I read two reviews, one positive and one negative, for the new film, The Dark Night Rises. The negative review was rather short and organized into one large paragraph. The author spent about half of it stating that he felt after the shooting during the premier of the film, the content of the movie was forever ruined or tainted. He then complains that the movie is too long and has too much going on that people will only understand if they were well familiar with the first two movies in the trilogy. He used a negative adjective before just about everything he said and very much was talking down the movie. The main focus of the review at first was the theater shooting, and then went to describe the movie and where the actors all fit in using negative adjectives to show his distaste for the film. Having seen the movie myself and thinking it was very well done, the only thing I really agreed with from this review was that the villain of the film, Bane, "isn't a match for Heath Ledger’s Joker" as the author put it. I agree with this because I felt after watching the movie that Bane did not have the same effect as the Joker did, the latter being such an unforgettable character. Bane just felt like a more stereotypical villain, where as Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker was unlike anything I have ever seen in a film. It was an unbeatable performance.
The positive review I read was more well organized. Split into many more short paragraphs, the critic began by discussing the previous film, then began explaining some of the features of the new one. He mentions all the things that the movie has in it and does well in order to support his point, at first listing them out one after the other in a way that makes you feel like the film is just jam packed with excitement. He particularly compliments the plot, as well as the acting, and the score. I agreed with the critic when he said "As you might expect from the creator of Inception and Memento, there are surprises both in the story and in the storytelling" referring to director Christopher Nolan's approach to making the film. I agree with this because Nolan's style of trying to blow your mind is apparent in the film, with epic scenes and plot twists around every corner.
If I had never seen the film, I would certainly think the positive review was more convincing. Reading the negative review, I actually rolled my eyes several times, and not just because I disagreed with what the critic was saying. Half of the review didn't actually focus on the events of the movie, rather the shooting that took place during the premier which has nothing to do with the film itself, and when the critic made the absolutely idiotic complaint that you can't follow the movie if you haven't seen the first two. Of course you can't! The positive review was much more organized and actually pointed out very specific things from the movie as well as commenting on the general feel.
If I were writing a one page review I would be sure to include my opinions about several things. I would specifically comment on the performance of the main actors. I would then talk about the plot, and whether or not it seemed believable and comment on things I liked or disliked about it. I would talk about the score if I felt it added or took away from the movie in some way. I would probably leave out too much about previous movies though as they don't pertain to the movie I am reviewing. The events of those movies might have effected the events of the movie I would be reviewing, but they still are not part of the movie being reviewed, and therefore should not take focus at really any point.
