“The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1” makes one thing clear: Lionsgate did not need to stretch the three “Hunger Games” books into four movies. Oh, things happen, but not many, and when it was over, I was still wondering when the plot was going to kick in.
My biggest impression leaving the theater was, “Wow, there were a lot of scenes of people talking.” The film feels short on action, even as it appears to be ramping up for what promises to be a doozy of a war. One thing you don’t want people saying about your movie as they’re walking out is, “Hey, they did a decent job of leading up to the exciting stuff.”
To recap, “The Hunger Games” is set in a future ruled by a sociopathic dictator named President Snow, who keeps 13 districts in line with an iron fist. Each year, his government requires each district to select one young person to participate in the titular Hunger Games, a competition in which the kids fight to the death until only one is left standing. In the first film, a girl named Katniss Everdeen takes the place of her sister and wins. By the third film, Everdeen has become a symbol of hope for the masses, and sparks a rebellion to overthrow Snow.
While the storyline might sound like fertile ground for exciting cinema, I’m surprised by the lack of progress in “Mockingjay.” Everdeen agrees to become the face of the rebellion, and she visits a hospital, where the wounded declare their loyalty to her. A bit of action follows her trip, but to reveal what happens would spoil one of the few moments when the film has a strong pulse.
Everdeen also demands the leaders of the rebellion rescue her friend Peeta from Snow’s grip. I perked up when I heard the plan being hatched, but alas, this mission takes place off camera. Isn’t that how it always is? Movie characters are always planning something exciting, and then someone goes and does it off camera while everyone else stays behind to talk about other things.
Am I being hard on “Mockingjay?” I don’t think so. I saw it in a packed theater on opening night. These were fans – people who’d waited months for the movie to come out. Before the screening, there was a lot of chatter, including two passionate discussions within earshot about the books and the films. When the credits rolled, you could have heard a pin drop. Then someone nearby said, “Okay, then.”
Lionsgate isn’t alone in milking a book franchise for all it’s worth. Warner Bros. did it with the Harry Potter series by splitting the last book into two movies, and New Line Cinema is stretching J.R.R. Tolkein’s “The Hobbit” into three three-hour long epics. Part of me wants to be understanding: hit films are hard to come by, and a lot of movies lose money, so when a studio secures a popular property, it clearly wants to maximize its profits. But this business practice doesn’t necessarily lend itself to the creation of good films.
There’s no point in my beating a dead horse, though, as “The Hunter Games” has already established its audience. People who have seen the first two movies are going to see the third one, and if you haven’t seen any of the films, you’re unlikely to see “Mockingjay.” The movie is critic-proof.
Regardless, I have a job to do, so I’m doing it. (If it seems like I’m stretching this review just to hit my word count, then you have some sense of how I felt watching the movie.)
Two stars out of four. Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, disturbing images, and thematic material. David Laprad is the assistant editor of the Hamilton County Herald and an award-winning columnist and photographer. He wishes someone would make a two-part movie of his favorite book, “Swan Song,” by Robert McCammon. Maybe if more teenage girls read it, a film studio would take notice. Contact him at dlaprad@hamiltoncountyherald.com.