Review of the Reviews

Positive review: http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/Argo-review-Gripping-crisis-in-Iran-3939878.php
Negative review: http://entertainment.time.com/2012/09/08/argo-at-toronto-an-oscar-for-ben-affleck/

1. For my movie review analysis I chose the movie Argo, directed by Ben Affleck. I chose this movie because I'm rather impartial to it, I did not find it particularly enthralling, or terrible, just average. The popular opinion of this movie is positive, so it was interesting to see both sides of it and to see if my neutral viewpoint was persuaded to either side.
           The first review, by the San Fransisco Chronicle, was positive. This review opened by introducing Affleck, and giving background information and praise for his style of directing. It then followed by going through the plot, being careful not to give away any spoilers. To end the review, it gives a short exerpt on why Affleck makes this such a good story. The review enforces the positivity by praising the movie in all aspects, and not saying anything negative. The tone is exited and almost congratulatory of Affleck for filming such a brilliant movie. The vocabulary is constantly positive, using words like "engrossing", "clever", and "gripping". The writer focused mostly on the Director and why he made the movie so good. The review gave credit to the director primarily, but also referenced the screenplay writer and cinematographer as well. In addition, the review also touched on how the setting, 1980 in Iran, was well executed and interestingly made.
        The second review, by TIME Magazine, was negative. It didn't say outright that the movie was bad overall but it certainly did not praise it. It introduced the film by talking about the Toronto Film Festival and how the last two academy awards were given to movies displayed there. It concluded that only because the film followed the standard Hollywood stereotype for an academy award winner, the viewers liked it. Similar to the first review, it chronicled the storyline without giving away any important details. The author of the review supports his argument that the movie is very standard by describing how the movie has certain overdone Hollywood cliches. The tone is unimpressed; it doesn't give the film any praise whatsoever. The vocabulary is uniformly negative, using words like "missing", "ugly", and "ordinary". The writer focused on the technique, and how the movie was made. He doesn't directly bash Affleck, or even mention the directors role in filming the movie, but he makes it obvious that it is missing something. At the start of the review, he references the Toronto film festival and makes allusions to the academy awards. He also references the widespread praise of the movie, but believes people are mistaken.

2. "The main source of astonishment is the precision exhibited everywhere, from the slyly vintage look of Rodrigo Prieto's cinematography to the gradual, cinching tension in Chris Terrio's careful screenplay". After watching the film, I agree with this quote, coming from the positive reviewer. The cinematography executed was very good and appealing to the eye. In addition, the movie was definitely able to create tension for the audience. "Any escape movie has a built-in spring, with the Doomsday clock ticking toward midnight as the underground heroes near their freedom and the forces of maleficent authority close in on them. Argo has plenty of that". This quote, from the negatively slanted review, hits home with me. I totally agree on the cliche-ness of the movie. That is what originally bored me when i first viewed it. Both reviews bring up good points, and they both have definite truth to them.

3. If I had never seen the film before, and only read these two reviews to inform me of it, I would want to watch the movie. The positive review did a much better job of convincing me to watch it, than the negative review did to make me not want to watch it. The positive review was more effective for many reasons. Instead of taking an unimpressed tone, it had an excited one that made me want to watch it even more. If the negative review was actively exited about giving a bad review, it might have changed my opinion the other way. In addition, the positive review had more to say about the quality of the movie and explained in more detail the points that made it good. Precisely speaking, the positive review won me over because of its outright, unwavering praise of the movie. It was extremely clear, where as the negative review was not.

4. If I were to write a one page film review, I would start with including background information on the director, and maybe the actors. Just as the way these two reviews did, I would chronicle the plot of the movie as the bulk of the review. Including what the movie does well in each specific part, but being careful not to say any spoilers. I would absolutely include reviews on each area of the movie; specifically, a review on the cinematography, music, acting, score, etc. I would make sure to accurately describe the tone of the movie, upbeat, dramatic, any way to let the reader know what exactly to expect. It is crucial that the reader of my review comes away impacted by my opinion, meaning, I would be extremely outspoken and unwavering in my opinion of the movie. Reading and analyzing these two reviews certainly helped me to understand what constitutes a good review.