J.R. Jones, of the Chicago Reader, starts
his review by describing the “Mission: Impossible” movies as Tom Cruises’ “zillion-dollar
plaything”, as if they were what Disneyland is to Walt Disney. His review is
only one paragraph and seems to make the director, Brad Bird, the subject of
his writing. He discusses how Brad Bird
makes his “live-action debut” after directing animated features such as, “The
Incredibles” and “Ratatouille”, and even considers two of the scenes “cartoonish”.
He takes a sarcastic shot at the plot and a few of the gadgets. A couple of
other actors are mentioned in an “oh yeah, by the way…” kind of way.
I chose this review because for a movie
that made $209M (no Avatar at $760M) at the box office, there wasn’t that much
that was actually said about it. Sure there were a couple of lines about a few
of the scenes and the gadgets, but let’s face it, it was no “Hobo with a
Shotgun”. The review was written well, but there was no weight to it. He
started it out by commending Tom Cruise for “handing each installment over to a
noted director” and ended on a sarcastic note. As someone that might not have
seen the film, a little more break down of it couldn’t have hurt to persuade me
one way or the other to go see it.
4 comments:
I definitely agree... It almost seems like he didn't have the time, care, or possibly never even took the time to watch the movie. His review wasn't much of a review at all, all he did was talk about basic things, but they didn't really mean anything to me as far as making me want to see it or not either.
I'm with you, if you're not going to take the time to do it right, why bother?
I agree, I almost wouldn't even consider the article a review. Had I been deciding on whether or not to spend money to see this film and this review was all there was to either convince me one way or the other, I would still be slightly stuck back on square one. He didn't even go into any details on the few comments that were made. Hope that hypothetical story made sense
Well, I think it's pretty obvious he disliked the film and isn't exactly recommending readers see it. The "review" feels like a dismissal -- almost as though he's insinuating it's so bad, or perhaps so pedestrian, that there's little motivation to offer any details. This isn't a defense of the review, for what it's worth, simply speculating about his motivations.
This is a great observation: "The review was written well, but there was no weight to it." I find that this is the hardest part of writing to convey to others, that a piece can be technically correct, or well organized, or on a relevant topic, or . . . anything, but still have no heft to it. Difference between "pretty prose" and genuine, meaningful writing.
Post a Comment