Review of the Reviews

Rax Reed, of The Observer, reviewed the movie Birdman and through the review it is clear that he did not only dislike the movie, but he is annoyed by the success it has had so far.  First, he gives the background on the movie and its actors, then he goes on and lazily explains the plot that is seen in the movie.  While he is giving the plot he is picking out the things he disliked about the movie and comes to the conclusion that the movie stupid.  The thesis of his review is that this play is pointless and is overrated, but the process he uses is wrong.  Through the the review you can feel the tone of his explanations is that "I do not relate or even understand the play and therefore it is stupid".  You get this feeling because he writes off key points of the movie that even if you do not understand them, you understand their importance to the film.  For example, when Michael Keaton uses his "powers" at the end of the movie, he explains it as his character giving up and levitating away and makes no connection to the rest of the movie.  I would be alright with reading a negative review, but not one that bashes a movie simply because he does not understand the movie. 

I do not disagree with the review entirely though,  I did agree that Michael Keaton was the star of the movie and completely stole the show with such a unique performance.  Rax Reed finds a way to applaud Keaton while putting down the movie by saying, "he’s still the best (i.e., only) reason to suffer through a miserable load of deranged, deluded crap".  I agree that Keaton is the best part of the movie because without his touch on the role the movie would be just be another movie about an artist needing identity.  With Keaton though, I felt his vulnerability and his delusion that showed me that not only did he need to find himself but why and how he needed to.  I think universally all movie watchers would enjoy to see the acting in the movie.

If I  were to read this review it would not be convincing at all.  The review does not give credible critiques and as I said earlier, the tone of the review is that he dislikes the the movie because he doesn't understand the movie.  As a movie watcher this really frustrates me and so when I see this in a critique I almost always disregard the review.  I think that what this review fails to do to win over readers is make clear and credible points about why we should not see this movie.  It also does not allow the reader to read the points and make their own assumptions on the movie.  I believe a review is most persuasive when it gives the reader its points then allows them to come to their conclusion. 

In contrast the other review I read by Jocelyn Noveck was very brief and praised the movie and its actors for the performances it gave.  This review starts by giving praise to the dirrector for the movie he createed and then he explains the plot, but instead picking and choosing the certain parts he did not like, she gave the essential details that will be an important part of you choosing to see the movie.  The tone is satisfied yet neutral and altough she is praising the movie throughout, we are given credible reasons beforehand to validate it.  The thesis of the review is that the movie seen is very good and is worth seeing.  It makes this arguement by making points that relate to the important parts of the movie, such as its plot, the acting, and the directing. 

There was one quote that I really agreed with in the review and it was ,“Birdman,” more than most, seems a film that deserves a second viewing, not only to admire the work of Keaton and his co-stars, but to delve into its many layers".  I think this is something that most who enjoyed the movie will say.  I agree with this because not only is the acting so remarkable that it does deserve our time to appreciate what they created, but the movie hits on so many emotions and themes in so many different and unique ways, it is impossible to think that you picked up on it all the first time.  I think also that you can enjoy the movie more the second time because you know what to expect the second time around. 

I find this review to be much more convincing in its arguement.  I think this because this article hits the important points I find a review should have in order to be convincing.  For example, the writer clearly states that she enjoyed the movie and gives reasons to why she did.  She also does this in a neutral writing voice that comes off as informative and not cynical or preachy.   Also, the writer gave the important plot points to the reader without criticizing it.  The other important thing it does is it lets the reader decide its position on wanting to see the movie or not.  From this we can see the key to winning over the reader is the clarity of the review in informing the reader of the movie and the writers opinion on it. 

If I were writing a film review of the film, there would be important things to include and leave out.  To include, I think it would be important to telling the reader that this movie is a bit odd and is not a tradtional movie experience.  Also that the movie is a big picture that makes it hard to take it all in one viewing.  I think it would also be very important to include the acting perfomances that the actors gave, because if the plot is not something that interests them maybe watching the acting would.  I would mention the plot without giving away too much about my own  personal interpretation of the movie and without giving away what makes the movie weird specifically.