The Hunger Games became a fairly popular franchise when it originally graced the screens in 2012. While unable to reach the heights of other popular mainstream novels like Harry Potter or The Lord of the Rings, the films that spawn from the Suzanne Collins book series managed to please fans as well as newcomers, launched the career of its leading star Jennifer Lawrence, and brought in over $100 million at the box office with each of its four releases. With intriguing elements, memorable characters, and a captivating premise that balanced an approachable human centre with complex sociological and celebrity commentary, it definitely etched a place for itself within pop culture, enough so that copiers tried and repeatedly failed at recapturing the magic. After almost a full decade away, a prequel film (also based on a novel written by Collins in 2020) was released during the latter half of 2023 in an attempt to bring the franchise back for another round, but whether or not that actually worked is for time to decide.

During the early years of the Hunger Games, Coriolanus Snow (played by Tom Blyth) is trying to revitalize his family’s legacy after the death of his father, yet has a hard time doing so due to the bitter and accusatory environment he lives in. With the 10th Annual Hunger Games arriving shortly, Snow, along with 23 of his classmates, are chosen to be mentors for the selected tributes and are tasked by the creator of the games, Dean Casca Highbottom (played by Peter Dinklage) to turn their chosen contestant into spectacles to improve viewership. Snow is assigned Lucy Gray Baird (played by Rachel Zegler), a singer from Distract 12 who already won people over with her radical attire and outspoken attitude and music, which puts Snow in a good position to succeed. As the two grow closer together in more than just a mentor/student way, Snow does everything he can to help Lucy survive these games, even finding ways to cheat under the searing eye of the Gamemaker, Dr. Volumnia Gaul (played by Viola Davis), resulting in a blossoming romance that could all end in tragedy once the true colours of both parties come to the surface.

With critical and box office results that were small but effectively positive, The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes doesn’t match the quality of some of the previous Hunger Games films, but has enough flair, intellect, and solid performances to still result in an overall good picture.

The idea of a prequel story for the world of the Hunger Games is actually pretty clever as it provides a backstory for this universe’s main threat and could better explain certain aspects of its world that weren’t cleanly described previously. While the franchise has a good idea for a continuing story and features some fun creative elements that are just the right mix between gritty authenticity and fantastical steam-punk, it doesn’t provide a good comprehensive layout of its environment, how the system works, or even what its overall purpose is, so taking a step back to showcase the origins would be intriguing and provide an easy method of returning to a familiar IP without it feeling too desperate. While well positioned to be enlightening, the film sadly doesn’t do this very well and instead presents a plot that is disappointingly bare bones that fails to answer any relevant questions about the world, its social structure, the basis for the games or even the origins of its lead character (which was the entire purpose of this prequel in the first place). The fault can’t entirely be put on screenwriters, Michael Leslie, and Michael Arndt, as the source material does seem to lack a certain punch and strong connective tissue that worked so well in the previous stories, but the script does also contain a few holes.

The dialogue can feel very wishy-washy and unnatural, the characters feel less defined and more run by commentary instead of than their own desires, the trajectory of the story feels quite hollow and empty despite giving off the appearance of a tragic love tale, the commentary isn’t that new and is displayed in a very uninteresting manner, the rapid pacing doesn’t allow for any rest or reprisal due to the entirety of the book being squeezed into one movie instead of two (which was the original plan before changes were made), and while there’s an occasional clever callback that shows it has faith in its audience to pick up on little details, it doesn’t do much to let any of its content leave a lasting impression or connect with people on an emotional level (definitely going for a more ”complexly simple” presentation instead of ”simple but complex”). The first act is a little messy, but holds your attention, the second act (which features the actual Hunger Games) is decently told and effectively engaging, and the third act has some decent scenes but feels more like an extended epilogue rather than a third-act conclusion, resulting in the picture as a whole feeling uneven and riff with issues, but not bothersome per say. The directing by Francis Lawrence (who also directed the last three Hunger Games movies) is also a little off, with his past involvement in the franchise actively damaging this film’s chance at a fresh identity as everything looks and feels too familiar to what came before, preventing a new perspective and leaving everything feeling tepid and safe.

The original films might not have had the most complex characters, but they were well positioned in their stories and very well realized on the big screen, particularly Katniss Everdeen, who became a very highly regarded female heroine. With this in mind, switching the focal perspective to the universe’s main antagonist (essentially positioning it on the opposite side of the coin) is a solid idea, yet it fails to connect as strongly because Snow just isn’t that interesting. Despite being a pretty great bad guy who was cinematically cemented through a great performance by the late Donald Sutherland, this role is very lacking and nothing about the writing, personality or even the plot really explains anything about who this guy is, why he is the way he is, and what exactly makes him stand out as a villain. This can be said for most of the characters in this, with very few being able to stand out. Both Tom Blyth and Rachel Zegler as actors are perfectly decent and the movie does feel more alive anytime they’re on screen together as they have good chemistry, but they’re also fairly bland actors who can’t really hold a movie by themselves, so feel pretty weak whenever they’re separated (with the generic writing and characterization not giving them any support). Neither are unlikeable and with better scripting and more intriguing direction, they have the potential to be great but just can’t reach that threshold.

Most of the supporting roles are pretty weak as well, but there’s an occasional stand out performance which helps bring a little investment back into the story being told. The prime example of this is Viola Davis as the Gamemaker and sculptor of Snow’s fall to villainy, as she gives such a drastically different performance as this deceptively intimidating character that it’s almost impossible to look away from. With her clearly maniacal attitude balanced out by this strangely alluring dignified composure, she’s a fun fascinating addition to a world that didn’t normally feature this kind of crazy. Sadly, the same cannot be said for Peter Dinklage, who seems to be sleep-walking through his performance and doing absolutely nothing different whatsoever, but the others at least feel like they’re trying a little harder. Hunter Schafer’s acting is strong enough that she’s able to bring something to a pretty thankless role as Snow’s cousin, Jason Schwartzman features a hint of a spark as the game’s commentator even if it’s not enough to be extremely memorable, and while Josh Andrés Rivera is stuck with a frustratingly stupid character, his acting is good enough to make it at least somewhat tolerable.

The world of Hunger Games has always had a fun visual style, incorporating a steam-punk aesthetic which decorated its separate distracts in contrasting fashions (from the dusty, squalid, labor-focused appeal of the poorer distracts to the frilly, make-up heavy, almost sickeningly colorful look of the richer distracts) to create a world that didn’t go too extreme in one direction or the other, but still felt unlike normal reality. It wasn’t the most striking design, but it had its own identity, and this movie kind of retains that look, just to a less extreme degree.  With a different designer in tow (this time being Uli Hanisch), the movie doesn’t look bad in any way, as the distinct design still comes across in the towering architecture that still feels like a mixture between traditional Orwellian and bombastic art deco, but whether it’s due to the muted lighting, more focus on standard looking buildings and open grassy fields, or just the fast pace not allowing any specific location to sink in, it doesn’t shine as strong. The cinematography by Jo Willems is also a touch distracting, with its heavy use of a wide-angle sweeping motion during action scenes leading to quite a few moments of awkward framing, and that blended with otherwise standard shots and angles, means nothing really looks that impactful or iconic (although a scene involving a building being bombed does look pretty cool). Even most of the score by acclaimed composer, James Newton Howard, is nothing that remarkable, even though this movie surprisingly involves a lot of singing (which are handled perfectly fine surprisingly). Outside of a single piano motif supposedly representing an eviler version of Snow, nothing about the score is really that memorable or gripping.

The Hunger Games may not be Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter, but it definitely left a mark on the entertainment space and proved it deserved to at least sit amongst them. However, with the passage of time and with many franchises now solely existing to spew out content in order to stay relevant which more often than not damages their very brand (which is exactly what happened to Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter), it doesn’t feel like Hunger Games was able to reignite that fire again. On the positive side, this film is nowhere near as bad as other prequel-based narratives in familiar settings, and at least carries enough good performances, steady presentation, and decently engaging moments to not feel like a complete waste of time. But with that said, the film is still awkwardly written, blandly directed, not wowing with its visuals, and doesn’t do good by its idea, so while a valiant attempt, it doesn’t feel like a proper winner. Even though the recent announcement of another film means things are going to continue (because there is sadly never a final end point for franchises when it comes to making money), it might be best to leave this franchise where it is and not try to burn in the cinders of what once was.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,