Movies  •  Critics  •  About
Existimatum  >  Movies  >  The Hunger Games: Catching Fire  >  Reviews  >  3AW

Jim Schembri’s “THE HUNGER GAMES 2” Is Too Smarmy for Its Own Good

In response to Jim Schembri’s 680‑word review of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire on 3AW 

http://tinyurl.com/qjmf52b

By ,

Jim Schembri’s “THE HUNGER GAMES 2: CATCHING FIRE” is the sort of review that uses “quotes” to indicate the reviewer is being “ironic” because, you see, his subject is so awful as to be worthy of condescension. Here’s the thing, though: if you can’t even get the title of the movie right, you’ve already lost your right to smugness.

There is no “2” in the title to the Hunger Games sequel, but Schembri put one in there anyway, as if to indicate that he thought so little of the movie that he wasn’t even going to bother fact-checking that one crucial bit of information.

The rest of the review, once you get past the botched movie title, is kind of like watching someone stand up at the end of the film and slow clap for about five minutes straight. It doesn’t take long for the sarcasm to become immensely grating, and it certainly doesn’t lead to a better understanding of the film or its quality.

The thing is, when a person is so relentlessly negative in such an aggressively condescending way, it kills the credibility of the review. Most readers are going to be turned off by the tone, no matter the actual quality of the film itself.

That’s the fatal flaw of Schembri’s GAMES 2: it is almost entirely impossible to take it seriously as legitimate criticism. Instead, it burns up in the flames of its own smug superiority.    

Quality of Writing Quality of Argument Spoiler Avoidance Presentation