout performances as it’s predecessor, but is very confronting and as a result isn’t a film for everyone.

                Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) has returned home from the war front into a life without direction and without purpose. One night, he by chance encounters the leader of faith based organisation The Cause, Lancaster Dodd (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) who takes Quell under his wing and tries to change his life. However, through the many tests Dodd gives Quell, he still exhibits violent actions and erratic emotions, which makes other members of The Cause, including Dodd’s wife, Peggy (Amy Adams) wonder if Quell can really be changed.

                The basis of the film is really an interesting one. Can people really be changed? Quell displays all the symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder which has been brought on by his experiences while at war, but no matter what Dodd puts him through, he doesn’t seem to stray too far from the behaviour we see him exhibit at the beginning of the film. Maybe he was always this person even before the war, or maybe Dodd’s strategies for changing him are just not adequate or useful in such a situation. Or did Quell even really want to change?

                The Master is a very confronting film. Partially based on Scientology founder, L. Ron Hubbard, the activities that you see members of The Cause are quite disturbing and unsettling. The thoughts and activities of Quell are also unsettling. So this film is really not one for the faint hearted and one some people will find vulgar and other people will find weird.

                The pace of the film is very slow and there really is no suspense or feeling of wanting to find out what is going to happen at the end. At no point in time you can see how the film is going to end, which isn’t a bad thing, but what is a bad thing is that lack of wanting to know what is going to happen.

                However, Anderson’s direction is very good. Anderson has a real knack for making things which are not normally considered beautiful so with his choice of images, editing and audio. The film in many ways is a winner visually as he takes pride in every single scene and how it is presented.

                The acting in The Master is just superb by the three main actors. Joaquin Phoenix makes his acting comeback with an explosion. He has some brilliant scenes such as when he is subjected to Dodd’s processing, which are very intense and scary due to his fine performance.

                Phillip Seymour Hoffman is also brilliant. He is extremely charismatic as Dodd and is believable as the sect’s leader who has so many people hanging off his every word. He embodies everything of what this character should be. Amy Adams is also very good as his wife, Peggy. She is a strong female figure that the film needs alongside two very strong male leads.

                The Master is a brilliant film for certain aspects and film scholars will love dissecting each part it. However, it’s slow pace and confrontational façade make it a film which isn’t everyone’s taste.

7.5/10

References
Just Jared
The Internet Movie Database
The Guardian

The Ides Of March (2011)

The Ides Of March

Year: 2011

Director: George Clooney

Cast: Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood

Before I begin my review…..

As awards season creeps closer, I and most probably all the other film geeks out there are expecting to see an increase in the calibre of films.

Honestly, I was expecting The Ides Of March to be one of the big contenders this year. Killer cast, director and a storyline that has a world of opportunities. Although there were actually some aspects of the film which I believe are quite magnificent, I’m hoping there are some films which are nominated and are of better calibre than this otherwise it symbolises a particularly mediocre year in film. I’m not saying I am writing The Ides of March off as far as Golden Globes and Oscars go as weirder things have happened and I know my opinions are not shared by everyone out there.

However, Ryan Gosling….I feel confident in saying that he will get a Golden Globe and perhaps even an Oscar nomination for either Drive or The Ides Of March.

How about some more predictions while I am at it? Either Meryl Streep for The Iron Lady or Michelle Williams for My Week With Marilyn will win the Best Female In A Leading Role. I haven’t seen either of the films yet so I may change my mind once I see them, but judging by the small parts of the film I have seen they are forces to be reckoned with. Plus Streep is long overdue for her next Oscar win and Williams is due for her first.

But let’s talk about The Ides Of March,

Review

The Ides Of March is the perfect example how you can have everything it takes to make a brilliant film, yet it can be the script that can completely let you down.

Although there are some magnificent things about The Ides Of March such as the cinematography and a power house performance by Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Beau Willimon and Grant Heslov’s screenplay slows down the film at an alarming rate to point where it is just a chore to sit through.

Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney) is running for President with a powerful team behind him which is led by Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) and Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Stephen dedicates his life to politics and is committed to seeing Morris win the presidential race. He sees himself working in the White House, whether it is with Morris or not. After a meeting with the opposition parties campaign manager, Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti) Stephen starts to wonder whether he would put his loyalties ahead of his ambition. Further complications arise with his relations with campaign intern, Molly Stearns (Evan Rachel Wood) when she reveals a secret to him that changes everything.

The problem lies primarily with the screenplay. The story of The Ides Of March has so much potential. IT should be riveting and captivating. Yet nothing moves quickly in the film and it slows down the interest of the audience in return. It isn’t always a bad thing if a film is slow, but The Ides Of March has no suspense to it at all. Stephen’s situation in the film and the presidential race of Morris is worthy of suspense and the audience should feel the importance in their situations. However they don’t, it all just feels flat lined.

Clooney’s direction is a little inconsistent throughout the film. His choices of editing and cinematography have maestro moments and he brings out the best in his actors, yet he is partly to blame for the lack of suspense and urgency. The director should employ tactics to increases these features. Maybe he never knew they were lacking?

However, the cinematography is still very well done. One stunning image is of Gosling’s silhouette up against a huge American flag. So stunning it should have been the film’s official poster. The opening of the film is also visually stunning and very effective.

Ryan Gosling gives by far the most outstanding performance in The Ides Of March. He has such a range of emotions which he exhibits and his character has so many developments throughout the film. He goes from cocky, to unsure, to emotional, to broken and then back again. He carries the film so well and there is no doubt he is one of the best things about it.

Clooney directs himself well, but his performance is not one that goes above and beyond. His character doesn’t change at all throughout the film despite what happens to and around him. Philip Seymour Hoffman has some great moments, such as his hotel room discussion with Stephen.

 Evan Rachel Wood is okay, but not entirely convincing in the part she plays. You never quite figure out what type of girl she really is. She is a bit of an enigma. Marisa Tomei is very convincing in her role as journalist, Ida Horowicz. She is tough, but actually likable.

Not the worst film you will see this year by any means, but not enough to cross the line into the land of films you will not forget.

6/10

Moneyball (2011)

Moneyball

Year: 2011

Director: Bennett Miller

Cast: Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Robyn Wright

Before I begin my review…

Moneyball is a sports movie with a difference. Even though there is plenty of baseball romanticism, it shows that there is more to sport than what happens on the playing field. Probably a good thing we have a film like that as the sports movie where the losing team eventually becomes the winning team and everyone is left feeling happy is becoming very cliché and boring.

You have really got to hand it to Billy Beane for completely changing the way sports teams are run. This isn’t just restricted to baseball, you can see it in American grid iron football and even in rugby codes. Being a team is all about working together and not just having a few stars and back up dancers (if you can think of it that way).

However, Billy Beane and Brad Pitt really look nothing alike. I would’ve though Brad Pitt would have dyed his hair darker for the role at least.

And just for the hell of it, go Red Sox!!

Review

Moneyball gives us the type of sports movie we have been waiting for since the likes of Jerry Maguire.

You cannot have a sports movie without some winning and losing and sports footage, but Moneyball shows what happens behind the scenes to those who sometimes miss out on all the credit.  It is the intelligent sports movie.

Ex baseball player and now General Manager of the Oakland Athletics, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) is stuck with the tough job of rebuilding the team after their three star players leave at the end of the season. However, he has to do this on a tiny budget compared to all the other teams in the league which means not being able to afford players of the same calibre as the ones who have left. With his new Assistant General Manager, Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) he devises a plan to focus more on runs rather than stars and is ridiculed and scorned by all those around him at the A’s.

The best thing about Moneyball is that it is intelligent. The script by Steve Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin is very well written and covers all bases.

This is director, Bennett Miller’s second feature length film (his first being the critically acclaimed Capote) and he has once again done a great job. The way he has assembled the script against the visuals and combined visuals of the A’s actual games and filmed cinema footage is commendable.

However, because Moneyball does focus so greatly on the script and the story, it is quite slow and many people will not quite appreciate the sequences of pure conversation with not much else happening.

Brad Pitt is fine as Billy Beane, although in some moments he is better than others. In the first half an hour, he isn’t quite convincing in his role. It seems as though he isn’t really acting, just sitting down and talking to his co-stars. His best moments in the film are the moments where he is in a fit of rage. In his defence though, it is not one of the hardest roles of his career and he does fine.

Jonah Hill gives a good performance as the brains behind Beane’s plan and embraces a character different to the ones he normally plays. Philip Seymour Hoffman is satisfactory in his role as the A’s team manager.

A sports film that not only sports fans will enjoy. One completely refreshing thing about Moneyball is that it is one of the only Hollywood films released this year where there isn’t a romance between two people subplot. Something to be rejoiced.

7/10