Movies  •  Critics  •  About
Existimatum  >  Movies  >  The Hunger Games: Catching Fire  >  Reviews  >  WaffleMovies.com

Willie Waffle Answers an Age-Old Question in “Catching Fire”

In response to Willie Waffle’s 818‑word review of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire on WaffleMovies.com 

http://dc50tv.com/2013/11/21/the-hunger-games-catching-fire-smoking-hot-review/#ixzz2lIvu98uO

By ,

Wille Waffle’s take on the latest entry in the Hunger Games franchise, “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire – Smoking Hot! – Review” once again raises one of the most vexing questions to plagued mankind since the dawn of time: can a movie review be good even if it’s poorly written? In other words, can good critique exist in bad writing or are the two wholly dependent on one another?

This is the issue at hand in Catching Fire. Waffle’s writing is often clunky, prone to tangents, and tends to plod along with little to no flow. It’s competent at times, but falls apart at others, and, as a result, the critiques he offers don’t have the punch they could.

In terms of pure critical awareness, Waffle at least shows a relatively impressive aptitude. He’s thorough in certain criticisms, devoting a massive amount of space to the acting (especially Jennifer Lawrence’s turn as Katniss Everdeen), but leaving relatively little room for an evaluation of the directing, cinematography or production design.  

So, all things considered, Waffle’s provided an answer to the age old question once and for all: good writing and good critiquing are inextricably linked and cannot exist without the other.  

Spoiler Alert: Waffle’s lips get a little loose in all his critiquing of the acting and he fully reveals one character’s arc.     

Quality of Writing Quality of Argument Spoiler Avoidance Presentation