As we have discussed in class, even a film that is generally deemed "good" can have bad reviews. Titanic, one of the highest grossing films in the history of cinema and winner of eleven Academy Awards, received both good and bad reviews when it was first released in 1997. Since you will be working with a partner and writing either for OR against your chosen film, read the two following film reviews of Titanic and consider how the two critics approached the film:
Titanic review from The New York Times
Titanic review from the San Francisco Chronicle
In a paragraph, write a response in the comments section of this post addressing the following things:
* How does each reviewer give their opinion of the film? Do they blatantly state, "I hated/loved this film" or are they in the business of showing, not telling? How do they demonstrate this opinion?
* What technical aspects of the film does each reviewer discuss? (cinematography, music, acting, special effects, etc.)
* Think of the film review you will be writing. Do these reviews give you any ideas on how to approach your first draft?
READING RESPONSE DUE: SUNDAY, APRIL 15
The reviewer that stated Titanic to be a pitiful movie reviewed the music the scenes and what the movie was about. The author stated that so much happened before the iceberg was even introduced. The love story of Jack and Rose came first then the news of the iceberg sinking Titanic followed. The opinion of both authors was indirectly stated by how they reviewed the movie. They did not have to say that they hated the movie or loved it because it was quite clear what they thought in their own reviews.
ReplyDeleteThe author that loved the movie talked about how great Titanic was. The legendary disaster. The author applauds the director - "Cameron succeeds magically in linking his film's young lovers." The author also states - "Beyond its romance, "Titanic" offers an indelibly wrenching story of blind arrogance and its terrible consequences." This author reviews the scenes and the actors.
These reviews do give ideas on what to look for in the movie to review.
Engl-6
Maritza Mesa Z
Each reviewer gives their opinion in different way. one of them is against the movie and say that the movie is a waist and on the opposite side the other review states that it was a horrific event that should be remembered. They do not state their opinion they show it through their description against the movie, and by their word choice. The one that was for the movie stated all the scenery that was happening and the special effects. The other talks about how their love was blind ignorance and also about the image like for example, the necklace that was shown in the movie. Yes these film reviews gave me a better understanding of how i should set the format for my paper.
ReplyDeleteThe review published in the New York Times did not state directly that he loved Cameron's work but showed and gave evidence of why he thought the movie was so good. I did not like the reviewer from the San Francisco Chronicle because he let the reader know what he did not like but did not really say why or gave evidence. It seemed like he only dislked one thing about the whole movie, okay why? His opinion was very vague. I found the first review to be very complete, not only becauseI love the movie, but also because the writer seemed to take his time to explain every single one of the things he liked and prove it. These reviews really help a lot because I was able to see the difference between a complete review and a very vague one. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteBoth New York times and San Francisco film reviews did not simply express rather they like it or not. In contrast, they provide vivid details of the film and gave evidence on how the film was good or bad. The SF film review is kind of emotional and personal on the film while the NY one provide vivid details and description on actor, director, dialogue and so on for the film, which makes it more persuasive. I now have more ideas on how to start my first draft.
ReplyDeleteBrian Lo
Mick Lasalle chooses to show his stance on James Cameron's film by stating his opinions on the way Cameron chose to portray the horrific event of Titanic's sinking. Mick Lasalle says that he likes the imagery but as soon as "people start talking, we've returned to a clumsy 1997 action movie"- that phrase basically sums up his take on the film. I like the fact that he stated pros and cons to the film as a whole. Janet Maslin does not blatantly state whether she likes it or not, either. However, she is very thorough when she reviews the film. She covers everything from imagery to acting, to the production along with other factors that make up the film. Although, I agree more with Lasalle's review, I do find Maslin's review to be much more insightful, and persuading. I would definitely use her techniques when writing a persuasive essay.
ReplyDeleteThe both publishers express their opinions over the film "Titanic." Each publisher described in detail what they liked about it and what they did not like. They did not state in a blatant sentence that they hated the film or they loved it. The publishers discussed how the romance in the film helped make it more appealing to the audience. These ideas help me with the first draft because now there is a guideline that i can follow.
ReplyDelete-Jessica Duran
Both publishers tell what they each think of the movie "Titanic" by talking a little bit about the movie and then turning it into their opinion. Neither of the publishers say the hated or loved the movie blatantly. The put some humor into it and and slowly got to the point. They used acting and special effects as there technical aspects to tell us a bit about the ship. These readings gave me some ideas that I could use for my first paper.
ReplyDeleteKrupa Patel
Both publishers express their opinions and tell show in detail what they didn't and did like about the film. Not one publisher stated whether or not they like or hated the movie. The publishers explain how the romance is what made the film.
ReplyDeleteJosiah Negroni
BRIANNA LAZCANO
ReplyDeleteIn both reviews neither of the critiques actually said that they hated or loved the film with those specific words. What they did do was a more of a show and tell. They gave us images of the movie such as specific characters, and scenes that they first described and then stated why it was good or bad.
In the New York Times review, they mainly focus on the chracters and scenes. In the San Francisco Chronicals' review, they focused on mainly on detail like the acting, special effect and the romance theme of it.
Yes these reviews have given me ideas of how to aproach my view of point better.
Each reviewer doesn't blatantly say whether the movie is good or not, but through the wording, it's pretty easy to tell how they feel about the movie. The hater could have counted as a blatantly hated/loved though. Over the technical aspects of the movie, both critics agreed that it was good for the most part, but differed in opinion over certain aspects. I didn't draw much from reading the reviews besides the type of language that is used, so when it comes paper time I'll try to be witty and fancy or so.
ReplyDeleteBoth reviews argued on the behalf of the quality of the film through examples, regarding other films like Gone with the Wind. They talked about dialogue and the replication of the events that actually occurred as being diminished by the romance between the main characters before the ice berg scene came up. The New York Times gave more argument with reasoning, both logical and credible while the San Francisco Chronicle had a feel of pathos more subscribed in the argument. The style used for both reviews gave a quick summary of the Titanic in the beginning before other things were taken into consideration.
ReplyDeleteMaria Cida