Hazelwolf said:
Starke said:
The thing that I can't reconcile at all is, he begins the review by gloating. So... why, or at whom? I mean, if his idea is to compile a fair review that has no place. The only way gloating works is if he had it in his mind before he went to the showing that this would be a bad film, and he wanted it to be a bad film
Or it could simply be him demonstrating a simple comedic bait and switch.
Which could have worked if any of the rest of the review was comedic. Instead the tone of the video waffles between condescending (towards the film and anyone who likes it) and complaints that border on fanboyish whining.
Hazelwolf said:
Showing you what he would have wanted from a film with the Expendable's premise but then demonstrating that that is what he didn't get (at least not from Expendables)
Whether Bob hated it from the outset we can't tell from the review.
Except, you already demonstrated that you do know what he wanted (or at the very least that he wanted something specific). He flat out tells you in the first few minutes. Now, his phrasing is a bit off, but the assumption you made in your first paragraph is almost certainly spot on. It tells us he walked into the theater with a preconceived notion of what this film would be. The only thing I can't tell you is, if his crucifying the film is because it was exactly what he expected, and wanted to hate it from the onset, or if his verbal rampage was because it didn't cross an invisible threshold in Bob's head.
Hazelwolf said:
He isn't saying this on the fly having just seen it. He's had to sit down and plan out how the piece should flow and be presented which allows him to reassess and present his opinion.
To be fair, this is basically how writing any review works.
On the chance that you've never written a film review before, basically here's what you need to do:
a. Watch the film. (I don't, but, many find it useful to take notes during this viewing, for reference later. (Personally, I tend to find I'll outline the film, and end up with nothing really usable for the review.))
b. Wait ~24 hours. (You can abbreviate this somewhat once you've been writing reviews for a few years, but generally you need this time to let the film seep in.)
c. Write the review. (The following are guidelines for a 500 word newspaper review article.)
1) Spend a paragraph writing about the film as an overall. Basically in one hundred words, sum up the plot. Now, if you're dealing with a film like
Inception filling this space up without spoiling the plot of the movie can be really tricky.
2) Spend a paragraph or two talking about the technical aspects. This can include actors' performances, cinematography, lighting, sound direction. Generally you want to avoid direction as a whole until you have some experience under your belt. (Now, strictly speaking this is the aspect of a review you cannot fake. You need training in some form of media analysis or production, otherwise how to write this will simply elude you.)
3) If you have any lingering thematic issues that you feel should be addressed in the review, they shouldn't exceed a one hundred word paragraph. Any analysis of the film itself should usually be dealt with here, and can extend the length of the paragraph (space permitting).
4) Under no circumstances should you use terms like "like", "enjoy" or similar subjective assessments. If you liked or enjoyed the film as a whole, that isn't good enough, explain why, preferably in the context of #2 and #3.
At the end of all of this you should have a 450 to 500 word article that will offer an objective analysis of the film itself.
Hazelwolf said:
I wouldn't be surprised if he was cynical from the outset but he's given examples in the past of films he thought he'd hate but didn't. Why should this be any different.?
Ideally? It shouldn't. In practice however, this is.
Now, there's room for a discussion on if he actually hated the film walking in, or wanted to hate it, or chose to open it with a tone that suggested that he did. But given that the review offers no legitimate critiques to the film's quality (on it's own merit), that implies that he walked into the theater with a checklist of things he expected would go wrong with the film, and simply ticked them off in his head as the film played. This starts to explain his assertion that the film isn't gory enough or that there are no memorable deaths, when other non-reviewers can counter with specific counterexamples. In a review, when the reviewer is describing things that don't sync up with the film, it can often, accurately be attributed to the reviewer's own preconceptions and biases.
Hazelwolf said:
If anything I get the impression he would have wanted to like it, he would have loved for it to be a big stupid homage to big stupid 80's flicks. Instead it left him cold with his cynicism confirmed. I imagine that feeling of betrayal would leave you angrier than if it had just been a plain bad movie from the get-go.
Well, that, in
a 62 word
s is what bothers me about Bioshock. But, that doesn't mean I can't write a legitimate review of it. However, as a reviewer, being able to parse that out and address it in a review, particularly a hostile one, like this, is an absolutely critical skill. Which seems to be lacking here.
