The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2

2015

Action / Adventure / Sci-Fi / Thriller / War

406
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 70%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 66%
IMDb Rating 6.6 10 309115

Synopsis


Uploaded By: LINUS
April 30, 2016 at 05:09 AM

Cast

Aja Wooldridge as Capitol Kid
Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen
Michael Entrekin as Capitol Citizen
Jeff Glover as Lumberjack
3D.BLU 720p.BLU 1080p.BLU
2.09 GB
1920*800
English 2.0
PG-13
23.976 fps
2 hr 17 min
P/S 2 / 14
1006.65 MB
1280*720
English 2.0
PG-13
23.976 fps
2 hr 17 min
P/S 15 / 138
2.08 GB
1920*1080
English 2.0
PG-13
23.976 fps
2 hr 17 min
P/S 28 / 213

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by MartinHafer 6 / 10

Very disappointing.

After having watched three previous "Hunger Games" movies and enjoying them very much, I was surprised how much I was ambivalent about this final installment. After all, I spent all this time waiting...for this?! I think PART of this is natural...a series is over and there's a sense of disappointment because of this. However, I think it's deeper than that. In "Mockingjay: Part 2" there is tons of action (like the previous films) but little else. I assume so much of this is because the book was split in two--most likely to scrape every last dime out of the franchise. And, as far as the surprises and machinations, I expected pretty much all of them...even though I hadn't read the books. All in all, not a bad film but one with less substance and lots and lots and lots and lots of explosions and all...but not much else.

Reviewed by TheLittleSongbird 5 / 10

'The Hunger Games' franchise ends on an anaemic whimper

Don't really care for any of 'The Hunger Games' films (though none of them are terrible either, and whether they are rip-offs or not is irrelevant to me), although some of the films' cast have fared very well throughout, especially Jennifer Lawrence and Donald Sutherland. Along with the source material being so good, it was the cast that was the reason for sticking until the end.

Of the four, 'Catching Fire' for me was the best, it could have been much better but at least it tried to (if only slightly) up the "hunger" from 'The Hunger Games' and didn't feel anywhere near like the bland and over-stretched set up that was basically 'Mockingjay-Part 1'. 'Mockingjay-Part 2' is to me an improvement on 'Part 1', it's heavily flawed and far from great but there are things that are done slightly better (though the execution is still less than completely successful) over 'Part 1'.

The effects are better and less dodgy (the best of the franchise). Although the character development is simplistic, too neat rather than complex and not particularly interesting at least this does actually try to develop the characters. And there is more action in comparison to the very padded and sedate previous film, although they lack excitement and tension and are lit somewhat too dimly. The strengths of 'Part 1' however are the same here, likewise are the flaws, hence why the wording in both reviews is going to be very similar.

'Mockingjay-Part 2' certainly has good things. The production values, some over-dim lighting aside, are very well done with the nightmarishly dystopian production design faring best and luckily the cinematography and editing is not the sloppy and frenetic kind seen in the first film. The special effects are less problematic than before. The score is thrilling and emotive, and there are some good performances here. This is particularly true of a terrific Jennifer Lawrence, dastardly Donald Sutherland, moving Philip Seymour Hoffman in one of his last films before his tragic ultimely death, smarmy Stanley Tucci and classy Julianne Moore (although her character arc is a bit flat overall).

Not all the cast work. Liam Hemsworth and Josh Hutcherson are still lacking charisma and expression, while Elizabeth Banks (a high point of the first film) and Woody Harrelson again have nothing to do and are practically pop-ups.

Writing does feel under-cooked, with some cringe-worthy moments and lacks edge or any kind of emotion a lot of the time. The chemistry between Lawrence, Hutcherson and Hemsworth just isn't there.

'The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 2' could have easily been shorter, because the story feels far too thin and over-stretched with a lot of colourless and not always relevant padding which makes some scenes interminably dull and dreary rather than fresh, tense or exciting. It was somewhat inevitable with 'Part I' but for a franchise conclusion it was unforgivable. The ending is again very anti-climactic, which is a large part of why the franchise doesn't end on a bang and feels so anaemic.

In spirit, 'Mockingjay-Part 2' feels very tame, no improvement over the previous films, which also suffered from a lack of suspense, excitement, the conflict not being as threatening as ought and the satirical edge not being sharp enough. The complete anti-thesis of the scary, thrilling and moving stories that the books tell, even when adhering the basic details and such closely the spirit and atmosphere is severely dissipated in film form in all four 'Hunger Games' films.

Overall, an anaemic whimper of a franchise conclusion. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Reviewed by Leofwine_draca 4 / 10

The end of an interminable series

And so the interminable HUNGER GAMES franchise comes to a crashing end with this dull and thunky final instalment. After the intensely boring setting up of the PART 1, MOCKINGJAY - PART 2 finally sees all of the story lines cleared up in a way which is non-exciting throughout. Once again this is a flabby, overlong production which relies on lots of CGI effects to see it through while offering writing which is constantly weak and clichéd. The cast sleepwalk through their roles, there are twists you'll see coming a mile off, and the whole thing has a generally listless air, like everyone was ready to go on and do something - anything - else. I was also surprised at how little action there was here given the budget and running time; most of it consists of characters outrunning encroaching CGI effects, much as in the disaster flick 2012, and just as uninteresting as those scenes were there.

Read more IMDb reviews

73 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment