Better than the first... but still very problematic.

Rating: 6/10 (20 November 2014)

Expectations is something that everyone succumbs to when doing a lot of things, especially when viewing a piece of art for the first time, in particular movies, as due to the film's marketing, cast, director and (in some cases) potential production mishaps, everybody has expectations when seeing a film for the first time, whether it be good or bad. However, it is always important to keep an open mind when watching and not let your expectations dictate your overall judgement of the film. This is what I did when seeing this film. I wasn't the biggest fan of the first, feeling it was badly plotted, poorly written, was obvious in its social commentary and had a main character who I didn't care for. That said, I kept an open mind while watching and overall, while it is better than the first, that isn't saying very much, considering that not only are many of the first film's problems still present, some of them have gotten worse.
The first problem is that the film is that is less a sequel but more of a remake of its predecessor, which was already technically a remake of films like The Running Man and Battle Royale. This is highlighted with the amount of plot points that are recycled from the first film. Both films start in Katniss' District of District 12. Both films have an incident which gets the heroes involved with the Hunger Games. Both films have a similarly paced and underwhelming Hunger Games. Both films involve a sequence with obviously fake fire effects. The fact that both films are as similar as they are demonstrates how the lazy the writing is, as it seems that they thought that repeating material would be easier than to create new material.
Another example of lazy writing is the obvious social commentary. Like the first film, we are spoon-fed social commentary, but this time it is about the media and celebrity culture, rather than the rich and poor. It discusses how the media (symbolised by the Capitol) form celebrities (symbolised by Katniss and Peeta) personalities and controls their every move, even forcing them to marry, in order to satisfy the public. In a better and more subtle film, this may have been a subtle and interesting commentary on Rupert Murdoch-media and how corrupt it is, but instead due to how painfully obvious it is, it becomes quite boring after a while.
I wouldn't mind this lack of subtly if the film was good in other areas. Unfortunately, the film also lacks in characterization, acting and tension. While most of the acting is top-notch, the leads are (like in the first film) lacking with Jennifer Lawrence, despite being slightly better in this film, still sounds more like a bored, whiny and lazy teenager than a tortured, distressed and rebellious young woman and Josh Hutcherson is about as wooden as a tree trunk. It doesn't help that Donald Sutherland is a weak bad guy. Don't get me wrong, he's a brilliant actor, but he isn't an intimidating presence. In scenes when he is threatening Katniss that he'll destroy her District if she doesn't obey the Capitol, he comes off less as an evil dictator, and more of a grandfather who is telling off his granddaughter for behaving badly. In the hands of someone like Tobin Bell or Brian Cox, the role could have been salvaged, but instead Sutherland phones in his performance.
The characters are also poorly drawn. Sure there are hints at development, but the film never has the courage to run with them. For example, Katniss has bad dreams about the previous Hunger Games and the violence that happened, but this only happens once. Another example is an attempt to create more chemistry between Katniss and Peeta, but this only happens in 2 or 3 scenes, whose credibility is reduced with corny lines about what Katniss' favourite colour is.
It also doesn't help that by the time the Hunger Games begins, they're a major disappointment as the characters fight no humans, but rather baboons, poisonous gases, a rotating island at high speed and crows. Yay. It isn't helped by how easily these enemies are evaded. How are the baboons evaded? They point spears at them, which scares them. How do they fight off the effects of poisonous gases? They roll around in water. How do they stop falling off the quickly rotating island? They just hold onto it. How do they fight off the crows? They don't, as they eventually fly away. There is no tension because of this, and with not threat, bad writing and poor social commentary, what are we left with?
Some redeeming features, luckily. The ending for example contains a really good, unexpected twist that makes the rest of the film seem worthwhile (and shows potential for the rest of the franchise, despite the ending feeling a bit abrupt) and many of the other actors are great and the production values (special effects & set design) are improved from the first (albeit the fire effects), showing the signs of a bigger budget. However, when the style of the movie, great performances from the supporting cast rather than the main stars & one twist at the end of the movie are the best parts of this film, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the series.
Overall, while the film is better than the first, that doesn't say much. Sure, the ending and production values are great and the supporting cast are fantastic, but the film also has many of the first film's problems (i.e. poor characterization, lack of subtly and bland leads just to name a few) and many of the those problems have gotten worse. Hopefully, Mockingjay parts 1 & 2 will fix this, but for now, this is a huge disappointment that has been over-hyped by critics and audiences alike. Similar to director Francis Lawrence's other films (Constantine, I Am Legend) I guess.