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