Babies #4

I will be using the documentary film BABIES by Thomas Balms:

Rotten Tomatoes had to say:~ David Denby
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2010/05/17/100517crci_cinema_denby?currentPage=2


      Thomas Balmes offered an adorable glimpse of the first year of life in his film following four newborn babies Ponijao, Bayar, Mari, and Hattie who were born in Namibia, Mongolia, Japan, and California. By capturing their earliest stage of development on camera, Balmes reveals just how much we all have in common, despite being born to different parents and raised in different cultures.The movie was shot with a high-definition digital camera set on a tripod, and the result was a series of exquisitely photographed portraits—ethnographic album-making. The filmmakers don’t make overt judgments, but they clearly want to open our eyes to the benefits of anxiety-free child-rearing in the rough.


Michael Dequina The movie report
http://mrbrownmovies.com/movierpt2010-05.html#babies


    The tagline "Everybody loves babies" may indeed be true, but if not falling head over heels for a film that is literally just 80 minutes of cute babies makes me a grump, so be it. But that's both the major appeal and major drawback here--Most of the time, however, this is just a patched-together series of moments designed to elicit steady cries of "aww, how cute" or any other equivalent statement. Yes, the babies are cute, but that's something that's already clear within the opening minute featuring two Namibian babies (which was used as the buzz-building opening for the film's trailer), and cuteness alone is not enough to sustain interest for 79 more.




Overall i think the fact that the documentary was not narrated made it much easier for the viewer to focus its attention on the film and the further meaning of the lives of the four babies. Denby is right who doesn't love babies and the point of the film was to open the eyes of other people of an anxiety free world for kids than filled with regulations and don't do this or that kind of things. The picture quality was great and interrupted of grown ups just baby footage and thats what made the film different from the rest of baby documentaries was no adult distractions and the babies were off on their own minds and actions.

discussion post 4

I will be using Colin Covert and Roger Moore’s reviews of This Means War.

Colin Covert from the star tribune (http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/movies/139455138.html) declares that This means War is one of the worst films yet. He criticizes the characters and the choice of actors. He states that the audience must be idiotic of they like this movie. Covert is not a fan of the plot and overall hates this movie.

Roger Moore from the Dallas Morning News (http://www.dallasnews.com/entertainment/movies/reviews/20120216-swoon-over-tom-hardys-funny-side-in-this-means-war-b.ece)  finds the actors were well cast and is delightfully surprised that actor Tom Hardy can actually be funny. He feels that the shifts in tone throughout the movie were skillfully done. Moore states that movie watchers who enjoy action movies and those who enjoy romantic comedies will both enjoy this movie.

The similarities from thee two reviews are that they both discuss the audience, plot, actors, characters. The difference is that Moore discusses the tone of the movie where Covert does not. Where Moore seems to be supportive of the audience, actors, plot, and characters Covert has the opposite opinion. I think the most appealing thing discussed is the choice of actors because it is interesting how different views can be on one movie. 

Covert's use of language assists in showing his view of the movie. His comments such as "the director formerly known as ..." and "...  a romantic comedy crossed with a spy thriller crossed with a migraine" let the reader know that he is by no means a fan of this movie. 

Post#4 - The Cabin in the Woods

Discussion Post #4 Movie Review

“The Cabin in the Woods”

The first review I read of the film entitled, “The Cabin in the Woods” by Peter Travers was featured in Rolling Stone magazine on April 12^th, 2012. Peter expresses his amusement in the humorous horror flick, which kept him laughing and screaming at every turn. He goes on to describe the characters as paper-thin, but the “wicked, twisted” plot being rich of surprise and fun. Travers gives the film 3.5 out of 4 stars as he explains the significance of the clever horror movie being much more delightful than the common “mindless torture” terror type.

The next review I read on this film called, “Cabin in the Woods thrills” by Rafer Guzman was published in Newsday on April 11^th, 2012. His review is short and to the point, as he generically summarizes the plot, “Five college kids go for a weekend vacation – but if you think you know the rest, you’re dead wrong.” Rafer labels the feature as being a “delicious practical joke” before praising its endlessly energetic creativity. He briefly identifies director Drew Goddard and writer Joss Whedon as being veterans of the fiendishly funny horror genre. Guzman awards the film 3.5 out of 4 stars for being far better than he’d anticipated, with much potential as the year’s first sleeper hit.

The review by Peter Travers is much more informative than Rafer Guzman’s. Though each shared the same rating for the movie, Guzman’s review is half the length and seems to reflect more on his prior expectations of the film, rather than discussing the actual performance of the actors or richness of the loaded plot. Travers’ review is well organized and descriptive as he compares the movie to similar genre titles, adding commentary of how The Cabin in the Woods succeeded where the others lost their flair. Both Travers and Guzman did agree the movie is a surprisingly-funny scare and included one vital element - the late release of the 2009 movie, delayed due to MGM Studios’ past bankruptcy.

Guzman opens his review by urging his audience not to cross The Cabin in the Woods off their movie-going list as he calls it an “unpredictable jack-in-the-box of a movie”. He wants his readers to experience the unique inventiveness of the film as his next paragraph mentions the feel of the movie is, “like a booby trap waiting to explode.” He goes on to explain that the movie is not flawless, but indeed boasts a “rare bait and switch” plot between what you expect and what you get.  His bottom line phrase includes the description “left-field horror-comedy” to indicate his unanticipated enjoyment in the feature.

Travers begins with a play on the phrase “if it’s true that you always kill the thing you love…” and continues to describe the love of killing affair he’d encountered during his viewing of the film. He shares his guilty pleasures of the film to his audience while stimulating curiosity by using the “you haven’t lived until you’ve seen…” tactic during discussion of unforeseen antics. Travers repeatedly praises the film with juicy descriptions and loaded words for enhanced effect on his readers.





References;


Travers, Peter. The Cabin in the Woods. Rolling Stone Magazine, 12 April 2012. Http://www.RollingStone.com/movies/reviews/The-Cabin-in-the-Woods--20120412. Web.


Guzman, Rafer. 'Cabin in the Woods' thrills. Newsday, 11 April 2012.
Http://www.Newsday.com/news/Cabin-in-the-Woods-thrills-1.3654950. Web.

21 jump street #4

The movie i'm going to be reviewing is 21 Jump street, an 80's television show remade into a movie directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller.

  The first review written by Peter Hartlaub from San Francisco Chronicle. Peter insists that the film is consistently funny, and it sometimes feels "original". He says 21 Jump street takes the name and the part about high school, and pretty much mocks the rest with success. Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum, two rivals in high school are sent to duty at the jump street program. He then goes to say this movie is better if you come in with no spoilers and low expectations. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/15/DDOK1NK2P6.DTL

The second review was written by David Noh of Film Journal International. His approach is an inviting as the first review. They've updated the 1980's TV show, some might say reduced it as the whitewashed film is missing the presence of the asian and black characters originally played by Dustin Nguyen and Holly Robinson Peete. He then says the script is pocked, nay, brimming, with homerotic references looking to be jokes. Twice women get pushed out of the cars to sprawl curbside, and at one point Jonah Hill punches an old lady in the face. He also describes some scenes as disturbing and not worth seeing.

http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/content_display/reviews/major-releases/e3i61d137eb15fdb730853b88a3202ec2d9

Both the reviews had there own separate views of the movie. While Peter perceives the film as consistently funny, David finds the humor to be disturbing and not as funny as it  is. In comparison both films did good on not spoiling the whole movie, but to explain the plot and characters more then the movie itself. Overall i liked the writing from David more. He used good diction to describe the characters and strong criticism  to stray readers away from the film. David also uses description well to describe the two actors as too old for this film. " heroes’ ability to impersonate teenagers, not easy when Hill’s drastic weight loss has had the accompanying effect of aging his face (see: Al Roker) and Tatum’s eye bags have always been an essential element in keeping this actor from being too Abercrombie perfect"

Overall i would advise anyone to watch this film if they like Dumb witted, bad language, and sick jokes. 

Discussion Post #4

Immortals a film directed by Tarsem Singh is about a young warrior name thesus in ancient Greece who seeks revenge to kill King Hyperion for slaughtering his mother, and lead his army in battle with King Hyperion's army.


First review is by M. Bartelt in rottentomatoes.com. She says it is the best "Clash of the titans" since the original clash of the titans. She says the special effects are marvelous compared to the other movies based in ancient greek mythology that she ever seen. She said the visual effects was spectecular and dim of light in the film made it look like hell, which is the right setting for the film. She says, the characters in the film played their roles in the right way as if they're really the characters in ancient greek mythology. The film is superb, she says and encourages anybody to go see it.

Second review is by Sean Curley also from rottentomatoes.com. Sean Curley embraces the magnificent work by Director Tarsem Singh in producing the film. Sean Curley also acknowledges the adaptations of the greek mythology in the film and all the characters brought that myth to life. He also says that even though the film is minimal in character it's still in the right combination with the story. The film was perfectly shot from every angle possible in a steady pace says the reviewer.

In comparison and differences in the reviews, M Bartelt says the film is the best film she ever saw. And Sean Curley says the same thing. Sean Curley agrees with the adaptations of the greek mythology in the film. All the characters in the film did a great job performing their role. The director did a marvelous job, the costumes worn by the characters really made the scene more realistic together with the setting. M Bartelt does'nt say anything about the setting, all she says is the visual effects how the characters fought from the beginning of the movie to the end. And, I think what's appealing to me is the director's imagination in producing the film using different strategies.


In the first review by M. Bartelt, in her introduction paragraph she uses logic to convey to people that immotals is a must see film. This strategy by Bartelt using words like the "best" is avalue word which anybody will have a different opinion about the same movie. The writer also uses structucture in writing her review. In the second review, Sean Curley, in his introduction paragraph he uses allusion which he is refering to the ancient greek mythology about the war between the evil and the righteousness. This strategy helps the reader visualize what the movie is about and based on. And throughout Sean's review he uses different strategies.


 

LORAX!! #4

I plan to discuss the dark, gloomy tale of the Lorax, written by Dr.Suess (of course) simply because it's the most recent film I have seen! So here it goes…..

This first review I choose was written by Clarissa Meffan, from Movie Fix.  Clarissa describes the movie as a less than faithful tribute to the true message behind the story.  She asks how the dark somber tale of consumerism’s effect on the environment could turn into a no-holds-bars kid’s movie, full of bright animation, loud musical numbers, and suited bad guys. Clarissa argues that it was these elements that gave a “synthetic feeling” to a story that preaches the opposite.  However she does acknowledge the animation of the overall movie as being very Sues’ inspired.  There is little mention of the characters in the movie, however she does state that Betty White( Teds grandmother) offers a few laughs for the adults, while Ted (Zach Ephron) and Audry (Talor Swift)  bring plenty of kiddie-appeal to their characters. http://yourmovies.com.au/movie/42730/the-lorax/review

                The second review I looked at was by Roger Moore, from McCLATCHY TRIBUNE NEWS SERVICE.  The author does something very different from Clarissa, his lead begins with a political edge that he uses in several different paragraphs.  He briefly discusses the politics surrounding the message behind the film and states that “the message is as obvious and irritating to those who resent the Clean Air Act.” He then continues with a very lengthy summary of the film, then ending the review with a quote from the Lorax himself, while taking a jab at the Lou Dobb’s of the world. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/ae/movies/s_784370.html

                In comparison the two had very different analytical approaches one suggested the film as being almost irritating, and a poor portrayal of what the story is about.  The first reviewer focuses mainly on the negative aspects of the film, as the other reviewer had more positive things to say.  I did enjoy having a little less summary in the review Clarrissa wrote, I felt that Roger went on to explain too much of the movie, SPOILER ALERT!!  However I liked that Roger brought in a more political view, and used real world events in conjunction to the movie.  Overall I preferred the writing style of Clarissa as she used witty diction, and strong sarcasm to criticize the film.   Her approach was well thought and she gave just the right amount of summary.  Roger had a strong lead, with a “mouth load” of summary and made several connections to other classic films.  His tone throughout his writing is lightly sarcastic at times, but overall upbeat.  You can tell immediately that he enjoyed this film and the message behind it.

I definitely plan to do the film review after reading so many I have been inspired to try it!

Discussion Post #4: Review

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

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

Thrilling and superbly acted, The Hunger Games captures the dramatic violence, raw emotion, and ambitious scope of its source novel.

audience

86

liked it
Average Rating: 4.2/5
User Ratings: 120,522

Have anything else to say about the film? The reviews you chose? Your own review (if you've decided to do one over an opinion piece)?

Elegant Words For a More Civilized Paper(Discussion Post 3)

Mixing academic and colloquial styles is one of the methods for improving your word choice, given in the chapter Ain't So / Is Not. This section stood out, because mixing formal academic terms with everyday kinds of words is an innovative way to better the quality of a paper. This method really gives writing a more engaging rhythm. Switching between styles holds the readers attention by constantly going from stuffy to chill, then from simplistic to eloquent. Keeping the readers enamored and creating variety makes the paper more pleasant to read which is almost always a good thing. “While one effect of blending language like this is to give your writing more punch, another is to make a political statement about the way, for example society overvalues some dialects and devalues others” making a point your writing itself is an excellent way to convey a message without having to blatantly state it.

Mixing styles is a good way to spice up your writing or inadvertently make a point, but it is important to remember that every paper is directed at a specific audience. So when mixing styles it is necessary to always keep the target audience in mind. If the paper is being written towards a more scholarly or scientific minded group, it would be smart to lean more towards the longer academic terms. However, if the paper is being written for a magazine or somewhere else where a lot of younger people or working class individuals will be reading it. Then going heavy on the colloquial terms would make the paper less boring, and more appealing to those groups. “Because there are so many options in writing you should never feel limited in your choice of words, as if such choices are set in stone. You can always experiment with your language and improve it.” There are hundreds of ways to express ideas in the English language, as a writer one should never feel limited in the way they can express what they want to say. That being said there are better ways to express different things to different groups of people. When using different styles and mixing and matching it is best to focus on one main audience and write in a way that would be most effective in communicating your points to them.