I read a review of the movie Amazing Grace. I think the author wrote this review to try to convince others to go and see this movie despite some of its flaws. This article is relatively formal because it was written in a newspaper. The author used a lot of space to summarize the movie instead of using a few sentences. I think she does this because the story behind this movie is relatively unknown, so by describing it more fully the author can convince more people to go and see this movie.
It is apparent that this author definitely liked this movie a lot; one of the the only problems she found with it is the fact that, because it has to be movie length, a lot of the details are given in "awkward exposition." She also complains that one of the most intriguing characters is given very little screen time, and that on occasion the music "[overcomes] the subtlety of the actors' work." So she points out very few problems and instead spends most of her time and space praising this movie.
The idea is that basically this is a very good movie, "but the problem here is in whittling an epic tale down to less than two hours." The thesis is that "Despite its flaws, "Amazing Grace" works admirably as a history lesson, and audience members will surely leave wishing to know more about Wilberforce's life and times." Overall this is a good review of this movie. I agree with her review, those who have not seen this movie definitely should.
2 comments:
I really like your approach to this article. I found it very helpful that you analyzed it in different paragraphs and took a moment to describe why the author had written what he had written. Very interesting.
I think the article it self sounded some what bias. This could hurt it in the long run especially because of the fact that these kind of reviews are meant to give a fair analysis of a movie, not praise it for a majority of the article and briefly mention it's flaws.
Post a Comment