The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes

Today, while exercising, I finally got around and finished watching, “The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes,” released in 2023. This was streaming on Starz for a long time, but now it is available to stream for free on Roku. Now, I will let everyone know what I thought of this surprising prequel to the franchise.

Kyle Amato started his review out by asking, “What reason was there for a new Hunger Games film? Nostalgia for a decade ago, when YA reigned supreme just as Marvel was rising to power? A last-ditch attempt to wring some money out of a known property? The greatest question of all: why is The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes actually good? Why did they make a real movie for no reason? No one needed this to be a gripping, bleak drama about a young man coming to understand how the world works, a young man opportunistic in a way that always seems to leave people dead. But, for some reason, the Hunger Games prequel is possibly better than the original film series, with strong performances from relative newcomers Tom Blyth, Rachel Zegler and Josh Andrés Rivera. I’m as surprised as you are!”

Sixty-four years before Katniss volunteers as tribute, Coriolanus Snow, played by Tom Blyth, is an ambitious teenager wanting to restore his family’s fortune and power after a devastating war. While he lives in his rundown family manor with his grandmother (Fionnula Flanagan) and cousin Tigris (Hunter Schafer), he hides his difficulties at the academy from his richer friends. His deceased father would always say, “Snow lands on top,” and he wants to make good on that thought. The 10^th Hunger Games are coming up quick, and with ratings falling, the head gamemaker Dr. Volumnia Gaul, played by Viola Davis, enjoying herself, has thought of a new threat. The top of the class will be advisors to this year’s tributes, and the winner will receive a huge cash prize. Coriolanus is assigned to a traveling musician named Lucy Gray Baird, played by Rachel Zegler, a fierce performer apparently set to die in the arena. Fortunately, Coriolanus has a few flans to help Lucy Gray survive, but he might make a few enemies while doing that.

Evidently having learned from the mistake of making “Mockingjay” two parts, director Francis Lawrence decides to give everyone the full story here at a nearly three-hour runtime, which is something of rare limitation in cinema. Amato said, “The Hunger Games wrap up with an entire hour to go, giving the film an extended grim climax that really makes the entire endeavor make sense. Though Songbirds & Snakes has some familiar YA trappings, the inevitability of Snow’s descent into his future as a murderous dictator naturally colors the action. While I have nothing against Katniss’s fight to remain a person while becoming the face of a revolution, watching a bisexual lunatic scheme his way through a corrupt system is inherently more interesting.”

Blyth is the standout, taking a very internal character and writing his war between cruelty and compassion all in his expressions. Amato noted, “Though Zegler has an incredible voice and stage presence, Lucy Gray Baird is more of a concept than a full-fledged character, but she shows that hope is not lost even if the actual revolution is decades away. he’s asked to do a lot, and she accomplishes it all. Peter Dinklage and Viola Davis are opposite sides of the reality spectrum, Dinklage embodying the miserable reality of Panem and Davis playing up the Frankenstein surreality of the richest of the rich.” Also, we get Jason Schwartzman as a crooked weatherman who is hosting the Games, taking up the role from Stanley Tucci in the original films. Amato mentioned, “The cast never feels low-rent in a way you’d expect from a standard franchise revival.”

Few prequels defend their creation, but this film makes the case well. Not only do we get to see the early version of the dangerous games Katniss must go through, we get to understand the suspicion behind their creation. While the Games felt like an evil reality to overcome for Katniss, Coriolanus sees them as flawed and useful, helping stitch them into the fabric of Capitol life. Amato said, “There’s an eeriness to the film, denying catharsis except from your memories of a film that came out eight years ago. Even that might be tough, as pretty much everyone I know dropped off after Mockingjay Part One.” “The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes” deserves to do well, a cruel surprise for a satisfied audience.

I had been wanting to watch this prequel for a while. I didn’t see it in the theaters, and now I think I should have. The only problem I see is that this is nearly three hours long. I don’t know if I would have been able to sit in the theater for that long. Then again, I sat through the entirety of “Avengers: Endgame” in the theaters. Maybe the lockdown made me lazy, and I need to see films in parts now, but I have seen it now, and I’m happy. If you’re a fan of the franchise, you should see this on Roku. This is a good prequel, one of the few good ones, and I think everyone will enjoy it. If you can’t sit through the movie in one sitting, then you can watch it in parts, like I did.

Thank you for joining in on this review tonight. Stay tuned tomorrow for the next review in “Disney Month 2025.”

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2

Eleven days ago, “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2” was released. I saw the movie on Monday, so now I will let you know my thoughts.

It looks fitting that this young adult film finishes this teen-oriented franchise – taking a very hard, straightforward look at war, the meaning of democracy, the consequences of a government change, and the understated task of nation-building.

Shalini Langer mentioned in her review, “There are other narratives here, as President Snow (Sutherland) whips up fears about “those who don’t know our ways”, in order to guard his Capitol against “outsiders”.” Walls are built, children separated from mothers as war arrives.

Langer said in her review, “Writer Suzanne Collins features in the credits again for helping adapt her books to the screen, and director Lawrence faithfully follows her vision in placing the tortured and torn Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) as the moral centre of this dystopia. Other women too play a crucial role in each of the turns the film takes, whether as Katniss’s friends, family, rivals or enemy.”

Langer goes on to say, “While Part 2 of what ended exactly a year ago also begins with its take on modern warfare being about who grabs the most eyeballs, it thankfully moves on confidently into real battle this time.” The dome – again a parallel drawn between life outside the hunger games and within – is the bombed Capitol itself. The film shows it well, both the bombed overground and the miserable underworld.

Katniss decides she has reached her limit of being told what to do by Coin, who sees herself as the leader of the rebels, and decides that the only way out, is to take down Snow. Langer said, "So disregarding direct orders, she secretes out to join Gale (Hemsworth) and the others on a mission into Capitol." Peeta, who was tormented and brainwashed by the Capitol in the previous film to a point where he can’t tell the truth from reality anymore, soon joins them. We think Coin believes it makes a better story for a movie if the two former lovers are kept together, even as possible opponents now.

The film follows Katniss’s company of seven or so as they steadily make their way to Snow’s castle, criss-crossing through the unknown bomb traps he has set for them. Snow sees this as just another part of the hunger games, with the demonstration even bigger as he takes out the rebels on camera in the real world.

Langer mentioned, “Mockingjay – Part 2 works again because Lawrence, who has grown as much as Katniss through the course of this series, brings forth the right mix of vulnerability and steel required of her. It’s a rare achievement on screen for a heroine to be so consistently a person than a woman, making no concessions to her so-called feminine self.”

It’s also rare for a film to reject itself the excitement of a success after this hard-fought, four-part, big-franchise fight. However, Francis Lawrence also resists.

However, I will admit the same thing that everyone else has said when they were watching these movies: this should not have been split up into two movies. If they had cut out parts that felt like it was just filler and combined both of the parts together, the film could have been stronger and better compared to what it is. Now, this part is better than the first part, but the first two are still better. They should have known that it wouldn’t have been great when they decided to split Mockingjay up into two parts. Anyway, I will say that you can go to the theater and watch this movie because you will like it, I promise.

Alright, that ends “Hunger Games Month.” I know I am posting this late, but I was out for a good part of the day, and no, not for Black Friday shopping. We only were doing that for a little bit, I’m not crazy about Black Friday at all. Stay tuned next month for another exciting conclusion series of reviews for this year.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1

Jennifer Lawrence’s personality and her clever excellence of her supporting cast kept “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1,” released in 2014, climbing upwards. The third installment in the “Hunger Games” franchise (well, I should say chapter three, part one) is a depressing, sometimes terrible experience, and not only because it’s the darkest installment ever in an already dark series, capturing dystopian rebels in a poverty-struck and discouraged state. As written by regular series writers Peter Craig and Danny Strong, and as directed by Frances Lawrence (who also was on the second film in the franchise, “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire”), it also feels a bit stretched out, not to give the actors room to breathe and stretch the film’s narrative borders to give better attention with detail, but because that’s how Hollywood increasingly does big budget franchises now: breaking one book into two or three, like with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows or The Hobbit, to make the intense bookworms happy by dramatizing as many scenes as possible, and to make money on tickets.

Matt Zoller Seitz mentioned that, “When the story begins, our heroes have literally been driven underground. Hunger Games champion Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) survived multiple iterations of the books' nationally televised, gladiator-styled, bread-and-circuses reality show, then was cynically positioned by the evil President Snow (Donald Sutherland) as a false figure of inspiration.” She became a symbol of hope thanks to her determined spirit, plus intelligent planning by rebel fighters and image manipulators, including Katniss’s once-drunk and now sober mentor, Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), Seitz describes, “the propagandist and image consultant Plutarch” (dedicated to the memory of Philip Seymour Hoffman), the tech genius Betee (Jeffrey Wright), and the image consultant (and the comic relief) Effie Trinket.

“Mockingjay, Part 1” starts exactly where “Catching Fire” left off, with Katniss, rescued from Quarter Quell, living in a composite underground of District 13 with her fellow revolutionists. Led by their courageous district president Coin, played by Julianne Moore, with a frosted wig and a strict appearance, our heroes tolerate attacks by Snow’s planes and soldiers while planning their next righteous move. Obviously, Katniss is also aided and looked-after by her loyal right-hand, Gale Hawthorne, played by Liam Hemsworth, even as she fears over the fate of her boyfriend, who Seitz describes as “the still-milquetoast Peeta,” who’s being held hostage by Snow’s army and turned into an anti-Katniss half truth tool, disapproving Katniss on national TV in order to legitimize his mind controllers.

Seitz made a nice comparison when he said, “If "The Hunger Games" films were to be compared structurally to "Star Wars"—still the commercial Holy Grail of film franchises—you might say that this one is the first half of "The Empire Strikes Back," with emphasis on the visually and drastically oppressive Hoth sequences.” The story takes us from setback to setback to setback until we feel congested (on purpose). Snow has the overpowering military advantage, and in a couple of successful action scene, we get the feeling of just how long the rebels’ odds of victory are. The best of these portrays an airborne attack that’s filmed mostly from ground level, visualizing Snow’s warplanes as thick shapes that can corner in midair, like gulls.

There’s also a mild damage of media criticism and satire, though this time out it’s less focused on the immature distractions of televised chaos and more interested in the construction of political images. Like the other films in the franchise, this sequel of The Hunger Games is good at reminding present-day, real-world occurrences while modestly refusing to commit to any specific metaphor. Seitz reminds his readers, “A full-on, deliberately suicidal assault on a heavily armed government target faintly echoes images of nonviolent resistance from the Indian uprising against the British and the American Civil Rights movement, up to the point when the advancing rebels quit absorbing punishment and start dishing it out. Katniss is sold to the like-minded as a Che Guevara or young Fidel Castro (or perhaps a video-taunting Al Qaeda or ISIS-type, though of course Western audiences would rather not consider things from that angle). A good portion of the film's first half is about Katniss being shaped and sold and even packaged by Coin and her allies as a sort of pre-fabricated deliverer, the Mickey Mouse or Mr. Clean of the revolution, then rebelling against this tendency and figuring out (with help from Plutarch) that in revolution, as in advertising, authenticity sells better than slickness.”

The problem is, for all its surface intelligence, “Mockingjay, Part 1” has little depth, and that sometimes makes it much more frustrating than a more on purpose small-minded and silly movie might have been. One sometimes gets the sense that the moviemakers want credit for more political courageous (in a mainstream blockbuster) than they’re actually willing to earn. Seitz mentions, “There are many tantalizing and even powerful allusions, such as Katniss addressing her public while standing in a cityscape bombarded by Snow's forces, a scene that evokes pro-Palestinian camera crews showcasing collateral damage from Israeli airstrikes; but these are never developed beyond the barest wisp of a notion, and they sit quite awkwardly next to all the film's narrative clichés and emotional shortcuts: the scene where the excessively "packaged" icon throws away the script and speaks from the heart; the scene where the powerful old bad guy is being shaved with a straight razor and gets nicked and treats the wound as a metaphor; etc.”

Katniss’s participation in an innocent and (apparently intentionally) bland love triangle with two young men of unimportant personality seems intended to build her up and ensure that no one can steal the main character’s spotlight. Seitz brings up, “there's a "turnabout is fair play" aspect to this, and at times it plays like the long delayed answer to those '70s films driven by super-capable male characters, often played by Paul Newman or Robert Redford or Al Pacino, whose love interests were simpering bores. Katniss is such a powerful character, so strong and simple, that she wouldn't be diminished by playing opposite more interesting romantic leads. As is, she's like Scarlett O'Hara opposite two Ashley Wilkeses.” The weakness of the film’s romantic energy might not seem so obvious if this particular installment didn’t find Katniss in a state of weakness, recovering from physical and emotional damage. She’s much more reactive here than in previous installments (Seitz mentions, “which is true to the novel, I'm told”), but it’s still frustrating to see her shrunk to an eyewitness during the film’s action climax, watching heroic guys doing heroic things on TV monitors.

To be completely honest, even though this is a good movie, this is not as good as the previous two movies. The reason why is that they showed the only action sequence in the trailers, and it definitely makes it feel like this is half of a movie. How “Part 2” will be, I cannot say because I have yet to see that movie, especially since it was released today. I just got to find a day to watch it in the theaters when I get the chance before next Friday. However, I will still say you can check this movie out, but you won’t like it as much as the other two, I can tell you that.

Check in next Friday for the conclusion of “The Hunger Games Month.” Now I have to see when I can go to the theaters to see the last movie because I have been hearing it’s better than the first part, but I have to see it for myself to know.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

For the remainder of the month, it will be incredibly difficult to review the rest of the “Hunger Games movies,” since the late Philip Seymour Hoffman is in the rest. I just have to pull myself together so that I can get through this month. Now we have come to “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire,” released in 2013.

Susan Wloszczyna started her review out by saying, “When a movie like "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" comes along, it makes my inner feminist-leaning 13-year-old stand up and cheer. Of course, the mere existence of a successful girl-powered franchise that does not revolve around potential suitors with supernatural powers is enough to keep her smiling.”

Wloszczyna went on to say, “The scene in "Catching Fire" that especially fired up my lingering adolescent alter-ego? When Jennifer Lawrence—essential as warrior heroine Katniss Everdeen in Round 2 of this young-adult lit-based enterprise, much in the same way that Vivien Leigh was indispensable in "Gone With the Wind"—suddenly twirls about in her would-be wedding dress during a TV interview meant to distract the downtrodden populace of Panem. What initially looks like a multi-tiered, white-frosted cage is engulfed in flames and transforms into a supple midnight-bluish winged symbol of subversion that emulates the Mockingjay, the mascot of a growing rebellion in the land. One gown represents female entrapment and expectations, the other human freedom and opportunity. Call it a Barbie-meets-Joan of Arc moment. And not every man can rock a lavender ponytail and a pompadour at the same time, but darn if Stanley Tucci’s fawning oil-slick of a TV host Caesar Flickerman—part Ryan Seacrest, part Siegfried and Roy—manages to pull it off. "Girl on Fire is so cheeky," he declares of Katniss with a half-smile, half-sneer when she performs her dress trick.”

Yes, fashion can be something used for good and a medium for revolution – at least in this dystopia, with its Fascist government led by the peacefully dangerous President Snow. Wloszczyna mentioned, “Here, gawd-awful gaudy too often passes for style. We are talking about you, Elizabeth Banks, in the guise of giddy government-instated cheerleader Effie Trinket, with bedazzled Oompa Loompa wigs and eyelashes that appear to be leaden lace cookies. (At least she is allowed to be a warmer presence this time around.)”

Katniss’s quick-change show is almost trumped by the look of Lawrence going completely Liv Taylor in “Cleopatra” with Roman-circus hair and makeup, riding in a chariot before a thunderous mob and later wearing another stunning bird-inspired wardrobe to a pre-Hunger Games gathering. Good thing that the hard-eyed Oscar winner is as skillful at silently suggesting the haunted mind of her ace archer as she is at showcasing these fantasy frocks. Otherwise, it would be even more obvious that – just like any other second entry in an ongoing franchise – “Catching Fire” is simply a placeholder. Also, it is particularly harsh experience given Katniss’s post-traumatic state of mind, as the plot simply picks up where the first movie left off and closes nowhere near to a satisfying climax.

The 2½-hour running time is split in two: First, we learn that Kitniss’s trick last time to overturn the rules of the games so that she and fake boyfriend Peeta Mellark would both survive as co-champions has made Penam’s less fortunate think they, too, can rise against their overlords. As the imaginary engaged couple go on tour to greet their fans, it becomes clear they see Katniss as an inspirational leader, a role she bit-by-bit grows to accept.

With an assist from the late Philip Seymour Hoffman as the too-smooth-to-be-true new gamesmaker Plutarch Heavensbee, Snow announces a special all-star edition of the 75^th-anniversary Hunger Games Quarter Quell. Former winners of previous games recruited from Panem’s 12 districts will be uneven against one another, and Katniss and Peeta must put their lives on the line again.

The last hour is dedicated to an Olympian death match in a mock tropical jungle. The fun, if there is any, begins with such visually interesting challenges as toxic mist, rabid baboons and a downpour of blood. Several welcome new battle participants come aboard. Just like Hoffman, such amazing talents as Jeffrey Wright, Amanda Plummer and Jena Malone are overqualified for their parts, but each delivers a clearly definite character that lightens the proceedings considerably. At least Malone as the super-cool Johanna gives Lawrence with a strong thwart to play against. The biggest and maybe only true laugh comes when Johanna takes her clothes off in an elevator to the appreciation of Peeta and the disregard of Katniss.

Director Francis Lawrence is confident enough to not go too heavy on the much-scorned hand-held camerawork used by his predecessor, Gary Ross. With a script by two Oscar-winning writers, Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt (credited as Michael deBruyn), the action and even the speeches move along quickly enough.

However, “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” suffers from the same “something old, something borrowed” cliché that is the enemy of originality in too many Hollywood efforts recently. Wloszczyna noted, “It is difficult to enjoy a film when you are checking off all the sources it references—"Lost" and "Survivor" from television, Star Wars (what is with the Stormtrooper ripoffs?) and "The Running Man" from movies, and Roman and Greek myths.”

What makes the books and the films forceful is the way they define worries and pop-culture obsessions in our everyday lives: anger over politicians, fascination with celebrities, a growing displeased underclass, addiction to reality shows and video games, the reliability of important violent acts that control TV coverage, and hateful occurrences of bullying.

Of course, the one truly new invention – and the one that matters most – is Katniss herself. With every on-screen part, the poor girl from District 12 continues to complete her destiny as an inspiration and a rebel fighter. She is but one female, but she’s the perfect cure to the excess of male superheroes we have.

Also, talk about a making rebellion: this is the rare action blockbuster that dares to be made without 3D. Those who already need to wear glasses would rather spend the ticket quality on popcorn are happy for you, Katniss and crew.

I will say that this movie was better than the first one. If you liked the first movie, then you will definitely like this one better. Since this is the next book, it tells it very nicely, but once again, I can’t say how closely it follows the book, since I never read this series. I never heard of the “Hunger Games” series until my friend called saying, “Happy Hunger Games.” When I asked him what he was talking about, he mentioned about the books and said the movie was out. Then I saw the first movie in theaters, and I liked it. I never got to see this movie in theaters, but I saw it when it was released on DVD, and I liked it. It looked like a movie that I should have seen in theaters, but I missed that chance. However, I was happy when I saw the sequel once I got it as a rental from the library.

Just to let you know, exactly like how they did with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, they split the last book, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, into two parts. Stay tuned next week to find out how “Mockingjay Part 1” was.

The Hunger Games

Now we have come to a very exciting month because this will be one dedicated to a novel adaptation that I have never read before. I know, shocking, isn’t it? Sit back and strap in because we are going to celebrate “Hunger Games Month.” Just in time too, since the last one will be released later this month.

Like many science-fiction stories, “The Hunger Games,” released in 2012, shows a future that we’re allowed to read as a story for the present. After the existing nations of North America are ruined by tragedy, a civilization named Panem climbs from the ruins. It’s ruled by a huge, wealthy Capitol inspired by the faces of countless sci-fi magazines and surrounded by 12 “districts” that are helpless satellites.

As the story starts, the annual ceremony of the Hunger Games is starting. Each district must give a “tribute” of a young woman and man, and these 24 finalists must fight to the death in a forested “arena” where hidden cameras display every move.

This outcome in a television production that actually holds the nation fascinated and keeps the citizens pleased. Roger Ebert recalled, “Mrs. Link, my high school Latin teacher, will be proud that I recall one of her daily phrases, “panem et circenses,” which summarized the Roman formula for creating a docile population: Give them bread and circuses. A vision of present-day America is summoned up, its citizenry glutted with fast food and distracted by reality TV.” How is the population expected to accept the violent sacrifice of 24 young lives a year? How many have died in our recent battles?

The story focuses on the two tributes from the impoverished District 12: Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson). The 16-year-old girl hunts deer with her bow and arrow to feed her family. He may be more muscular but doesn’t look like he matches in survival skills. They’re both sharp, All-Panem types, and although one or both are eventually needed to be dead, romance is a possibility.

Opposed with these healthy young people, the ruling class in the Capitol are affected degenerates. Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks) who Ebert described as, “bedecked in gaudy costumery and laden with garish cosmetics,” emcees the annual drawing for tributes, and the nation gets to know the finalists on a talk show hosted by Caesar Flickerman (Stanley Tucci), who guesses what Donald Trump might do with his hair if he had enough of it.

The executive in charge is the gamemaker, Seneca, played by Wes Bentley, who has a beard so unusually designed that Satan would be green with envy. At the top of the society is the president, played by Donald Sutherland, a knowledgeable graybeard who docks deep thoughts. Ebert mentioned, “In interviews, Sutherland has equated the younger generation with leftists and Occupiers. The old folks in the Capitol are no doubt a right-wing oligarchy. My conservative friends, however, equate the young with the Tea Party and the old with decadent Elitists.” “The Hunger Games,” like many stories, will show you exactly what you look in it.

The scenes set in the Capitol and dealing with its strange characters have a completely different tone than the scenes of fight in the Arena. The ruling class is painted in large send-up and bright colors. Katniss and the other tributes are seen in earth-toned realism. This character could be another demonstration, indeed, of Jennifer Lawrence’s Oscar-nominated character Ree in “Winter’s Bone.” The plot even explains why she’s skillful at the bow and arrow.

Ebert mentioned, “One thing I missed, however, was more self-awareness on the part of the tributes. As their names are being drawn from a fish bowl (!) at the Reaping, the reactions of the chosen seem rather subdued, considering the odds are 23-to-1 that they'll end up dead.” Katniss volunteers to take the place of her 12-year-old younger sister, Prim, played by Willow Shields, but no one clearly discusses the fairness of deadly combat between girl children and 18-year-old men. Apparently the bored TV audiences of Panem have developed a desire for savagery. Nor do Katness and Peeta reveal much thoughtfulness about their own strange position.

“The Hunger Games” is a successful entertainment, and Jennifer Lawrence is strong and convincing in the main role. However, the film jumps over obvious questions in its path, and avoids the opportunities sci-fi gives for social criticism. Ebert noted, “Compare its world with the dystopias in “Gattaca” or “The Truman Show.”” Director Gary Ross and his writers (including the series’ author, Suzanne Collins) obviously think their audience wants to see so much of hunting-and-survival scenes, and has no interest in people talking about how cruel class system is using them. Well, maybe they’re right. Ebert ended his review by saying, “But I found the movie too long and deliberate as it negotiated the outskirts of its moral issues.”

When I saw this in the theaters, I walked out thinking, “Talk about a movie that will get your adrenaline rushing, your blood pumping, have you sit at the edge of your seat wanting to know what will happen next.” This really had my nerves shot, especially with the up close, shaky camera moments. Even though I never read the book, I can’t say how this is compared to the book, but I think the book is better, but I will say that you should definitely check this film out, it’s really exciting.

Now check in next week when we look at the first sequel in the series for “Hunger Games Month.”