Review of Reviews

AMAZING, MARVELOUS, STUPENDOUS, COLOSSUS, TREMENDOUS, GIGANTIC, ASTOUNDING, UNBELIEVABLE, SPECTACULAR, PHENOMENAL..... and it's good, too.

Dir. Edgar Wright's third installation to the Cornetto Trilogy, The Worlds End is undoubtedly one of the funniest comedies to ever hit theaters. The characters are enjoyable (again), the setting is great (again), the effects are cheap but stylish (again) and the jokes are too many to count (again). I'm actually at a loss of words, I wish had more than a paragraph to write it. If you have not seen this film. . . NAY if you have not seen any of the Cornetto films: drop what you're doing and watch them.

I have read two reviews, a positive one from the New Yorker and the other from the Newark Star Ledger. I must put my bias away and look at both of these reviews equally. Lets see how the enjoyed or hated "THE WORLDS END"

I'll begin with the negative review from the 'Newark Star Ledger'. The review isn't that lengthy, in fact I really couldn't find any negative reviews that were. The critic here isn't trying to make this review a poetic look into how we perceive movies or comedies, he keeps it a slow pace and makes it easy to follow. This critic seems to be not a fan of the comedic stylings of co-writer/lead Simon Pegg, who has been the protagonist in the other Cornetto films. The critic finds Peggs performance as annoying and childish as his last performance. Which is strange seeing as how Peggs last performance was as an action hero cop. The reviewer liked to focus on how nothing was a surprise and that it was very dull and predictable and tries to compare it to other disaster movies that came out around the same time such as This is the End. However he does still appreciate the work put in by Edgar Wright and acknowledges his geek/fanboy background. Overall the review is harmless and not very deep. It just seems to be that this critic wasn't as huge of geek for this movie.

Now for the positive review from the 'New Yorker'. This review is longer which is no surprise for a positive review. He immediately opens up by letting us realize he's a clear fan of the first 2 Edgar Wright films and he enjoys this one just as much. This critic tends to use a lot more more references for his review which gives it a much more child-like/bubbly feel. Although while this review seems more childlike exciting, he still uses metaphors that you don't hear everyday. The critic takes time to point why this story about adults going through a mid-life crisis is funnier than when someone like Adam Sandler does it in Grown Ups 2. Like all movies, the Critic does take the time to bring up some downhill moments or flaws that every movie has but like the movie says, "Thats what makes it normal." All in all this is a compelling review that brings out the fun of the movie

"If you have watched and rewatched “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz,” poring over them as if they were medieval manuscripts, you will know what to expect—or, at least, to hope for—from 'The World’s End'". That was a quote from the 'New Yorker' review. You can't truly appreciate this quote unless you've seen these movies. The reason I enjoyed it so much because It is 100% accurate. I will watch these movies over and over again because there so much entertainment value in it that it's extremely hard not to enjoy. I'm glad that critic is able to relate to the audience which makes it a lot more easier to connect to the review. Wright understands the pleasure of a good fantasy film. A few of his touches — like the open-mouthed horror with which the robots greet humans — are nice lifts from other films. 'This was from the 'Newark Star Ledger'. I'm glad that even when fans are not satisfied by the film they still admit that Wright is creative mind that makes worlds just filled with whimsy and wonder.

Now If I had never seen this movie I would definitely go with the review from the 'New Yorker'. The negative review doesn't go into much detail. Also review doesn't go into "whiny" territory but it just seems to me like a kid who wasn't happy with his McDonald's meal. As well, it's very short, so the point comes across almost radically and it's hard to grab onto what he's trying to get across. The NYT review gets more into if and makes references to the film which feels more engaging. I realize that a positive review would naturally make those references but I have seen negative reviews do it as well in the hopes of teasing the film. I felt the negative review didn't have to be more intellectual sounding but it should've elaborated more. Furthermore the negative review didn't even seem to think it was an awful film, he just thought it was a meh film. The NYT review seemed like a kid the day after Christmas talking about his favorite toy he got and it's just so much fun to see that little kid enjoy his new toy. 

Now I'm very new at writing movie reviews and i might be very bad at it. No one has told me yet about how good I am at transferring my thoughts to word. Hopefully this class will assist me in getting better at it. Now when I do write reviews I usually focus on my favorite part of the movie which is usually the characters but it can be other things.  I love analyzing character emotions motives, actions and sometimes look (depending on what kind of movie it is).I will try my best to cover all grounds: story, setting, cinematography and all that jazz. Now one could argue that unless you mention all those factors, it could be considered an unfair review. Now I would have to disagree with that because I believe you should critique whatever impacted you the most: like if the characters were written great or, heck, if they were written terribly. Whatever makes this movie memorable to is what you discuss and share with audience because it is, after all, your  opinion