This entry will be related to a movie critic of 12 Years a Slave , from Paul MacInnes to the website "The Guardian", and ‘Meatballs 2’ is colorful, if reheated by Tom Russo to The Boston Globe website. I know that people could think that if you haven't watched a movie, you can't talk about it. So for the records, I'm not going to write about if the movie was good, and if it wasn't because I haven't watch it. Here my focus will be on how the writers focus on the different movie elements like plot, acting, effects, and other elements of movies. In effect i'll start reviewing the first one, 12 Years a Slave, because it was the one I liked. Then I'll follow the line with the one not so good, in my opinion, from the movie of Meatballs 2. 

When I started reading at the 12 Years a Slave's review I was just thinking that it was just a summary. But when I kept reading on it, It realized that the writer was just giving an introduction of what is the movie about. I think that it could help you to understand what is he going to write about. Because, people like me that haven't watch the movie could understand it without watching it, to take an idea. After the synopsis, he describes the both sides of the story. The one of the slave, and the "owner" of the slave. From the first one he describes good qualities at the beginning, and the power of revolution. Also, it describes how the suffering that he got after being drugged, kidnapped and taken from his equal life. On the other side, when he described the owner, he showed two different sides of affection. A good one, and a bad one. That shows how he focused on the element of acting in this movie. That point makes you know better the character, if you haven't watched it or agree/disagree if you watched it already. But, what I liked most is that he took the time to compare with another slave's movie: Django Unchained. I haven't watch it either, but what he is used to be compared with the effects of the movie like blood, how horror it was, and but not limited to the veneer of the bad guys. He finally describes how the movie, just by his actions can describe you a less 200 year of history without long speeches and boring speaks.

After being proud of what I read, now I have to review the not so good one: "Meatballs 2, is colorful, if reheated". I'm not going to judge you, if you do it because I had to read it more than two times to understand it. I want to remember you, that I haven't watched any of these movies, so that was the reason that It was so hard to understand. This is going to be my first critic to this article. When you write about something you have to be very explainful because there's always someone that didn't watch the movie. So my invitation to the author of this article is very clear. When he tried to explain the plot, i got lost reading at it. He lost me, so that was why I had to read it more than 2 times. Finally if it was in the review that I'd read I won't watch the movie, because I didn't find it interesting, in my opinion. 

I've learned that is very important when it's time to review a movie, or a novel, etc. The reviewer has to focus on every single detail to make it clear, and lovable. A review is more than just say that you like, or you don't, it's a critical thinking of what the movie is about, how was the acting, and the plot, and last but not least the quality of the film. 

10/24/2013 05:38:29

I agree with you, on the review of Cloudy with a chance of meatballs. I did not like it either because I found it that it was just a summary, and was not an objective one. On the other hand I read it too and found it a better one.


Leave a Reply.