NEW MOVIE: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay--Part 2

This past weekend saw the end of one of the more successful YA book adaptations since Harry Potter. In the past few movies, The Hunger Games series showed that it could be taken seriously as a movie for all to enjoy. Does the trend continue in the finale Mockingjay--Part 2?

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and for some thematic material

Mockingjay--Part 2 picks up pretty much where the first part left off (it's a very sudden opening, as if one merely switched the discs in a 2-part movie). We clearly have our conflicts for the final chapter at the open: can Peeta (Josh Hutcherson, Bridge to Terabithia) be trusted after his brainwashing at the end of the last film, and how will the Capitol be taken down? The pace at which these things transpire and are resolved take much longer to find their footing, so the first hour or so is kind of boring.

The thing I loved about Mockingjay--Part 1, my favorite of The Hunger Games movies, was the propaganda war. It allowed us to see the evolution of Katniss's character from tenuous winner to revolutionary icon. Unfortunately, though, the sequel doesn't cut the cord, leaving less of a distinction between the parts. Meaning, the film wants to go its own way, but it's bogged down by elements from its predecessor. I liked the filming of the propos before, but their appearance here makes the film progress slower than it should for being the final battle. That said, the film is exciting at a few points, frightening even, though derivative. I swear the final season of Falling Skies on TNT followed an extremely similar plot as the first act, all the way up to the sewer scene and corrupt rebellion, that this film lacked a lot of surprise, even if the source material came out before the alien show.

That said, even though the film lacked surprise doesn't mean it wasn't still suspenseful and powerful when it needed to be. The acting performances from the whole lot, especially from Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, and Donald Sutherland (as Katniss, Peeta, and perhaps less villainous President Snow), kept me invested even when the film dragged. Donald Sutherland embraces the evil that his character surely is, but at the same time, lets Katniss and the audience see his point of view, making a delightfully justifiable villain that maybe we want to let live in the end. A shocking scene towards the end is disturbing in all the best ways (my mouth was actually open in shock), and really lets us understand why Katniss does what she does as the film closes.

Considering that this is the final film in the series, it needs to have a good ending that wraps the series up well. Thankfully, it does, closing the series out with a fantastic final scene that is completely believable, and really, the series could not have closed out any other way: peaceful, a reprieve after the storm. The long tumultuous road, from bravery and sacrifice, from anger and unrest, from confusion and chaos--from war--to love and peace.

So all in all, The Hunger Games closes with a rather fine finale, that at times is derivative and slow, but makes up for all of it by being well-acted and exciting, while effectively closing out the series in a grim yet beautiful and bittersweet way. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay--Part 2 gets 3.5 out of 5 stars.

One last shot for the franchise!

Did you see this one? What did you think compared to the others? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

Summer Movie Recap

One of the downsides to reviewing films while still in school is trying to find time to do so. I saw all of these movies over the summer around the time of their release, but I haven't gotten a chance to talk about them until now. That said, the time has come, and here you go!

Rated PG for some violence

Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 was a movie I was cautiously optimistic for. I really enjoyed the first one--it's a guilty pleasure through and through--but after six years, could they really pull off a good comedy sequel? In short, no. It's not even that the jokes fall flat in the most bizarrely misguided fashion imaginable; it completely forgot what made the first film enjoyable. The film opens with a narrated montage of extremely dark humor with his wife leaving him after a day or two, and his mother being run over by a milk truck. It leaves such a sour taste that it really struggles to make us think: "This is funny."

Sandwiching the cliche takeover heist plot in Vegas are only two jokes that work, and that's only because it embraced the ridiculousness of the original. The thing that made the ridiculousness work in the first one, though, was the character of Paul Blart, which Kevin James and the writers really forgot in the six year hiatus. No longer is Blart a well-meaning underdog who, despite the trials in his life, is a lovable overcomer; now he's a stupid, clueless and dorky bozo who is embittered by the hand life has dealt him. At the end of the film, we see the kindness of Paul again...only for him to act completely against it, saying, "Shouldn't have done that." As a result, the film is a cliche-filled, poorly-acted, unfunny, and heartless affair in which I wanted to leave the theater many a time. I really, really disliked this movie, and it is shaping up to be the worst of the year in my book. I mean, if you're rating description doesn't even say "humor" in it (rude, crude, or otherwise), something is terribly wrong.  1/5 Stars

Rated PG for sequences of sci-fi action violence and peril, thematic elements, and language

Tomorrowland was a film surrounded in mystery. Nobody really knew what it was, aside from a pet project by Brad Bird (The Incredibles, Mission: Impossible--Ghost Protocol). I was very excited to see it, especially since it was based on the ideals of Walt Disney himself! In the end, it was pretty average. The film is more about the journey to Tomorrowland moreso than it is about Tomorrowland itself. Unfortunately, the journey is very slow and sometimes boring, despite a handful of action sequences along the way. The first rut in the road is the beginning. The film is structured around a message by Casey (Britt Robertson) and Frank (George Clooney), a message for whom we don't know until the very end of the film. It's a cute way to structure a film, but because of this, we know both will survive to create this message, and therefore the stakes are very much lowered for the remaining two hours. Add on that a 20-plus minute scoop of exposition that really drags, especially since we know it's just a clip to get to know Frank more. Again, not a bad thing narratively--but on screen in comes off very slow. The real saving grace of the movie are the acting performances. Robertson makes a great leading woman and George Clooney adds a realism to sequences that in less capable hands would seem weird, such as his relationship with young Athena (Raffey Cassidy). There are interesting set pieces littered throughout the movie, and despite my interest in the idea of the movie and the curiosity of the characters, I didn't think the movie picked up until the third act. It's a shame the movie wasn't better or made more money because I'm almost confident a sequel could improve on it greatly and better cement its own ideals. If you happen to catch this one on TV or on demand, go ahead and watch it, but the idealism and performances just barely outweigh the pacing.   3/5 Stars

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of science-fiction violence and peril

Jurassic World is a more interesting picture to talk about. At this point, I'd only be adding additional commentary since every one in America's seen it, shattering box office records across the board. In short, this is the Jurassic Park sequel we've been waiting for. The first one is a perfect movie, in my opinion; the second one, despite still having the same feel as its predecessor, has way too many undeveloped characters for us to care outside of the action setpieces; and Jurassic Park III is just a crime to the series, feeling complacent to be a passable action movie.

Many have decried this film as being overly reliant on nostalgia and falling prey to common tropes of the action genre, especially in its abundance with CGI. But then again, I think that's what director Colin Trevorrow was going for, and I think it makes it a smarter movie. The film feels like a Jurassic Park movie in its exciting yet constant callbacks to the original film. I don't fault the movie for that, necessarily. As for the trope-falling, I think the movie is smart in its stupidity. In the film, dinosaurs and the Jurassic World have simply become commonplace, inspiring the same excitement as the Dumbo ride at Disney after 33 go-arounds. By making the dinos CG for all but one scene, we see them as unexceptional, just as the characters do, making that one scene with AAs hit all the more. By including so much product placement, it satirizes the consumerist culture and significantly (and purposefully) downplays John Hammond's original vision for the Park in the 1993 film. Why include Jimmy Fallon as part of a ride? Well, I think it's fairly obvious, now that Universal is actually cranking out a Jimmy Fallon ride. While I'm certainly defending what Trevorrow was going for, at times it gets bothersome, like the needless slo-mo shot at the end.

Another thing that the movie lacks is memorable characters. Certainly, the film does a good job at making us care for their well-being in the heat of the action, but I can't remember many of them. While I can tell you--without Google--that in the first one, we had Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Dr. Ellie Sattler (Helen Hunt), Dr. Arnold (Samuel L. Jackson), Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), Denis Nedry (Newman), John Hammond (Richard Attenborough), Lex and Tim, Dr. Wu, and the lawyer Genarro (heck, we even had one-line Dr. Harding, too)! In the new one, the only names I can tell you are Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard), the Two Boys, the Mexican guy, the nerd, Dr. Wu (hey, he's back!), that guy from Daredevil, and--is it Owen? Trevor? Noah? Ah, forget it--he's Chris "Raptor-Lord" Pratt. And speaking of that guy from Daredevil (Vincent D'Onofrio): his plotline with the military dinos was silly and didn't serve a great purpose aside from preparing him with some nice seasoning for his eventual role as dino fodder a la creme.

So all in all, Jurassic World brings us back to a good Jurassic Park movie that, despite falling on some modern tropes and lacking memorable characters, is an exciting nostalgia trip with plenty of action while also being an effective satire of modern consumers and movie-goers. 4/5 Stars

Did you see any of these films? What did you think about them? Also, I'll be publishing a review on the new Hunger Games movie in a few hours, so keep your eyes peeled for that one. Now whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!