To add to the conversation, different reviewers/critics also have different ways of going about it. And it also comes down to what a reader is looking for in a review(er).
Examples: Love or hate Harry Knowles at Ain't It Cool News, he has a very unique way of approaching his movie reviews. Sometimes he'll start at what he had for breakfast that morning or what was going on with his glasses that day. We may not even get to the meat of the review until a good eight or nine paragraphs. I like this style because our state of mind going into any review will no doubt affect our criticism of the subject. Sure, it's overly wordy and you need to invest yourself into reading it, but that's part of the reward, so to speak. Knowles has a good voice and eye for movies. It's worth the read, usually. And the review is more personal than most out there.
The late Roger Ebert was able to achieve the same effect with fewer words, but his real gift was simply being such an authoritative voice on movies. You might disagree with his reviews, but he left little doubt that he was speaking from a solid foundation when he wrote. Bottom line, he knows things you don't. Pay attention, whether or not you agree with him.
Equally effective was Spin's three-word review of Metallica's Load album, which simply read "Load of crap." :)
They all work, depending on what the reader is looking for. In my own reviews I've used elements of all three. A recent review of the manga Monster Musume first involves a trip by me to SDCC. We don't get into the actual review until a few paragraphs down. On the flip side, my editor at IGN still loves the review I did for Pirates vs. Ninja, which simply stated "It took five people to write something this awful." :)
That Metallica review reminds me of a three-word review I read of a Duran Duran album called Thank you. The review read "No thank you."
I just noticed how one strategically placed comma would change that review entirely.
To add to the conversation, different reviewers/critics also have different ways of going about it. And it also comes down to what a reader is looking for in a review(er).
Examples: Love or hate Harry Knowles at Ain't It Cool News, he has a very unique way of approaching his movie reviews. Sometimes he'll start at what he had for breakfast that morning or what was going on with his glasses that day. We may not even get to the meat of the review until a good eight or nine paragraphs. I like this style because our state of mind going into any review will no doubt affect our criticism of the subject. Sure, it's overly wordy and you need to invest yourself into reading it, but that's part of the reward, so to speak. Knowles has a good voice and eye for movies. It's worth the read, usually. And the review is more personal than most out there.
The late Roger Ebert was able to achieve the same effect with fewer words, but his real gift was simply being such an authoritative voice on movies. You might disagree with his reviews, but he left little doubt that he was speaking from a solid foundation when he wrote. Bottom line, he knows things you don't. Pay attention, whether or not you agree with him.
Equally effective was Spin's three-word review of Metallica's Load album, which simply read "Load of crap." :)
They all work, depending on what the reader is looking for. In my own reviews I've used elements of all three. A recent review of the manga Monster Musume first involves a trip by me to SDCC. We don't get into the actual review until a few paragraphs down. On the flip side, my editor at IGN still loves the review I did for Pirates vs. Ninja, which simply stated "It took five people to write something this awful." :)
That Metallica review reminds me of a three-word review I read of a Duran Duran album called Thank you. The review read "No thank you."
I just noticed how one strategically placed comma would change that review entirely.
For the movie "Isn't It Romantic? Leonard Maltin got in the Guinness Book of World Records for shortest movie review for this movie, which is simply "No."
Comments