The “Hunger Games” was one of the most “sure, that was solid I guess” franchises of the 2010s, so it makes sense that a prequel installment would follow suit.

“The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes” is the fifth installment of the young adult franchise based on the books of the same name, and is the first entry since 2015. Set some-60 years before the first film, “Songbirds & Snakes” depicts the rise of the will-be dictator, President Snow (Tom Blyth). Rachel Zegler, Peter Dinklage, Hunter Schafer, Josh Andrés Rivera, and Viola Davis also star, as Francis Lawrence returns to direct.

Back in the 2010s, on the eve of the MCU taking complete grasp of the industry and right before the likes of the Disney “Star Wars” films were released, young adult adaptations were all the rage, and “The Hunger Games,” with an up-and-coming star named Jennifer Lawrence, were near the top of the genre. I thought the first three films were varying degrees of fine/solid (the fourth film is not good and a very weak finale), and hadn’t given the series any thought since November 2015. But if we’ve learned anything with Hollywood, whether it be prequels based on books like the “Fantastic Beasts” or reboot/sequel hybrids like “Scream” or “Halloween,” nothing stays dead forever. So now we have “The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes,” based on the 2020 book of the same name, and it is more of the same in the “Hunger Games” arena (in that if you like these films you’ll like this, if you were more agnostic to them like me then it’s more of the same).

Rachel Zegler has had a lucrative start to her career, leading Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story,” appearing in this year’s “Shazam!” sequel, and is set to portray the titular role in “Snow White” in 2025 (or whenever that eventually gets released). I think she’s serviceable in every film she’s been in, including this, with some moments of vulnerability and tenderness, though her theater kids persona that she is known for having off-screen sometimes does bleed through into her characters. Tom Blyth has some good moments as Coriolanus Snow, always doing calculations behind his eyes and trying to do what is right by his colleagues while also remaining loyal to his own desires. Later in the film Blyth is given a bit more to chew on as Snow descends down the evil slope we know he’ll eventually be on, and that is when I actually became interested in his character.

The supporting cast is rounded out by established actors known for their craft but also ability to be a bit cartoony, and Viola Davis and Jason Schwartzman take hold of the opportunity the most. Playing the gamemaker and television host, respectively, they each chew scenery with over-the-top line deliveries and personality quirks, and the film is at its most interesting when they’re on screen.

The combat sequences of the film are fairly effective, with a few good kills (though it’s fairly PG-13-ized, an issue that plagued the originals) and emotional moments during the Games. The film does the obligatory prequel thing of showing how certain characters got a specific trait or why one thing from the original movies is the way it is, though it’s never as in-your-face or pointless as parts of “Fantastic Beasts” or “Solo.” Francis Lawrence did a decent job in the director’s chair, but just like with David Yates in the “Harry Potter” universe or Kevin Greutert and Darren Lynn Bousman with “Saw,” I feel like these franchises that are brought back (and we can be honest, it’s mostly for money) would benefit from young blood at the helm, opposed to the old guard going through the motions and cashing checks simply because they made the studio money ten years earlier.

For a while, things were moving along pretty smoothly and I thought that this had potential to be in the top-half of the franchise rankings. However about an hour-45 into things, when the film could have easily wrapped things up the way they were and have a completed narrative and satisfying ending, it introduces us to a whole new plotline, which feels entirely tacked-on and like it belongs in its own movie. A common complaint with book-based franchise finales is that they break up the last installment into two films when there simply was not enough material to justify doing so (“Harry Potter,” “The Hunger Games,” “The Hobbit,” “Divergent” (or at least they would have if the first part didn’t bomb and cause the cancellation of the series)). This here is a rare case where I think they actually should have made this into two films. I doubt this is the final “Hunger Games” movie we’ll ever get, so while the third act has some good ideas and interesting moments, overall it is a drag and feels like they just wanted to rush everyone into their starting positions for another go-around.

“The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes” is a fairly solid sci-fi action film, with a surprising balance of humor and emotion. It’s a shame that it insists on including an extended epilogue that pushes the runtime past 2:35, because the pieces are there for a decent new YA film. If you were itching to return to the world of Panem after all these years then I’m confident you’ll enjoy this, and anyone else familair with the “Hunger Games” world should get some kicks, too, though that awkwardly paced third act cannot be ignored. Next time around, may the odds create a more streamlined narrative.

Critics Rating: 6/10