The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes (2023)

With 2015's Mockingjay – Part 2 the Hunger Games, the story was decidedly over (barring a preposterous Rise of Skywalker-style resurrection or a Forever Purge-like resurgence of the titular games). The only way to keep the franchise going was with a prequel. The Hunger Games: Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes focuses on the storyline's "villain behind it all", Coriolanus Snow, when he was young and making his way to the top. If a prequel had to be made, this is the way you go. Unfortunately, the characters way back when turn out to be much less interesting than they were when we first met them and the same goes for the Games.

Eighteen-year-old Coriolanus Snow (Tom Blyth) is determined to get his once-wealthy family out of poverty. When Casca Highbottom (Peter Dinklage) assigns Coriolanus to mentor Lucy Gray Baird (Rachel Zegler), the District 12 female tribute to the annual Hunger Games, he thinks he’s positioned his student to lose the coveted Plinth Prize scholarship. Instead, Coriolanus displays a type of sympathy that’s uncommon to the people of Panem and his champion becomes a favorite among Panem's people. With the scholarship now within range, will Coriolanus’ sympathy hold up?

While the premise is intriguing, there’s an inherent problem with it. When we met Snow, he was cold, calculating and charismatic, but in a “I love to hate this guy and want to see what’s coming next” kind of way. This younger Snow is sympathetic and innocent. When loss-of-innocence storylines work, it's because a part of you hopes for a happy ending where the protagonist doesn't completely fall from grace. It isn’t a spoiler to tell you that by the time “The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes ends, Coriolanus is a murderer with no desire to abolish the Hunger Games who only wants to consolidate more power. You know there's no hope and you’re waiting for the movie to catch up. Making that wait feel even longer is Coriolanus's transformation. It takes a long time, until the final act when the change is so abrupt you feel like you missed a scene.

Another flaw with the film are the titular Hunger Games. Katniss volunteered to participate in the 74th annual Hunger Games. Here, we're getting the 10th. In that gap, there have been some significant changes. Part of what makes winning the Plinth Prize scholarship difficult is that people have gotten bored of the gladiatorial bloodbath. You can see why. The arena is just an empty circle with weapons in the center. Even when the battlefield gets an impromptu facelift, it only allows the children to run and hide so the conflict can last even longer. It's nothing like the arenas we saw before, with varied landscapes and threats ranging from venomous insects to monstrous beasts, poisonous rolling mists and more.

Most disappointing about the picture is that you often see what it could've been. Tom Blyth is great, as is Rachel Zegler. There's a doomed bond that forms between them and it grabs your attention. As Snow becomes increasingly sinister, you wonder what will happen to the people he's allowed close, including his classmates and Lucy. It's a shame the film spends so much of its running time following Snow before he becomes corrupt. If the 157 minutes had leaned more towards the darker chapters of his story, we'd have a real winner.

The Hunger Games: Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes is well made, the performances are solid and it has a great concept but the execution is disappointing. For what it does well, I won't say that it feels like an attempt to wring more blood from a stone but this prequel does not feel essential. When you're saying that about the fifth entry in a series, it means you can only recommend it to the most fervent fans, the kind who care more about getting more than anything else. (Theatrical version on the big screen, December 7, 2023)

Giraffe's Eye View | Mothra (1962) REVIEW

Wondering why the sudden case of Deja Vu? It's because this was posted as one long review called 'BINGE WEEK', but I've decided to shorten it for the sake of your sanity and mine. If you're interested in my previous review, click here for my thoughts on Princess Mononoke! For now though, onwards to a grand adventure!

Before becoming Godzilla's most hated foe turned girlfriend, the Queen of the Monsters led her own solo outing in 1962, complete with a poster proudly proclaiming her as the 'mightiest monsters in all creation'. Uh huh. Much as I love Mothra, the mightiest monster in all creation wouldn't keep dying at the end of nearly every freak'n film they're in! At the very least she makes for a better dinner guest than her big, green, radioactive boyfriend. Still, does she make an equally compelling star of cinema? Let's take a look at Mothra (1962) to find out!

Before we begin through, allow me to backtrack a bit. Anybody who read my review of Princess Mononoke saw I made a big stink about subbing vs dubbing, my preference being dubbing so I could simply focus on the story being visually. My attempts to do that again here were met with my missing crucial plot points, the English cast being a tad incomprehensible at times. I tried Googling the dubbing cast so I could better understand why I was having a hard time understanding them, but efforts my searches bore no fruit. Eventually I decided I'd just switch over to the original Japanese version, so at the very least I could read the plot points as they happen. You win this round subbers! I'M NOT HAPPY ABOUT IT! With all that said though, what goes on in this movie?

Our adventure starts with a ship caught in the middle of a hurricane, its crew having to seek refuge on a nearby island poisoned with radiation. Eventually they're found, perfectly fine much to the shock of everyone back on the mainland. The crew explains they managed to survive thanks to the aid of the island's natives, prompting a expedition to gather more information. Upon arriving the explorers discover that the island is as green and fertile as Poison Ivy's playhouse, complete with hostile plants. Our lead protagonist Chujo (Hiroshi Koizumi) nearly becomes supper for vines when a duo of foot-tall females help him, later revealed to be fairies. Chujo manages to talk to them using his skills as a linguist, only for their greedy funder Nelso (Jerry Ito) to kidnap them. Just saying dude, there are easy ways to get a date.

Especially considering these two ladies have some powerful friends in high places. Having not seen King Kong or Atlantis: The Lost Empire enough times, the greedy executives takes the two fairies home to be presented to the public, only for the two of them to summon the titular Mothra. This is why whenever you go on vacation, it's better to just get a key chain or postcard from the souvenir shop as apposed to people. Swag like that doesn't result in giant bugs destroying half the country.

From there it's the typical Kaiju chaos you expect from a Toho presentation, Mothra being immune to conventional weapons, mowing down cities like a lawnmower over grass, even evolving into a more destructive butterfly form. Turns out Spongebob and Patrick were totally right to be terrified of Sandy's pet caterpillar. Fortunately our human protagonists are much smarter, finding a way to appease Mothra before inevitably returning the fairies to her. This movie is a good argument in favor of human characters being interesting in a giant monster movie, since they help build suspense before Mothra's arrival while also providing some much-needed comedy. Development for these characters are lacking and not every joke lands, but I can say I was much more invested in these folks then any of the human protagonists of Godzilla: King of the Monsters. Admit it, you can't remember any of their names either! The main draw in either film is of course the monster. Mothra seems to have as much screen time in either flick, though this movie pulls out a win by not having her die at the end! Wait, you can do that? Somehow that's less believable than a giant bug demolishing Tokyo. In any case this movie holds up surprisingly well six decades later, though it would be nice to see it rebooted for modern times. Until that inevitably happens, feel free to find a copy of the original and behold the might of Mothra!

While you do that, I might as well continue this Japanese craze I'm going though with some anime!

GIF by shibabrows

CURIOUS WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? STAY TUNED TO SEE MY THOUGHTS ON KOMI CAN'T COMMUNICATE! UNTIL THEN, MAY THE GLASSES BE WITH YOU!

What Happens When Fandom Doesn't Grow Up?

Adults are insisting childhood brands from 'Star Wars' to Marvel continue to cater to them, but does preserving the past limit the future?

There’s a proverb that says, “you can’t take it with you,” popularized by playwrights George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart in their 1936 Pulitzer Prize-winning production of the same name. The expression was in reference to our inability to take our material possessions with us to the afterlife, though opinion differs on whether this advice is a suggestion to spend freely, or to not worry about collecting pricey material possessions at all — the conclusion being that our possessions only have worth in the present, or that they may not have as much value in the grand scheme of life as we think.

Though the idiom is seen through the perspective of mortality, it works just as well when viewed through the lens of life’s transitional periods, particularly childhood to adulthood. The notion that we can’t take it with us is arguably a sibling to 1 Corinthians 13:11, which states: When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I set aside childish ways.” Perhaps these expressions once carried weight, but in our current age of pop culture, a living and breathing monument to nostalgia, it has become harder and harder for adults to leave the things they loved as children behind.

From superheroes, Star Wars, fairy tales, and cartoons, the things many of us loved as children remain something we love today – protectively, passionately, and even problematically. This fierce nostalgia is arguably even more common with Millennials whose instantaneous embrace of the internet has allowed very few childhood staples to slip through the cracks in memory. Even if we’re not buying lightsabers, Hulk hands, or Barbie Dream Houses anymore, these characters and concepts are possessions that reside with many of us and sometimes define a key aspect of our identities. Previous generations, less driven by early age consumerist culture, don’t quite have the same involvement as late game Gen Xers and Millennials. In other words, no one is asking for a Lincoln Logs movie. Our inability, or maybe our unwillingness, to put childish things behind us and accept their temporary value isn’t an inherently negative facet of generational culture. But it is interesting how this modern nostalgia presents itself.

Courtesy of Walt Disney Studios Motion PicturesAvengers: Infinity War Still

If you take a brief perusal of the Twitter reactions to the teaser for the live-action Kim Possible TV movie that Disney Channel released last Aug. 10, you’ll find plenty of opinions from people upset with the casting, claims it could never live up to the cartoon, or fans hyped with the addendum that "this is for us, not the kids." These passionate, often volatile responses about a once popular kids cartoon are overwhelming from adults. Similar sentiments came after Nickelodeon announced a CGI animated version of the Rugrats and released an image of the updated Chucky. More alarming were male commenters on Twitter photos for the new She-Ra cartoon, noise that basically resulted in a claim that the cartoon character should be “hotter,” and closer to the depiction of the character in the 1985 Filmation cartoon.

There’s an intense desire that these new iterations and reboots not be for the kids of today, but for those in their 20s and 30s. A quick search online will deliver any cartoon character from the '90s you could think of as adult contemporary versions. Some artists, like Brandon Avant, whose work went viral last year, have brought a real craft to these reimaginings of the characters from Doug, Goof Troop, and Arthur, as adults in their 20s, tattooed and stylish. There’s certainly fun to be had in alternative depictions of fictional characters, but there’s also a sense that many fans of these '90s shows would prefer these versions brought back to life on TV and movie screens, as opposed to anything geared towards children.

This feeling of ownership stems from an idea that kids today don’t care about certain characters anymore, at least not in the same way that those of us who grew up in the late '80s and '90s did, or do. Perhaps there is something to that. How many of the properties popularized in the '80s or '90s would still be popular without the adult fandom that keeps it alive through memes and Buzzfeed posts? Of course there are properties like Star Wars, Marvel, and Disney animated movies that are eternal. But there are also properties like Gargoyles, Animaniacs, and So Weird that would draw a blank for many kids today. Even once popular shows and platforms like Looney Tunes and The Muppets have fallen out of favor among children in terms of the position they used to hold with previous generations. While the rumored Space Jam 2 starring Lebron James may bring some children back on board with Warner Bros’ classic library of toons, there’s also the fact that that project currently seems to be more anticipated by those who grew up with the original 1996 film. Perhaps the only way to keep some of these characters and concepts alive is to cater to the now adult audiences. But what happens when these characters grow up?

Properties like Marvel, Star Wars, and Disney’s reimaginings of animated classics have managed to bridge the generational gap, appealing to children, adults, and elderly audiences. While Disney collectively has managed to find a way to appeal to almost everyone, there are a few recent examples that call into question the desire to really see our childhood heroes grow up. Rian Johnson’s Star Wars: The Last Jedi created controversy last December, a controversy that has unfortunately bled into 2018 in regards to its depiction of Luke Skywalker, who has become bitter and disconnected from the force. Luke Skywalker grew up, got old, got tired, and got fandom in their feelings over the fact that the Jedi wasn’t leading the charge across space, green lightsaber in hand. While The Last Jedi is a commentary on the failure of the previous generation, setting the stage for new characters Rey, Finn, Rose, and Poe to start their own revolution on their own terms and “let the past die,” many Star Wars viewers weren’t interested in seeing the next generation take charge and instead clung to defunct canon. While many want these characters to grow up with them, they want them to grow up on their own terms, and if not to remake the plot points of their childhoods, then at least to recreate the feeling they got from those original films.

Laurie Sparham/DisneyChristopher Robin

A similar situation of childhood properties expected to grow up under strict terms followed the release of Marc Forster’s Christopher Robin. While Winnie the Pooh remains a beloved children’s property, kept alive by various television shows and animated movies, Christopher Robin tells a story where the titular boy has become a man and left his childhood friends, Pooh, Piglet, Tigger, Eeyore behind in the Hundred Acre Wood. Christopher Robinisn’t only the first iteration of the property to be rated PG, it’s also deeply melancholy, and grounded in the working class struggle of post-World War II London. Favoring dark grays and weather-worn cinematography, along with allusions to the directorial touches of Terrence Malick, Christopher Robin often feels explicitly geared towards adults. Yes, there are moments of warmth, brightness, and the humor that made A.A. Milne and E.H. Shepard’s stories so beloved in the first place, but unless you have a kid who’s eagerly sitting down to watch Days of Heaven, there’s a lot in Forster’s presentation geared towards adults. The reaction to this take has been somewhat mixed, with a number of critics lamenting the film’s more serious insights and a lack of fun. But what’s interesting is that Christopher Robin speaks directly to the phenomenon we’ve been discussing. Christopher Robin (Ewan McGregor) realizes that being an adult doesn’t necessarily mean leaving childhood things behind, but incorporating them into adulthood. While this revelation doesn’t take Christopher Robin into Ted (2012) territory, there are interesting parallels to these stories of men who are incomplete without the literal representations of their childhood in tow.

The Happytime Murders

Perhaps this is all a rather roundabout way to approach the issue of Muppets offering unsolicited sex and hard drugs in Happytime Murders, but nonetheless, the sentiment remains true. We don’t really want to put away childish things, we want them to grow up with us. Brian Henson’s R-rated crime-comedy film starring Melissa McCarthy, earned its share of pre-release controversy, with the Sesame Workshop suing production company STX for the use of the tagline “No Sesame. All Street.” Sesame Street remains popular among young audiences, but the Disney owned Muppets have largely fallen out of favor with the last movie The Muppets Most Wantedmaking a poor box office showing ($80.4 million on a $50 million budget), and sitcom The Muppets being canceled in 2016 after one season. With Disney seemingly having no plans for the characters anytime soon, perhaps Brian Henson’s best bet to keep his father’s art-form alive, if not the characters themselves, was to appeal to a desire to see Muppet-esque characters in adult situations, something that worked well for the popular Broadway musical Avenue Q.  

Not every modern resurrection of once sensational properties has opted to appeal to adults. R.L. Stine’s book series Goosebumps, which led to a popular television series in the '90s, was adapted as a film in 2015. A sequel, Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween is set for release on Oct. 12 this year. The first film is kids’ movies through and through, and trailer for the sequel indicates that this new installment will go even further in that direction, given its younger cast. This doesn’t mean the films don’t register with adults, but rather they aren’t appealing to our nostalgia, going as far to drastically redesign some of the characters popularized by Fox Kids/YTV show and refrain from utilizing the classic theme song. The Goosebumps films haven’t grown up with us, but rather see kids of Gen Z as their primary audience.

Ava DuVernay’s A Wrinkle in Time (2018) is another film that struck a chord with younger audiences more so than adults who read the book series growing up, or those who remember the 2003 ABC television film. It’s a film that aims to be an intelligent kids’ movie, a big-budget PG experience that we rarely see in live-action theatrical releases anymore. Films like Goosebumps and A Wrinkle in Time ask us to meet kids on their level, rather than asking them to rise to an adolescent or adult level to enjoy the things we refuse to loosen our grips on. With films based on Are You Afraid of the Dark and Barbie set to receive new interpretations, and a Sandlot(1993) prequel in development, it will be interesting to see which audience demographic they appeal to and how much nostalgia they’ll give into. We’re living in the height of pop culture adaptations, and if we’ve proven anything, it’s that we’ll take these childish ways with us as far as we can.

Source: Hollywood Reporter by Richard Newby