The review is focused largely on the plot and characters of the movie and acts as more of a summary of some of the plot than a true review. There isn't much consensus on if the movie was good, bad, or somewhere in between. The article starts off by declaring a controversy in the Potter fandom about the quality and legitimacy of the film and never really resolves it. The description of the plot is good, but it skips over parts of the movie that were more compelling, such as the beautifully animated 'fantastic creatures'- the namesake of the movie.
This review lacks an argument. It does a good job summarizing the film, but has very little information on the actual film being good or not. They do talk about the controversy surrounding the movie but not whether the film is entertaining or uninteresting. Because the creatures are what the movie was made around, focusing on some of the new creatures could have greatly benefited this review. They mention one creature, but only because it is important to the plot line. If they said "the movie was fascinating because viewers got a look into new creatures such as..." the author would have offered more evidence to support whether the movie was good or not.
I agree with Alma and Aidan that this reviews focuses too much on plot and too little on actual analysis or views. And I think it should be more specific and clear; instead of just saying that the movie explored the roles of magical and non-magical people, point out the roles and justify them; instead of just throwing out that "fans experienced a range of emotions", explain what kind of emotions there were, other than being surprised or curious. So I think this review is too plot-based and general, if it could have more analysis along with the plots, and be more specific to what it is referring to and justify them, it would have been stronger.
The review is focused largely on the plot and characters of the movie and acts as more of a summary of some of the plot than a true review. There isn't much consensus on if the movie was good, bad, or somewhere in between. The article starts off by declaring a controversy in the Potter fandom about the quality and legitimacy of the film and never really resolves it. The description of the plot is good, but it skips over parts of the movie that were more compelling, such as the beautifully animated 'fantastic creatures'- the namesake of the movie.
ReplyDeleteThis review lacks an argument. It does a good job summarizing the film, but has very little information on the actual film being good or not. They do talk about the controversy surrounding the movie but not whether the film is entertaining or uninteresting. Because the creatures are what the movie was made around, focusing on some of the new creatures could have greatly benefited this review. They mention one creature, but only because it is important to the plot line. If they said "the movie was fascinating because viewers got a look into new creatures such as..." the author would have offered more evidence to support whether the movie was good or not.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alma and Aidan that this reviews focuses too much on plot and too little on actual analysis or views. And I think it should be more specific and clear; instead of just saying that the movie explored the roles of magical and non-magical people, point out the roles and justify them; instead of just throwing out that "fans experienced a range of emotions", explain what kind of emotions there were, other than being surprised or curious. So I think this review is too plot-based and general, if it could have more analysis along with the plots, and be more specific to what it is referring to and justify them, it would have been stronger.
ReplyDelete