Screening Report "Better Call Saul"

Several juxtapositions have been raised regarding the new AMC series “Better Call Saul” since there was no need for another courtroom drama with the likes of “Suits” and “The Good Wife” monopolizing the interest of the viewers. This is where, award winning writer and producer Vince Gilligan steps up  to provide a satisfying spin-off series living up to both the fan’s and critic’s expectations.
Like its predecessors Gilligan’s new series also suffers from a rather blunt start, however Raymond Cruz’s return as the psychotic drug dealer Tuco Salamanca in the second episode compensates for that. Constant jumps in time are used as a manner of exposition, since the audience is unfamiliar with a most of the characters shown in the first episodes. It is also important to highlight that every episode so far revolves around a different character, thus keeping the story coherent, while explaining the motives behind every action taken by the characters. This can be frustrating at some points, but keeping in mind Gilligan’s style all is supposed to lead up to something bigger.
 At this point it’s important to mention that the director makes it easier for the audience to follow the fragmented narration by using a different color palate for each time period of Jimmy’s Life. His early life is portrayed with dim colors and a screen filter, the time of the basic storyline with rather lively ones, while the present is depicted only in black and white in order to show his transformation from a pushover to the best lawyer of the state and his final fall from grace. Moreover several hints about the upcoming events are shown via establishing shots like the opening scene of episode seven with a butterfly ready to hatch from its cocoon right before Jimmy starts working on his biggest case yet. On the down side, the parts with the young Jimmy are comic to say the least, since the main difference is the addition of a wig on the protagonists head in a vain attempt to make him look younger.
 Character transformation is a another important aspect for the creator of the series as it is seen on his previous works, such as “The X-Files”, “Breaking Bad” and even the disappointing movie “Hancock”, so many plot twists are expected ahead with hints provided in each episode. The transformation of “Fixer Mike” from a dirty cop to a vigilante, Saul’s Brother Chuck from a “rockstar lawyer” to a man-child and even Jimmy’s transformation to Saul Goodman are some of the prime examples of character changes that have or are expected to come later on. Despite all of the virtues related with character development some of them, such as the Kettlemans or the Detective investigating Mike’s case are forgettable and rather annoying at some points.
The performances are top notch with award winning Bob Odenkirk stealing the show especially when compared with the same character appearing on “Breaking Bad”. Some of the supporting actors include Oscar nominee Michael McKean as well as primetime Emmy nominee Jonathan Banks.
“Better Call Saul” has made a great start, making both critics and hardcore “Breaking Bad” fans ecstatic about its arrival. Great actors, intriguing plot, unique characters that complement each other are some of its great features, however it is difficult to determine whether all of these elements will fall flat in the upcoming seasons.

The Guardian’s Film Review of Blue Is the Warmest Colour by Peter Bradshaw by Zsuzsa Fruzsina

            The Guardian’s review of Abdellatif Kechiche’s film Blue Is the Warmest Colour was published on the online site on 21^st of November in 2013 by Peter Bradshaw. The film came out the same year and it was written, produced and directed by Kechiche and was based on the novel of the same name of Julkie Maroh. Despite some internal dissents, the film had won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. Peter Bradshaw, the reviewer of the film is one of The Guardian’s professional film critics who himself had written three novels. As The Guardian is one of the most popular British magazines both online and in print, the review’s audience is not necessarily limited to a certain circle of people. Therefore, anyone who is interested in a professional critic’s opinion about one of the most successful films of 2013 could rely on Bradshaw’s review.

            Bradshaw’s thesis elevates the film on the level of those epic films that deal with the “cataclysmic, intense and unforgettable” nature of love. Although he mentions the dissentient relationships between the director, the actors and the writer, he ensures the readers that the impact of the film is unaffected by them. What is more, he argues that a second viewing could increase that impact as it can clarify the underlying disconnect between the two lovers which helps to understand their last frenzied argument. He also highlights that the film does not tell a love story of an equal relationship. He supports this opinion by the French title of the film which puts Adele in the centre of the story. His comparison of Adele’s first boyfriend to John the Baptist and the later lover Emma to Christ serves as support for the argument that the film is a passionate account of their intense and sparking love. Bradshaw also discusses the famous and explicit sex scene of the movie to argue for the passionate nature of the film. Unlike some sophisticates, he does not dismiss the part as boring, unauthentic or exploitative. He rather argues that it is a fictional scene and likens it to other made up movie scenes.  Bradshaw draws the reader’s attention to the hidden symbolism of the fading blue colour in Emma’s hair which correlates to the cooling of their relationship. He recalls the scenes where the lovers meet each other’s families to indicate their different social status and to highlight the inequalities of their relationship. Finally he claims that Adele and Emma’s story depicts love, neither young nor first but love as it is. To support this, he refers to the ambiguous final scene of the film which does not ensure the viewer that they would ever find something better than they had.

            Peter Bradshaw’s review is an example of a professional account of a film from a professional critic. This is reflected in his use of language and in his style. The review is informative and can be easily read but it is not overrun by slang words. Nevertheless, his matter-of-fact reasoning does not leave the reader in doubt whether the film worth watching. The style is rather formal than informal; however, it is comprehensible, and not least, interesting sometimes even with a very slight ironic undertone.

            The review is clearly divided into paragraphs and the structure follows the logical train of thought that connects the different paragraphs. Bradshaw starts his writing with an insight of the background of the film and approaches the topic from a general observation. He connected background information and public opinion well with his own ideas to support his argument. However, he does not give a synopsis; he only provides some information here and there in his review when it is necessary for his arguments.

            Peter Bradshaw gives a reasonable, clear and well-developed account of the Blue is the Warmest Colour. Although his review is professional and I find it trustworthy, I think it is intended for those who have seen the film. If the reader is familiar with the subject, it is a fair and well supported review. I did not only appreciate his review because it was similar to my opinion but also because he did not force his opinion on the reader. His reasoning and his arguments stand firm which makes his review a proof of his writing skills for me. Taking into account the points that make a review good and worth reading, I would strongly recommend Peter Bradshaw’s writing about Blue Is the Warmest Colour to anyone who has seen the film.

Source:

Bradshaw, P. (2013, November 21). Blue Is the Warmest Colour – review.  The Guardian, Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/21/blue-is-the-warmest-colour-review

Breathless Review by Philip French

Review on Philip French's review of Breathless

Breathless is a 1960 film by one of the most famous and influential French New Wave directors,  Jean-Luc Godard. The review of the film was written by Philip French, a British film critic, who won the “Critic of the year” award in 2009. He had been writing reviews for The Observer before his 2013 retirement and this particular review of Breathless was published in The Observer’s daily “sister” The Guardian in 2006.

The article is written in a formal style, he used appropriate language in it, and he also used special terms in connection with films. In my opinion his analysis is a little bit dry and it only contains a few sentence of personal opinion. The review is clearly organized, it is divided into 5 paragraphs. Firstly, French mentions the background of the film – the French New Wave, its’ directors and technical innovations. Secondly, he briefly summarize the plot of the film before he continues the review with a little criticism and his arguments. In the last paragraph he writes about Godard’s influence on future films and Breathless’ status in film history.

One of French’s main arguments is that the new things which were announced in New Wave films, such as jump cuts, or natural lightning were rapidly assimilated and become a common part of movies. He also mentions that although Breathless is a landmark in the film history, just like Citizen Kane or Intolerance, it is also just a period piece. Then he lists Godard’s later masterpieces and in the last sentence he say that Godard “recreated the grammar of cinema, before becoming the eccentric, egocentric, self-indulgent, obscurantist sideshow that he remains to this day.”

Although French’s review is well developed, in my view most of his arguments are poorly - or even not – supported and his review lacks his personal opinion except of the last sentence. I also missed the critic’s opinion about Semberg and Belmondo’s performance, and an overall impression of the film. I like the plot description part which is written very briefly, but contains every important part of the film, and I also like the part about the importance and influence of the French New Wave.

In my opinion, it is really hard to write a good review of an almost 50 year-old movie but this review by French is not the best exemple of it. It was really hard to decide what was French’s opinion about the film and Godard, as he did not directly wrote down whether he liked it or not and only the last sentece gave some information of his judgement. In my view some criticism of the actors and the film was also missing from French’s review and he should also made more emphasis on the new techniques that Godard used in this film. 

Forrest Gump review by Roger Ebert

   Roger Ebert's review of Forrest Gump is a good choice to read for someone who, by any chance, has not seen the movie yet. Forrest Gump is a movie directed by Robert Zemeckis, first previewed in 1994. The author of the review, Roger Ebert was a famous American film critic, the first to win the Pulitzer Prize for Criticism, whose reviews were syndicated to more than 200 newspapers in the United States before his death in 2013. This piece of Forrest Gump was written in 1994, and it is now available on Ebert's official website, rogerebert.com. The review is simple, but informative, short enough but not too short, it is addressed to everyone who is interested in this particular movie, or in any of Ebert's writings.

   It is clearly observable that Ebert likes the movie. His main thesis is that Forrest Gump is a unique, complex fiction instead of just a modern movie, and he supports his idea throughout the whole review. He argues that the movie is much more than a heartwarming story about a mentally retarded man, it is actually a meditation on the second half of the 20^th century, “through the eyes of a man who lacks cynicism and takes things for exactly what they are”, which puts the protagonist to a new, but truly proper aspect. He also states that Tom Hanks was the right choice for this role, since he could not imagine anyone else playing this character so honestly and in such a dignified way. He mentions some parts of the plot, then praises the special effects which made it possible to place the character of Forrest Gump into the history of the late 20^th century of America. Thanks to these computer effects was it possible for Gary Sinise to play the role of Lt. Dan, Forrest's commander and friend who lost his legs in the Vietnamese war.

   The article is written in a friendly and informal style, but obviously by an expert. It is informal enough to be comprehensible for everyone, but the themes and topics it covers and explains satisfy more profound readers as well. The whole text is very personal, as if it was spoken to a close friend. “It's a comedy, I guess. Or maybe a drama. Or a dream. [...] What a magical movie.”

   The review is clearly organised into paragraphs, they separate the thoughts and ideas of the author logically, and follow each other in a logical way. The sequence of the themes and observations are a bit unusual, Ebert starts with background information, then he states arguments and his opinion about the movie, followed by a short introspection to the plot, and then he continues with arguments again. Unusual as it is, the review is greatly structured, the text is smooth and fluent.

   I think Roger Ebert's review is a well developed piece of writing, straight to the point, pleasant and easy to read. I personally like it, because I think a good review should be short enough to be read in two or three minutes, it should tell enough about the movie to raise the reader's attention, but at the same time should not tell too much to keep the story and the outcome mysterious enough. Roger Ebert's Forrest Gump review served all these purposes greatly. It nicely exemplifies why they were and are so popular – Roger Ebert and Forrest Gump as well.

Review of Todd McCarthy's review on Birdman

by Eszter Farkas

17/03/2015

The review was written by Todd McCarthy who is clearly a professional in his field as he was working for the Variety for 31 years as its chief film critic, directed four documentaries about film and nowadays is working for the Hollywood Reporter, where this very piece was published on 27 August 2014, long before the film’s official wide release in the United States on 14 November 2014. The occasion of the review was the film’s screening on the Venice Film Festival and the Telluride Film Festival. Not only was it screened, but it was the opening film of the Venice Film Festival, after which the film very soon received near unanimous praise from the international press. As we know now, Birdman won multiple awards, including the Academy Award for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Cinematography and also two Golden Globe Awards for Best Screenplay and Best Actor.

McCarthy begins his article with the clever sentence “Birdman flies very, very high”. He doesn’t leave this pun out of the title, either, as it says “Michael Keaton soars in Alejandro G. Inarritu’s brilliantly directed dark comedy about celebrity and creation.” Reading these sentences, we can already draw the conclusion that it’s going to be another praise of the movie Birdman. Nevertheless, it is a very professional and in much detail explained praise. McCarthy claims that this movie is “one of the most sustained examples of visually fluid tour de force cinema”, and that it is basically flawless and in every respect original. He supports his thesis with emphasizing the genre which is the rare dramatic- or dark comedy, the tone that is “at once empathetic and acidic”; the stunning job of the Spanish director, Inarritu (also directed 21 Grams) and his indispensable cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubeczki, the brilliant performance of Michael Keaton, the original and symbolic soundtrack; and the job of the screenwriting quartet.

After his introductory paragraph, the writer describes the set, location and plot of the movie. He also lets us in some details of the shooting and talks about the deeper issues that are unfolding during the film as ambition, vanity, popularity versus creative achievement; spontaneity versus careful planning and several others. The argument he further develops is the exceptional cinematography of the movie. He compares the effect creating the illusion of having been filmed all in one take to Alfred Hitchock’s Rope from 1948. The unique soundtrack that is nothing but monotone drumming only supports this visual continuum of time unbroken (McCarthy compares it to the legendary opening of Gravity which was also shot by Lubeczki).

McCarthy also mentions a weakness of the film to balance his undiminished praise for it, which is in the dramaturgy. He describes the scene where Riggan meets the powerful drama critic as unrealistic and unbelievable and emphasizes the lack of development in case of the supporting characters.

The review’s style is mainly informal as McCarthy uses several abbreviations and parenthetic remarks ­ – e.g. “quite the jerk, actually” or “don’t ask” – intended to create a friendly and intimate tone with the audience. However, at the same time the review is full of professional terms (e.g. “tour de force cinema”) and unexplained references (as why is Michael Keaton’s role of a former superhero film star is highly self- referential; “it could fill a Feydeau farce”) that show it was clearly addressed to an adept audience.

What I think is really missing from the review is emphasizing the interesting relationship between Riggan and his ex-role alter-ego Birdman. In my opinion, it is a hugely important theme of the film; the ambiguous existence of Birdman in real life, the main character’s mental state, and the obscurity of how specific things happen if they happened at all. Apart from this, all in all, the review is very professional, precisely organized slowly building up to the conclusion that Birdman “goes beyond the normal destinations of mainstream films - managing to make it quite an exciting place”. It touches every single practical and theoretical aspect of a film, uses only relevant information and isn’t only leaning on personal opinion. If I hadn’t already seen this exceptional movie, I for sure would watch it now.

Source:

Todd McCarthy (27 Aug. 2014). ‘Michael Keaton soars in Alejandro G. Inarritu’s brilliantly directed dark comedy about celebrity and creation.’ Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved from
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movie/birdman/review/727190

Space, Adventure, Emotions and Success

     A. O. Scott, the chief critic of New York Times, wrote a very detailed review on Christopher Nolan's Interstellar right after the premier of the film. He wanted to share his opinion with all the Nolan fans, but also with average people who follow great cinema sensations and blockbusters.

     Scott argues that it is not a new issue in the history of cinema to depict a futuristic space adventure. He claims that even if the topic and the methods of making a strong impact are a bit average sometimes, the emotional components and techniques are outstanding. The plot of the film is so complex that Scott tries to sum it up in several lines throughout the review. He mentions that it takes place in the future, and that its main point is saving the planet and finding comfort. The only crop which can be grown is corn, there are apocalyptic sandstormes and the main character goes on a space adventure to save the population. Mingling science, modern technology,social and environmental issues and exciting adventures is a straight way towards success,according to Scott. These are inportant and familiar things to the audience; mirroring the Earthly needs and moods is an ordinary, previously used idea. But Scott also claims that Nolan's film is different somehow; his work is unique, the well presented feelings of the characters are very effective. The review questions a lot of things about the plot, but it also points out interesting and extraordinary elements like the character parallels.

     The review is written in an informal, but elaborated style with a wide range of vocabulary and also with an interesting attitude of over-analyzing the film. The arguments are supported, but the evaluation of the director and the plot is in vast majority. Scott shares many personal thoughts, which are sometimes not obviously relevant, they are inappropriate and sometimes not even funny. It is a bit difficult to understand the main ideas in his review; sometimes it seems to be a simple contemplation about the film. The short paragraphs contain many different approaches and background information. It is also quite discursive; although the sentences are coherent, the logical blocks are ambiguous at some points. The result of that is really interesting: Scott writes about the film qutite negatively first, but then he compliments the director, the actors and the film itself. It turns out that even if he likes Christopher Nolan and he respects his work, there are many things he would have done differently.

     Tryig to use a lot of irony but also staying serious is a fairly difficult style to follow in criticism. Even if Scott didn't always manage to do that, his review is worth reading and the honest ideas are really respectable.

Source:   http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/05/movies/interstellar-christopher-nolans-search-for-a-new-planet.html?referrer=

Seven

Evaluating the Review of Seven by Derek Michael Malcolm.

As the President of the British Federation of film Societies, Derek Michael Malcolm, is considered to be one of the greatest British Film reviewers. This specific review was written in order to evaluate the movie Seven by David Fincher and was published on January 4^th 1996 by The Guardian.

Derek Malcolm starts with an overview of the plot using his linguistic eloquence in order to set a mood that “mirrors the mindset of the twisted serial killer”. Although surprised by the movie’s success in the USA, unlike other movies of this genre, he considers it notable despite its minor technical drawbacks and the “brackish taste” it leaves in the mouth. He covers various aspects of the movie such as: background, plot, reception, character analysis, overall atmosphere, problems that have occurred as well as his opinion about the outstanding features of the film. 

The review has a clear cut structure, developing each argument and aspect of the movie in a different paragraph, thus making it coherent and easy to read. The style is formal overall in order to support the thorough analysis of the features of the film, with the trademark deictic tone of the reviewer being evident throughout. This however, may cause some problems to non-native speakers since they might feel alienated due to the high register of the language required to describe the “wet, windy and dilapidated hell-hole” portrayed in the film. The reviewer seems like a complete expert and avoids addressing the readers in order to keep the review as subjective/objective as possible.

Moreover Derek Malcolm’s opinion is very well supported and to the point, since he avoids getting into details and focuses only on the notable features or flaws of the movie. The great plus of his review is that he appeals to the reason of the reader by setting a clear path for him via his technical expertise. Like informing the readers, about the way Fincher, unlike his previous movies, suggests more violence than meets the eye.

To sum up Derek Michael Malcolm, has made a great job on the technical aspect evaluation of the film. His review has a clear cut structure, which makes it easy to read, it is segmented in neat paragraphs, each of which analyses a different feature of the movie. His expertise is widely known and his deictic tone in combination with his high linguistic competence makes his review seem like a reliable source of information. On the down side, the fact that he avoids to address to the audience makes the review faceless in a way, which makes the readers unable to identify with him and therefore cautious to accept his opinion. Apart from the distance created between the audience and the reviewer, a great review with a high register, which keeps the readers interested and well informed.

Review of The Sisters Brothers by Patrick DeWitt

This article appeared in the Guardian in 2011 when the book was first published. It is written by Jane Smiley a writer herself who also occasionally reviews books for the Guardian. The novel was shortlisted for the Man Booker prize and won many others. It is a new twist on a classic western and in my opinion a very funny and thought provoking book.

            She starts her review out by picking out a sentence from the first chapter that she found rather gruesome and then compared that to one of the blurbs which praised the book on being hilarious. With this she implies that the story is misrepresented and if you are looking for something really funny here you will only find terrible crimes and therefore will be disappointed. From this, it already seems clear that she did not really like the book and want to show it in a bad light. I would not say that judging a book by its first page is a very smart thing, especially if you have to write a professional review.

            In the next few paragraphs she gives a summary of the plot, picking out random, and many times unimportant pieces to prove her opinion of this being a story made up of unconnected chapters without any personal growth in the characters. At one point she mentions the lack of “meticulous description of Oregon and California in 1851” as a negative, which is confusing as the novel focuses on the characters and their journey and thus the scenery is not very important and actually would take away from the book. As someone who read the book, this is very strange to me, and I understand that she wants to prove her point. From my point of view, however, this seems as if she just flipped through the book after establishing in the first chapter that she did not like it and consequently picked out arbitrary things to criticize. If you have not read the book, her arguments might seem well supported, but otherwise they stand on weak legs.

            She does not give too much background about the author or the novel and even though she organized her writing into paragraphs, the organization is not very logical. Her tone is on the more formal side and she seems to avoid stating her opinion clearly and rather implies it in her text. I appreciate that she lets the reader draw conclusions from the evidence she provides, however flawed they might be.

It is obvious that personally I liked the book, however, it is not her bad opinion that disturbs me in this review, but the sheer laziness that shines through her lines. She even in a way admits that she did not pay too much attention to the book in her last paragraph, packaged up in an elaborate train metaphor. In my opinion a reviewer has to have an open mind, at least to some extent, and any reader has to put something into a book to get something out of it. 

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/jul/15/sisters-brothers-patrick-dewitt-review