Liberating Fashion Review

                The review, namely the ”Liberating Fashion: Aesthetic Dress in Victorian Portraits”, is a piece of writing by Richard Dorment, the Daily Telegraph’s chief art critic who has devoted himself and his career to one of the major constituent of arts: the visual arts. The review itself concentrates on an exhibition on loan to Watt’s Gallery which tries to explore the issue of the often questionable taste in fashion of English women in the mid-Victorian era.

                The author tries to draw the readers’ attention to the fact that during this particular period there were women who could acquire stylishness and elegance and there were others who seemingly weren’t aware of the borders of the contemporary fashion. He supports his argument with mentioning the French historian and critic Hippolyte Taine who referred to this generation as “lamentable”. 

Richard Dorment focuses on some of the paintings seen at the exhibition; moreover, he gives factual examples in order to demonstrate his point even visually. The first couple of instances justify that there were still women dressing appropriately. Tissot’s “The Gallery of the HMS Calcutta”, Whistler’s “Mrs Leyland” and Burne-Jones’ “Lady Windsor” are all demonstrating the classically simple yet elegant way of dressing. These ladies were seen in a positive light by the painters and their costumes were obviously suitable and appealing for the “artistic eyes”.

However, “The Home Quartett: Mrs Vernon Lushington and her Children“, a portrait group by the Englishman Arthur Hughes, is just the manifestation of a foible, at least in terms of Aesthetic fashion. The mother and her daughters are dressed identically wearing curtain-like garment which, according to the author, could be regarded as a crime against fashion and “the artist who painted this terrible picture should be had up for offences against art”.

The final example is Watt’s Portrait of Sophia Dalyrmple, an Anglo-Indian beauty, whose caftan-like dress resembles the tunic of a monk with a rope around the waist. Even though the costume has some elements of the Bohemian style, Watt still decided to favour it.

To close the review Dorment summarizes what he had seen and concludes that the exhibition was fairly enjoyable, although “a clearer line of argument and a better selection of loans” would have been required.
Concerning the style of the review at first it might seem to be formal but at some points Dorment uses quite informal expressions such as “let’s face it”. The language was appropriate and contained many necessary and indispensable phrases. The tone of the author is enthusiastic, though often sharp and critical.

The text is organized into multiple paragraphs according to the order of paintings and it also follows a clear and logical contexture, thus it is easy to read and to understand as well. The topic of the essay is stated right in the beginning and it is followed by the main argument, supporting details and concrete examples with explanations. Finally there is a conclusion both of the era, the paintings and the exhibition, thus summing up the most important parts of the review.

                My personal opinion is that the review is a well-written and enjoyable piece regarding the organisation, the argument and logic of supports since it is easy to follow the comprehensible structure. The critic tone of the author is also something significant. The only questionable part is the language and the use of vocabulary since it contains some phrases which, I believe, should not be used in a professional review.

Gone Girl Review

Roger Ebert, a successful American film critic, journalist, and screenwriter wrote about an American psychological thriller, called Gone Girl. The movie was directed by David Fincher and adapted by Gillian Flynn’s bestseller. This review was written approximately a week after the premier, at the beginning of October, 2014 and published on his website. Egbert argues that Gone girl is undoubtedly a masterpiece and everyone who watches it will definitely have some sort of strong opinion about the movie.

To begin with, this is really a perceptive piece of writing for everyone who is interested in these kind of movies. The film critic raised many important issues and at the same time, he took special attention on not spoiling anything during the process. Firstly, Egbert stated his overall opinion about the film. According to him, this thriller was both ”art and entertainment”; however, he wrote that it felt like that the movie was fragmented. He had the feeling that there were like five different short movies strung together instead of one coherent film.

Then, he gave us a short synopsis without any concrete information that could ruin the ending and he achieved this by asking clever, ambiguous questions. After that, he used a parallel and likened this film to Basic Instinct, Fatal Attraction, and Presumed Innocence because of the explicit sex and violent scenes. Plus, all these movies have more or less the same mind-blowing construction. Basically, Egbert’s main argument was that even though this movie can be put into the wheelhouse of the above mentioned movies, it never crossed the line and remained a unique masterpiece.

Even though the language of this review is informal, it is still appropriate for a professional and detailed piece because he used many sophisticated words and expressions. It is very well organized and coherent, so that is why it is easy to follow and understand. It perfectly reflects Egbert’s individual and matchless writing style. Personally, I love nearly all of his reviews and I follow his work on a regular basis. Apart from loving the topic, I chose this one because he listed other great movies just to get a better idea of the style of this thriller.

To sum up, I would say that every part of this piece of writing is relevant and very well developed. He supported his arguments in connection with the movie and he stayed on the topic, so there were no illogical side drifts.  As a result of this, it gave the readers a very detailed and interesting insight, which I must say was a pleasure to read. 

In Bruges film review

In Bruges
The review by Peter Beech

Peter Beech starts the review by quoting the film’s opening scene “After I'd killed him, I dropped the gun in the Thames, washed the residue off my hands in the bathroom of a Burger King, and walked home to await instructions”. This is a rather interesting start to a review and I believe he could not have picked a better opening paragraph. By choosing these lines, Beech not only intrigues the readers, but also makes them wonder what happens next.

Peter Beech continues by describing the plot, mentioning how a young hitman, Ray, played by Colin Farrell has to settle in Bruges for a while, after finishing his first job for a crime boss, Harry Waters, played by Ralph Fiennes. He also explains that Ken, an older gangster played by Brendan Gleeson will be accompanying Ray in Bruges.

Furthermore, Beech continues by describing the city of Bruges itself. I think he really hit the spot by saying that the Bruges is the fourth name on the cast list. The city does indeed play a big role in the movie and Beech could not have described it better.

Moreover, Beech includes few spoilers that are crucial for the film while describing Ray’s character.  He also talks about his own interpretation of the movie explaining that he believes that the point seems to be about belonging. Two criminals, alienated from everyone, stranded in a city full of families right before Christmas. While describing this, Beech quoted the scene from the movie that supports his argument.

The next paragraph of the review almost excuses the film’s poster, as Beech states that he has not seen In Bruges in the cinema because of its crime caper like look. However, it is evident that he has changed his opinion after seeing the movie. Nonetheless, Beech does say that the movie indeed has elements of crime caper with the segments of postmodernism.

He continues by comparing the movie to Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction, but states that the characters from In Bruges never disappear into cool. Also, the review has nothing but the words of praise for the actors, their performance and the script itself.

I absolutely loved this review. It engages the reader and does all the justice to the movie. Beech’s witty comments and self interpretations make this review even more interesting. It is obvious that he loved the movie and his enthusiasm is more than evident in this review. I think it is very important that he mentioned actors’ performance, which was nothing but brilliant, and gave them the praise they deserved. In my opinion, Beech wrote an amazing review that would convince anyone to watch this movie, and those who have already seen it to watch it again. 

I Origins

Tyekvicska Virág

Review of Robbie Collins’ review of 'I Origins'

The topic of the review is Mike Cahill’s second film and is written by the British Robbie Collin, the Daily Telegraph's professional film critic. It is from 2014, the same year of the debut, London. Collins’ main idea is vague, but it is clear that he likes to compare Cahill’s work to his first film and others as we are talking about a relatively young director and cast. This leads to no thesis but a pervasive critical approach that weaves around the whole review. Collins considers the film with the eye of an experienced professional, and what he sees is a young, maybe greenhorn staff behind it. It is not negative at all –he also states that this is all a compliment.

The main topics are describing the plot sometimes with a little bit of irony, sometimes in spiritual depths and the scientific idea that eyes are in connection with human soul and how it is represented in film history. Collins did a great job when researching about this metaphor as he can draw a great parallel. The eye-soul connection is also present in such legends as Psycho, Clockwork Orange or the westerns of Sergio Leone but in I Origins, as he accurately explains, it appears in a "strange and lyrical new trail". In the end, there is an unsupported argument that is a clear compliment to Cahill. Collins states that it is really rare and unique that such a young director is able to deal with spirituality without any irony or dogmatism. Although he gives no examples or reasons why, we all believe him after watching the movie.

The whole review provides us with the tone of frivolity - thus informality - but strangely in a rather positive way. As a father considers his son, as an experienced film critic sees a talented new generation director (he uses the word 'hipster') with "bright-eyed earnestness normally seen only in spaniels and MA students". Specific evidence is usually missing from the review, so it can only be understood after watching the movie.

All in all, Collins’ work is often vague, the paragraphing does not follow any logical order, the description of the plot is interrupted by the comparison with other films, for example. It does not fulfill the academic criteria, its structure is rather based on impressions. Even though, this makes it easily and quite pleasantly consumable, an appropriate review for a new generation movie.

The review of "Cake" by Peter Travers

In his review, professional film critic Peter Travers talks about Jennifer Aniston’s performance in the movie “Cake.” In the article published in the Rolling Stone on January 21^st, 2015, Travers says that Jennifer Aniston is more than just a pretty girl in a sitcom and argues that it was Aniston herself that made “Cake” the movie it is.

Travers claims that Aniston grasped the essence of her character, Claire Simmons, a divorced painkiller addict, and went beyond focusing only on the symptoms of her condition. According to Travers, the actress managed to portray Claire’s “bruised emotion” and wit. To prove that, he refers to two scenes: in the first one, Claire is in a support group where members talk about a young mother who committed suicide, to which Claire responds by saying that she was brave to do it. In another scene, Claire is in serious pain and asks her housekeeper to go to Mexico with her to get illegal drugs.

The article is written in a kind of formal style with Travers throwing in expressions such as “having the balls” here and there. However, it doesn’t lose its seriousness, and knowing that the addressed readers are the readers of Rolling Stone, the language is appropriate.

Travers starts his review by referring back to Aniston’s past in sitcoms and other parts she had in movies similar to Cake that were not recognized by critics. In the second paragraph, he provides background information on the movie and its director. The next three sections are synopsis, and the last paragraph evaluates Jennifer’s acting, saying that she did a great job playing the character of Claire Simmons.

The points that Travers makes all refer back to the main idea that Jennifer Aniston is more than just her usual girl-next-door role. His style of writing and structure of logic are appropriate, no irrelevant things are mentioned.

What I liked about this review is that the critic took one aspect that makes this movie worth watching, Aniston’s acting that is, and pursued the reader of her acting skills by taking scenes from the movie that show the character’s innermost emotions, thereby proving that Aniston is in fact a great actress.

Glenn Kenny’s review of

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty on RogerEbert.com

Some films are meant to be likeable, lighthearted and entertaining, yet there’s always one in the crowd that resonates to the complete opposite of the intent. Some can express their disdain for a given work of art soundly and within the boundaries of reason. So did senior reviewer Glenn Kenny on renowned film critic, Roger Ebert’s blog in his brief and bitter evaluation of Ben Stiller’s latest directorial effort “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty”.

Kenny has been a professional review writer for more than twenty years. He worked for Premiere magazine and MSN films for a brief period.

His arguments reflect more upon personal preference and taste, and less upon technical standpoints of view. His language is diplomatic, but personal.

The thing he initially condemns is the lighthearted style, to quote directly: “winsome and always self-help-book-like”.  The main reason being the loose adaptation of James Thurber’s original story. Many co-critics have frowned upon Stiller’s maneuver of turning the stereotypical lower case “loser” of Mitty into a “Winner”.

So follows a striking personal point arguing that this work is nothing more, but another parade of Stiller’s so called privileges. Enumeration follows. Looking back to “Tropic Thunder” Kenny argues this being a privilege of symbolically “biting the Hollywood hand that fed him and telling the audience that it was getting what it deserved”. In this case this film would be a flex of his ability of simply taking out a film crew to Iceland.

Kenny states that he is not entirely sure if his negative reaction comes from impressions gathered of Stiller’s previous collaboration with Wes Anderson. He draws a parallel between particular elements (ie. opening and closing credits,) of  the discussed film and the general visual style of Anderson, being full with movement. He is very preoccupied with the visual aspects and the overall credibility of the film. This piece of writing is a constant questioning, interrogation and analysis of the characters, situations and scenes, with a dark dismissal from the author’s side. Peculiar that such an ethereal work can trigger such a dark reception.

Cseri Donatella - Water for Elephants Review

Water for Elephants

“Circuses showcase human beings at their silliest and most sublime.” These are one of the closing ideas of Elizabeth Judd’s review on a New York Times bestseller book form the last decade, Water for Elephants by Sara Gruen. The New York Times online published this review in June, 2006, a couple of months after the book’s publishing. Its author has written several book reviews and her works appeared in the Atlantic Monthly, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Salon and other publications.

Rudd’s piece of writing starts out with a personal experience that is strongly connected to the subject of the book she has written about: a 1932 horror film that presents “dwarfs, fat ladies and other sideshow improbabilities” shares this characteristic with Water for Elephants that depicts the magnificence of the Depression-era circus. Apart from the mysterious life of circuses, Rudd mainly points out the sentimentality of the story that is well blended with Gruen’s courageous subject choice.

Using extravagant words, the author delineates the story and by the end of the third paragraph she draws the conclusion that the central line in it is how Jacob coaxes Rosie – the elephant being the main attraction of Benzini Brothers Most Spectacular Show on Earth – to perform on stage. Besides revealing the main force of the story, Rudd draws our attention to three other significant points. On the one hand, the drama in fiction is highlighted and explained by examples from the book, in which there are two murders, an animal stampede and omnipresent tension. On the other hand, according to her, the whole circus by its “frankly mercantile morality” symbolizes the agility of capitalism. Also, August, the menagerie director, embodies the attitude of that time which is struggling for making money anyhow. The third main topic mentioned is the love triangle between the protagonist, August and his beautiful wife, Marlena. The tension as an implication of this issue is existent throughout the story.

Rudd is completely amused by Gruen’s book as she writes about it in an enthusiastic way: she does not seem to run out of ideas. Throughout the sentences we come across carefully selected, “glitzy” phrases that are likely to be unable to express the grandeur and magnificence of the composition and course of surprising events of Water for Elephants. She implies her thoughts through a clear structure in her writing, which means that one topic is backed by an instance from the story in one paragraph. From the beginning Rudd describes the three topics mentioned above and finally draws a conclusion which says that “with a showman’s timing, she [Gruen] saves a terrific revelation for the final pages, transforming a glimpse of Americana into an enchanting escapist fairy tale”.

As the book itself, the review of the Water for Elephants is brilliantly composed: several (story) lines are put next to each other forming parallels. As for the review, it starts out from one point which continuously opens out and at the end the main idea emerges, which is an efficient structure. Although, there is one paragraph that breaks the coherence of the text, as it does not connect to any main ideas presented in the review. However, it is hard to stop reading Rudd’s sentences thanks to the rich use of sparkling words.