How to create a war without even trying

From left, Patina Miller, Liam Hemsworth, Mahershala Ali, Jennifer Lawrence and Elden Henson a scene from 'Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1." Photo by Murray Close

Three films into the four-movie franchise and “The Hunger Games” series remains one of cinema’s biggest teases. For two years the series has offered an underlying promise of some grand battle between good and evil loaded with flaming arrows and bodies being tossed about with little regard for the lives of the stunt people.

It didn't happen in films one and two — scenes of violence in those films are pretty well contained to the arena — and the third, “Mockingjay – Part 1,” has even fewer action sequences than either of the first films. Yet that doesn't prove problematic for the entertainment level on screen; rather, the first half of the final chapter does a very good job showing the machinations of revolution and continuing the unraveling of torture of poor Katniss Everdeen's mind and soul.

A textbook example of psychological torture.

“Mockingjay” picks up right after from the end “Catching Fire,” with Katniss, once again portrayed by Jennifer Lawrence, and fellow tribute Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin) undergoing medical treatment in District 13 as a result of the last games. Lawrence's healing is interrupted by a request from district president Alma Coin (Julianne Moore) and former game designer cum Capitol traitor Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) to serve as the face of the rebellion, aka the titular mockingjay. It’s an obligation she prefers to avoid, but her mind changes after visiting the remains of her home in District 12 and watching love interest Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) shill on behalf of the villainous Snow (Donald Sutherland).  

The goal is to brew a revolution through a series of propaganda pieces sent out to the outlying districts featuring Lawrence, Claflin, and the series’ second love interest, Gale Hawthorne (handsome Liam Hemsworth). Also on board to help are a film crew, mentor Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), daffy Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), genius tribute Beetee (Jeffrey Wright), her sister and mother (Willow Shields and Paula Malcomson, among others), and a collection of new faces.

There's not much more to add to the outline aside from a few funky character names and some hyper-specific plot points due to the aforementioned dearth of on-screen action. There are glimpses from rebellious districts, executions, and one scene with Lawrence, an explosive arrow and a pair of bombers that ends as one would expect from that scenario; the rest is talk about war and overturning Sutherland's oppressive regime.

Everything is, in essence, a promise to what will come in 2015, when the final film and the back half of the finale comes out. It's a promise to what should be an epic spectacle, a showdown between Sutherland's troops and the angry district denizens led by Lawrence and Moore, as well as the fulfillment of the dreams many fans have had since the series started.

So what to make of the part one then, a film designed to serve as a prelude to war? Splitting a movie into two parts has picked up steam for obvious economic reasons (in other words, double the profit), and the results have been hit or miss. It didn't work for the “Harry Potter” films, as splitting “Deathly Hallows” in twain created two plodding films that somehow managed to elide over a few important moments from the book and straight-up ruined the duel between Bellatrix Lestrange and Molly Weasley. 

 

    This should be at least 10 times more intense.

But the split worked splendidly for the “Kill Bill” films, as director Quentin Tarantino used the tactic to create two distinct films that still flowed together perfectly.

Tarantino’s success provides a primer for “Mockingjay,” and the filmmakers hint at following that blueprint by focusing on the propaganda needed to spur revolt. The revolution must be televised in “Mockingjay,” and getting a diverse group of people to rally together requires a symbol, a beacon of hope in the often drab “Hunger Games” universe.

It falls to Lawrence to serve that purpose, but at what cost to the poor 16-year-old girl who is dragged into the middle of a war she never wanted to be in? That's a question posed in “Mockingjay,” and the film's answer is as opaque and muddled as it should be. She's a hero by default, but the expense of her heroism is constant guilt over Hutcherson's fate and twisted psychological games orchestrated by Sutherland. She's trapped as a dystopian version of Joan of Arc — a woman who inspired greatness but paid for it dearly.

That’s kind of a cool concept to ponder in a teen film, and it at least makes the first round of “Mockingjay” a pretty good film without the second film taken into account. “Mockingjay” round one could still ascend to very good, though, if the second round picks up the action and doesn't abandon the philosophical ideas presented in part one. Consider this grade quasi-incomplete with undertones of optimism.

Review: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 123 minutes

Genre: Adventure

Ask Away

Target audience: Teen and preteen girls, along with anyone else who has followed the series since 2012. This will probably be the top grossing film of the year, or at least in the top five, which indicates an audience that is broad and devoted.

Take the whole family?: There’s no cursing or anything overly sexual, but the violence gets intense to the point that it could scare some kids.

Theater or Netflix?: Diehards are more than justified to seek it out in theaters.

So long, Philip Seymour Hoffman. The final two “Hunger Games” films mark the last big screen appearances for Hoffman, who remains one of the greatest actors of his generation. I had a difficult time not thinking about his end during the screening, and although his send off isn’t Hoffman’s best work, he's still wonderful as the sleazy yet earnest backroom shaker. 

 Rest in peace, Tru.

 Watch this as well?: Japan's “Battle Royale” is the more mature version of the “Hunger Games” and is worth a look just for its intensity and cynicism. Either version of “The Manchurian Candidate” also make for solid companion pieces due to their propaganda paranoia, and watch “The Passion of Joan of Arc” for the obvious parallel between Katniss and Joan (it’s also a terrific film to boot).

Samsonite! This is way off!

Jim Carrey, Jeff Daniels and Rob Riggle in a scene from 'Dumb and Dumber To." Photo by Hopper Stone, © 2014 Universal Studios. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 

Twenty years is a rather long gap to bridge between films, especially for a story that filled its original runtime just fine. Yet, somehow, “Dumb and Dumber” evolved from a singular comedy to encompass an animated series (featuring the voice of Patrick Star), an abysmal prequel and the just-released sequel titled, fittingly enough, “Dumb and Dumber To.”

Your guess as to what the Farrelly brothers did with the missing “w” is as good as mine, but that faint attempt at a joke is about as interesting as the brothers Farrelly (Bobby and Peter) and stars Jeff Daniels and Jim Carrey get in this overlong opus of inane idiocy. Their sole accomplishment in this wasteland of tired humor is to spur the audience to ask itself why it felt any attachment to these two jerks in the first place.

“Dumb 2: The Dumbening” brings back Lloyd Christmas (Carrey) and Harry Dunne (Daniels) for another road trip through the heartland, which arrives after Carrey spends two decades in a fake catatonic state (if you didn't laugh at the joke in the preview, it won't get any funnier in the theater). The impetus for the road trip is Daniels' apparent need for a new kidney, and he finds out the only living relative he has is a daughter he apparently fathered in a one-night stand with Fraida Felcher (Kathleen Turner). Turner, whose character received a name drop in the first film, put her daughter (Rachel Melvin) up for adoption, leaving it up to Daniels and Carrey to find the young girl and one of her kidneys. Oh, and there's a murder plot involving Melvin's adopted mother (Laurie Holden) and lawn keeper (Rob Riggle) against the girl's adopted father (Steve Tom) that adds to the shenanigans that ensue lazily.

Like this, but slower and more haphazardly.

 Plot was never the strongest part of the Farrelly boys' repertoire, and that issue is front and center in “Dumb II: Re-Dumbed.” The film is aimless at best and languorous at worst (it needs at least 20 minutes of trimming) with little urgency to create, let alone get to, a finish line of any sort. It slouches and slogs through the motions, fueled by bitterness and appeasement for the mindless.

Good filmmakers can get away with minimal plotting — heck, many of the best sequences “Dumb and Dumber” are on the road — but there needs to be some additional reason for the audience to stick around to the end. The original — a film I still contend is unimpeachable despite what it hath wrought — compensated with some very clever dialogue and vibrancy among the stars and even the then neophyte filmmakers.

But everything feels just very, very old and very, very tired this time around. The brothers Farrelly fill “Dumb Two: Dumbed Down” with way too many flashbacks, callbacks and fantasy sequences that stop the film in its tracks, and many of the jokes or pratfalls are bundled together so tightly there's no room for any of them to breathe. It’s a rather a stark contrast to the original, which keeps the protagonists' silly antics reasonably in check and at least grounded in a modicum of reality.

Essentially, the filmmakers went for a more is more strategy, and the result is almost immediate diminishing returns with one or two quality jokes. More egregiously, there is not a single one anywhere near as quotable as “Samsonite? I was way off!”

 

                                                                    Or this.

I'm still unsure then what motivation the Farrelly boys, Carrey and Daniels decided to do a sequel after two decades. Maybe they wanted to recapture something lost long ago, especially the Farrellys, who haven't made a decent film since 2000's “Me, Myself & Irene,” (maybe 2005's “Fever Pitch” if you're feeling generous). They, and perhaps audiences, might try to sell it as a way of spending more time with the lovable couple Harry and Lloyd, although that would require the central duo to have redeemable qualities.

“Dumb 2: Dumbledore's Revenge” is a joke that comes at the viewers’ expense perpetrated by the Farrellys, Carrey and Daniels to emphasize how awful Christmas and Dunne are as people. They're selfish brutes who are insensitive to the cares and considerations of other, and always, always, always broadcasting their ignorance with pride born of shamefulness. Harry and Lloyd are just mean people in a cruel movie made by brothers who've abandoned all shreds of the decency and kindness they once exhibited.  

Then again, perhaps revisiting two people who haven't changed their idiotic ways in 20 years is more frustrating than cute. Which raises the question: why, again, does this film even exist?

Why indeed?

Review: One and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 110 minutes

Genre: Comedy

Ask Away

Target audience: People lured in by their fond memories of 1994.

Take the whole family?: The film does get a hint scatological that makes it inappropriate for kids younger than 10, but it really shouldn't be a problem for older viewers.

Theater or Netflix?: Netflix if you really, really, really must watch this thing.

What's with all the murder and infidelity, anyway? An additional peccadillo to add to the laundry list above is the Farrellys' excessive use of murderous schemes as plot material. Both “Dumb” films use murder and betrayal (along with a token McGuffin) as story motivation, and they repeat it in the abysmal “Three Stooges” flick they made. It's another sign the Farrellys have lost at least some motivation for their films, and an indication of their lack of respect for their female protagonists.

Watch this instead?: Just watch the first one again and I promise you'll be just fine.