Hunger Games Prequel's Rotten Tomatoes Score Is A Series First - But Not A Good One

The Rotten Tomatoes score for the "Hunger Games" prequel, "The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes," is out.

The cinematic footprint of "The Hunger Games" seemingly wrapped up in 2015 with the release of "Mockingjay — Part 2." The finale concludes Katniss' (Jennifer Lawrence) quest for freedom, showing her enjoying a life of peace with Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) by her side. For a while, it seemed like that was the end for the blockbuster billion-dollar franchise, which turned its lead stars into household names. But in 2020, "The Hunger Games" author Suzanne Collins debuted "The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes," a prequel novel that peels back the layers on the nefarious President Snow.

Set decades before the "Hunger Games" trilogy, "The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes" was immediately put on track to receive the cinematic treatment, with rising stars Tom Blyth and Rachel Zegler on board as its leads. Set to debut on November 17, "The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes" is easily one of the most anticipated blockbuster projects coming out this winter. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have the same critical clout as the previous "Hunger Games" films. As of this writing, the prequel boasts a 66% Rotten Tomatoes score, with over 40 reviews. 

Yes, the film has a fresh rating, implying that more critics liked the prequel than not. However, it has the lowest Rotten Tomatoes score for any film in the "Hunger Games" franchise, coming in behind "Mockingjay — Part 1" and "Part 2," both of which have 70% scores.

While it's still early days, it is pretty disappointing to see that "The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes" isn't as critically compelling as the "Mockingjay" duology, widely considered to be the least interesting additions to the "Hunger Games" franchise. The prequel fails to reach the same heights as the first "Hunger Games" and its sequel, "Catching Fire," which hold 84% and 90% Rotten Tomatoes scores, respectively.

Still, the flick is rated fresh, which means that it's at least sort of on par with previous entries. For what it's worth, the film does have its champions who think it's an interesting addition to the franchise. Looper critic Alistair Ryder was a fan of "The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes," awarding it a solid 8/10. Ryder was particularly impressed with the prequel's engaging performances and narrative themes, describing the picture as "one of the more radical franchise blockbusters to have emerged in quite some time." 

Collider's Ross Bonaime largely agreed with this sentiment, calling the prequel "the most engrossing film in the series."

Some critics, like IndieWire's David Ehrlich, were impressed with the film's engrossing performances, particularly Rachel Zegler's stint as Lucy Gray Baird. "Zegler is absolutely captivating in a 'Wild Rose'-coded performance that's equal part Southern pluck and wide-eyed terror ... Zegler knows how to play nuance big enough for the back of the room to read it all over her face," the critic wrote. 

Ultimately, "The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes" looks like an absolute winner for fans of the franchise, but some critics just don't care to explore the rest of the "Hunger Games" timeline.

For some critics, "The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes" is an unnecessary retread that doesn't do much to expand the franchise's mythos. Take Inverse's review of the prequel, which brutally questioned the project's existence. "'Songbirds and Snakes' feels simply like a rehash of what made the original films great, just in a different shade," wrote critic Hoai-Tran Bui. "It doesn't do anything wrong, per se, but neither does it make enough of an impact to lure us back to the world of Panem nearly a decade after the last 'Hunger Games' installment," they added. 

The Guardian's Peter Bradshaw was equally critical of the picture, calling it out for not adding anything new or substantial. "The interest, dramatic momentum and energy have frankly expired, and all we have are the ridiculous outfits, the hallucinatory hairstyles, the zero-suspense action sequences, the standard-issue CGI cityscapes, the non-satirical flourishes about media control..." Bradshaw wrote in their one-star review. Ouch. 

And for The AV Club's Eric Francisco, the film is nothing more than an uninspired dystopian take on "Romeo and Juliet." 

While the previous "Hunger Games" films were mostly well-received, the prequel seems to be the first majorly polarizing picture in the franchise. Ultimately, the Rotten Tomatoes score will likely change as more reviews come in, though it remains to be seen if they're positive or negative. "The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes" swoons its way into cinemas on November 17.