Friday, June 22, 2012

Men in Black 3


Michael O'Sullivan is a top critic from The Washington Post and he wrote a movie review on the newly released "Men in Black 3". He begins his first paragraph by stating the "good news" of the movie which shows that he has different feelings towards the movie. He states the best feature of "Men in Black 3" is the setup of the movie which he explains in paragraph 3. He believes that the setup of the movie is the best because it was taken place in the 1960's during the Apollo 11 mission which was a "key plot point" and how basically this movie makes fun of the 60's era and of certain people that were around during the 60's. 


He summarizes the movie in the second paragraph but for the paragraphs before the fifth one, he spent his time describing the characters and their wonderful impersonations and how all the acting works with the era that it was taken place in. He changes his point of view on the fifth paragraph where he states "Not everything in the film does which goes into the bad side of the movie.


In the sixth paragraph, where he begins his bashing of the film, he states that the movie becomes lazy because it begins to refer old jokes from the previous "Men in Black" films. He criticizes a scene where it had poor green-screen effect and also criticizes how most of the good special effects were focused on mostly Boris, a character in the film, which seemed to not impress O'Sullivan. He also bashed Agent O who was played by Emma Thompson who not did have enough spice and had no point of being in the film. 


His criticizing changed to a new subject in the tenth paragraph where he points out the tone of movie. He saw the tone of "Men in Black 3" to be dark while the previous "Men in Black" films had "sly humor and slimy alien action." He also pointed out that the new film had a background story that was introduced in the other movies which made it hard for the audience to understand. In the last paragraph, he believes that there shouldn't be a "Men in Black IV" and if there is one to come out, it should balance out "the yuks and the yucks." Yuks is defined as a "laugh. a loud hearty one" according to Google.com while we all know what yuck means. He definitely had a critical and straight forward opinion about a movie that hasn't even been released yet and about "Men in Black 3". 


Reference: 'Men in Black 3' Review by Michael O'Sullivan

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

How strange...I seem to see a pattern emerging. Revered critics such as O'Sullivan as well as the writer from The Atlantic whose review we went over in class, have shockingly negative reviews about science fiction movies such as Prometheus and MIB 3. Has anybody else noticed this?? Your analysis did mention various aspects of the critic's approach to writing the review; again, a perhaps elevated sense of authority (the more revered their reviewing becomes) come through on paper (I guess on website...ha!) as more of an appeal to pretentiousness than authority. Just an opinion. :)

Jim said...

THANK YOU! I Thoroughly appreciate you telling me all I need to know about MIB. I'm being 'over the top' on purpose because I am probably the world's biggest Men In Black hater. I'm not sure why, but I'm just not a fan. While I am very selective in the movies I see, I'm not selective when it comes to reading about them. I always enjoy reading at least a little something about almost all movies. You lost me a little bit in the second paragraph and I didn't hear some of the attitude I know the girl that sits next to me has, but again a thorough review of a review of a $waster!

Unknown said...

sharing what paragraph in the review each thing happened somewhat helps but i still feel slightly lost at some points. even though i didnt read the actual review thsi critic seems to just hate everything. If i was actually looking for a review on a movie i definally wouldnt read anything from this person