good review and bad review of Avatar

Sam Charles
Reviewing the Arts

Peter Travers of Rolling Stone may be one of the most respected film critics in the country, but it doesn’t give him a free pass to write lacking reviews. His take on the movie Avatar is one example of this.

Instead of discussing the pros and cons of the film, the first third of his review simply harps on James Cameron’s previous movies and compares him to “hack-of-the-decade Michael Bay.” There is very little substance to what is being said. Travers isn’t giving a review, just his opinion with nothing to back it up.

Travers then goes on to give Cameron a backhanded compliment on his storytelling ability by talking about how formulaic and predictable his screenplays are, specifically citing Titanic, “From the man who turned Titanic into the fattest hit in history, there has to be a love story. And just as Leonardo DiCaprio's Jack fell for Kate Winslet's Rose, Jake Sully, a crippled ex-marine on the Pandora mission, loses his heart to Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), a Na'vi princess.”

He isn’t looking at this movie with a fresh set of eyes and an open mind, which pretty much nullifies his review entirely. He knew what the first third of his review was going to say before he even saw the movie. It seems as though he wrote a comparative piece. Also, it’s hard to tell what Travers’ thoughts on the movie as a whole are by the end of the review. He concludes by praising Cameron’s artistic vision and dedication to his project.

By being so all over the spectrum in his review, Peter Travers fails to provoke much thought from the reader.

Now, David Edelstein, of New York Magazine had a much better way of dissecting the movie. He goes into deep detail of the movie’s plot before giving his opinion. By doing this, he gives his audience more insight and a better idea of why he has the opinions that he does. He gives the audience a detailed summary about the characters and the movie without giving too much away or doing too much to influence the audience before they see the movie for themselves, if they indeed choose to see it.

Another pro of the New York Magazine review is the style in which it’s written. It’s presented in very down-to-earth dialogue with some humor sprinkled throughout. It’s almost as though a very good friend is telling you about the movie instead of some hoity-toity movie snob talking down to you.

By not giving too much away and doing a good job of connecting with his audience, Edelstein succeeds in reviewing Avatar. He provokes thought without telling the reader what to think, but gives them enough to help them make a decision on whether or not to spend their $10 to see it.