In the review made by Betsy
Sharkey of the Los Angeles Times she makes a very long movie that could easily
be over explained into a one page or so review of how she saw the movie while
voicing opinions also showing the facts. The authors tone seems sarcastic at
times but it also seemed serious on how she felt the movie was in the way the
movie was set up. The author also seems to use some vocabulary that would be
considered dicey to use in an article the public can read, although the people
who are going to be watching the movie are not younger children. She also goes
in to very little amounts of detail for the characters that are in the movie.
"Scorsese adopts the former stockbroker's
irreverent tone, then amps it up so that the film fairly crackles with
electricity from beginning to end. A very fast three hours, "Wolf" is
a fascinating, revolting, outlandish, uproarious, exhilarating and exhausting
master work on immorality."
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/12/24/4565279/scorseses-wolf-howls-at-excess.html#.VMp-A_m-2Sp
The review of The Wolf of Wall
Street by Lawrence Toppman it starts off with the author saying the movie is
that "Martin Scorsese can make a three-hour movie
without one fresh perspective or compelling character from end to end. The
proof, for three agonizing hours, can be found in “The Wolf of Wall Street.”
The author of the pretty much doesn't say anything except pointing out things
that he thinks are wrong with the movie and doesn't say much else about it. The
tone the author uses is pretty much an angry tone for just about the whole
article. He doesn't go in to detail about many if any characters at all.
I
would agree with the first quote from the LA Times. I agree with this because
the movie moves very fast and escalates quickly. If someone were to see the
movie for the first time they would most likely think the same thing that I was
thinking. When I first saw the movie I thought it was also fast paced and
exciting.
The
review that would be more convincing would be the one from the LA Times. The
review went more in depth rather than the way that the Charlotte Observer
described it very briefly and angrily. One thing that really
persuades me to go see movies is the actors. The reviews aren't really my
concern because I'll go see the movies I want to anyway.
Some
of the things I would write about would be the actors. Actors that are
associated with movies are huge for many different reasons. I would also write
about the plot of the story like what the main point the movie is trying to get
across. Other important things are the writing and directing staff. Directors
are huge when it comes to peoples decisions on whether or not to go see a
movie.
Nice start. Just watch your grammar and make sure you're being thorough in your analysis. Good job though.
ReplyDelete