Piranha 3DD

I decided to stick with the same theme and film; thus . . . here you go.

I chose Kyle Anderson's (Entertainment Weekly) review for its conciseness, cleverness, and Anderson's focus on meta discourse. In fact, he highlights this in his opening paragraph:

"The best part of Piranha 3DD, the pointless sequel to the utterly unnecessary 2010 remake of Piranha, is the credits. Not only do they signify that the film is finally, mercifully over, but they also allow for David Hasselhoff to sing the theme song to a new fake TV series called The Fish Hunter, a clever meta-gag that nods both to Baywatch and the Hoff's international recording success."

This introduction, while short and concise, accomplishes a number of things: first, it sums up the critic's take on the film as a whole (something you will need to do in your review): ""The best part of Piranha 3DD, the pointless sequel to the utterly unnecessary 2010 remake of Piranha, is the credits. Not only do they signify that the film is finally, mercifully over . . . " This one sentence provides the writer's overarching opinion of the film, indicating  which element is most positive/useful/enjoyable (a good, "bad" review will note any exceptions in which/where the production succeeds, even if the reviewer finds the production terrible on the whole). It also uses the term "meta" to describe a gag element; explicitly, the writer briefly describes Hasselhoff's appearance, but more implicitly, Anderson uses this specific example to note the very thing I mentioned in class: the film contains numerous layers and complexities (that might be stretching it) that are self referential and, well, meta (a film directly referencing another film, a film overtly making fun of itself -- blatantly acknowledging its own parody, etc.)

Many of Anderson's observations are simple and marked by straightforward, efficient language that's occasionally punctuated by more trussed-up verbiage: "Unfortunately, Piranha 3DD takes itself entirely too seriously, actively trying to infuse the ridiculous plot — wherein the titular prehistoric flesh-eating fish from the first movie have managed to invade a water park — with brow-furrowing gravitas." I also love the way this sentence effectively sums up the plot in one phrase. Very effective all around. 

A few other gems: "the ta-ta-centric direction the business has taken" (ta-ta-centric? I might steal this); " it’s just one laborious machination after another to get to the end of the movie"; 
these phrases infuse the review with a large dose of wit, sharpness and general good fun.

Having read this review, I feel I would have (had I not seen the film already) likely Redboxed it (it's probably worth $1 on a slow night), and gone into it feeling above the fray and self aware enough to enjoy it but only via an effective critique of  said pulp/trash cinema (like Anderson's own). It's so bad it's cool to love it, right?

Interestingly, another reviewer noted the same theme I highlighted in class: "Before the inevitable and quite literal bloodbath ensues, there's a rather nasty scene that reps a variation on the old vagina-dentata anxiety so beloved of schlock horror films, here involving Shelby and a most unlucky suitor, Josh (Jean-Luc Bilodeau)" (Lesley Felperin for Variety). Felperin's review is quite similar to Andersen's: his "ta-ta-centric" is her "cleavage-intensive, frat-boyish sensibility". 

An effective television or film review makes very good use of language. The genre at its best calls for a level of cleverness and general adeptness with descriptive language: one of the elements of review writing on which we'll concentrate the most.

Interestingly, the still shot that leads the film's trailer is . . . this. Cough.