Movies  •  Critics  •  About
Existimatum  >  Movies  >  The Hunger Games: Catching Fire  >  Reviews  >  Creative Loafing

Matt Brunson’s “The HG: Catching Fire: Trailblazer” Needs More Game

In response to Matt Brunson’s 648‑word review of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire on Creative Loafing

By ,

Matt Brunson’s “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire: Trailblazer”  couldn’t ignite a pile of leaves on a dry November day. It only serves as a plot synopsis only followed up by a weak recap, and just a taste of a review to conclude the piece.

It’s a review ladies and gentlemen, or so Mr. Brunson would lead you to believe. However based on the lack of actual, palpable, what’s the word, critique;  the title “review” is in fact a misnomer and a nigh fraudulent misdeed on the part of the writer. In simple times, it would simply be called a recap. No, this is not acceptable, not in the least bit. Sure the writing works in a grammatical sense, but it will leave readers hollow and unsatisfied.

The evidence used to prove that this hunger games is better than the previous one just doesn’t feel fleshed out; he mentions how the president is menacing but there are surely other dangers outside of President Snow that might be worth mentioning in passing. How an article manages to over-share and be scant on details makes this the Schrodinger’s Cat of reviews; making Brunson the very first person who has managed to create a living breathing paradox.

If you are a fan of book reports or weekly recap show this might be the review for you. Just don’t expect anything in the way of serious analysis. What more can be said about  Brunson’s Trailblazer other than the caveat, don’t read it?   

Quality of Writing Quality of Argument Spoiler Avoidance Presentation