Watch The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 For Free

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Sadly Over-hyped

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY - PART 1 suffers from exactly the same problem as HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1; it's an adaptation of the first half of a book in which very little happens, the calm before the climax if you like. So instead of plot movement you get an absolute ton of exposition, flashback, and general scenes of Jennifer Lawrence moping around in the most objectionable way ever.This is just as poor as the previous movie in the series, despite the amount of famous faces popping up in minor supporting roles and the wealth of CGI and effects used to bring a futuristic society to life. Instead of getting on and leading the rebellion, Lawrence instead grieves for her lost love, held prisoner by the other side. Whenever you see Josh Hutcherson's eminently punchable face you wonder what all of the fuss is about. It's a film with no beginning, middle, or end, over-obvious throughout, simply treading water before the last in the series. In other words, it's a total bore.

Back a year or so ago when I was reading the Hunger Games books, I considered "Mockingjay" to be the weakest of the trilogy...and it wasn't even really close (IMHO). I was hoping that this film version (much like how I though the "Catching Fire" movie was actually better than its piece of literature) would ignite more of a spark with me. As evidenced by the three-star rating, it did not. "Mockingjay Part One" is not a bad movie, but it just happens to be based on the weakest book in the series.For a basic plot summary, this movie begins with Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) having been yanked from the Quarter Quell. She is now in the mysterious District Thirteen, where President Alma Coin (Julianne Moore) is the leader of a rebellion aimed at overthrowing President Snow (Donald Sutherland) and the Capitol by uniting all the districts. In order to do this, Coin needs Katniss to relent to be the Mockingjay, or a powerful symbol of the rebellion. The problem? Katniss is more interested in reuniting with Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), who is now a pawn in Snow's counter-scheme (but is he WILLING pawn, that is the big question). After consulting with Gale (Liam Hemsworth), Plutarch (Philip Seymour Hoffman), and even Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), Katniss decides to take up the mantle. Of course, she cannot possibly imagine the consequences this decision may have on her future.Like I said, this isn't a terrible film. Director Francis Lawrence knows how to direct this series, and he understands how to get the most out of the material. The problem in this case IS the material. More specifically, the character of Katniss. In previous films/books, Katniss is the strong, central hero around which the entire plot revolves. In "Mockingjay", though, I felt like the source material takes great leaps/liberties with her character to suit the story. For example, in previous material she can't stand the "pomp and circumstance" surrounding her costumes and status. In this one, she immediately falls in love with her mockingjay costume and quickly steps forward as a figurehead. I know this is all supposed to be driven by her mad love for Peeta, but was that relationship really developed enough to truly make it seem believable?Part of my "problem" with this film too, though, could be that I am a male adult. I am not the target (i.e. young adult) audience. The material of the Hunger Games is meant to suck in teen and young adult readers, first and foremost, with the "big ideas" appealing more broadly. By the time "Mockingjay" came around, however, the big ideas are running out, which means the love- triangle focus must narrow. So, a lot of it depends on how much you can "buy in" to the teen romance.Overall, this is more of an "incomplete" grade than anything. I fully expect the second part to be much, much better once the action can really progress to its conclusion. But I can't give the studios a pass on their money-grab either. This movie did not NEED to be split into two parts, but was only done so to extend the hype surrounding the franchise.

The Hunger Games movies have been amazing till now. The characters, the action and the sets breathtaking. But the only problem is that they don't match the level of the books. The book explains everything in details. I believe one can never actually understand and feel the story from the movie like from the book. The book is pooling with action all over and yet quick and interesting. There are movie franchises like Twilight that do better than books but The Hunger games movies are not that. There is a lot of scope of improvement ant entertainment. This movie seems like a sluggish attempt at picturing half the book. I wouldn't even give it 6 stars if I had watched the movie without reading the book. It wouldn't engage and hook me. All the while I was comparing the movie with the books. And I realized the book was so much better. So if anyone finds the plot of Hunger Games interesting, he'she should give the books a shot. But if you can't read the books, the movies aren't that bad either.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1(2014) Starring:Jennifer Lawerence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Julianne Moore, Woody Harrelson, Robert Knepper, Sam Claflin, Lily Rabe, Evan Ross, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Donald Sutherland, and Elizabeth Banks Directed By: Francis Lawrence Review FIRE BURNS BRIGHTER IN THE DARKNESS The Biggest problem with the new Hunger Games film is right there in the title:Part 1 Mockingjay, the final installment in Suzane Collins dystopian trilogy wasn't conceived in two parts. That was a decsion made in Hollywood by a studio looking to double and milk every last dime out of its blockbuster franchise. The suits probably thought "Hey it worked out well for Twilight and Harry Potter, so why not us?" You can't blame them for wanting to keep the good times rolling. But it's a pretty cynical business plan, and it's led to a film that feels needlessly padded. Mockingjay Part 1 is like someone in my school doing a paper and there is a limit you need to get too and they just want too jack it up. This is very disappointing because the previous chapter Catching fire, I thought exceeded the first film and helped the franchise, cause I did not like the first film it's a battle royal rip off. Catching Fire though gave the main character Katniss played excellently by Jennifer Lawerence into a brainy badass. Now she is become passive. The film picks up after the incendiary conclusion of catching Fire's Quarter Quell, when Katniss was rescued and brought to the rebels, underground fortress in District 13. Here, the anti-capital leaders plot their next strike against president Snow(Donald Sutherland), hatching a plan to turn Katniss into fiery symbol of the resistance in a propaganda war as their secret weapon known as the mockingjay. The film is interesting, the suffering this film has is that to me I felt bored while watching this latest entire in the hunger games series. The performances are ultimately what kept me me invested and interested in what was going on, but the script feels like such a jumbled mess that I didn't care what was going on. I suppose director Francis Lawerence and writers Peter Craig and Danny Strong deserve some credit for daring to sneak any political cheekiness into a movie that's as big and corporate as this. But overall their hands are tied too tightly. While the series' second film had better character development, Mockingjay is mostly bound to the bleak and claustrophobic bowels of a bunker. It suffocates the film. And when the story does get interesting and you know something important is about to happen the movie ends. That's not a cliff-hanger that's a tease. I give The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 a two and a half out of five.