I chose to analyze the film review for the motion screen picture "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." The review was written for and printed in The New York Times newspaper published on November 16, 2001. Elvis Mitchell, the writer of the review, called the film "a phenomenon." He labeled it a phenomenon because the film is an adaption of J.K. Rowlings' book, "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." The film was the most highly awaited movie of 2001. The film followed the book word by word, causing this reviewer to write about the film unoriginality due to the fact that the target audience does not want anything in the film to deviate from the book.
Elvis Mitchell wrote an effective review for this film, but he is moderately negative of the movie. He describes the film as "never taking on a life of its own", and as "having a lack of imagination" because the film "so slavishly follows the book." The target audience for the film was the people who read the book, and who are fans of the book. That is the criteria that the review relies on. The film follows the book very closely, and does not want to deviate far from the vision of the author of the book. The criteria is effectively grappled with by the reviewer. He obviously does not like the fact that the movie follows the book so closely. Mr. Mitchell also describes the characters of the movie, as well as different scenes from the movie. He states the casting is a standout, and that the child actors shine in their performances. He talks about the plot of the film, and how the main character, Harry, comes across the Sorcerer's stone. The author made a detailed evaluation of the film. The effectiveness of the evaluation is very good. The characters are described very well, and the plot is revealed just enough to peek the readers interest to see the film.
2 comments:
Once I read the article and Ana's review, I felt that Elvis Mitchel, I felt that in his argument he had already set that he was not going to like the movie, and looked for ways to criticize it. I would have to agree with the fact the movie did follow the book very closely, but left out a good amount of material. Although I do not fully agree with this review, I feel that Mitchell did make good arguments and was effective in his review by showcasing his points and describing the different aspects of the movie.
I like how you showed two different sides tot he argument through your article. They definately knew how they were going to react to the movie before they went and saw it. I feel like they were both biased because they had their ideas ready before they even saw the film.
Post a Comment