American Psycho
1. (+) This first review was incredibly candid; though it was clear, through his rating, that the critic found himself more pleased with the film than dissatisfied, no obvious slant or personal opinion made its way into the evaluation. The critique was composed as if it were the film itself slapped onto a piece of paper, taking the reader through each high and low point of the movie in chronological order. I wouldn't say there was a very concrete argument in this review, at least not relating directly to the film itself. American Psycho is an adaptation of Bret Easton Ellis' book, which the critic claims to have been modified — for the better — to screen; Ellis' style was widely considered redundant and vulgar ("one of the most-loathed and least-read novels..."), so the ability of Harron to soften some of the edges while still maintaining that sense of satire made the movie appealing to the masses. The analysis of two interpretations deriving from a similar plot line was reinforced toward the end of the review as "mercifully substituting a propulsive structure and relatively restrained images." There was a consistent, formal tone held throughout the critique, as well as a very extensive vocabulary. While the ideas and sentences flowed together nicely, I found the intricacy of the wording a bit distracting, and i'm not sure why it was necessary. I'm assuming it was just the way this particular critic writes, and less a reflection of the film in some way. In terms of focus, the review was overwhelmingly centered around characters, specifically Patrick Bateman — his actions, his way of thinking, his relationships with others.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/entertainment/movies/reviews/americanpsychohowe.htm
1. (-) I found the structure of this review to be straightforward, but a bit more thought-provoking. Both the introduction and conclusion reference situations or narratives outside of the film itself, done in a way to show the connection between techniques and story lines of the differing pieces. Similar to the other review, the bulk of it was simply recapping the movie's plot. The critic's position really only became evident toward the last couple of paragraphs, where he subtly implied that the idea of "violence as an extended metaphor" had run its course by the time Harron picked it up. This observation gained credibility as the reviewer mentioned an almost identical plot having been carried out in the publishing of "A Clockwork Orange" nearly forty years before American Psycho, and its reoccurrence on film in 1971. The reviewer's tone was bold — more so as he was wrapping up his thoughts and making his connections — and his vocabulary was fairly plain (which I preferred, anyway). The reference to "A Clockwork Orange" was definitely the foundation of his critique, as he focused mostly around the plot line throughout the entirety of the evaluation.
2. (+)/(-) In the positive review, I found myself agreeing with an idea found right near the end of the piece: "If [Patrick Bateman] is such a zero, what exactly is being satirized? Does he serve to amplify an amoral era's more callous aspects, or does the film, like the book before it, merely inventory them?" Watching the film, I had this question myself; the purpose seemed to be centered around bringing attention to a materialistic, authoritarian lifestyle, and the downfall of having a seemingly endless supply of power and money. Yet, if that is the purpose of the film, why have the character of Patrick Bateman— an easily mistakable man so unimportant that he can't even snag dinner reservations at Dorsia?
The negative review also brought a valid statement to the table: "There's nothing beyond the bloodshed and gallows humor, just intellectually secondhand implications about materialism, conformity and misogyny." While I don't agree with this wholeheartedly, I do understand where the critic is coming from. In order for a film to be financially successful, it must appeal to the majority of those watching it. Chances are, 90% of those viewers will only see it once or twice. A movie should never have a plot that can simply be seen, perceived, and completely understood the first time around, but it also cannot base its message around an expectation that each viewer will take the time to process all possible expositions (because most of them won't see a point in putting their time toward uncovering a movie's complexities). In the case of American Psycho, if one half-heartedly skims through it, it will seem shallow and easy to digest, which I think is where this critic formed his opinion.
3. I would be more convinced by the negative review. While the positive review was constructed very well, there was nothing that the average reader would be drawn in by, because the critic didn't allow his own appreciation of the movie to shine through; the analysis was dry, unenthusiastic, and too focused on aspects of the film that the reader could easily Google. The negative review provided a blatantly unimpressed take on the themes and message of the film in a way that was more relatable to someone of any age. There were well constructed ideas and opinions intertwined with humorous interpretations of certain aspects of the movie. I think a review that provides knowledge on the topic and well-formed opinions on that knowledge is the baseline of a critique. What pushes it to the top is the ability for a critic to connect with the person reading it, whether it be through humor or modern day anecdotes. These critics have to remember they aren't writing for other top critics, they are writing for an everyday person who may have no knowledge on what to expect in a film.
4. I'm still not completely sure on whether a review is supposed to be a teaser in order to entice or dissuade someone from seeing a movie, or if it is just supposed to be a sharing of my own personal experience. I'm going to assume that it's the latter. I think it is essential to provide the basic information surrounding the movie, though I really would only allow my reader a framework of what will have occurred in the film. Providing the reader with every minute detail of a scene or character seems to be a common theme among critics, and while i'm sure there is good reason for that, I wouldn't find myself steering toward doing so. With a basic structure established, it would be most important to prepare the reader for the intricacy (or simplicity) of the film — whether it is something one can just enjoy with friends, or something only worth watching if one is feeling particularly analytical. Allowing the reader an opportunity to let their minds wander with possible meanings and interpretations of scenes and characters and messages seems important, while also providing my own opinion of what the film was actually trying to say in case someone finds themselves completely lost.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/entertainment/movies/reviews/americanpsychohowe.htm
1. (-) I found the structure of this review to be straightforward, but a bit more thought-provoking. Both the introduction and conclusion reference situations or narratives outside of the film itself, done in a way to show the connection between techniques and story lines of the differing pieces. Similar to the other review, the bulk of it was simply recapping the movie's plot. The critic's position really only became evident toward the last couple of paragraphs, where he subtly implied that the idea of "violence as an extended metaphor" had run its course by the time Harron picked it up. This observation gained credibility as the reviewer mentioned an almost identical plot having been carried out in the publishing of "A Clockwork Orange" nearly forty years before American Psycho, and its reoccurrence on film in 1971. The reviewer's tone was bold — more so as he was wrapping up his thoughts and making his connections — and his vocabulary was fairly plain (which I preferred, anyway). The reference to "A Clockwork Orange" was definitely the foundation of his critique, as he focused mostly around the plot line throughout the entirety of the evaluation.
2. (+)/(-) In the positive review, I found myself agreeing with an idea found right near the end of the piece: "If [Patrick Bateman] is such a zero, what exactly is being satirized? Does he serve to amplify an amoral era's more callous aspects, or does the film, like the book before it, merely inventory them?" Watching the film, I had this question myself; the purpose seemed to be centered around bringing attention to a materialistic, authoritarian lifestyle, and the downfall of having a seemingly endless supply of power and money. Yet, if that is the purpose of the film, why have the character of Patrick Bateman— an easily mistakable man so unimportant that he can't even snag dinner reservations at Dorsia?
The negative review also brought a valid statement to the table: "There's nothing beyond the bloodshed and gallows humor, just intellectually secondhand implications about materialism, conformity and misogyny." While I don't agree with this wholeheartedly, I do understand where the critic is coming from. In order for a film to be financially successful, it must appeal to the majority of those watching it. Chances are, 90% of those viewers will only see it once or twice. A movie should never have a plot that can simply be seen, perceived, and completely understood the first time around, but it also cannot base its message around an expectation that each viewer will take the time to process all possible expositions (because most of them won't see a point in putting their time toward uncovering a movie's complexities). In the case of American Psycho, if one half-heartedly skims through it, it will seem shallow and easy to digest, which I think is where this critic formed his opinion.
3. I would be more convinced by the negative review. While the positive review was constructed very well, there was nothing that the average reader would be drawn in by, because the critic didn't allow his own appreciation of the movie to shine through; the analysis was dry, unenthusiastic, and too focused on aspects of the film that the reader could easily Google. The negative review provided a blatantly unimpressed take on the themes and message of the film in a way that was more relatable to someone of any age. There were well constructed ideas and opinions intertwined with humorous interpretations of certain aspects of the movie. I think a review that provides knowledge on the topic and well-formed opinions on that knowledge is the baseline of a critique. What pushes it to the top is the ability for a critic to connect with the person reading it, whether it be through humor or modern day anecdotes. These critics have to remember they aren't writing for other top critics, they are writing for an everyday person who may have no knowledge on what to expect in a film.
4. I'm still not completely sure on whether a review is supposed to be a teaser in order to entice or dissuade someone from seeing a movie, or if it is just supposed to be a sharing of my own personal experience. I'm going to assume that it's the latter. I think it is essential to provide the basic information surrounding the movie, though I really would only allow my reader a framework of what will have occurred in the film. Providing the reader with every minute detail of a scene or character seems to be a common theme among critics, and while i'm sure there is good reason for that, I wouldn't find myself steering toward doing so. With a basic structure established, it would be most important to prepare the reader for the intricacy (or simplicity) of the film — whether it is something one can just enjoy with friends, or something only worth watching if one is feeling particularly analytical. Allowing the reader an opportunity to let their minds wander with possible meanings and interpretations of scenes and characters and messages seems important, while also providing my own opinion of what the film was actually trying to say in case someone finds themselves completely lost.
