Movie Review
The movie I read a review of was The Amazing Spiderman, published in The New York Times by Manohla Dargis.
Dargis opens by introducing the history of Spiderman: the past movies, the comic books, and the reception that both have received. This is a theme that continues throughout the review as Dargis repeatedly compares and contrasts the new movie to the old. The review takes a lot of time talking about the past of the franchise and not much on the movie itself. When the review does speak about the new movie, it is mainly a plot synopsis, with added critiques of most changes. The author spends a little time lamenting the lack of acting expertise, but almost entirely forgets to talk about the cinematic aspects of the production, which are critiqued in their one line as superfluous and cheesy.
The review is written in a serious tone, but as though the author intends to be masking their personal opinion on the film while making slight digs at it. The reviewer does not recommend the film, although they do not explicitly state that. The reviewer does not rate the movie nor give away its ending.
I think that one of the major problems with the cinematic analyses last year was that we had to answer specific questions, and we weren't so much writing a review as talking about the various aspects of the film in relation to history and writing techniques. It was rather dull. It would be more interesting if we could choose any movie that we wanted to watch and be given the freedom to write a review focusing on what we wished to write about.
No comments:
Post a Comment