Mockingjay Part 1 has plenty going for it, but just as just as much working against it.

Rating: Null/10 (16 December 2014)

The reason why "The Hunger Games" series always stood above other young adult novel-to- movie adaptations was that did it not yield to the demands ordered by the money-hungry movie studios. Instead, the ambitions behind "The Hunger Games" and "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" were rooted in the quality of the film rather than the box office bottom line. The film adaptations of Suzanne Collins' novels had the advantage of critical support over franchises such as "Twilight" and "Divergent" because making the best movie possible was always the predominant thought on the filmmakers' minds. This holiday season welcomes "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1," an entry that makes the franchise feel less special.
After she destroys the Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is rescued by leaders of the rebellion and now resides in District 13, an underground society occupied by the members of the revolution. President Coin (veteran actress Julianne Moore) and Plutarch Heavensbee (acting mogul Philip Seymour Hoffman in one of his final roles) ask Katniss to be the political face of the rebellion by encouraging the remaining Districts of Panem to join the revolt against the Capitol. Katniss agrees with the condition that District 13 will rescue Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and the other Hunger Games contestants being held captive by President Snow (Donald Sutherland) in the Capitol.
As suggested in the title, the final book in Collins' series "Mockingjay" has been severed into two separate films. Why? "Harry Potter" and "Twilight" doubled their profits by separating the series' final book into two movie adaptations. (Heck, "The Hobbit" tripled their earnings). Why not sink another acclaimed series with the post-"Star Wars" financial battle for box office cash?
"The Hunger Games" series has undergone many modifications since the last round of the fight-to-the-death, reality-TV critique in "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire." The pacing has decelerated considerably, "the games" have been eliminated from the plot and replaced with commentary on propaganda, the majority story takes place in underground, and more focus is placed upon Katniss's emotional reactions to the putrid atmosphere of Panem's community rather than on the fan-favorite love triangle between her, Peeta, and Gale.
The propaganda war between District 13 and the Capitol is the best component of the film. It is thoughtfully political and entertainingly clever. Also servicing the "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1" is Jennifer Lawrence, once again starring as Katniss. Lawrence's work is most notable for her natural ability in bringing an undeniable emotional intensity to this role with ease. Another success of this particular entry is the final shot of the movie. The first two films failed to impale the viewer with a meaningful and attractive closing frame, but "Mockingjay: Part 1" makes an arresting statement in the image with which it leaves you.
Director Francis Laurence gambles most of the story aiming for "poignant" moments, scenes that are meant to study and affect the destruction of different areas of Panem directly caused by the government. There are the occasional scenes that dramatically succeed, but more often than not, the "poignant" moments are ineffective and sit slayed by miscalculation from the Laurence. In addition, the visual style lacks splendor and the technical elements are not as smooth and agile as the previous installments.
"The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1" has plenty going for it, but it has just as much working against it. This installment will not move you as much as the original film, nor will it viscerally excite you like last year's "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire."
* * 1/2 out of * * * *
Grade: B-