"Memento", 2000
Rated R
113 minutes
Review by: Jason Pohlman
http://www.cinemablend.com/reviews/Memento-123.html
Movie Review: Memento
PARAGRAPH I:
The author describes the movie as the best movie of 2001. I'm guessing he means in his own opinion, because he continues on saying it won't please many people and won't be nominated for any awards. He uses humor to please to his audience, who I infer are prospective viewers interested in knowing what the movie is about. His language insists that he is speaking to a wide range of audience: educated, non-educated, young, old, etc. His lead is somewhat uninteresting and doesn't necessarily tune readers in or catch anyone's attention.
PARAGRAPH II:
The author states he hopes people begin to appreciate movies that have more to offer than the "cookie-cutter action 'thrillers' and gross out 'comedies' and carbon-copy chick flicks" (Pohlman). He states this movie has more of an interesting plot, originality, and substance than most other movies. This paragraph does a better job of keeping readers interested than the first paragraph, making them curious to know what this "different" movie is all about.
PARAGRAPH III:
Pohlman does a poor job incorporating one of the movies key concepts, forgetfulness, into his writing by asking "What was I talking about? Oh yeah, Memento" (Pohlman) at the beginning of this paragraph. He uses humor only reader's who have seen the movie would understand, and me, being a person who's viewed the movie, can say it's not funny. For people reading who haven't seen the movie, they would probably think the writer is really strange and confusing. This paragraph is the plot overview where he describes important elements of the movie. He gives enough information to make reader's nauseous with his drawn out sentences and confusing details. He makes no spoilers, but he does add some irrelevant references to the movie. I can't tell if he's overdoing the job of incorporating confusion into his writing or if he's doing a really obnoxious job of being a movie critic.
PARAGRAPH IV:
This paragraph Pohlman describes how the director attempts to keep the readers interested and confused until the end: by telling the story backwards. He goes on to describe the movie as one you need, and want, to watch multiple times to understand it completely.
PARAGRAPH V:
The author tells of the movies originality and states that no movie this year will compare or come close to this one. There's not much substance to this critic's writing, and once again he attempts to use humor and sarcasm that isn't so funny.
PARAGRAPH VI:
He finishes his review to say that he wouldn't entirely recommend the movie. He states only people who "are sick of obvious formula flicks that waste your time and insult your intelligence" (Pohlman) should watch it. He claims anyone who is easily confused or doesn't like confusing movies should not watch this movie.
PARAGRAPH II:
The author states he hopes people begin to appreciate movies that have more to offer than the "cookie-cutter action 'thrillers' and gross out 'comedies' and carbon-copy chick flicks" (Pohlman). He states this movie has more of an interesting plot, originality, and substance than most other movies. This paragraph does a better job of keeping readers interested than the first paragraph, making them curious to know what this "different" movie is all about.
PARAGRAPH III:
Pohlman does a poor job incorporating one of the movies key concepts, forgetfulness, into his writing by asking "What was I talking about? Oh yeah, Memento" (Pohlman) at the beginning of this paragraph. He uses humor only reader's who have seen the movie would understand, and me, being a person who's viewed the movie, can say it's not funny. For people reading who haven't seen the movie, they would probably think the writer is really strange and confusing. This paragraph is the plot overview where he describes important elements of the movie. He gives enough information to make reader's nauseous with his drawn out sentences and confusing details. He makes no spoilers, but he does add some irrelevant references to the movie. I can't tell if he's overdoing the job of incorporating confusion into his writing or if he's doing a really obnoxious job of being a movie critic.
PARAGRAPH IV:
This paragraph Pohlman describes how the director attempts to keep the readers interested and confused until the end: by telling the story backwards. He goes on to describe the movie as one you need, and want, to watch multiple times to understand it completely.
PARAGRAPH V:
The author tells of the movies originality and states that no movie this year will compare or come close to this one. There's not much substance to this critic's writing, and once again he attempts to use humor and sarcasm that isn't so funny.
PARAGRAPH VI:
He finishes his review to say that he wouldn't entirely recommend the movie. He states only people who "are sick of obvious formula flicks that waste your time and insult your intelligence" (Pohlman) should watch it. He claims anyone who is easily confused or doesn't like confusing movies should not watch this movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment