The Last Airbender

Hi all! Today’s topic will be another highly anticipated movie: “The Last Airbender”.  I spoke to two friends of mine and they were so excited to see it. For the ones who don’t know, The Last Airbender, is based on the animated TV show “Avatar”… Avatar? Yes! For the anecdote directors James Cameron and Night Shyamalan (The Last Airbender) fought for the title. It’s unnecessary to tell you who won…

Anyway, the movie review I chose comes once again from the Sydney Morning Herald and was written by Jim Schembri on September 16, 2010. (1) Although the article is quite short, Schembri does a good job explaining the essential parts that we should know about. He might be too direct and offensive in his way but everything he says is true. The movie is boring and the director is bad (Surprisingly, considering he made “The Sixth Sense” and “Signs”!).  Schembri continues and explains briefly the plot and gives the readers information they couldn’t get from their friends. For example, he explains who was responsible for the special effects and, as I said above, the title trial between James Cameron and Night Shyamalan.  But what truly amazes me is how Schembri managed to explain so many things in just a few lines. In opposition with the common belief, writing summarizing can be a real challenge. Moreover, as Abraham Lincoln once said: "I'm sorry I didn't have time to write you a short letter, so I wrote you a long one."

To conclude, besides the fact that it is a great article, I discovered something new about the layout of the webpage: A quote box for online readers (which doesn’t take a great line of the author but a great line of one of the commentators).  Concerning the rest of the layout, you’ve probably already read my opinions on SMH webpage content, which I find amazing. 

(1): http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/the-last-airbender-20100916-15dek.html

Tomorrow When The War Began

Before I start talking about the film and it’s review, you should know that “Tomorrow when the war began” is the first novel of the “Tomorrow” series written by John Marsden.

Due to the success of the multiple series, the Australian screenwriter and film director, Stuart Beattie (Pirates of the Caribbean’s, Australia) decided it was a good opportunity to make it a movie.

The movie review (1) published on “TheVine.com.au”, a news and entertaining website, on August 26 2010, by “Darrynking” explains the beginning, the making and the reasons to see it. For my part, I think the beginning goes too much into details. I mean, he writes two full paragraphs about every single action that takes place in the movie, leaving the future spectators nothing or few to discover. Later on, the article talks about the story behind the movie and how it was directed, which I believe is obligatory for a movie review. Just before concluding, the author wrote something that surprised me: an entire part about the chosen songs and their implementation (to the screen). Was it necessary? Maybe not, but it was kind of original to talk about it.

Concerning the conclusion, it was for me the best part of the article. The author finally gives what the reviewers want to know: Is it worth going to see it? He says: “Tomorrow manages to be a hell of a lot more intelligent, exciting and mature than most films made with a teen audience in mind”(2). This is what makes this article better than others; it gives a real insight of what people believe this movie is. When you see the billboards, you imagine it must be another silly teenage movie, which turns out to be the complete opposite.

Besides the written content, the layout is also quite original. The article doesn’t give one picture but more than a dozen! There is a comment section and even a movie trailer on the bottom of the article for people willing to have a fore taste of the movie. 

(1) & (2): http://www.thevine.com.au/entertainment/movie-reviews/tomorrow-when-the-war-began-_-movie-review20100826.aspx

Piranha 3D

Hi guys! I hope you are still following my reviews because what I will analyse today will get you jumping up and down your seats! It’s about "Piranha 3D" which was released in Australia the 26th of August 2010. The movie review I chose comes from a blog made by the author of the article, Luke Buckmaster, posted on September 3, 2010.(1)

Buckmaster takes us through a smooth path down the main themes in the movie and explores how its director, Alexandre Aja, chose to portrait such surreal story. Ok, its a given that a target audience like teenagers love the taste of vintage horror re-made... But the author actually manages to analyse it in his own personal way.  He defines the movie as "perversely satisfying junky-tainment"(2) which I thought was just hilarious. I have seen this movie and I can't agree more with his point of view.
Buckmaster manages to put "Piranha 3D" in a category that lies between different genres as man versus wild or "simply a matter of they're scary in numbers".(3) I liked the fact that he compares this action thriller with other movies of its kind such as "Anaconda", "Rogue" or "Snakes on a Plane". During his article he seems eager to point out that the whole plot of the movie revolves around waiting for the cast to be shred to pieces by the piranhas... Other than that, Buckmaster doesn't give much credit to the actors or the story development. He uses an informal type of language that seems fit for both adults and teenagers. He makes you feel like you are one of his buddies; and this is something that helped me keep interested while reading his article. Funny at times and narrating certain scenes from the movie, I believe Buckmaster has 'junky-tained' us!

The lay-out of the page is simple but clear. He presents his article accompanied by a picture of the promotional poster of the movie and its theatrical trailer is posted right underneath the article.  Which I thought was a good idea considering the readers who haven't seen the film, may get a chance to see what Buckmaster is trying to tell. A cool detail is that he presents himself on the blog with his picture; this gives the reader the idea of knowing the author better.  Thus feeling more attracted to reading his articles.

To conclude, I think Buckmaster nailed it in the way he describes the movie using amusing expressions but at the same time showing a serious point of view by comparing the movie with other films of its own genre.

 (1), (2) & (3): http://blogs.crikey.com.au/cinetology/2010/09/03/piranha-3d-movie-review-perversely-satisfying-junky-tainment/

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps

Hi again. The celebrated “Wall Street” film, directed by Oliver Stone in 1987, comes back to the cinemas with its sequel: “Wall Street: Money never sleeps”.  Stone chooses to star once again its protagonist Michael Douglas and for the first time Shia LaBeouf, the upcoming young actor who played in Transformers. I personally didn’t see the movie yet but I heard so much negative criticism that I will think twice before purchasing a cinema ticket. Unfortunately, the movie review published in the Sydney Morning Herald (1) on September 22, 2010 and written by Jim Schembri made me loose my scepticism.

If you’ve read my previous blog entry about “Tomorrow, when the war began” and  how the billboard made the movie look stupid but in fact it turned out to be the contrary, well, “Wall Street” is it’s “vice versa”. In other words, the billboard promoting the movie proves yet again the effect that the power of advertising can have on society.

The review itself starts with a hilarious opening: “Money Never Sleeps...but you will”.(2) Nicely done! Later, the author keeps criticizing…on and on. Firstly the director, Oliver Stone, and how he failed to make a remake of the original “Wall Street”. Secondly, the actor’s performance; both Micheal Douglas and Shia LaBeouf! Finally the dialogue that he describes as a “baffling blizzard of verbiage”. (3) His position is then clearly noticeable which gives the readers what they wanted.

Besides the content (as a follower asked me to do), the SMH’s layout also entertains the readers. Firstly because the most famous quote of the article appears on the left hand side, which announces the colour of the review’s content. Secondly, as few reviews do, there is audience rating both of the movie and the article itself. Finally the comment section that makes the reviews even more complete for readers who want to have another opinion. 

(1), (2) & (3): http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/wall-street-money-never-sleeps-20100922-15mjs.html

Dinner For Schmucks

Hello again,

This is my first blog entry where I speak about a movie I didn’t actually see (and I don’t think I will ever see it). The reason is that the movie is a simple copy of an earlier French movie called “the dinner game”. I don’t’ know if you ever saw it but it’s basically the exact same story: executives bored with their lives that invite dumb people to have dinner just to laugh at them.

For those who saw “The dinner game” you will agree it was a huge success. Everybody will remember Jacques Villeret’s brilliant performance. Unfortunately, after reading the Sydney Morning Herald review about “Dinner for schmucks”(1), the author let ‘s us know it will be a waste of a time.  This assumption is also sustained by its 6 out of 10 rating on imdb.com, one of the largest online movie review websites.

Concerning the SMH movie review, published on September 28, 2010 by Jim Schembri, the author starts explaining the universe of the movie. He describes what is a real schmuck and why you might like the actual story.  If you are too lazy to read the entire article, just read the introduction, it’s really funny.

Later on, Schembri informed us that the movie is a remake of Francis Veber French film The Dinner Game and “which this film totally fails to emulate.”(2) During the rest of the review, the author seems to be quite persistent of how bad the movie is. He uses strong words such as “Very strange” and “Very painful to watch”. (3)

To conclude, it is often said that the three secrets of a good movie is a good story, a good story and a good story but it seems that “Dinner for Schmucks” might be the exception to the rule…

(1), (2) & (3): http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/dinner-for-schmucks-20100928-15vok.html

Salt

The highly anticipated movie turns out to be another typical Hollywood movie.What is even more frustrating is to see all the promotions they made months in advance. I mean, who didn’t see a bus covered up with Ange’s face? The marketing was sure good but the movie itself was just disappointing…

The article review (1), written by Darren Bevan and published in tvnz.co.nz on the 17^th of August 2010, briefly explains why. 
I choose this article because it was bizarrely a mix of good points as well as bad points.

The first good point is the correlation the author makes with Salt and James Bond. Not that Salt is like James Bond but the fact that Salt is something to see when there’s an absence of James Bond movie.
Another good point relies in the middle of the article. The author gives (in a single sentence) a very fine foretaste of the movie: “Salt is a thriller which doesn't thrill as much as it could”(2). That says it all!
Unfortunately, those are the only two positive points I could found. The rest of the article (when you have a global look at it) seems to be a basic summary of the movie. Which, I found sad because when you read a review, you expect something a little more detailed and subtler than a simple summary. You want to be convinced whetter the movie will be good or bad.
Movies, in contradiction with books, can’t be rated just by the quality of the script; it’s also the image, the sound, the music and the actor’s performance.   
To conclude, I think that the author is a good writer but he doesn’t give the readers what they want. He concentrates himself too much on the content while he should also talk about the form.

(1) and (2): http://tvnz.co.nz/entertainment-news/salt-movie-review-3709380

Eat Pray Love

Hi again,
As you might have guessed, today’s article will talk about the movie review “Eat Pray Love”(1).
The reasons why I chose this topic relies on two facts:
1) The movie based on the novel “Eat Pray Love” was a worldwide success. Which, by the way, makes the movie even more anticipated by its future audience.
2) Adaptations of novels usually attract many journalists attention.
But let’s move back to the article itself.
Written by Anthony O. Scott and published in the New York Times on 12th of August 2010, I believe this article was simply great.
First of all, the introduction was made according to the rulebook. He starts describing the movie’s philosophy and ends up explaining why the story suddenly turns upside down.
Secondly, in the third paragraph, he manages to make the review more original than others. For example, referring to “Sex and the City”, “Julie and Julia” and “The Blind Side”, he points out that feminist movies are recently quite in vogue.
Later on, he briefly describes Julia Robert’s performance in relation with her character. Surprisingly, doing so is not always part of movie reviews. But since “Eat Pray Love” partly owns its success to Julia’s appearance, I assume it was only compulsory.
Moreover, he finely mixes good points of the movie with some well-found anecdotes. He may have promoted too much the positives points – ending his article with “is unlikely to change anybody’s life”(2) or “provoke emotions anywhere near as intense as those experienced”(3) - but at least we got its point of view.
To conclude, I think this review was not only inventive but also well structured. It gave the readers a foretaste of the movie without revealing its entire content.

(1):http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/movies/13eat.html
(2)&(3):http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/movies/13eat.html?pagewanted=2

The Other Guys

Hi again. Today’s topic will go over the new Will Ferrell’s comedy, “The Other Guys”. I went to see it yesterday and frankly, I couldn’t stop laughing!

“The Sydney Morning Herald” and “Los Angeles Times” both made a very interesting review about it.

In the SMH’s article(1) written by Paul Byrnes on September the 9^th 2010, the author starts describing the actor’s performance first. An unusual way to begin a review, you might think, but not at all. He knew that the future audience would be more interested by Will Ferrell’s appearance than the movie on its own.

The rest of the article is basically a classic movie review. The author explains the plot, the meaning of the title, why is it good, why is it bad and why you should see the movie. Interestingly, there was something that made this article different from others; and that is when the author literally says, “Personally, I liked The Other Guys”(2).  Among all movies reviews I read, it was surprisingly the first one that gave author’s direct opinion. Another original point of the article was its style. The author wrote many hilarious lines, as he seemed to be adapting his article to the movie’s genre.

Los Angeles Times’ article(3), written by Betsy Sharkey on the August 6th 2010, was as good. The author resumes, in a single line, how funny and clever the movie was (which is perfectly true). Then again the rest of the article was a classic review made according to the rulebook. Its only singularity is the way the author insists to compare former Ferrell’s movies to this one. Doing so made her angle noticeable and therefore a somewhat original article.

To conclude, I think the authors made both exquisite articles. They were very well structured with a particular style and approach. They explained many intriguing parts of the movie without nonetheless revealing the entire story.

 (1) & (2) http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/the-other-guys-20100908-15188.html

(3) http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/06/entertainment/la-et-other-guys-20100806

Toy Story 3. “The toys are back in town!”

Hello again,
Have you seen the article(1) review about Toy Story 3 on “Screenrant.com”? Well, it isn’t the best review I’ve ever read. If you know what I mean…
Written by Vic Holtreman and published on screenrant.com on the 18th of June 2010, this review is for me a good example of an amateur work.
Before I criticize anything, you should know more about screenrant.com in order to better understand the context behind the story.
Launched in 2003, the American movie review website was originally “a place to rant about some of the dumber stuff related to the movie industry”(2). The editors are here completely honest with us. The reviews are about the “fun/exciting/scary (…) instead of some high-brow, esoteric level that only other movie critics will relate to”(3).
If I should rewrite this article again here would be my modifications:
First of all, let’s have a look at the introduction. Three paragraphs in total! It’s way too long. Don’t you think? A good opening should be short and able to catch readers’ attention, which isn’t the case here. Plus, it doesn’t really summarize the article’s content. It only gives us the writer’s opinion.
Secondly, I would like to talk about anecdotes used in the story. For me they aren’t well related to the subject. Vic Holtreman writes more about the producers then the director or the movie itself.
Thirdly I wanted to point out the elaboration of the body. The author doesn’t really have a creative approach. He contented himself to simply summarise the story, which gives the future audience the content rather than a small taste of the movie.
Moreover, Holtreman uses a smiley face in one of his sentences. By doing so it only confirms, once more, that the article is strictly made for an online audience.
Finally, we learned that the article was more of a quick review (online surfers) rather than a deep movie analysis.

1: http://screenrant.com/toy-story-3-reviews-vic-64871/
2 & 3: http://screenrant.com/about/

Inception's review

Hello everybody,
Today I wanted criticize an article review about the well-known new movie, “Inception”. The article was published online by the Los Angeles Times and was written by Kenneth Turan on July 16th 2010.
The reasons why I chose this review are multiples.
First of all, I found the introduction very appealing. The author uses words such as “tremendously exciting”, “knockout” and “disturbing” which are basic key words for a catchy beginning.
Secondly, the next paragraph briefly explains the history behind “Inception”. Anecdotes are for me always a good way to start the body of your story. Plus, it gives the readers the feeling they learned something kind of unique.
Later, when the author begins to elaborate his story, his style is directly noticeable. He writes in sophisticated but clearly way (It goes without saying that the author knows very well the identity of his audience).
But be aware that when I say sophisticated I don’t mean complicated. As you might know online readers spent very little time on article. This is why daily newspapers will guarantee that each stories published are meant to be read fast and easily. Failure to do so might lead the readers to a loss concentration and eventually give up.
Furthermore, in the description of the plot, anecdotes are once more exploited. The author gives a quick explanation about one of the director’s (Christopher Nollan) inspiration e.g. “Named after the mythological character who helped Theseus find his way out of the Minotaur's labyrinth, Ariadne is a young architect […]. As I mentioned above, those kind of simple details can make an article much more enjoyable.
To conclude, not only K. Turan ends his story with a summary of his article but he also manages to introduce subtly reasons to watch “Inception”. Author’s personal opinions are for me always welcome in any given story.

Website link: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/16/entertainment/la-et-inception-20100716/3