The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
594 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Sadly, this doesn't feel like a complete film at all - but it offers a surprisingly realistic portrayal of a totalitarian society on the brink of an all-out civil war
gogoschka-128 May 2016
Warning: Spoilers
It appears I'm in a minority here, because I actually liked 'Mockingjay: Part 1'. Now bear with me for a moment before you rip this review to shreds and please at least hear (or read) me out.

I do absolutely acknowledge that unlike the two previous films, 'Mockingjay: Part 1' doesn't feel like a complete film; it is practically all build-up and doesn't have a proper ending, and I agree that splitting the last book into two films was an inherently stupid, purely greed-driven decision by the studio. Also, due to that idiotic split of the last chapter, the film is largely deprived of the action/adventure elements that so many fans loved in the first two films, which must be especially disappointing to non-book-readers who didn't expect such a drastic change in tone. But if we ignore its most obvious flaws for a moment, the film has actually quite a few things going for it.

For instance, it offers a surprisingly realistic portrayal of a totalitarian society on the brink of an all-out civil war, and unlike other Hollywood adaptations of such tales, it dares to put the emphasis on the human drama instead of the special effects. And it remains faithful to the book: it would have been fairly easy to invent a couple of heroic battle scenes to amp up the spectacle (Hollywood is notorious for such disregard of source material - and such disregard for the fans), and I must say I appreciated the film precisely because of its NOT solely action-driven narrative.

But the most impressive aspect about 'Mockingjay: Part 1' is how layered it actually is. This is not the good-against-evil story of the first two films anymore: this is a really smart study on how propaganda works and how one fascist system is about to be replaced - albeit with the best intentions - by another. This kind of moral ambiguity (and again: faithfulness to the novel) is not what we usually get in blockbusters aimed at teenagers, and for that alone the film deserves some credit.

Also, what the film does masterfully, is showing how Katniss transforms upon the devastating realization that she has helped - or has been instrumentalised - to set a process in motion that she can neither stop nor control, a process which has already led to a terrible loss of human life for which she now feels responsible. She is torn apart by inner conflict because her hate for Snow and everything he stands for is bigger than ever - yet at same time, it begins to dawn on her that the leaders of the rebellion employ methods which don't seem to be all that different. The lines between what is morally acceptable and what is not start to blur. A very wise person once said: "War makes fascists of us all" - I believe 'Mockingjay: Part 1' does an excellent job at getting that point across.

Unlike in most popcorn movies, there are no mere black and white characters here (well, except maybe for Snow); instead, we get a story that - for once - hasn't been dumbed down and functions as a sincere exploration of an escalating civil war that threatens to consume everyone. And unlike most YA adaptations, the film doesn't shy away from showing what that means: the audience is left in no doubt about the human toll this revolution will take in the end.

Maybe the current situation in countries like Syria after the initially peaceful revolution that was the Arab Spring made this film resonate more with me than it should have, but I was surprised at how un- Hollywood-like this was done. And I can't stress this enough: Jennifer Lawrence MAKES this film; the whole franchise, really. The emotional intensity she brings to Katniss feels so real; it's the kind of performance that, in this kind of film, sadly often gets overlooked, but I sincerely doubt a better Katniss could ever have been found.

So my final verdict on the film: 'Mockingjay: Part 1' offers intelligent entertainment that doesn't solely rely on special effects and one mindless action scene after another. It's a fitting continuation of Katniss' journey, but - and that is the one serious downside to this film - it doesn't lead that journey to its logical conclusion. That the studio wants you to pay once more to see how the journey ends may be understandable from a financial standpoint, but it is a major flaw in the storytelling of an otherwise very good film. Likewise, the final chapter in the series (Mockingjay: Part 2) will likely suffer from having to do without all the dramatic build-up that Part 1 offers.

Still, there is a lot to like in this film and it is far from the boring mess so many reviews made it out to be: 7 stars out of 10.

Favorite Films:

Lesser-known Masterpieces:

Favorite Low-Budget and B-movies:
97 out of 115 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Why is this in two parts?
Vartiainen31 January 2015
The Hunger Games story continues with the third installation, Mockingjay. And it's about as padded and needlessly long as every other two-parter we've had since the studio executives came up with this money-grabbing monstrosity of an idea.

Not to say you shouldn't see this one if you've liked the previous Hunger Games films. This continues the story just fine. Jennifer Lawrence still shines as Katniss Everdeen. Her presence and talent hold us through even through scenes you instantly recognize as needless padding and waste of our money. The returning cast is also as talented as they've always been and most of the new characters are also casted without hitches. Julianne Moore is perhaps a bit too... Julianne Moore to play President Coin 100 percent convincingly, but she has certain presence as well, that cannot be denied.

What bugs me is the story. The book itself was the weakest of the trilogy, though not by much, and it seems that its faults bleed into the film. Especially because the iron tight pace of the previous installations is thrown straight out of the window and we spent most of our time building up atmosphere. And building. And building. And... You get the point. There's very little bang for your buck here and even when something substantial happens, it simply lacks that edge.

Plus, they had the perfect closing scene, and for some reason they decided to keep going for about five minutes. Trust me, you know where they should have ended it when you've seen the movie.

This is a good movie. It still looks great, the main actors are brilliant and it has enough depth to impress through its story alone. I just wish they had had the integrity to go with one movie. It very well might have been the best Hunger Games movie of the three. It would have had two movies before it to build up momentum and steam. Instead it lifts up the pedal from the gas and decides to stroll over the finish line. Poor form, extremely poor form.
26 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Please stop comparing these films to Battle Royale!
jimscant690120 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
They're totally different in mood, feelings, and content. Hunger Games gets to see a female lead and one who doesn't have to use sex or promiscuity to be powerful! That alone makes this book/film franchise a winner in America. People, please remember that most stories are merely adaptations of other stories told before, just like with Cinderella, Alice in Wonderland, A Christmas Carol, etc. There have simply been too many creators writing for too many years for anything to be truly fresh and original anymore. Almost every story you read or film you watch is lifted from a story told before (think about Disney-Almost none of their films are original, yet everyone loves them!). So while you're bashing all of the Rip-Off artists, like Suzanne Collins, just think about how many of your favorite books or films may have been stolen from someone else's idea, perhaps even hundreds of years ago.
29 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Very Slow Pace; Almost 2 Hours of Melodrama with No Payoff
coatic20 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Let me first note that I am an avid movie-goer, but not a reader of the books. I did, however, watch the first two Hunger Games movies and was pleasantly surprised by them. They kept my attention, with plot and performances intriguing and action-packed enough to get from one scene to the next without a dull moment.

This latest installment is the exact opposite. The movie opens with some melodramatic scenes where Katniss (JLaw) suffers from previous trauma, then scene after scene just keeps rehashing the same weepy look on her face partnered with some sentimental background music. "Remember how President Snow tried to kill everyone in our district? Sniff." followed by "How could he do this again in this district? Sniff." then "Why is he doing this to my friends? Sniff." over and over until the end. Imagine that for 2 hours. That is essentially this movie.

Other scenes later on are just variations of the same - different scenery (a town in ruins, a mountain lake, a bomb shelter), different characters to ruminate with (the old flame Gale, old allies like Finnick and new ones like the District 13 folks, the sister Prim) - but they essentially are the same scene. I really wanted to tell the director the whole time: "Ok I get it, they are all angry and hurt. Now what? Please advance the story." I understand this treatment is beneficial at the start to provide some exposition on how the characters are brewing in their discontent and how it all boils over later on, but that's also what the first two movies already established. To fill 2 hours of the supposedly climactic final chapter with further exposition is just too much, perhaps unless you truly are a solid fan and have the patience to wait it out.

There was one final part in this movie that was intended to be a climax of sorts before the cliffhanger. It's the only scene that promises some sort of cathartic, action-packed sequence, but they skip the meat and flash-forward until after the event concludes.

There were, however, some good scenes of rebels rousing here and there that were quite entertaining even if they were also just more exposition fodder. At least they reminded me to wake up from time to time.

I think this is the unfortunate fault of the cash-grab strategy of trying to split the last book into two parts. The movie just feels so out of place with regards to momentum, which was a very positive thing going for the storyline in the first two movies. Even though Catching Fire was essentially just going back to the Hunger Games, it still felt fast and different enough to keep me tuned in. This movie managed to rehash itself endlessly and leave me feeling like nothing of gravity happened after my viewing experience... and it tried so hard to make me care via the melodrama, yet I am left unsold.
430 out of 638 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Is there such thing as a set-up movie?
jmacdavidson21 November 2014
I had never heard the term "set-up movie" before today. There has definitely been a trend of splitting up a story into multiple movies. These movies don't have a beginning-middle-end the same way other movies do but at the very least there's some progress.

The problem with the Mockingjay Pt 1 is not that it's boring or poorly made. In fact, there is a lot of excitement in this movie. The problem is that from beginning to end there is hardly anything that changes. If you look at where the characters are in the beginning and where they are in the end there isn't much that's changed except for what happens in the very end. Katniss has been doing things but we haven't seen much of the effects of her actions.

I didn't dislike this movie that much despite it's slow beginning. I just can't give this my seal of approval when I left the theater feeling like I saw half a movie. By the time the story gets its payoff my memory of this movie will be worn-off.
366 out of 565 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What have happened here?
angelino-878-40678910 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
No, seriously? I thought I made a huge mistake and went to a kinder garden movie or something. At the end of this film there was a very serious dilemma in my mind – to cry or to laugh. To cry for the time and money I spend, or to laugh at what I just saw? To cry for the people who will be misled by their expectations from the book, or to laugh about the people who actually put a lot of effort in creating this "thing".

Where to begin? Directing. May be Francis Lawrence idea was to show us that he is capable of making bad movies as well as good ones. Constantine was good. A little bit above average. I am Legend was very good! Especially for the fans of the genre. Water for Elephants was a soap opera but it wasn't bad. And now this … My guess is that he left his skills, his talent and everything he knew about creating movies and started from the bottom. I felt like the director of this movie was learning how to direct during this shootings … Usually what we see on the screen is the director perspective of the story. We see how he sees things. If this is his perspective about this potentially good plot, than he is the one to blame for the crap we see.

Adaptation. I didn't read the books. They weren't so famous in my country when the first movie came on the big screen. At first I was interested. I am a fantasy fan, a sci-fi fan I love this kind of stories. Some things didn't make sense but it was all right. Then the second movie repeated everything from the first one. Why? And on top of that the story doesn't give anything original or unique. I have read a lot of similar books and I have watched a lot of similar films. Where is the one thing that is supposed to grab the attention? May be the book is better. But there is nothing in the world that can make me read it now.

Dialogue. OMG. This was seriously the worst part of this movie. Who wrote that script? Hello! We are not that dumb, okay? Most of the sentences were as simple as they were written for children. Every scene was so obvious that everyone should be able to predict it! Most of the lines for the main characters were extremely lame and flat. You can hear your mind finishing the speech before the actors said it.

I can continue more and more but this is enough. The last thing – *SPOILER* the scene with the sister where she left her cat and she ran to save it. HA-HA-HA :D. 5 minutes of creating funny tension with loud sounds and creepy music. Just a lot of shouting and running up and down. A scene totally unrelated with the plot, completely useless in terms of creating or developing character (if there is developing of any kind :D) and absolutely boring.

1 point for Jenifer Lawrence, 1 point in memory of Seymour Hoffman and 1 point for the movie.
33 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Dull as dull can be
memefactory21 December 2014
Like watching paint dry. Boring to a mind-numbing degree. How many times can we see Katniss be horrified and/or emotionally distraught? Maybe the filmmakers thought they were adding depth to their characters. Well, they were wrong. Instead we, the audience, sit through one scene after another in which really nothing happens at all. This whole thing could have easily been compressed down to 40 minutes and then we could have had the rest of the book as the rest of the film. This felt very much like they were stretching it out so they could make two movies - which is the new thing to do in Hollywood with these franchises. Not good storytelling.
288 out of 452 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Slow, boring with poor acting
lianpeled20 November 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Let me say it right now; I hated this movie. It was bad. Look, the concept of a film being cut into two parts just does not work. The whole thing felt like a two-hour exposition. The first 30 minutes were so damn boring I literally could not stop getting out of focus and moving uncomfortably in my seat. There really isn't anything special going on as it progresses, too. There is war going on, but they do not really show it and it doesn't suck you in. It's very slow paced with lots of teenage drama and not a lot of "games" or "hunger" as in the previous films (which I liked, by the way). And now there's Jennifer Lawrence's acting, which was trying too hard (while making lots of weird facial expressions that made me laugh at inappropriate moments). Overall, I think the idea of splitting a movie into two parts; thus making the first half boring, isn't a very good one. And in this case "not very good" is a compliment. 3/10
451 out of 731 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Minor Stuff goes on in a bunker for 2 hours: The Movie
seanandrewstevens613 December 2014
I came out of the movie theater annoyed, and I felt like I wasted my time. The acting wasn't very good, and the plot felt like it was moving at an extremely slow pace. The action scenes were cheesy, and nothing actually happened besides rescuing the captured tributes. This being shortened into a one hour movie in my opinion would have been much better.

The movie should be renamed, 'Minor Stuff goes on in a bunker for 2 hours: The Movie'

I really hope the next HG movie makes up for this one. All of the dialog was cheesy, and unrealistic. A 3 hour Mockingjay movie would have been much better.
30 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
WORST movie in a few years
dingkaihku7 February 2015
1. The pace is very slow. Literally nothing happen in the first 1.5 hour.

2. MockingJay is claimed to be "unique and irreplaceable". But she has absolutely no ability or leadership skills or braveness or what so ever. Basically a useless character in the movie.

3. No thrilling fighting except for a large group of people crying, shouting, or running for no reason.

4. MockingJay is supposed for fight for the whole district. But her action is solely based on her selfish emotion for her boyfriend.

5. Graphics and sound are mediocre.

Absolutely the worst movie I have seen in the past few years.
24 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Simply Horrible and Unnecessary
The-Ambassador28 November 2014
I like many could not wait for this movie to come out, be of a big fan of the first two. But this two hour snooze fest was utterly worthless and purposeless. God I wish there something good to be said about this movie, because lord knows it's a damn good story and features a great cast. But this is Hollywood greed and short sightedness at it's absolute worst. They took one book and attempted to split it into two films, essentially taking one or two minor plot points and stretching them out over two unenjoyable grueling hours. If you have NOT seen this film yet do yourself a favor and wait for it to show up on cable for free AND for you to be terribly ill and perhaps half out of it on medication, for you'll need to be to be in order to endure this plot less plodding mess of a film. Simply out there is no movie here. Just a lot of better than fine actors walking around doing nothing. It's that bad. Words cannot do justice to what a snoozer piece of crap this waste of good money is. Let us hope they deliver more in Part two. For it certainly is NOT a lack of a good story that's the problem here.
25 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Money hunger games
iwpmhness22 November 2014
This is by the most boring movie I've seen this year. The production company just want to squeeze money out of people like me who apparently had nothing to do this Saturday afternoon but to watch a movie that maybe is okay~~ Alright, let me simply tell u why this is complete crap. Story is non- existent. Loop wholes as big as Twilight. Boring emotional scene with lame monologue.I think a law should be passed to forbid producing so many sequels for a single movie. It just make use of people's desire to finish something and the recognition from the first.. Frankly I would rate this movie zero star if I can. Yup, one more thing, Jennifer Lawrence performance was actually OK. But it is obscured by the laughable lines and story telling.
46 out of 67 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
janifer lawrence needs to be trained how to act
tracui7 February 2015
Katniss criticized her sister went back to save her cat and said the cat was stupid cat, her sister can do whatever she wants. I really hate her with no mercy with animals, and acted like she was kindhearted in the movie, such a hypocrite. Jenifer Lawrence's acting was awful, for example, at the beginning when she step on the skull, that is not how a person will act in real life, face expression is more complex than just cover your mouth and shred a tear, for people who are more emotional unstable they would even hold their fists so tight and tremble, but her character does not fit in this category and she has experience of seeing dead, so all she needed to act is complex face expression.
21 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
copy and paste of Battle Royale 2
turdbadge4 February 2015
Abnormally, i'd generally like to experience remade flicks. More so the if i loved the original. I know there are extremely few which equals or excels to the original but it's not a big problem for me 'cause i don't even expect them to. It is to me like a bonus track of a beloved album, no more no less.

So i got no hesitation in checking Hunger Games as well (i was even excited actually) 'cause the original must be in my all-time best 10, but, oh my..

I won't say any more about this XEROX COPY crap. (copied on retarded machine, moreover) Nough said by nough people.

Now one thing i just can't believe is how this could be legal. As far as i've read on internet articles, Suzanne Collins and her people haven't even paid a penny to the original Battle Royale makers for doing this, which means Hunger Games is not an official remake of Battle Royale. Then what the h..! is Hunger Games's identity? Some's gonna say it's JUST BASED ON or INSPIRED thing but you know it's way beyond those kinds. Then what? Sort of Homage thing ? Yea possible, but Suzanne Collins and her company have hardly mentioned about the original on either official ads & reports or non-official comments. Instead, Suzanne Collins's kept saying she's got a bit INSPIRED ONLY and Hunger Games is totally different from Battle Royale 2 or something like that. Besides, more importantly, while shamelessly copying scenes-by-scenes from Battle Royale 2, Suzanne Collins intentionally missed the KEY-POINT of Battle Royale 2's story for his own audiences' taste, for COMMERCIAL PURPOSE in other words. Then how can we call it Homage anyway ? My conclusion is : Hunger Games is not only a copy crap, it's rather A CRIME, LITERALLY. I don't understand why Battle Royale 2 makers let them make money with this stolen thing.

Am i disappointed ? No i'm fine i didn't even expect. I'm just p***ed and upset for this shitmakers' shamelessness that's all.
22 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
what a bad movie!
daniell san18 December 2014
I wasn't a fan of the first 2 Hunger Games movies. I thought that the first one was a bad version of Battle Royal (yes, no matter how the writer denies it, there are too many similarities to the story for it to be a coincidence). The second movie I just found terrible. I didn't plan on going to see this third movie, but my friend convinced me to go anyway. I didn't plan on reviewing this movie, but I was so annoyed by it that I had to. The writing for this movie is just awful. I can't blame the actors for their performances, there is only so much they can do with the material. I think they did okay with what they had, but that didn't make it good. Overall the movie was just boring. The pacing was really slow. Not a lot seemed to be happening. And just when I thought it couldn't get worse, Katniss starts to sing a horrible song. And when I thought it couldn't get worse than that, a choir starts to sing along with her! I would never ever recommend this movie to anyone. I must not be the right audience for it. What I would have liked to have seen in this movie was Katniss and Peeta get together and be forever referred to as either KatPee or PeeNiss. I'd settle for any one of those.
22 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Another cheap cash grab with no plot.
spencerdude7711 March 2015
The movie has barely any substance to it at all because new line cinemas had the genius idea to make the slowest, shortest and worst book into 2 parts. The plot consists of Katniss finding a bunch of nothing and talking to people once. She barely does anything at all that genuinely has anything to do with the plot. The movie is abysmal at best and should be avoided so movie companies stop ruining finales by splitting them into 2 parts. The same thing happened with Harry Potter. Part 1 was slow, dull and overall, a horrible experience. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 follows the same pattern. Maybe the second part will be OK, but based on the first two movies, I wouldn't get your hopes up.
27 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Slow & Boring
rune-andresen4 December 2014
What did I expect? The Hunger Games concept is a copy of Battle Royal. When a writer is trying to develop the concept to be something else than young people killing each others - well - the result is quite boring. This movie could have been a 15 minutes intro to the next movie. In order to add some excitement they are adding small scenes that have nothing to do with the story or the story boarding.

I have forgot all about the characters from the last movie - and I don't care. The only thing I can do is to be amused/entertained by Donald Sutherland's evilness.

Jennifer Lawrence is not a bad actress at all - but her acting skills are not sufficient to save this movie alone. Although Philip Seymour Hoffman is/was indeed a great actor is role is to small as well to make any difference.

This movie is a disappointment - and they are "milking the cow" shamelessly.
27 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Cheapo Hollywood's way of ripping money of you!
blums376 December 2014
This is one of the movies that I regret watching it and waisting my time. Can't agree on one person who thinks this movie was great, because NOTHING happens in that movie and then it ends on a unfinished note.

The story about children killing children is a pretty sadistic theme, but the first two movies make up for it! but now that is see that their ripping money off you I think thats wrong I mean it actually should be called the "The Hungergames part 1 of part 3" NOW DO YOU SEE IT?

If anyone is reading this before watching! DO THAT, WATCH IT! But remember - this part didn't have anything important so you can just wait this out and just start from the next movie
32 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Sad, Pathetic & Lame - Corporate Kleptocracy Money Grab
pluslife22 December 2014
Boring to point I got up and went to back of theater to check IMDb on my Tablet to see what was I missing. Obviously I was lacking somehow and must be missing something I figured with all the rage around this movie.

What I found was it was not me but the movie just does not connect, has no draw and feels like just a corporate money scheme. I feel cheated, dirty, like a stupefied sucker and want to take a shower. I get better vibes from used car sales lots than this movie as well the industry of late.

There were some good movies this year; but all that has come out pre- Holidays have been lame to terrible and I see a lot of movies. Maybe the "Interview" had real potential compared to this tripe I have seen here and in other recent releases of movies.

I watch a wide genre of movies and am open to diverse visual and story arts but this and the recent movies are so terrible literally. I am finding better more engaging shows on TV than what the theaters offer nowadays. Heck they can not be original and rehash same old stories; well okay that might be fine if the surpassed the originals and yet even special effects seem at best B movie compared to the epics of the 60's and such.

Dang maybe they just need to go back to Spaghetti Westerns; at least they were entertaining somewhat....

All I feel is fleeced; again by the movie industry and it is getting old. But all they seem to care about is cha-ching, cha-ching, cha- ching. Guess the 4th Quarter is more important than their long term outlook as a industry. More people are catching on and just say screw it and why theaters are more and more empty.

We know the technology, actor resources and financial might of these studios more than ever and how they are refusing to do the real work it takes to put something out that is worthy out dollars. No wonder so many people seek other media sources over theater these days; with ticket cost outrageous, $2 in snacks costing $20 for stale muck, floors your feet stick to when walking and seating that needs a biohazard warning label. I have no idea why people are over the theater experience with such bad movies to boot!
18 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Sprint to a dull crawl
vistheindian23 November 2014
Quickie Review:

After the events of 75th Hunger Games, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) is rescued and brought to District 13 where the rebellion is brewing. Now she must become the face of the rebellion as both sides use propaganda against each other. Meanwhile, Katniss is overwhelmed by balancing her responsibility to the people of Panem with her desire to save Peeta (Josh Hutcherson). Mockingjay Part 1 is strong when it comes to the acting talent involved and showing the behinds the scenes propaganda of war. However, the decision to split the story into two parts has really hurt this movie by making it feel incomplete and filled with overstretched melodrama. While it is not a complete failure, it may be better to hold off watching this movie till Part 2 is released.

Full Review:

I never read the books but I enjoyed the last two movies in the franchise, especially Catching Fire. While I can't say I was aching to go see Mockingjay Part 1, I was interested to know how the story progressed after the cliff-hanger of the last movie. I was concerned that splitting the story into two parts may have been a detrimental choice, unfortunately my concerns were legitimate.

I know I'm coming off really negative but there are definitely some gems in the movie. Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss and Donald Sutherland as President Snow, were the best part of the movie. Watching them clash and play strategic moves against each other was intriguing. The rest of the cast do a good job in showing how they have been affected and changed by this war. This is the first time we see the world outside of the actual Hunger Games and District 12, which helped enrich this movie's universe. Uniquely we get see how propaganda plays an important role in the war. I can't remember the last war movie that delved into that aspect. On top of that, these propaganda pieces were very moving thanks to the rage fueled words of Katniss and the fear mongering of Snow.

A lot of the problems for this movie stem from the fact we are spending 2hrs on half a story. This led to us having an entire movie where Katniss keeps crying and moping about either Peeta or the people of District 12 being dead. The feeling that the movie is overstretched is only compounded by how several scenes are just a rehash of a previous scene, for example the recording of a propaganda (3 times) and multiple scenes per character sulking about the people suffering. Look I'm not heartless, I understand those are devastating things to happen to a person, but we want to see the story move forward. I can honestly say that apart from Katniss becoming the face of the rebellion, there is no significant plot development since Catching Fire. There is all this slow build up but that's all it is, a build up to an end that is unsatisfying. Essentially this is a 2hr preview ad for Mockingjay Part 2, and quite frankly I felt mad about this when I left the cinema, and that doesn't happen often.

The pathetic cash-grab moves by studios to split the movie into two parts is the root of all the problems for Mockingjay Part 1. To fill the run time the movie is stuffed full with melodrama without much weight to make you care for long. All the momentum that the previous two movies had built has now come to a dull crawl. I'd recommend skipping this movie till Part 2 is released and hopefully enjoy a more complete story.

Check out more on my movie review blog The Stub Collector:
66 out of 102 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Plagiarism, plagiarism
Mahmood-Buttrumps21 February 2015
War movies have always been a favourite genre for me, and in Mockingjay we get war in all it's horror and heroism all tied into a comprehensive and intelligent bundle that is carried effortlessly by Jennifer Lawrence. The direction keeps us focused on Lawrence, she is in 95% at least of the scenes and she dominates. Her portrayal of Katniss as a damaged, fragile and very young girl who is also the main prop of a rebellion against horrific oppression is spellbinding.

The fact that the script makes no concessions to the action junkie is IMO at least, only to be commended. The rest of the cast seem to have been inspired by her formidable work. Everybody has raised their game to match her, I can't think of a weak link in the rest of the cast's performances. Liam Hemsworth at last make Gale real. There are too many really to list here. Stand outs for were Josh Hutcherson's Peeta, Elizabeth Banks Effie, Philip Seymour Hoffman's Plutarch and of course Donald Sutherland's Corialanus Snow. A great story needs a great villain and his Snow is both fascinating and repellent.

And on a final closing note, this film makes the eternal whining of the so-called BR2 'fans' look more justified than ever and leaves you scratching your head wondering how entire sequence are shot for shot ripoffs. How can this go unpunished?
25 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Redefine the new standard of a ripoff movie
bwchoy14 March 2015
The movie goes so slow you can pretty much skip this one and go straight to Part 2. The whole movie can easily finish in 20 minutes. 15 minutes into the movie you can tell there is something fishy about the pace. I like Jennifer Lawrence but this movie warns me from jumping into watching her movie next time. Pretty much all the reviews about the slow pace, set up for pt 2, boring, poor acting are true.

you can easily tell a few screens repeat for no particular reasons. The number of exciting screens are very limited.

I give 6 stars for the movie and minus one star for grossly deferring content to Part 2.
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not worth the theater ticket!
michellovesimone21 February 2015
I have read this series and the 3rd book was a let down, seemed the author was rushed to write it in a week - so disappointing ant Mockingjay 1 is the same. Any part that could have been exciting they didn't show. So many errors that I could not even believe would happen in real life - wont spoil it but anyone intelligent can see the HUGE mistake done by the army. This would never happen in true life! Okay I gotta say - they rescue Peeta, were able to fly out of city with no problems!! Then they leave Katniss alone with him??? Really?? No red flags??? DUH!! Summary - main character cries for more then 75% of boring movie!
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A huge letdown from a high bar set by predecessors
DoctorEvil13371 January 2015
I'm not going to sugarcoat it folks, this one is not worth seeing on the big screen. I came in expecting a good experience that I had received from its predecessors, but was left with an utter mess of a film and a disappointment to the name. From watching the previous movies, I know these films aren't exactly 10/10 material, but they are quite entertaining and have some emotional high points. The ones here were few and far between, and Katniss's many emotional breakdowns were not any of them. You know it's bad when the main character becomes a drag and isn't nearly as inspiring (nothing against J-Law). While Haymitch and Effie were awesome once again, they could not salvage everything else. Torrid acting and drawn out sequences that were re-played over and over helped make the story so predictable that even those who don't know the books could figure it out

Overall: If you're a fan of the books, you might enjoy this, but if you're looking for a quality work that entertains you, moves you, and gives you the chills you got in the previous entries, skip this one. Hopefully the next will do better.
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Introduction of a movie
crithaslife29 December 2014
Warning: Spoilers
It seems that nowadays it's a trend to make two movies for one book and fill it with scenes that we don't need to watch. I haven't read the books, although i've heard good things about them, but since nothing happened in the movie I automatically assume that it didn't cover many things from the book. We see endless "boohoo" scenes that are not even touching that lead to nothing and when we think that "finally, at least we will watch the first battle of this war in this movie" again nothing happens. The only good aspect of this movie is the interesting game with politics between president Snow who tries to scare everyone and prevent them from joining the rebels using Peeta and president Coin who tries to rouse everyone to fight using the Mockingjay, Katniss; all of this propaganda using the media. But again, it takes too long for nothing. At least the previous ones had some action.

Of course the problems of the first two films continue. Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth just can't make you care about these characters. Everyone is like "come on go with Gale he is more pretty". In this movie we think for some minutes that Gale might die but no one really cares! Jennifer Lawrence gives an average performance, but doesn't live up the audience's expectations comparing to her talent.

I will watch the last film hoping it will be better but this one... Pretty bad 3/10
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed