Critiquing the Reviewers

The Review that Goes 'Into the Wild'

2007-11-30T11:46:00.000-08:00

Into the Wild is a film that will change your outlook on life at least for 2 1/2 hours, as the life of Christopher McCandless is projected onto screen. It is hard to find a bad review for this film and I still have yet to find any. Of course piled in amongst the great reviews are a few critiques here and there, but the film’s heart touching story and performances seem to take hold of many and that is reflected in the film’s reviews.

It is hard to say, this time around, which review is best, the reviews of Peter Travers (Rolling Stone), Owen Gleiberman (Entertainment Weekly), and or Kenneth Turan (Los Angeles Times). They all discuss the same points of the movie, pointing out the photography that tells a story in itself, with fast paced snapshots of city buildings and the streets homeless, to the animals of the wild; a pack of wolves eating the Moose that McCandless shot. They state the film as Sean Penn’s most celebratory film of his career, and all applaud his adaptation of Jon Krakaur’s best-selling novel, Into the Wild, and creating a masterpiece screenplay.

However alike these reviews seem to be there are still a few creative touches that separate them. Kenneth Turan’s review, the longest out of the three, discusses Sean Penn’s personal relation to the film; facts that the average movie-goer may fail to notice. He points out Penn’ length 10 year wait to obtain rights to the story, and even says;

“In fact, it's not too much to say that the filmmaker (Sean Penn) sees aspects of himself in this uncompromising idealist with a backbone of steel and feels that in another life this story might well have been his own” (Los Angeles Times, Turan).

This thought is creative and well thought out, and separates Turan’s review from the other two.

Owen Gleinberman’s review is a simple one and fits in well with the magazine he works for. It is a quick read and he uses some nice creative wording, but there is nothing special about his review, no new thoughts to add or new ideas he takes from the film, it is no review to seek out and read it is merely a review to be stumbled upon.

The last reviewer, Peter Travers, who reviews consistently portray a higher quality above most, review is short and sweet. Though it does discuss mainly the contents of the film and contains what most other reviews has, Travers use of words and description of the film draws you in, and he turns and average review into a luscious and rich one.

For the readers who are wanting just a glimpse into the film and what it has to offer the review recommended is Travers’ review, though Gleinberman’s might suffice you, Travers’ review will entice you into the theatre. And as the best review and the one that offers you the most, Turan’s review, I recommend to read, whether it is before or after you watch the film.

Lars and the Real Girl; The Reviews:

2007-11-04T22:28:00.000-08:00

Lars and the Real Girl is a film whose core stays with you after you leave the theatre. What you see and what you think seem to be effected, as if you are trying to look at the world through Lars’ eyes. This connection created to the film makes reading other’s reviews even more interesting; seeing what they think and what followed them out of the theatre. Alissa Simon’s, John DeFore’s, and Manohla Dargis’s reviews all seem to move in steps; each holding the piece that the other review is missing.

At the beginning of Simon’s review in Variety Magazine, her adjective filled summary of the film is dead on. She brings in a one-sentence note about how the writer of the film, Nancy Oliver, also was a writer for the show “Six Feet Under”. Yes the first two paragraphs of Simon’s review are interesting to read because she writes about something new; history and her own interpretation of the film. However, after the second paragraph, Simon’s seemingly good review turns into a detailed summary of the film itself. For those who have already seen Lars and the Real Girl it is understandable to get a bit bored as it is like reading the outline for the screenplay. And for those who have yet to see it, no worries here, you shall have no surprises when going to see the film if you keep on reading Simon’s review.

DeFore’s review (The Hollywood Reporter), however, seems to be the second draft of Simon’s review. Sweet and short with just the right amount of summary, it is in the descriptive manner that DeFore gives the film a backbone, describing the character development of Lars (Ryan Gossling) and Gus (Paul Schneider), and a scene where Bianca (the plastic sex-doll) sits in a room reading to children. His review gets you almost as excited as when the preview pops up on your television screen.

Serving as the longest out of the three, Dargis’ review (The New York Times) contains all the elements a review of its length should have; background, importance, and a brief summary. Dargis writes about the town in which Lars lives, he compares the film to Alexander Payne’s films, but is quick to point out their small but important differences. Though fun to read, Dargis’ review almost begins to step into the realm of a critic rather than a review—perhaps if it were a bit longer.

For the on-the-go person it is safe to say that the review for you is DeFore’s. You will get all the important details and become, right away, anxious to see the film. And for those of you who sit down in the mornings, drink your coffee, and read the paper, the review for you is Dargis.

Links:
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117934677.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/awards_festivals/fest_reviews/article_display.jsp?&rid=9804
http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/movies/12lars.html

The Assassination of Jesse James; three reviews dissected:

2007-10-17T14:00:00.000-07:00

Three different reviewers, all in love with the film, yet all very different in how they choose to show it. It is easy to enjoy reading the reviews from Peter Travers, Todd McCarthy, and Lisa Schwarzbaum whether or not you enjoyed The Assassination of Jesse James.

You know when after seeing a film with friends or family you tend ask what their favorite part was and everyone seems to have a different answer? That is what it is like reading these three different reviews. They each end up discussing specific yet different parts of the film. Travers, critic for Rolling Stone, focuses on summing the film and bits and pieces of its background, like how it was made. McCarthy’s, critic for Variety Magazine, review is the longest and most detailed out of the three. Starting off with twenty different verbs to describe the film, he then jumps into discussing every single item related to the film. From it being shot two years ago and its editing being delayed to detailed critiques of Brad Pitt and Casey Affleck’s performances. Schwarzbaum, critic for Entertainment Weekly, seems to be a mix of these two, being only medium length, a bit wordy, and containing a little too much summary. Schwarzbaum has a lot to say and tries to do so in long drawn out sentences.

"Yet the picture emerges with something very much plaguing the 21st century on its mind — a cool acceptance of lethal paranoia as the natural state brought on by the weight of too much legend building and the warp of too much unrequited fandom" (Schwarzbaum).

Schwarzbaum is no doubt a great writer, but compared to the simple yet substance filled reviews of Travers and McCarthy the average reader might tend to follow their reviews rather than hers.

It seems that for the viewer who has yet to see The Assassination of Jesse James, the review to read would be that of Travers and the after review to read is McCarthy. Because McCarthy reveals so much why read it before seeing the film?

Links:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20057689,00.html
http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117934539.html?categoryid=31&cs=1
http://www.rollingstone.com/reviews/movie/7636741/review/16494433/assassination_of_jesse_james_by_the_coward_robert_ford