Mockingjay, Part 2: Portraying Cynical Unsuccessfully

Hunger+Games%3A+Mockingjay%2C+Part+2+

Photo Courtesy vanityfair.com

Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 2

Bessie Huang, Staff Writer

A few weeks into December I went to watch Mockingjay, Part 2, the final installment of the Hunger Games series, with a friend.  I could tell that both of us were not especially excited – it had been a long time since we had even thought about the Hunger Games, and it was undeniable that the novelty was simply lost.  We were just trying to come up with a way to pass two hours, and decided to watch a movie based on a book we had read three years ago.

In short, Mockingjay, Part 2  is about main character and heroine Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), plus other characters including Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth), and Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin), forming a squad with the mission to travel to their country Panem’s Capital to assassinate their country’s malicious leader, President Snow (Donald Sutherland). On the way, they are faced with the risk of being discovered, plus Capital weaponry that hinders their advancement. Added on top is Katniss’ internal battle over her loyalties and how to associate with co-star Peeta.

Because I did not enjoy the book Mockingjay as much as the preceding two books in the trilogy, I didn’t have high expectations for the movie. I was genuinely curious to find out how the book could be split in half, converted into a movie, and still manage to be entertaining. This is not to bash on the book; I enjoy Suzanne Collins’ writing style in general, but I just thought that the last book and the movie portraying it weren’t as action-packed as their counterparts.

In dystopias, what thrills me the most is the action, because it occurs under circumstances I’ve never even contemplated, which makes everything vastly different from actual action movies. The concept of living in such unconventional societies is highly-fascinating.

However, Mockingjay: Part 2  didn’t deliver the amusement I was looking for.

It was a lot more “real,” per se, than the other movies, because it didn’t contain a Hunger Games (a fight to the death between tributes from Panem’s districts), so instead the conflicts revolved around power-hungry leaders and propaganda. Some might appreciate this authenticity and find its realism a thrill of its own, but in my eyes, the attempt at a cynical feel only dragged out the movie. There would be more to work with if the movie hadn’t been split into two parts.

Part 2 tied all up the loose ends of the series and ended on a grim note which, though completed its job of depicting the story, was not the conclusion I hoped to see.