Movies  •  Critics  •  About
Existimatum  >  Movies  >  The Hunger Games: Catching Fire  >  Reviews  >  Financial Times

Antonia Quirke’s “Hunger Games” Is the Epitome of Snark Over Substance

In response to Antonia Quirke’s 382‑word review of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire on Financial Times

By ,

Oh, c‘mon, Antonia Quirke! Why so serious? The critic seems to have forgotten the point of her job in the unbelievably pouty “Review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire.” Here is another classic case of a modern critic who whines and gives up rather than producing a legitimate critique for the audience.

Quirke even has the audacity to get all snarky and reflect on her fourteen-year-old, Charlotte Brontë-loving self in Hunger Games. Was that also the time when Roger Ebert delivered a thorough work regardless of his personal opinion?

Hunger Games complains to no end but offers little resolution for the audience to contemplate. Don’t hate the player, hate the game. Why is Jennifer Lawrence the aim of passive-aggressive literary arrows? A proper takedown of a film at least manages to acknowledge the director, but Quirke can only manage to link to another article of her own publication on fashion.

Look, reader—Antonia Quirke knows how to write, and she makes that clear with three well-written paragraphs in Hunger Games. Unfortunately, the work says little about the actual film, and struggles with the concept of film criticism.

Hunger Games is the epitome of snark and style over substance.    

Quality of Writing Quality of Argument Spoiler Avoidance Presentation