Strengths: - The reviwer clearly established the criteria for a horror movie (scary, suspenseful, unpredictable)and where the movie achieved/failed it throughout the piece - the review gave sufficient background about movie (director, actors, origins as novel) - the reviewer has a clear stance on the topic and defends it throughout the piece; succinctly pinpoints the movie's flaw (cliche)
Weakness: - the review contained a little too much summarizing with details that weren't of service to the purpose of the review
I liked how there was a lot of detail about the movie itself, and the author gives good reasons why she doesn't like the movie, sticks with it. She also gives descriptions of other scary movies and compares it to the movie IT. Sometimes she got a little random with what details she was providing.
I have mixed reviews about this review. First of all, there were some errors about what the author said about the movie. If anyone has watched the movie, they will know that this is NOT the first time that IT has come around like the author says. IT has come around before, but no one has done anything about IT. She says that people in the town believes Georgie has gone missing. Georgie HAS gone missing. He's been missing for a long time by the time Bill starts to investigate.
The author also says that she is really bored during the movie, but she doesn't give any evidence to back it up except she thought it was a clown movie like any other. I thought this was supposed to be a review, not a diatribe.
There were some unnecessary parts in the review that were obviously just there to get the word count up. For example, she extensively describes the scene in the movie where Bill (Jaeden Lieberher) and Georgie are making the boat. She could've just said that Bill makes a boat for Georgie that Georgie then puts in a water gutter outside. Maybe I'm just saying this because I saw the movie, and I know how insignificant this scene is except for one part: Georgie sees two reflective objects in the basement that look like eyes because they're so close together. If you didn't know anything about the movie, you would totally think that IT would pop out right then and there, but this scene only foreshadows the actual attack. If you think I ruined the basement scene at the beginning for you, then you surely mustve been disappointed when you read about Georgie being attacked. This wasn't the most significant scene, but it still would've been nice to not know about the attack if you hadn't seen anything about the movie yet. The trailers don't foreshadow any happy future for Georgie, but it doesn't spoil this scene like the review does.
Now here is what I thought what was good about the review. I give credit to the author that the review does not completly criticize everyone associated with the movie. The author points out that the actors were good, which I agree with, and the writers did a good job making the book into a movie (way better than the writers of the first IT in 1990). At the beginning of the review, the author could've revealed a lot more about the plot than they did, which I give the author credit for. Sometimes the author did repeat herself, which made me as bored as she was when she watched IT.
Overall, the review wasn't as good as I thought it was going to be. I tried to be as unbiased as I could because I have seen IT, and I thought it was a very well done movie. I used evidence to back up what I said about it.
Strengths:
ReplyDelete- The reviwer clearly established the criteria for a horror movie (scary, suspenseful, unpredictable)and where the movie achieved/failed it throughout the piece
- the review gave sufficient background about movie (director, actors, origins as novel)
- the reviewer has a clear stance on the topic and defends it throughout the piece; succinctly pinpoints the movie's flaw (cliche)
Weakness:
- the review contained a little too much summarizing with details that weren't of service to the purpose of the review
I liked how there was a lot of detail about the movie itself, and the author gives good reasons why she doesn't like the movie, sticks with it.
ReplyDeleteShe also gives descriptions of other scary movies and compares it to the movie IT.
Sometimes she got a little random with what details she was providing.
I have mixed reviews about this review. First of all, there were some errors about what the author said about the movie. If anyone has watched the movie, they will know that this is NOT the first time that IT has come around like the author says. IT has come around before, but no one has done anything about IT. She says that people in the town believes Georgie has gone missing. Georgie HAS gone missing. He's been missing for a long time by the time Bill starts to investigate.
ReplyDeleteThe author also says that she is really bored during the movie, but she doesn't give any evidence to back it up except she thought it was a clown movie like any other. I thought this was supposed to be a review, not a diatribe.
There were some unnecessary parts in the review that were obviously just there to get the word count up. For example, she extensively describes the scene in the movie where Bill (Jaeden Lieberher) and Georgie are making the boat. She could've just said that Bill makes a boat for Georgie that Georgie then puts in a water gutter outside. Maybe I'm just saying this because I saw the movie, and I know how insignificant this scene is except for one part: Georgie sees two reflective objects in the basement that look like eyes because they're so close together. If you didn't know anything about the movie, you would totally think that IT would pop out right then and there, but this scene only foreshadows the actual attack.
If you think I ruined the basement scene at the beginning for you, then you surely mustve been disappointed when you read about Georgie being attacked. This wasn't the most significant scene, but it still would've been nice to not know about the attack if you hadn't seen anything about the movie yet. The trailers don't foreshadow any happy future for Georgie, but it doesn't spoil this scene like the review does.
Now here is what I thought what was good about the review. I give credit to the author that the review does not completly criticize everyone associated with the movie. The author points out that the actors were good, which I agree with, and the writers did a good job making the book into a movie (way better than the writers of the first IT in 1990). At the beginning of the review, the author could've revealed a lot more about the plot than they did, which I give the author credit for. Sometimes the author did repeat herself, which made me as bored as she was when she watched IT.
Overall, the review wasn't as good as I thought it was going to be. I tried to be as unbiased as I could because I have seen IT, and I thought it was a very well done movie. I used evidence to back up what I said about it.