by A. O. Scott
The New York Times
The movie review I read was not a very good example, the author, Scott, obviously had a hatred for the movie and therefore his review had a lot of pathos as Ms Cullen would say. It was very emotional and because of this the author seemed to just rant in no particular order. He begins with a quick comparison between Balls of Fury and Hotrod, basically saying that they are the same and really bad. Then he talks a little about some of the characters, such as Feng, and calls them bad too. He finishes up with a short description of the movie, only short because as he put it, "since it would take me longer to recount the story than it took the screenwriters." He doesn't touch on cinematic aspects at all.
I believe we must take his example as an example of what not to do. In our projects we should keep our critiques emotionless when it came to describing the aspects of film. When providing one's opinion one can use emotion but, as in this review, emotion during the aspects of film simply clouds one's judgement and doesn't allow one to fairly critique and get their point across.
My annotated link
BYE!
Andreas
No comments:
Post a Comment