Please Do Now:
- Read the following movie review: http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/movies/05puni.html?ref=movies
- and this one: http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/12/05/movies/05fros.html?8dpc
- Compare and contrast the form, content, and writing style of these two pieces. Why did each author work his (or her) piece the way he (or she) did?
Today, students will:
- Peer review A & E Planners
- Read some Art Basel coverage from the New Times:
- http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2008-11-27/news/art-basel-invasion/
- http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/art_basel/
- http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2008-12-04/culture/basel-binge/1
- http://www.miaminewtimes.com/2008-12-04/music/art-basel-s-got-music-too/
- Begin First Drafts
Tonight’s homework is:
- First Drafts due Tuesday
18 responses so far ↓
kevins2011 // December 5, 2008 at 6:02 pm |
The author of the Punisher review seemed to go back and fourth between bashing the movie on how gory and witless it was and saying that it was stupid to bash the movie because that’s what was expected. The author of the Frost/Nixon review seemed more objective and simply described what the movie was like. The contradictions of the first author lessened how biased they were but still left them slightly subjective. I could tell that they did not like the movie at all. The other article on the other hand, kept an objective voice the whole time.
allisonnovack // December 5, 2008 at 6:09 pm |
The author of the Punisher talked in the first person and used the word “I” often. It seemed a little bit more unformal. It gave his opinion on the movie.
The author of Frost/Nixon seemed to write more professionally with less jokes and comments because of his view on it. This author was more objective in his writing.
patrickquinlan // December 5, 2008 at 6:09 pm |
First of all, the story about the puisher movie was a lot shorter, not as elaborate, and (like this sentence) rather redundant. It seemed more opinionated then the second article, as it blatantly says to “why bother? You will see this movie or not, and it will make about as much sense to you either way”. The second article, by comparison seemed much more professional, as it didn’t say whether to watch the movie or not, but described the style of the movie and talked about some of the background things, and how the character developed, etc.
lenac2011 // December 5, 2008 at 6:09 pm |
Punisher: War Zone is not exactly the writer’s favorite movie. In actuality he does not like it one bit. The writer says “What did I ever do to deserve this?” which shows that he/she found it very hard to watch and very displeasing. He shows this by writing about how he felt during the movie and what his reactions were to certain things in the movie.
In the other review, this one of Frost/Nixon, the writer doesn’t use his experience of watching the movie as much as he tells what is in the movie and the story behind why the movie was written. There are also references to other documentaries or movies that have things in common with this movie. The review talks about what happens in the movie and the scene progression throughout the movie.
Both are similar because they do not exactly like the movie that they reviewed but they are different because they presented their opinions in different ways.
xkatastrophe // December 5, 2008 at 6:11 pm |
The author of the Punisher wrote the review
quite unformally. A lot of it was his opinion and he used very common language and I viewed it as bias. The author of the Frost/Nixon review was very objective and stayed that way throughout and I didn’t get any sense of bias.
jessicaw2010 // December 5, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
The author of publisher spoke in first person while the author of Frost/Nixon spoke in third person. I feel that the author of publisher also related to his readers/viewers more by using rhetorical questions. He kept the article subjective and I could tell that he didnt like the movie he was writting a review about. He constantly said stuff like “But does it have to be so witless, so stupid, so openly contemptuous of the very audience it’s suppose to be pandering to?” The author of Frost/Nixon was more objective and didnt really relate to his readers. He told more of what the movie was about and what happened. I could also tell that he did not like the move.
RayL2012 // December 5, 2008 at 6:12 pm |
The author of the punisher went back and fourthe between saying how gory and bloody the movie was, and then commenting that thats what you would expect from a movie based around a revenger. Unlike the author of frost/nixon who simply told about us about the movie with no real opinion. Through the article i found that neither of the authors really liked the movie (opinion)
jessekirk11 // December 5, 2008 at 6:13 pm |
The two articles differed in that the Punisher review seemed to more embody the column writing style, while the Frost review tended to lean towards the editorial. This is probably so because The Punisher was not a serious movie, and had little intellectual value. Thus, the author was able to express his opinion in a lighthearted way. However, because the Frost/Nixon film was so much more important and significant, the author felt that it would be more appropriate to write the review in a more formal manner.
The Punisher review consisted mainly of opinions, with few allusions, facts, and other pertinent information for support. The Frost/Nixon reviewer made references to the actual interview, and he included more facts than opinions.
LyssaG2011 // December 5, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
The first review was of Punisher: War Zone, which is based on fictional characters, while the second review of Frost/Nixon was based on actual events.
The Frost/Nixon review was written in a more serious tone because of the historical nature. It references other books and movies and is more factual and descriptive.
The Punisher review was less formal because it is about a comic book. It is written in first person. It quickly gets across the point that the reviewer didn’t really like the movie.
gwenxawesome // December 5, 2008 at 6:14 pm |
The author of the review about the Punisher
Seemed like he had alot to say, the reivew was mostly just what he thought about the movie, and not what happens in the movie. He never really went into giving details of what he talked about.The author for the Frost/Nixon Movie wrote in a more “interesting” way, he gave details, and also gave his opinions without getting too sidetracked. He also used more profesional words, and spoke more clearly.
alicel2011 // December 5, 2008 at 6:16 pm |
interesting than the one about Frost/Nixon. Even thought he keeps jumping trough out the whole piece. First he is like the movie was good and then he said it wasn’t that good. While in the Frost/Nixon the review is pretty boring and it looses you. The author does not seem to catch the readers attention. His job and words are more professionly done.
7y13r // December 5, 2008 at 6:17 pm |
The author of the first article had a far more negative view. He denounced the movie while keeping his article short and to the point. However, the second article was a bit more subtle and to indirect. It appeared to approve of the subject of the movie but at the same time disapprove of the director’s choices.
molliee // December 5, 2008 at 6:23 pm |
The first review was of Punisher: War Zone, which is based on fictional characters, while the second review of Frost/Nixon was based on actual events. The revew in the frost/nixon was written in serious tone while the Punisher: War Zone was written in a more conversational tone.
The Punisher: War Zone reviewer got his point out at the very begining of the telling the readers that it wasnt that good. In the frost/ Nixon review the reviewer didnt give the point way at the begining it just flowed through while the main point was getting out. Also one is reality and one is fictional.
hrynor // December 5, 2008 at 6:32 pm |
Punisher: War zone (2008) Article
This article was not worded properly in many ways. The first paragraph for example used to many different forms of “punisher” within a small amount of space. Another thing that bothers me about it was how the vocabulary is very elementary and not advanced, also they use words such as “guys; because that’s what they have coming” and in my opinion those two phrases were used improperly and made the entire article sound very unintelligent as a result.
The author may have taken the approach that he did, because of his audience. He is trying to say plain out that it is an action movie and has no real purpose except an attempt at being entertaining. Within the article he was saying that people should not see the movie, because it was a waste of time.
Frost/Nixon (2008)
This article was written more professionally than the other article, mainly for the reason that they did not constantly repeat the same word in several different ways within in a small amount of space. It was also more serious than the other article, and had subtly expressed opinions.
Kelsey Sumalla // December 5, 2008 at 6:35 pm |
The first peice, A Comic Book Avenger Strikes, was funny, short, and not as formal as the second article, Mr. Frost, Meet Mr. Nixon. While the first journalist was able to draw me into the review, the second author pushed me away from it. Mr. Frost, Meet Mr. Nixon, was long, boring, and uninteresting. I think that the first peice was more fun because it was a movie based on a comic book and it felt like the author was talked to the reader. On the other hand, the second article was filled with more detail about the movie and doesnt ever use the word I. The first movie was probably more comical because it was directed to an audience that would see an action movie based on a comic, while the other article was directed to an audience of people who want to see a movie based on two real people and a real conflict that took place. It was a more serious movie so the review was more serious.
brittanywaserstein // December 5, 2008 at 6:38 pm |
The author of punisher wrote his article using the first person which made it unformal. He stated his opinion and used a sarcastic and joking tone. It was more convenient and entertaining to read. The author of frost/nixon wrote his article using third person. He does not use his own experiences like the first author does. Rather, he states facts on what the movie is about and the process of making it.
nadineg2012 // December 6, 2008 at 12:28 am |
A Comic Book Avenger Strikes is much shorter than Mr. Frost, Meet Mr. Nixon, and therefore, contains much less information. The author shares his opinion of and humorous reaction to the movie, writing in first person. The author of Mr. Frost, Meet Mr. Nixon, writes more formally, remaining in third person thoughout the review. He also talks more about the movie’s plot and making.
This guy // December 6, 2008 at 1:32 am |
“JUNO Deluxe 2-CD Soundtrack.
Includes #1 Soundtrack PLUS the JUNO B-Sides!
Now Available!”