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