It's finally over. The Hunger Games trilogy is done (now a tetralogy). Was it worth splitting the last book into two movies?
Together, the two movies are 4 hours and 20 minutes of Katniss goodness. That's a lot of time spent on what many call the weakest of the three books, but I'm not sure what could be left out, as that last book contains the most cinematic writing. As it is now, the two movies capture the best parts, and stays true, changing only a few plot lines to speed up some action.
The result is two almost entirely different movies. The first is more about building up the resistance. The second is more about the actual war. Many of my friends like either the first or the second, but not always both. If you prefer all the talk and excitement of preparations, you'd probably like the first. If instead, you prefer watching all the action go down, you'd probably like the last.
I was impressed overall with both movies and enjoyed them both. When they deviated from the book, it sometimes worked, and sometimes not. For example, near the end of the second movie, they added a death trap that didn't work at all. It was too random, too easy to avoid, and too flashy.
I was a little disappointed with the final ending, not because it wasn't decent, but because I prefer how the book ends with Katniss. It was still entertaining.
My favorite of the series: the second movie (Catching Fire).
Overall, it's a good series. Well done, Liongate!