Escape to the Movies: Mockingjay, Part 1 - Best One Yet (Although A Little Thin)

Recommended Videos

Logience

New member
Jun 25, 2014
100
0
0
You continue to steal from Nostalgia Critic, this time from the aftermath of the Bart's Nightmare episode.

Not funny or entertaining.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
I know Bob lets his politics out in some of his reviews, but I can't tell if he's dislikes The Hunger Games because they match his, or that they suck in properly conveying them. Or because it's an overall stupid story in the first place. Still, the mispronouncing of the silly names still makes me chuckle.
Zachary Amaranth said:
I don't know about a lot of this. Catnap is basically Bella with "my dad is so lame" replaced by a generic contrariness. She's a cardboard cutout, a figurehead of a series about becoming a figurehead, except she never truly grows into what could be a brilliant metaphor. Lawrence seems to have captured this with her onscreen portrayal of a gender-swapped Keannu Reeves, to the point where the best parts of the movies tend to be the supporting cast.

And there's a Sam Raimi's Spider-Man parallel in there somewhere.

But the review made me laugh.

hawk533 said:
Wait, did Bob say that the first movie was made weaker by removing the "vital interior monologue"? That monologue was the worst part of the books. Suzanne Collins is not a good writer and her over-reliance on interior monologue made the books difficult to read for me. I thought the first movie was significantly improved by actually showing us what characters were thinking through their actions.
They don't, though. They leave out a lot of the context. And while Collins' purple prose isn't necessary, a good chunk of the motives are lost. Assuming you don't infer it based on a previous reading, I guess.

vid87 said:
I would at least like to know how they've apparently scrapped together decent weaponry to fight a high-tech martial state. I mean, did she just blow up an air drone with a bow and arrow? Did it at least have a bomb strapped to it or something?
She's the Girl on Fire. Obviously, she's just using her mutant abilities.
I thought hers was shapeshifting only. How'd she pick up telepathy, fire bending, and ImprobableAimingSkills? As for your other point about Jennifer Lawrence, I'm just not attracted to her at all, but I can't put words to why.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
I think one of the worst things to happen to modern cinema is the last Harry Potter book being split into 2 films, 'cause now everybody thinks they can do that whether it's appropriate or not.
 

Mezahmay

New member
Dec 11, 2013
517
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
I think one of the worst things to happen to modern cinema is the last Harry Potter book being split into 2 films, 'cause now everybody thinks they can do that whether it's appropriate or not.
I was thinking the same thing. The only difference between Harry Potter and everyone else doing it was because that exceptionally long franchise built up a lot of good will and had much better name recognition than everyone else at the time.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Mezahmay said:
canadamus_prime said:
I think one of the worst things to happen to modern cinema is the last Harry Potter book being split into 2 films, 'cause now everybody thinks they can do that whether it's appropriate or not.
I was thinking the same thing. The only difference between Harry Potter and everyone else doing it was because that exceptionally long franchise built up a lot of good will and had much better name recognition than everyone else at the time.
Well I don't know how appropriate it was to split the story of the last Harry Potter book into 2 movies as I've only read the first book and stopped watching the films after Half Blood Prince, and I suppose if spitting it up meant keeping as much of the source material intact as possible then by all means. However it seems to have set a precedent for others to do it, and going by Bob's description of this movie, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Darth_Payn said:
I thought hers was shapeshifting only. How'd she pick up telepathy, fire bending, and ImprobableAimingSkills? As for your other point about Jennifer Lawrence, I'm just not attracted to her at all, but I can't put words to why.
She...ummm..borrowed the Phoenix Force. Or the Unipower. Or something.

I don't particularly get the appeal of Lawrence, but apparently she does have a following. I'm assuming it's not for her brilliant acting skills.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
Well I don't know how appropriate it was to split the story of the last Harry Potter book into 2 movies as I've only read the first book and stopped watching the films after Half Blood Prince, and I suppose if spitting it up meant keeping as much of the source material intact as possible then by all means. However it seems to have set a precedent for others to do it, and going by Bob's description of this movie, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea.
The problem with this approach is that, preserving the story material or not, it's still dull. Deathly Hallows 1 may have allowed for more of the book onscreen, but it turned half the movie into a camping trip and could have benefited from being trimmed down. I'd also argue that most books simply don't have a good midway climax (actually, a few of the earlier books would have been better for this treatment).

Source material often doesn't translate to good cinema, and I think this is a good case of it.

As a side note, I was actually a proponent of this treatment from about book three on (because the books got larger, and a few books did have a natural mid-point mini-climax of sorts). Deadly Camping Trip changed my mind. Maybe it could be done with the right movie/book, but I'm highly skeptical.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
canadamus_prime said:
Well I don't know how appropriate it was to split the story of the last Harry Potter book into 2 movies as I've only read the first book and stopped watching the films after Half Blood Prince, and I suppose if spitting it up meant keeping as much of the source material intact as possible then by all means. However it seems to have set a precedent for others to do it, and going by Bob's description of this movie, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea.
The problem with this approach is that, preserving the story material or not, it's still dull. Deathly Hallows 1 may have allowed for more of the book onscreen, but it turned half the movie into a camping trip and could have benefited from being trimmed down. I'd also argue that most books simply don't have a good midway climax (actually, a few of the earlier books would have been better for this treatment).

Source material often doesn't translate to good cinema, and I think this is a good case of it.

As a side note, I was actually a proponent of this treatment from about book three on (because the books got larger, and a few books did have a natural mid-point mini-climax of sorts). Deadly Camping Trip changed my mind. Maybe it could be done with the right movie/book, but I'm highly skeptical.
That's a point to. Preserving the source material is all very well and good, but some things that work in one medium don't work in other mediums and that has to be taken into account when doing such an adaptation.
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
2,406
0
0
me and my wife didnt even like the first movie when we saw it in the movies. so obvious we skipped out on the second movie. and to be honest, i dont even feel like watching this latest installment either. o yes, im not a fan of the movies and wont even bother reading the books either.
 

Michael Dunkerton

New member
Jan 8, 2013
54
0
0
RE: Hunger Games. I enjoyed the books and movies despite what I see as a ton of big flaws. I never saw Katniss as a role model though--it's more of a cautionary tale than anything else. The "heroine" is a figurehead who symbolizes a revolution she barely believes in and has no real power to influence. And the parallels between District 13 and the Capitol are so sharp that it highlights a major theme I saw in the series--a revolution that doesn't have a plan to replace the power it fights will just create "a new king no better than the last". I'd say this and the "danger of media" themes are much more interesting than the obvious classism stuff.

RE: This review. I'm glad for this positive review if for no other reason than a citation to give people who insist that Bob is unable to appreciate something he is predisposed to hate. This is one of several big sequels he liked better than the original--and with his obvious negative opinion of the series as a whole, this review shows he can have that "bias" AND still end up with a positive opinion of an individual work.
 

Arcane Azmadi

New member
Jan 23, 2009
1,232
0
0
So should I take this as an admission from Bob that he HAS in fact read the novels first? He didn't actually say as such, but references and comparisons to the books here seem to imply that he has.

You wanna know why the book is being split into 2 movies? Because Harry Potter did it and Twilight did it. That's all.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Zachary Amaranth said:
canadamus_prime said:
Well I don't know how appropriate it was to split the story of the last Harry Potter book into 2 movies as I've only read the first book and stopped watching the films after Half Blood Prince, and I suppose if spitting it up meant keeping as much of the source material intact as possible then by all means. However it seems to have set a precedent for others to do it, and going by Bob's description of this movie, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea.
The problem with this approach is that, preserving the story material or not, it's still dull. Deathly Hallows 1 may have allowed for more of the book onscreen, but it turned half the movie into a camping trip and could have benefited from being trimmed down. I'd also argue that most books simply don't have a good midway climax (actually, a few of the earlier books would have been better for this treatment).

Source material often doesn't translate to good cinema, and I think this is a good case of it.

As a side note, I was actually a proponent of this treatment from about book three on (because the books got larger, and a few books did have a natural mid-point mini-climax of sorts). Deadly Camping Trip changed my mind. Maybe it could be done with the right movie/book, but I'm highly skeptical.
I've never agreed with you more! "Deathly Boring Part 1: Escape to Nothing Interesting" was a perfect example of why "faithful" adaptations of books to movies shouldn't be the primary goal. Movies need to be based on their own merits using their own tools to tell the tale. Not that I think "Harry Potter Takes a Mopey Holiday" was made to keep true to the text, mind, but I do argue this with those who complain about bits being cut from books in their film adaptation. Sometimes those cuts are made for very good reasons, like my sanity.
 

Razorback0z

New member
Feb 10, 2009
363
0
0
"Best one yet" is like saying "best skidmark I have found in my undies", its nothing to crow about.
 

gridsleep

New member
Sep 27, 2008
299
0
0
I watch Escape to the Movies in the same way that I watch Yahtzee's game reviews. I am not going to watch/play 99% of the subjects. I am only here for the presentation. No interest whatsoever in Hunger Games and never, ever, ever, ever will. Ever.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
That's a point to. Preserving the source material is all very well and good, but some things that work in one medium don't work in other mediums and that has to be taken into account when doing such an adaptation.
Yeah, I mean, I'm generally one of the "the book was better" types. But at the same point, not everything that works in a book works in a movie.

Gorrath said:
I've never agreed with you more! "Deathly Boring Part 1: Escape to Nothing Interesting" was a perfect example of why "faithful" adaptations of books to movies shouldn't be the primary goal. Movies need to be based on their own merits using their own tools to tell the tale. Not that I think "Harry Potter Takes a Mopey Holiday" was made to keep true to the text, mind, but I do argue this with those who complain about bits being cut from books in their film adaptation. Sometimes those cuts are made for very good reasons, like my sanity.
Though sometimes what they cut and what they keep are somewhat baffling. I don't remember a specific example from Harry Potter, but there were a few where I was all "what were they thinking."

But yeah. I don't want to keep stuff in a movie just because it was in a book.
 

Wolf In A Bear Suit

New member
Jun 2, 2012
519
0
0
Riiiiight. This was the weakest of the Hunger Films, largely because Collins moved away from the concept that got her books read (the hunger games), but is still wildly more entertaining than the third book, where it becomes clear what a trully god awful author Suzanne Collins is.
It's absolutely correct to say that this thing was dragged out to the point of ridiculousness. Literally only one thing relevant to the general overall plot actually happens. I'm actually quite impressed with how watchable they made this, given I actually struggled to picture the settings and plot of the book when reading it, because it's just so all over the place. I too am looking forward to Part 2. True it's an absolute whorish attitude to split what was the weakest and slowest of the books, but still, I'll see it.
Most of the best concepts in this film (for example what I'll title the excellent "dam scene") were improvised and written for the movie version. It's a hell of a lot more interesting than the inner monologue of an anguished, worried and confused girl who is constantly referred to by everyone else as uncharismatic and dull.
 

Deacon Cole

New member
Jan 10, 2009
1,365
0
0
Country
USA
Wow. I only made to 1:30 where Bob was recapping the series before I got so incredibly bored and just stopped watching.

Why is this series popular again?