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/