I shan't summarise the plot as I'm bound to get something wrong and I can't be bothered to research it. Please look elsewhere.
With a cast led again by Jennifer Lawrence it also includes previous regulars Donald Sutherland, Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci, as well as Julianne Moore and, in definitively his final film (though also due to appear in Part 2), Philip Seymour Hoffman in subdued, low profile mode. This film is dedicated to his memory. Pity that it's a relatively thankless part, which in no way stretches him, when he's made so many astonishing screen appearances in his career. But that's the way it goes.
Director Francis Lawrence (who also made 'Catching Fire') does alright with the material. Some of the CGI-created scenes are quite impressive, but it's what one comes to expect these days.
Whereas the previous film concentrated more on person-to-person combat this one deals with big forces and armies - therefore more explosions and gunfire rather than physical conflict.
I'm going to make one of my regular moans now. Virtually throughout the entire film there's music on the soundtrack - dramatic, menacing or tender, contemplative. Hell, why can't they just STFU!!! We don't need it!
To add to any irritations at the screening I attended, just four seats away from me was a lone woman who, for all the two hours, munched through sweets, with rustling of papers, and opening drinks cans. I was willing someone else (being the coward that I am) to tell her to, for goodness' sake, just sit still and be quiet, but no one did - or dared (Wimps!)
When the lights went up at the end I was a bit surprised to see that she was quite mature, maybe 40 - but not too surprised to determine that she was, well, rather 'large'. I had to breathe in and squeeze my way past her as getting up for me was obviously too energy-expending.
I doubt if fans of this series will be disappointed. The series failed to carry me along from the very first film. But having said that, I'd rather see this than any of the 'Star Wars' films, for instance.
However, when it comes down to it, I was, frankly, quite bored..........................3/10
oh no. The Mr is now coming to see it with me, doh. he will hate it. eek! lol
ReplyDeleteBlast! I should have witheld it. But I always like to remind people that mine is only one person's opinion. Others have been more favourable, some of them greatly so.
DeleteI was actually thinking of you while watching it, knowing that you're a fan of the books and the films. If you dislike this I'll be very surprised. But you won't. The bigger question is whether your companion will. I don't know if he's seen any of the previous parts. If he has then you'll already have some idea of what he'll think of this. Good luck!
Most reviews I've read say they should never have split the finale into 2 films because it makes this one boring.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm with you on the music! It's like they're TELLING you how to react instead of just LETTING you react.
Yes, it seems to be a widespread view here that they should have made a single film of the conclusion, but doubling the takings would have been high in the film-makers' minds. But a single film would almost certainly have been at least three hours long. Cripes! Doesn't bear thinking about!
DeleteEver-pervasive music on the soundtrack gives the impression that we are being treated as simpletons. They might as well flash captions on the screen telling us to 'feel sad', 'get excited' 'smile' etc. But I bet after the film was over a survey would show that most of the audience didn't even notice it, so used are they to being regularly fed such pap.
Critics either loved it or hated it. The critic for my newspaper called it "A dystopian dud." I haven't seen it, but from my experience with the last two (fortunately, I saw them at home and was able to frequently pause it) I think that I would agree with that critic.
ReplyDeleteIf I were seeing it in the theater, I would be like that woman in your theater who was eating munchies except I wouldn't be eating, but wishing for a cigarette and I don't smoke.
I'm more than a little tired of these futuristic blockbusters depicting a world where society has collapsed in on itself and individuals revert back to animal instincts which are controlled and harnassed by a super-elite imposing quasi-fascistic rules and games for the plebs to 'play'. Yawn! The basic concept idea pre-dates '1984' by some way. H.G.Wells wrote about it in 'Things to Come' and, I daresay, even he wasn't the first.
DeleteIf it wasn't for the rustling of sweet papers and the like I'd be complaining about the sounds of people chomping away anyway. Eating popcorn makes such an unattractive sound, especially from those enormous paper buckets they are doled out in, which seem to be bottomless. But some people just have to be doing something while viewing a film, which I bet happens when they're watching TV. I suppose it's some sort of compulsive disorder that they simply cannot sit still - and so ruin it for everybody else (which would never occur to them)..
I read your review with interest, for i haven't read the books nor seen the movies (not do I plan to do so). However I am intrigued by the masse's interested in the series. It all sounds like a metaphor for life in the present USA; and I don't have to go to the movies to experience that.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of this being a metaphor is an interesting one - rather like Communist-baiting and hunting for 'reds' in films of the 1950s. There may be something in that. I suppose it helps an audience, justifying their interest in such fodder, by seeing it as more profound than it actually is - OR perhaps it's pure escapism, though I suppose all films are that.
DeleteI'll have to ponder some more on that.