Home > Adventure >

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1

AD:This title is currently not available on Prime Video
Free Trial
View All Sources

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014)

November. 18,2014
|
6.6
|
PG-13
| Adventure Thriller Science Fiction
AD:This title is currently not available on Prime Video
Free Trial
View All Sources

Katniss Everdeen reluctantly becomes the symbol of a mass rebellion against the autocratic Capitol.

...

Watch Trailer

Free Trial Channels

AD
Show More

Cast

Similar titles

Reviews

Lovesusti
2014/11/18

The Worst Film Ever

More
Curapedi
2014/11/19

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

More
Dana
2014/11/20

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

More
Caryl
2014/11/21

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

More
ejm736
2014/11/22

This ranks with the Last Jedi, should have stopped at 2

More
vesku-89998
2014/11/23

Pretty lifeless and boring with some entertaining parts

More
TheLittleSongbird
2014/11/24

As said with the first two 'Hunger Games' films (which had its plus points but didn't do much for me), the books are fun, scary, thrilling and moving though because being so rich in detail and characterisation they are difficult to adapt.Generally the films, while all with their good points, don't do them justice, following the basic details but with the spirit watered down to blandness and the characters nowhere near as fascinating. Judging the films on their own terms is to me a fairer way to judge though, and will be done here because they are problematic on their own. Of the four films (which all have good points but just as enough problems that stop me from caring for them much), 'The Hunger Games: Mockingjay- Part I' is the weakest, it feels too much like set-up and set-up that's very tame and really struggles to justify its length.There are certainly good things. The production values, some dodgy special effects aside, are very well done with the nightmarishly dystopian production design faring best, it's lit with atmosphere and luckily the cinematography and editing is not the sloppy and frenetic kind seen in the first film. The score is thrilling and emotive, and there are some good performances here. This is particularly true of a terrific Jennifer Lawrence, dastardly Donald Sutherland, moving Philip Seymour Hoffman, smarmy Stanley Tucci and classy Julianne Moore.Not all the cast work. Liam Hemsworth and Josh Hutcherson are still lacking charisma and expression, while Elizabeth Banks (a high point of the first film) and Woody Harrelson have nothing to do.Lack of character development and halfway-decent writing plays a large part here. The characters had a lot of meat to them before but here are pretty bland stereotypes with non-existent development or direction, Katniss excepted. Didn't find myself caring for the relationship between Katniss and Peeta, mainly because of Peeta being written and played so blandly but also the chemistry didn't seem to be there. The writing does feel under-cooked, with some cringe-worthy moments and lacks edge or any kind of emotion a lot of the time.'The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part I' could have easily been shorter, because the story feels far too thin and over-stretched which makes some scenes interminably dull and dreary. The film is basically set-up and after finishing on a note every bit as abrupt as the ending for 'Catching Fire' it feels like set-up that doesn't lead or go anywhere. Atmosphere-wise, it just feels rather tame in alternative to tense and leaden rather than edgy. The direction is pretty pedestrian here.In summary, bland and over-stretched despite some good performances, production values and music. 4/10 Bethany Cox

More
clirby
2014/11/25

Many have said this before, but I'm afraid I have to repeat the opinion on the account that a surprising many have decided that The Hunger Games is worth of anything more than 1 star in IMDb. The Hunger Games is a unscrupulous photocopy of the masterpiece BATTLE ROYALE 2: REQUIEM, and should be avoided, if not boycotted.Some will claim that The Hunger Games is a 'tribute' or a 'remake' of the BATTLE ROYALE. To them I ask one question: "What kind of filmmakers make remakes of a movie when the original came out two years ago and has been selling DVDs very well internationally?" It seems that this particular brand of Indian cinema has decided that it is quite content making money off of other people idea for free. And though it is impossible for the original filmmakers to sue the filmmakers of The Hunger Games (on the account that US copyright laws does not allow for such suit), The Hunger Games should be remembered as a true stain on the development of American Cinema.Because it has photocopied a great movie, The Hunger Games avoids being an absolute terror of a movie. However, this does not excuse Gary Ross and the section of 'Bollywood' that has involved itself in The Hunger Games's production. Because of the blatant plagiarism, and the The Hunger Games's makers absolutely refusing to apologize and reimburse the original filmmakers, I must say The Hunger Games deserves 1 star, if not 0.

More