This is it, folks -- the comparison of reviews blog.
You should choose two reviews of the same film (you can choose two positive reviews, two negative, one of each -- depends on what you focus on). You don't have to have seen the film to do this, but it might be helpful. You CAN write your review on whichever film you explore here, fyi.
Remember that www.rottentomatoes.com is probably the best and easiest site to use to find these reviews.
You don't need to post the reviews themselves, but you should identify which reviews you're using (who wrote them and their source) and link them.
First, summarize each review. This should be a BRIEF summary -- four to five sentences. I suggest reading the "art of summary" chapter in They Say, I Say -- a strong summary isn't always as easy as it might sound. You'll be summarizing a number of articles for your final project, so practice is good.
Next, explain the similarities and differences in focus between the reviews (I mean which elements the reviewers explore: things like cinematography, dialogue, sound effects, musical score, character development, director, plot, and so forth). Which do you think is more appealing, and why?
Finally, do a short rhetorical analysis of each review. I'm not asking you only to name strategies here but to explain why the reviewer does he what he/she does from paragraph to paragraph (I'm posting the Hunger Games if you want to use it as an example.) You don't have to analyze every strategy or every paragraph -- just give us the highlights. one I did on
Average Rating: 7.2/10
Reviews Counted: 245
Fresh: 208 | Rotten: 37
Reviews Counted: 245
Fresh: 208 | Rotten: 37
Thrilling and superbly acted, The Hunger Games captures the dramatic violence, raw emotion, and ambitious scope of its source novel.
80
Average Rating: 7.3/10
Critic Reviews: 40
Fresh: 32 | Rotten: 8
Critic Reviews: 40
Fresh: 32 | Rotten: 8
Thrilling and superbly acted, The Hunger Games captures the dramatic violence, raw emotion, and ambitious scope of its source novel.
liked it
Average Rating: 4.2/5
User Ratings: 120,522
Average Rating: 4.2/5
User Ratings: 120,522
4 comments:
I chose to find film reviews on Titanic 3D, which was just released in theaters again April 4th, 2012. I loved this movie growing up, and since it was re-released for the centennial anniversary of the grand ship’s sinking, I chose to write on it.
The first review is by Dana Stevens, of Slate.com. http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2012/04/james_cameron_s_titanic_starring_leonardo_dicaprio_and_kate_winslet_now_in_3d_reviewed.html Stevens starts off her review with a monologue about how when first released in 1997, Titanic did not hold her attention. She never saw it in theaters, and when she first watched it in her home, she was not entertained. However, after grumbling about the movie fee itself, Stevens decides to go see the re-release of the movie and from then on, writes a positive review on it. She writes an emotional review on the movie, the characters’ romance, and how it affected her while watching it. She talks about the graphics and all the theatrical effects that make a high budget movie so great.
The second review is by Rafer Guzman of Newsday.com. http://www.newsday.com/entertainment/movies/kate-winslet-and-leonardo-dicaprio-still-float-titanic-1.3643209 Guzman, in his review, writes primarily about how the movie is merely captivating due to the romance it holds, and not the special effects or the scenery. Guzman re-looks at the lead characters (DiCaprio and Winslet) acting careers in real life, and follows the movies’ grossing this time around. He explores further the romance aspect of the movie and how the main audience of this movie in 1997 was teenage girls, but it brought back both genders this time around.
Comparing both reviews, I would say that they both thought that the movie was captivating. They both agreed that the love between Jack and Rose was what kept people entertained. Both writers used appeals to emotion describing this great romance, using terms such as, “Sorry, I need a moment” and “re-create the magic of that soaring kiss on the bow of Cameron's great ship.” The writers don’t ever say if the reader should go see the movie. They only give their opinion that it is a good movie, despite the length. Both reviews give thorough analysis from what I can see.
The first review of Mirror Mirror I choose was written by Richard Corliss from Time Magazine. He states that “Even if you're as annoyed by the movie as I was, you'll come out laughing the costumes.” Therefore obviously not impressed by the movie itself but enjoyed the costumes throughout. Throughout his review he compliments the costumes while being obviously not impressed by the darkness of the movie. Right at the beginning of his review he expresses his ultimate thoughts on the movie by saying “Mirror Mirror, a tart twist on the Snow White fable, fumbles nearly every opportunity to be funny: the dialogue is flat, straining for wit it never achieves, and the pace is torpid when it should be bustling."
The second review I choose was written by Sandie Angulo Chen from Washington Post. In this review she is clearly not too concerned about the movie as a whole, but instead is simply saying that Snow White who is played by Lily Collins is horrible, or as she puts it a “wash-out”. In here review she goes into a pretty thorough summary of the film and states how the prince and the evil queen (Julia Roberts) performance was far superior to the performance of Lily Collins. “In contrast to Collins's bland Snow White, the other characters enjoy brief laugh-aloud dialogue.”
Overall these two reviews are very different. The first focusing on the movie as a whole, while praising the costumes. The second focuses on the characters with no mention of the costumes. I think that the first is more appealing by focusing on the movie as a whole, good and bad instead of simply trashing one specific aspect of the movie or one character.
Kayla,
You write, "Both writers used appeals to emotion describing this great romance, using terms such as, “Sorry, I need a moment” and “re-create the magic of that soaring kiss on the bow of Cameron's great ship.” Good point. Would like to see more of this -- the identification of specific strategies used as opposed to the critics' general focus.
You write clearly here and craft some very strong sentences: "I loved this movie growing up, and since it was re-released for the centennial anniversary of the grand ship’s sinking, I chose to write on it." This you could even use in a review since it alludes to a personal anecdote/recollection but doesn't take up "space" in the review (rarely do we see development of personal connections as they stray too far from the task of review). What you've done in this regard is just right.
The first review I choose is of the movie Lockout and was written and reviewed by Stephen Whitty from New Jersey Local News. Overall he gives a short summary about the movie and only criticizes what he thought was bad about the movie. He wrote, “The tag-team of filmmakers seems to have only two ideas - having stupendously ugly characters shove their mugs into the camera, or staging action sequences so dizzily you have no idea what's going on. “ He clearly expresses his dislike of the movies plot and characters. In the entire review he criticizes the plot and the directors inability create depth with the characters.
The second review that I chose is J.R. Jones in the Chicago Reader. He writes that the action flick from French screenwriter Luc Besson begins with a close-up of Guy Pearce sitting in an interrogation room, where he responds to every question with a Carson-worthy joke, gets slugged in the face each time, but just can’t stop. After giving a long summary in his review J.R. Jones says that even though there are a lot of clichés in the movie he thought that it was really entertaining. He clearly thinks that the plot is kind of flat but
While the first review focuses more on the acting skills and the cinematography the second review just focuses on the plot. The first review tries to convince the reader of the flat plot and untalented acting. The second review doesn’t mention the acting skills at all. In this review it also states that it is very easy to forecast the movie it is still entertaining. Overall, I think that the first reviewer tried to convince the reader of his opinion but the second reviewer doesn’t want to convince the reader about his opinion.
http://www.nj.com/entertainment/movies/index.ssf/2012/04/lockout_movie_review_besson.html
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/lockout/Film?oid=5923791
Post a Comment