"The Hunger Games" is good? Not bad, as a dangerous survival game for American teenagers, it also presents an easy-to-understand American spirit, but it has always lacked the depth that can be called a classic. The third part is separated from the top and bottom. What I want is to give "The Hunger Games" this point from multiple angles in the literary drama, but Lawrence is not a genius director, and the depth of bad play has finally turned into this lengthy sequence.
The original adaptation of the film itself is a fairly classic dystopian work, and the first two "Hunger Games" focus on letting the audience get acquainted with the worldview of the film, and the finale in the two escalating survival and killing games For the charm of the free revolution, as the title of Ru Er said, the spark finally started to become a prairie fire. When the audience looked forward to it, thinking that the revolutionary battle would finally come, "Mockingbird (Part 1)" was undoubtedly extinguished like a scoop of cold water. The fire-like sentiment of the huge audience, it spends almost all the time to tell the literary drama one after another, the media public opinion war dominates, and the presentation of the heroine’s inner evolution is by no means undesirable. TV is doing its utmost to sublimate and fill the film's inner life, but the bluntness of this kind of growth can only make people feel pale.
Francis Lawrence has taken over "The Hunger Games" since the second film. As a semi-domestic monk, his control of science fiction movies is obviously better than that of screenwriter Gary Rose, but on the other hand, Lawrence is not Nolan. From his method of "I am a Legend" backing up the movie with two endings, it is not difficult to see that he is more of a conservative director, and when "Mockingjay (Part 1)" wants to highlight the depth and play fun At the time of the connotation, Lawrence was more than willing to see from the finished product, and the two parties exchanged textual propaganda videos. The rescue of the male protagonist was also reasonable and expected. For the final climax, the plot can only be calm. There is no game, no end of the world to play, and there will be no gods and demons. There is only an urgent need to transform the depth of text into images. Such a challenge is so difficult. Lawrence can only make the burning girl bow and shoot the spaceship, making the movie this. The fire will not go out completely.
What would you like to see the burning girl Katniss in the movie? A superhero or a Washington? But the "Hunger Games" portrays Katniss, she is not an invincible man who can only act as an invincible man. In politics, she is only a pawn of those in power, whether in the congressional district or in the resistance movement. A leader who is not in the true sense. Unsurprisingly, everyone can know what will happen at the end of the movie. Although the depth of "Mockingjay (Part 1)" is mocking those in power who use the media to do popular speeches to gain their own. Political interests, but this point of depth does not absolutely fit the movie. It turns both pros and cons into this. In essence, it overthrows a boatman with one shot, making the girl who fights for freedom and love for survival more deceived. There has been a political haze.
The lack of good emotions, the metaphor of the difficulty of resonating, this final chapter overture is mixed with too much self-righteous coming and presenting depth, it is only mediocre and lengthy, and one can only hope that the final chapter can also show in the light and shadow. Really free and dreamy.
View more about The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 reviews
