I think definitely does not worth to watch it in cinema. Too much singing, very slow pace as well as does not show the core concept how Snow became who he was in the Hunger Games as President.
So for a HG fan can be a one night movie at home with soda.
Worst movie to finish this year. Don’t know why i keep trying because all the other ones were also shit
The film “A Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” has been quite a challenge for me, requiring a considerable effort of patience to complete its viewing.
From the outset, the protagonist, played by Tom Blyth, comes across as tremendously bland, completely lacking in charisma or interest. Similarly, Rachel Zegler's performance is truly unbearable, although I must admit I already had my reservations with this actress, which made it even more difficult to tolerate her character in the film.
One of the main problems the film faces is its excessive length, which negatively affects the pacing and causes the plot to feel stretched out beyond what is necessary. This approach makes it feel more like a series than a movie, which can generate bewilderment or disappointment in those expecting a more compact and cohesive cinematic experience.
The excess of songs is also a point that contributes to the lack of enjoyment of the film. Despite not being a musical, too many songs are included, which unbalances the narrative and creates a sense of watching a Disney production rather than a film with a more balanced approach.
Most objectionable of all, however, is the film's rushed denouement. Despite its lengthy running time, the ending lacks adequate development, leaving important issues unresolved and generating dissatisfaction in some viewers who expected a more solid and coherent closure.
more like a musical seesh.
Haven't watched the other movies. In isolation, this is a movie about a man struggling with his priorities on what he should protect.
Like a big mouth putting his foot in it, this didn't know when to shut up.
The first Songbirds and Snakes movie is better than what I remember of the Hunger Games, but then they tack on another half movie at the end and it all unraveled for me.
I was 6 stars deep through the second half of this Cornholeanus Snow origin story, but then realized there was a third half coming and I had to witness the pacing and story-telling get sacrificed on the altar of setting up a sequel.
Plus, Rachel Zegler is an amazing young woman, but her excess of talent in everything she takes on does not justify turning the movie into a near-musical for her... Just sayin'.
Nope,
1 point acting, terrible, Trust me, nowadays face expressions aré not acting. No chemistry at all, they cast ppl who aré unwatchable, they look upset.
2 points, solid camera, fx
1 point script , horrible 3 boring parts, they spent more time on singing, instead showing us the war, that they mentioned all the time, plot holes, so big just to continue the saga, the snow history is remotely interesting and that's all.
0.5 just because I did not sleep
4.5 points of 10.
Max points 3 per section-1 for my good taste.
Skip it, or if you are fan you need to watch it the new trilogy.
Not to be one of those annoying people, but honestly guys you HAVE TO read the book if you haven’t yet. The movie is great, don’t get me wrong, however, hearing Snow’s thoughts add a whole new perspective.
There were two factors that made me question the necessity of "The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes" beforehand: Firstly, it's a prequel, and secondly, it's also an origin story for a villain. These are both things that often make the plot more predictable than it should be because you know exactly where the journey is going. Even though this is also true in this Hunger Games prequel, I nevertheless quite enjoyed the movie overall. Panem is an interesting world. Because the action here takes place shortly after the war, you learn many reasons for the state of the world 64 years later. The eponymous "Hunger Games" are also very different from what we've seen before. Here they are much more scaled-back, grittier, and somehow also more brutal.
The casting of the main characters is also very successful. Tom Blyth is quite convincing as the future dictator Coriolanus Snow; above all, he manages to let the cool, calculating, and dangerous nature of his character shine through from the very beginning. Particularly strong, however, is Rachel Zegler as Lucy Gray Baird. Recently, there has been some very strange online hate against Zegler, but personally, I've found her good in everything I've seen her in. In "The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes", it's not just her acting talent that's required, but above all her enormous vocal skills, and she masters the task effortlessly. Of the rest of the cast, I would also single out Viola Davis, who, as Head Gamemaker, puts her stamp on every scene she's in.
Now, this all sounds pretty positive, but unfortunately, I didn't enjoy the last third of the movie as much. While the first third manages to introduce the characters very efficiently and the actual "Hunger Games" take place in the second third, the movie loses all momentum in the final act. Naturally, the characters had to be positioned so that they fit into the previously known story, which brings us back to the disadvantages of a prequel. Overall, however, I stick to my recommendation for the movie, even if the ending is perhaps a bit disappointing.
Got to see the movie as a sneak peak premier off of winning some tickets. Although the story is fairly well written. I feel like they should have spent more time explaining the father and their childhood more to really flesh out the character and their later choices.
I did not feel like the main female lead role’s fit the movie. It just felt like the character was not from this world. The character felt awkward and out of place compared to all the others. They should have spent more time fleshing out that relationship between the main male lead and female to really make the story believable. For a long movie, things felt rushed.
Musicals are boring.
This movie was boring.
Lucy Gray has the wrong actress, this one can't act.
Could have been a great movie, instead of just a waste of time.
They stopped making good movie plots...
Not having been particularly obsessed with the Hunger Games franchise in the past, I was very surprised at how excited the promotion actually got me for the movie... which sometimes is to the detriment of a production when people go in with too high expectations. This also should just not have been that great of a movie, considering it’s a prequel to a 4-part (movie) franchise from a decade ago; and most of these resurrections just don’t tend to hit the spot. They’re simply cash cows. Excuse the pun, but the odds were not in its favor.
And despite all of that, my ass was sitting in that theater watching them land in that zoo cage together and watching the contrast between Lucy’s quickly growing trust in Snow and the other tributes with their mentors, and they had me gagged just like that.
I genuinely think Tom Blyth and Rachel Zegler’s friendship played an essential part in this movie. That is not to say they aren’t also simply super talented; there are just so many movies with household name actors that just don’t make you feel anything because the actors have zero chemistry. And these two just clearly worked really well together.
I look forward to seeing a lot more from Tom Blyth.
movie could have been over in half the time. Feels more like a Disney movie with all the singing. Watch it free if you can, there's a reason it's from the theater to streaming so quick.
I have so many issues with this movie but before I manage to structure my thoughts and gain better clarity, this quote from Vulture sums up my general feelings towards it:
"The Hunger Games Prequel Forgets the Franchise’s Nightmarish Message"
I think this is a great addition to the Hunger Games universe. I read the book before the movie so it's hard not to compare them. I think the book did a better job at showing how jealous Snow is of Lucy Gray, it made him a much more interesting character than here. I found the book in general a bit more subtle.
Having said that, I still think it's a very interesting movie, I wasn't the biggest fan of part 3 in the book since it takes the pace down, but here I felt they went through that part quite fast.
Tom Blyth does an amazing job, especially towards the end when we see Snow going crazy. Jason Schwartzman as Flickerman was also a lot of fun. Josh Andrés Rivera as Sejanus was also great.
I also loved the music and the hanging tree segment.
All in all I really liked it and I'll rewatch it everytime I go back to the Hunger Games franchise!
Absolutely pointless movie thats bursting at the seams with side roles and forgettable characters. Waste of money and time. Could have been a decent 6 part tv series if done correctly.
Instead of a good movie this was a poor attempt at getting the movie viral by almost turning it into a musical. Taking away all the parts that made previous Hunger Games great and just milking the fact that people liked that symbolic song. "Well, here, have more songs! Are you not entertained?!"
So basically once again a drunken Tyrion Lannister send a Snow to the night's watch?
This movie had no right to be as good as it was! Soft-rebooting a franchise from about a decade ago? Somehow it works and was almost better than anything I still remember from the original movies.
Also I did not really warm up to that Snow actor but I guess that makes the movie almost a hint better.
And unexpectedly, the songs are really good, reminding me of Dolly Parton and some are earworms right now.
I didn't love the original Hunger Games books/movies. I had to double check my watch history to even confirm how far into the series I made it. I thought I only saw the first two, but turns out I did see Part 1 of Mockingjay. In any case, they didn't exactly leave a strong impression, feeling like the quintessential blend of young adult dystopian clichés. However, after strong recommendations from siblings/friends who had read this prequel, I figured why not.
Overall, I thought this was an improvement over what I remember from the originals. Not a huge improvement, but an improvement. Tom Blyth seems like a star in the making and a contender to join Timothée Chalamet in the next generation of sharp-jawed heartthrobs. His performance was strong enough to carry a film that is probably a bit longer than it should have been. Unfortunately, Rachel Zegler didn't work quite as well for me. I'm probably not the best judge, but her accent just felt forced and I think they leaned into the singing angle a bit too much. The ensemble has some strong work, with Jason Schwartzman injecting some much-appreciated humor and Peter Dinklage selling his role (though I wished he had more material to work with).
With respect to story, I've always appreciated a prequel that adds context, and I thought this did a pretty good job in that respect. Getting a glimpse into the history of the games and how they've developed over time was compelling. The fact that we leave the Hunger Games behind for the final act was also interesting, and though some of that sequence feels rushed, the ambitious scope is still admirable.
I also have to comment on the budget, which was significantly reduced from Catching Fire/Mockingjay. I don't know that I'd call it out as noticeable, but I will say that the few action set pieces did feel a bit cheap.
I liked it, I liked the book more but the movie is great. The only thing that I didn't like is the too idealised Lucy Gray character.
Great adaptation of the book. This film executes the book’s prime character development - starting Snow as a relatable humble pupil, following to what we see in the Hunger Games trilogy. Some characters are better acted than others, but not too terribly so.
There is so. Much. Death. You quickly remember how grim Panem is - but the film isn’t without its lovable moments either. The third act is the weaker part (as it is in the book), but I still like how it changes how we see Snow.
Overall a good movie - even if it exudes Star Wars-prequel vibes. How the evil guy became evil, how ambition and paranoia and the little voice of the devil turn him against his friends and sense of humanity - and how he starts to like the feeling of power that killing and manipulating brings. So, that part wasn't new, but it was well done.
However, the ending feels rushed. Here there are the two lovebirds and suddenly they try to kill each other (which in Snow's case is more believable than in Lucy Grey's). Those final 20 minutes are confusing and not well built up to, honestly.
The scenes of the Hunger Games, how there are still people who openly oppose them (even if they don't survive this movie) feels like a good depiction of a state on the verge of authoritariarism. And if the tributes in the other movies are brushed up for the games, these are raw, sick people, with tuberculosis, rabies... The songs felt a bit exaggerated - sorry, but at some points in the movie I was wondering if I watched a musical. Lucy Grey doesn't really fit in with the bunch of tributes. She could have been better developed. The ending is open enough whether she lives or dies, whether she has any connection to Katniss or not.
Overall, this movie is a bit overly long - especially since it doesn't really manage to deliver on the main premise. A little less action in the middle part, a little more characterization towards the end, building up the love story and growing distrust, giving Lucy Grey some background would have helped enormously.
This film is just meaningless, is fan service cooked in the most basic and disgusting way. Turning the Hunger Games half a Broadway musical the other half a psychological thrillers about how can someone become crazy in 15 min. The timing, the space, the history, all is a pile of s***.
They have such a nice, already famous retro futurist fascist-like distopía, all the characters, the future written with some pilars from the past... But they turn what could have been the greatest film in the saga to a weird mix of a musical, a war documentary, a turn-into-crazy psychological theme, teenage love, and a bad Hunger Games over a Roman arena.
Please all that have money, stop spending it on famous shit and start creating films again like it was in the 90s and 2000. That flame of creation has extinguish and now you all live by remembering what was good.
For you reading till the end, please do not lose your time with this, read the books, read other distopía - teen books, imagine but don't lose any more time on s***.
I was happy to see a bit of resemblance to the first Hunger games movie, but... this is a musical?
I honestly enjoyed some of the singing but it was overused in my opinion.
I dont believe Im saying this but the movie was better than the book.
If this happened to me. I too would have become a villain! Pleasantly surprised by this. I enjoyed revisiting this world that I haven’t been in since the last one. The sets, sounds, and costumes were all great. The acting for the most part is also solid. Viola Davis, Peter Dinklage, Jason Schwartzman are all on there A game. I’ve never seen the actor that played Snow before but he was a good lead. Rachel Zegler was decent but slightly annoying character quite a few times. Could of used with less singing.
This makes me really want to revisit the original films!
7/10
The movie was good, but had a lot of flaws. Lucy gray was a Disney/musical character always singing and being betrayed as the perfect person in a children’s movie. The story line of snow is amazing, but felt rushed at some points would have loved to see more of his turn around. What to say about serjanus… dude can you just make up your mind?!? I want this, no I want that, no i want this. Bleh bleh bleh little cry baby with money. Hoping to see more movies about young snow.
The acting of Rachel Zegler was bad, her accent was fine but her face expressions.. it’s not a fucking Disney movie for little girls. Tom blyth’s acting wasn’t great but compared to Rachel it was amazing. Personally not a big fan of viola davis but she delivered her role with perfection.
I give this an 7 for the story of snow, if you take in all aspects this movie is 4 at most.
Absolute snooze fest, was tough to get through.
The movie was great, but Lucy Grays' character development was missing. Instead, she sang, and the audience was expected to gravitate to her because the actress can sing. It setup for a lacklustre character
with the exception of Two (2) half mediocre, barely 'good' moments from the whole movie; (the arena explosion scene and the Dean's reveal at the end) & some of the wide shots of the setting, this whole film was a mistake and such a waste of time, also a big bait with a cast such as Viola Davis and Peter Dinklage
i can't begin to describe how bad it was, and the singing? holy hell
Suzanne Collins is a wonderful and underrated writer, capable of creating captivating stories and interesting characters. I adore the book and feel like the film mostly does it justice. Sure, it’s long, but there was no way to make it shorter. It’s an extremely hard story to tell without Snow’s internal monologues but they succeeded. It’s not perfect, but mostly triumphant.
"...it is the things we love most that destroy us."
The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes is one of the biggest surprises of 2023 because I did not expect to enjoy it. I cared what was happening and liked that we saw a different side to Coriolanus Snow, so much so that I often forget he is the Antagonist.
It's a tragic tale that we all know the ending to, but we watch anyway with foolish hope for everyone involved.
Better than I expected,good movie
This film shines in some areas, falters in others. Most performances impress with the exception of Rachel—though it's worth noting that her limitations were probably because of the dialogue and story she was entrusted with. Film falters with its excessively dull and cliché dialogues at times, coupled with a sluggish pace. Peter Dinklage, Tom, and Viola are the real driving forces behind the movie compensating for its lackluster and dull moments. Hunter Schafer's performance, too, stands out.
I liked this. It was way better than the last two Hunger Games movies, that's for sure.
This movie shouldn’t exist. Fuck you hollywood. The last three movies from the original series fucking suck. Why not throw some dumb ass prequel into the mix. Again, fuck you hollywood. I will not watch this
Fans of The Hunger Games will enjoy The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes. The film, though, has some problems - particularly in the third act. I never believed the love story between Coriolanus Snow and Lucy Gray Baird, and I certainly didn't believe the path to corruption.
I think it's a great movie that adds a good back story to the hunger games saga. The worst thing for me was the pacing of the movie. I found act 1 and 2 to be outstanding, but I found the third act to be a bit long. Still, great end to the saga!
I would have preferred a reboot vs this type of movie.
It was a good attempt to make me sympathize with President Snow.
For a movie set in the "world" of the Hunger Games I feel there could have been more interesting stories to tell than the one they did. It's not set at the very very beginning, but it is too early to have enough care for these characters. It's set in a weird point I think. Disclaimer I haven't read the book, so this is purely as a viewer/enjoyer of the previous movies, but I felt that it was a bit messy in the story it was trying to tell in comparison to its predecessors where it's clear and compelling. Not saying it wasn't compelling, because the movie has its high points of super interesting parts. I just think there could have been a much more interesting story they could've told.
Iffy about this one. Some very tense moments and solid cinematography, but fell flat for me in terms of really showing how Snow really slipped away from his moral compass and started becoming evil. I noticed an exact scene in the movie where he started acting poorly and it was jarring. Seemed like the world gave him no reason to abruptly change his psyche, but it happened all of a sudden. Weird. Especially because Snow felt so upset when he faced the consequences of his actions (death of best friend). It's like, why are you crying that your best friend died if you're literally the one responsible for it?
I also felt like the final act wasn't as exciting and tense as it could've been to set Snow up to be the president we see in the future. Perhaps they could have given us more lore about his father and how he is becoming a parallel to him. Maybe that would've helped move the narrative along.
I didn't dislike the movie but it definitely could have been better. 6.5/10
Fabulous performances by everyone especially Tom Blyth, Rachel Zegler and Viola Davis who was creepy as hell. They really captured the true horror of kids being forced to kill one another. Beautiful cinematography.
Should have been around 40mins shorter. When it comes to the length and pacing it really lets the film down. The movie is split into 3 parts, by the end of part 2 I would have been fully satisfied of ending it there and so I would have scored it an 8. The pacing is all over the place especially when the 3rd part plays out.
The Snow that we know by the end of part 3 is the true Snow that we come to expect but doesn’t add up with part 1 and 2 which shows a completely different Snow that realises what’s truly wrong with the games and seeing the kids for what they really are and definitely not for entertainment.
I would like ten more of these please, thank you
While I appreciate the film as a whole, I thought Lucy Gray's character was too idealized, reminiscent of a Disney-like portrayal. Not showing her death on screen is a missed chance to add more onto Snow's mind break. Also, not sold on Zegler as a singer.
The film “A Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” has been quite a challenge for me, requiring a considerable effort of patience to complete its viewing.
From the outset, the protagonist, played by Tom Blyth, comes across as tremendously bland, completely lacking in charisma or interest. Similarly, Rachel Zegler's performance is truly unbearable, although I must admit I already had my reservations with this actress, which made it even more difficult to tolerate her character in the film.
One of the main problems the film faces is its excessive length, which negatively affects the pacing and causes the plot to feel stretched out beyond what is necessary. This approach makes it feel more like a series than a movie, which can generate bewilderment or disappointment in those expecting a more compact and cohesive cinematic experience.
The excess of songs is also a point that contributes to the lack of enjoyment of the film. Despite not being a musical, too many songs are included, which unbalances the narrative and creates a sense of watching a Disney production rather than a film with a more balanced approach.
Most objectionable of all, however, is the film's rushed denouement. Despite its lengthy running time, the ending lacks adequate development, leaving important issues unresolved and generating dissatisfaction in some viewers who expected a more solid and coherent closure.
The film “A Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” has been quite a challenge for me, requiring a considerable effort of patience to complete its viewing.
From the outset, the protagonist, played by Tom Blyth, comes across as tremendously bland, completely lacking in charisma or interest. Similarly, Rachel Zegler's performance is truly unbearable, although I must admit I already had my reservations with this actress, which made it even more difficult to tolerate her character in the film.
One of the main problems the film faces is its excessive length, which negatively affects the pacing and causes the plot to feel stretched out beyond what is necessary. This approach makes it feel more like a series than a movie, which can generate bewilderment or disappointment in those expecting a more compact and cohesive cinematic experience.
The excess of songs is also a point that contributes to the lack of enjoyment of the film. Despite not being a musical, too many songs are included, which unbalances the narrative and creates a sense of watching a Disney production rather than a film with a more balanced approach.
Most objectionable of all, however, is the film's rushed denouement. Despite its lengthy running time, the ending lacks adequate development, leaving important issues unresolved and generating dissatisfaction in some viewers who expected a more solid and coherent closure.
The film “A Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” has been quite a challenge for me, requiring a considerable effort of patience to complete its viewing.
From the outset, the protagonist, played by Tom Blyth, comes across as tremendously bland, completely lacking in charisma or interest. Similarly, Rachel Zegler's performance is truly unbearable, although I must admit I already had my reservations with this actress, which made it even more difficult to tolerate her character in the film.
One of the main problems the film faces is its excessive length, which negatively affects the pacing and causes the plot to feel stretched out beyond what is necessary. This approach makes it feel more like a series than a movie, which can generate bewilderment or disappointment in those expecting a more compact and cohesive cinematic experience.
The excess of songs is also a point that contributes to the lack of enjoyment of the film. Despite not being a musical, too many songs are included, which unbalances the narrative and creates a sense of watching a Disney production rather than a film with a more balanced approach.
Most objectionable of all, however, is the film's rushed denouement. Despite its lengthy running time, the ending lacks adequate development, leaving important issues unresolved and generating dissatisfaction in some viewers who expected a more solid and coherent closure.
The film “A Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” has been quite a challenge for me, requiring a considerable effort of patience to complete its viewing.
From the outset, the protagonist, played by Tom Blyth, comes across as tremendously bland, completely lacking in charisma or interest. Similarly, Rachel Zegler's performance is truly unbearable, although I must admit I already had my reservations with this actress, which made it even more difficult to tolerate her character in the film.
One of the main problems the film faces is its excessive length, which negatively affects the pacing and causes the plot to feel stretched out beyond what is necessary. This approach makes it feel more like a series than a movie, which can generate bewilderment or disappointment in those expecting a more compact and cohesive cinematic experience.
The excess of songs is also a point that contributes to the lack of enjoyment of the film. Despite not being a musical, too many songs are included, which unbalances the narrative and creates a sense of watching a Disney production rather than a film with a more balanced approach.
Most objectionable of all, however, is the film's rushed denouement. Despite its lengthy running time, the ending lacks adequate development, leaving important issues unresolved and generating dissatisfaction in some viewers who expected a more solid and coherent closure.
The film “A Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” has been quite a challenge for me, requiring a considerable effort of patience to complete its viewing.
From the outset, the protagonist, played by Tom Blyth, comes across as tremendously bland, completely lacking in charisma or interest. Similarly, Rachel Zegler's performance is truly unbearable, although I must admit I already had my reservations with this actress, which made it even more difficult to tolerate her character in the film.
One of the main problems the film faces is its excessive length, which negatively affects the pacing and causes the plot to feel stretched out beyond what is necessary. This approach makes it feel more like a series than a movie, which can generate bewilderment or disappointment in those expecting a more compact and cohesive cinematic experience.
The excess of songs is also a point that contributes to the lack of enjoyment of the film. Despite not being a musical, too many songs are included, which unbalances the narrative and creates a sense of watching a Disney production rather than a film with a more balanced approach.
Most objectionable of all, however, is the film's rushed denouement. Despite its lengthy running time, the ending lacks adequate development, leaving important issues unresolved and generating dissatisfaction in some viewers who expected a more solid and coherent closure.
Snow nooooo don't become evil you're so sexy haha
I love the four Hunger Games movies and I also read the books a few years back. I did not read The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes though and was very looking forward to seeing the film. I had high hoped as it was directed by Francis Lawrence who did a great job on the original movies. For the most part I was not disappointed. They put a lot of story into these 2,5 hours and sometimes the character development felt a bit rushed in my opinion. Apart from that I really enjoyed the film. The actual Hunger Games scenes were extremely well done and the actor‘s did a fantastic job in bringing the characters to life. Overall a worthy sequel story that every fan of the original movies should watch.
I watched this on an aeroplane, so it wasn’t the best environment, however, I really enjoyed it. Good film :thumbsup:
This was a hard one to rate. Partially, because I loved it. Partially, because I walked away extremely frustrated. As a movie that is pushing three hours, there is obviously a lot of meat on its bones. Somehow, someway, the plot felt very rushed (particularly the ending). At about the 2 hour mark I thought the movie was wrapping up and there was a full hour left and I had no idea where the plot was going. From that point on they introduced full new concepts and plot arcs that was rushed beyond belief. This should have easily been cut into two parts. There could have been a bit added early to fluff it up, and a whole heck of a lot to the final act.
Rating: 3/5 - 75% - Worth Watching (First Two Hours: 4/5 - 85%)
This was so much worse than the book.
Not only did they take all the depth out of the characters and their relationships, they also made many changes that simply didn’t make sense and only made the story less emotional, less disturbing, less complicated, less morally grey and just plain worse.
It was truly very disappointing to see how little remained of Snow’s compelling and complex character arc. Instead, he literally had no personality here and they took everything away that made him interesting. I genuinely understood why Snow did the things he did in the book or why he thought the way he thought, and even found myself sincerely rooting for him, but none of that was the case here. I simply didn’t care about him here or about this story in general. I might even say I was a little bored. Such a waste of a great book.
I wanted to see this because of the previous movies, so I did. Found out I can’t watch that horrible Zegler woman anymore. Her accent was badly done and all I saw was this crazy person that absolutely is not someone I’d like to see anymore. Never had this before with any actor. Didn’t believe her, couldn’t relate and I was basically hoping her character would die fast. Ofc didn’t.
:thumbsdown:It really is a disappointment, another movie damaged by the progressives, nothing like the rest of the "Hunger Games"... the worst one I've seen has nothing to make up for a terrible story.
Average and it couldn't hold my attention. I got bored in the first 10 minutes of the movie.
Not impressed with this movie at all. kinda boring. To much singing. The originals we're better gave it a 6.
This didn't quite have the same charm as the original films for me, likely because I read the original trilogy before seeing the books and so they hold a strong space in my heart. I didn't read the book for this, however I did really enjoy the movie. I enjoyed Rachel Zegler a lot, and Lucy Gray as a character was enjoyable. The movie was quite long and i'm sure plenty could've been cut. I enjoyed the supporting cast a lot and liked seeing the origins of the games, I think the games were far more interesting than the background on Snow, if the film had focused more on that aspect than his romance i think I would've enjoyed it more.
I was thoroughly enjoying this... until it absolutely nosedives during the latter half.
'The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes' starts off so strongly, continuing at a pleasant pace as it encompasses the Hunger Games itself. However, from the end of the event it truly does drop off a cliff out of nowhere. The film gives you a major high of action with the games, then drops the tempo down to such a slow first act-esque pace that it feels extremely tacked on.
I did enjoy the cast throughout, mostly. Tom Blyth is excellent, first time I've seen him properly in a film and I was very impressed; though even his performance suffers with the aforementioned, which for him is from the point that he becomes The Real Slim Shady, seemingly (his originally look is so much better). Still, I'm eager to see that guy act further.
Rachel Zegler is largely good, though does chew the scenery quite a bit in parts; predominantly when singing. Viola Davis is great, while Peter Dinklage is underused but still a positive. Jason Schwartzman and Josh Andrés Rivera, meanwhile, are solid enough supports.
Just a shame about the final act. It's not necessarily that bad in itself, but to lower the pace that sharply after such prolonged thrill is a recipe for disaster. So much so that it makes the whole part drag hard, or perhaps 'twas just so for me?
Overall I enjoyed watching the movie. I was at first a bit sceptical about having an origin story about a villain, but somehow it worked even though the path is a bit unplausible (especially towards the end).
Best thing about the movie are definitely the two main characters. The chemistry between both works really well. Some people nagged about the music, but I thought it fit really well into the movie and Rachel Zegler can actually sing quite good.
Still the story somehow feels to packed and they could have easily made two movies out of it. Especially the last part was destroying the momentum that they built in the second part. It felt quite boring and during the last part I had to look at the clock for the first time.
Hollywood is seriously broken. What about uplifting movies where heroes are actually good people and not assholes that betray each other at first occasion, even their lovers. Generation of depressed adults incoming if raised with only these dark flix.
Rachel Zegler Is excellent but it’s also like she is just out to show why she was cast as Snow White. While a prequel series of the Hunger Games is about as unnecessary as the Fantastic Beasts series.
The movie does keep my interest, it just didn’t need singing. You certainly don’t expect singing if you were a fan of the original movies.
The film drags on passed the Hunger Games which makes sense since the movie is more a Snow origin story. Than it is really about the Hunger Games itself.
For a reboot prequel, it was really good. A could places it got slow, but overall good. But I'm fond of the franchise so I might be partial.
8 for a hunger games fan, maybe as low as 6 otherwise.
Don’t understand this movie. Why did Lucy gray turn on him. Makes not sense and completely random. Beside that, it was good way to waste 2.5 hours of my life.
I was not a fan of the original book, and so I went into this movie with very low expectations. Because of that, I was actually pleasantly surprised by it. I don't think it fixes all of my issues with the book. The ending feels like a separate story and is definitely rushed, and because of that, the characters make decisions that seem a bit odd. Snow is simply not an interesting character to follow, and the prequel nature of it means we know where things will end up. And some of the random origins and worldbuilding feel a bit fanservice-y. Also, Rachel Zegler's Southern accent was distracting and hurt her overall performance. So why am I positive about it with all those negatives? For one thing, the movie allows for the characters to feel more dynamic without having to be stuck in Snow's perspective and without voicing a ton of first-person narration. Their motivations get pushed into the interiority of the actors, which I think works better as it allows for more complexity in what the viewer might feel they are thinking. The movie is pretty entertaining and engrossing. Zegler's accent may not work, but she's a phenomenal singer with plenty of gravitas, which works very well for Lucy Gray's character. And most shocking of all, I really was impressed with how the movie looks. Instead of feeling like a 200m+ budgeted blockbuster that just sort of entails a CGI-fest, this movie is shot on location with plenty of wide angles. I am becoming more and more convinced that these large budgets are extremely unnecessary as movies with half the budget routinely end up looking significantly better than them. Overall, I think it's worth a watch.
The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes - :heart:x6
Not bad. It was interesting to see the background on Coriolanus Snow and the beginning of the Hunger Games. However, Chapter 3 was way too long and the first half of the final chapter got boring for me. I would only recommend this movie if you want to see the origins of the Hunger Games and President Snow.
How I rate:
1-3 :heart: = seriously! don't waste your time
4-6 :heart: = you may or may not enjoy this
7-8 :heart: = I expect you will like this too
9-10 :heart: = movies and TV shows I really love!
for a prequel I was impressed. totally helps me now with the storyline with the two movies after this. I may rewatch them now.
Would lucy gray lead a rebellion or comeback to district 12 and have two girls ?
It was okay in my opinion til part 3 then was just slow and felt dragged on. I could have lived without seeing Snows origin story. But it is what it is.
I love the hunger games world.
There is something with this movie that I can't and won't connect with the heroes. I find the actors obnoxious and dislikable even from the trailer and originally I was not planning to watch it in the threatens. It's not that iv researched then, just their presence and vibe fun the trailer and then the movie.
The movie should have focused more in the origins of panam and the war. It tries to hard to connect with the original trilogy either by names popping up or by songs. Also in summer places what happens and the motives are not well explained.
Overall I don't regret having watched it. I guess my love for the world was stronger than all the negatives and it still helped it advance.
Definitely worth watching this on the big screen. Also, one of the best movies I was able to see this month.
I was glued to my seat and even the movie break was unwanted.
The story is quite compelling and the dialogs are fresh, no banalities or used phrases.
I would go for another 2nd prequel to the Hunger Games, if it is at least as good as this one.
It's not cliché, there's no repetition, it's not the same formula at all.
The birth of a villain can occur in so many ways that I did not went to the book to be surprised on the movie. In my opinion it was well done, quite credible and very well performed by Tom, with the rest of the main cast bringing some good lines and acting.
All grey characters here serve the great purpose of bringing the best, or shall we say the worst, in Snow. Loved Viola and Dinklage characters, so well tuned, so much cunning.
Rachel sings. And yes, I agree with a bunch of the critics: the musics went a bit too much, crossing the line of a musical in too many moments. They were good, and the message was quite important to the movie and moving the characters into liking Lucy, but... in this one, I'm no director or anything of such, but just mix it with a bit of action, or make the character deliver part of the song as a message and then sing the rest, or vice-versa.
Plenty of good scenes from the 1st and 2nd parts. I was not expecting the zoo scenes, they were very very good. The dim and grittiness of the arena was interesting, but it felt too small and too big in different scenes - strange at best. But the action and the plot twists are oh so good to see.
Indeed the third was slow paced but rushed at the same time - you have to see to understand it. But I think it serves the purpose of bringing the madness into Snow and imprint in him his way of seeing the world - the darkness in him has a reason, a deep one.
Although I'm not an avid Hunger Games fan, I still enjoyed this movie. I did think it felt like the movie was both slow and fast given everything that occurred in it, but overall a good watch.
This was better than I was expecting it to be. I enjoyed the book when it was first released and was definitely intrigued to see what this film adaptation would do and I was pleasantly surprised. They brought the music to life so well and I thought Rachel Ziegler played a really good part here.
Personally, I do think that the movie did not need to be this long as it felt slightly long winded near the end. I also think there were a couple parts of the story that were confusing and took me out of the overall plot for a little bit.
Despite reading the original trilogy, I've never been a particularly big fan of the Hunger Games. Because of that, I came into this with low expectations, and was reasonably impressed at how well this movie and story fit into the future world we're all more familiar with. The world building is legitimately excellent, and it's rewarding to see how much attention was paid to even small details: the still-nascent eccentricity of Pan Am apparel and the technological devolution of the high-speed rail are relatively small things the movie didn't need to get right and executes perfectly.
Unfortunately, that's the highest praise I have to offer. Being able to witness the jankiness and inefficiency of the early Games is conceptually amusing, but (as in the film itself) is not exciting to watch. The musical elements are at best overwrought and at worst utterly ridiculous. Lucy's introduction in particular feels wildly out place and the entire scene looks like it was adapted from a Broadway musical.
Speaking of characters, Snow is well-acted and sees meaningful development over the course of the movie. Despite her prominence in the plot, we never really get to know Lucy. It's implied that she's in the middle of her own story of which we see relatively little, but because so much of her feelings, thoughts, and history are a mystery, the finale of the movie is presented as a baffling series of decisions for which we get no explanation.
It's curious to see a movie so proficient in the minutiae and clumsy in overarching vision, but even for fans of the franchise this experience is largely unnecessary.
I wasted 2h30 watching this boring and tiring movie
For 2023 blockbuster standards this isn’t that awful I suppose; in terms of production value and technical craft it’s doing a fine job. It’s kind of weird to already see a throwback to this genre that died out only a few years ago, but much like Fantastic Beasts, I don’t think this is strong enough to rejuvenate the franchise in any significant way. Simply put, this is one of the most boring films I’ve seen this year. The story is rehashing a lot of the same ideas from the original films, but with a dragging pace and worse characters this time around. The main character is a complete wet blanket and has no chemistry with the female co-lead/love interest, a character who’s slightly more interesting but kneecapped by a director who’s constantly insisting that she has the most interesting singing voice in the entire world while sounding like any interchangeable singer you’d catch on some talent show on tv. The more eccentric performances from the older cast keep this slightly entertaining, because much like the original films this often runs into issues of overdramatic delivery from the younger cast, on the nose dialogue and some other artistic cheapening that are all in there to make the experience more palatable for its intended audience of teenage girls. Francis Lawrence still has good instincts when it comes to worldbuilding (loved some of the retro design choices, such as the television screens in the control room) and directing action, but it’s not enough to make me care about this overall slog.
3.5/10
Rushed villain origin, needs sequels to flesh it out. Can't imagine Snow becoming what he is just because of some District 12 skank.
total womp womp, i could feel everyone's disappointment in the theater when it ended
the only thing i like in this movie is hunter schafer character
The 10th Hunger Games. Why 10th? Simple, it is both completion and a new beginning.
Now that's telling.
1. Completion of the "experiment" (if you will) if the Hunger Games work.
2. A new beginning to the Hunger Games. Since now they know it does work.
3. Completion of the old way. i.e Snow's father's idea.
4. Welcoming the new way. i.e. Snow's new idea.
5. Completion of the foundation the Snow family started.
6. The beginning of the real Hunger Games.
If you think about how the Hunger Games ended later with the death of Snow, you'll realised how poetic it was. The father implemented it (after stealing the idea). The son managed and improved it, and eventually died together with it.
Ironically, everything about "Katniss", the Mockingjay, betrayal, District 12, the song about the hanging tree; it started with Snow, and it was his downfall too.
If there was one thing Snow won, it was when Katniss killed the President of District 13. His laugh was a victory laugh. Because in the end, Snow died as a Victor.
Victor? Lucy left him. Lucy sang to him her last song. Lucy told him the name "katniss". Lucy told him about the Mockingjay. When Katniss shot the arrow against the District 13 President, that was Snow symbolically winning Lucy back in the end. Or, his revenge against Lucy. That hey, "I, Snow, turned Katniss, your Mockingjay my dear Lucy, to fulfill my last desire. Because I am a Victor."
Snow's evil side only comes to the fore in the last 30 minute's. A long movie :cinema: for a prequel to the Franchise. :thumbsup_tone1:
I don't get why they changed Lucy Gray's character so much. She had personality in the books, she was wild, smart, but she never shouted, never glanced bad at anyone, she didn't even cry. She was strong, she was rough, she was going all the way at every chance, but If she was a peoples favorite it was because she was incredible sweet an considerated given all her circumstances.
I cant stop thinking that they made a mistake giving the movie character so much anger.
I don't get it. Tom Blyth got under my skin in the last in the last 20 minutes when he become the Snow we know and I hate. Rachel Zegler was chosen for this role only for the singing. This is the first movie I watch with her and she is bad. She makes ugly or let's call them weird faces while singing and "acting". This doesn't adds nothing to the scene except confuses me. Hunter was amazing and I wanted to see more of Tigris. The whole movie was shot really strange with a lot of close ups that doesn't look good. I think Francis Lawrence tried to differentiate this one from the first films, but it's not a good decision. Or at least its execution. The last 20-30 minutes the scenes of the lake and forest location were chef kiss. Tom was really good in them and i still think of this fucking location. It was so gorgeous and well shot.
PS : Lucretius 'Lucky' Flickerman i HATE this guy
Very nice execution. Snow's descent into evil felt too rushed.
I remember enjoying the hunger games and the flamboyant type of characters it had. This is no different except that I can't remember everything but it's like everything seems familiar from the names in the characters, but Peter Dinklage was brilliant in the movie and Violq Davis added flavor.
The Movie is split into three and you can tell why as the characters go through stages. I honestly really enjoyed the movie that it got me invested in the characters, can't wait for the next one.
i could go on about how good this movie was but i have to say tom blyth was the perfect cast for coryo!!! you could see the exact moment snow's decent into madness started through the micro-expressions of his eyes alone.
This prequel surpasses the trilogy, offering a deeper, more mature exploration of the harrowing cruelty within Panem and unraveling the enigmatic character of Snow. Certain actors deliver exceptional performances, while others maintain a commendable standard. While not flawless, the film is undeniably great; however, a more profound delve into Panem's backstory and the potential for improved casting in certain roles could have elevated it to perfection.
Yes! Another Hunger Games movie! The only negative thing about this film like the book is that it is too long and should have been broken up as there are a lot of years and history to cover not just on Snow that would thirst the audiences quench for their need to know why the Hunger Games got to where they got. But all in all, this film was so well casted and the way they broke it up into three parts made it easier to follow. However, the many details that had to be skimmed over as well as the length made it feel like something was missing. Lastly, it was a great solid casting with lots of great scenes and drama and ties to the original trilogy.
I was pleasently surprised by this movie. I consumed little of the marketing material and didn't read the book, but I still went and saw it.
Maybe a hot take but I liked this one way more than the originals, seeing it all from the Capitol's perspective was very interesting, and I think it expanded the world building quite a lot.
It truly is a worth while addition to the lore, the hunger games are very different and we see varios levels of society in the movie.
Now I am certainly gonna re-read the books and specially read the new one.
The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes brings us back to Panem 64 years before Katniss' entry in The Hunger Games. It tells the story of a younger Coriolanus Snow as a mentor for a tribute from District 12 for the 10th Hunger Games. This film challenges the complex morality of its characters still trying to make peace with the reality of these deadly games because of the war. A stellar cast, a gripping story in and out of the arena, and a fair runtime, this film cements itself in the legacy of the series despite coming out years after the hype of the original trilogy. And Viola Davis was absolutely incredible in this film.
Rated a Connor 10, normal 8.5
rachel zegler did an insanely great job, but for tom blyth he was astounding as president snow. i’m not sure on whether there will be any more films or not, but i sure hope there are. i need to see more tom blyth as snow.
there are two things that pissed me off:
1- too much singing, like girl we get it. i know it’s her thing, but it becomes exhausting after a while. rachel was still great.
2- snow’s villain arc (chapter 3) was very underwhelming. it felt very rushed, like they wanted to get it over with. it was disappointing to watch after the build up, which is another reason to why i think i might enjoy a second film starring tom blyth as young president snow. i felt robbed and it might fix it.
The book was hard to read—boring, lame twists. You could tell what is going to happen. I`m not expecting anything else from the movie.
Shout by RønanVIP 2BlockedParent2023-11-15T17:31:01Z
The movie was good but the pacing is kinda awkward, sometimes it feels rushed (part 1) and sometimes it feels slow (part 3). Rachel Zegler and Tom Blyth made a great performance but I would have loved to see more of Peter Dinklage.