“Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1” excites but leaves us wanting the full story

Ever since the Hunger Games franchise moved to the big screen in 2012,  fans were both ecstatic and nervous about how creators would transfer the beloved book trilogy.

“Mockingjay, Part 1” was expected to be quite different because it leaves Katniss, played by Jennifer Lawrence and her crew in District 13 which was transformed into a military base. The games are officially over and we know from here on out the plot will focus on the rebellion that needs Katniss’s help to take down the capital and president Snow, played by Donald Sutherland.

Going into “Mockingjay, Part 1,” I wasn’t sure what to expect because I didn’t care for the first installment but I really liked the second. Lawrence was wonderful again as the morally conflicted and defensive character, while her boyfriend Gale, played by Liam Hemsworth, was terribly boring and almost a completely an unnecessary character. Besides Katniss and Julianne Moore’s character, President Coin, who’s head of District 13, the characters were pretty one-dimensional.

Initially, I appreciated the freeness of the movie and somewhat of the chaos in the plot, but I’m still attached to the last two movies which were surrounded by the nastiness of the capital. Now that the plotline surrounding the hunger games is gone, there were a lot of liberties taken but the the story was slightly lackluster. That was probably due to the fact there was no climax because it is only part one.

I give “Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1” a high B. It was better than the first film but it lacked a strong climax. Instead of them making “Mockingjay” into two parts they should have just made it one long movie. I left unsatisfied, I wanted to know what would happen with the rebellion but I have to wait a year to find out. I appreciated the fresh take but it wasn’t as impactful as the previous hunger games were.