This review uses mockery and a male, egotistical persona to make the movie sound girly, predictable, and a waste of money. The multiple use of the word "Awwww" makes the plot of the movie and all its components, like the baby, the actors, the setting, and the storyline, unoriginal. Ebert, in a indirect way, states his criteria by saying what he does not like, in a sarcastic mocking way. He thinks the large house is unrealistic and Hollywood, because everything is paid for and too good to be true. Sophie is a cute and lovable one year old, the actors in the movie are typical romantic comedy actors and are very attractive. He mocks the typical romantic comedy character roles too of the stud guy and the workaholic girl who find love by saying, "Awww. This is never going to work out." And finally he mocks the end by saying it's unpredictable, but gives away the ending. BY his indirect writing, a person can assume he prefers realistic movies with original cast, setting, and plot, that has a good ending. His evaluation was not very effective. By mocking women and their like for romantic comedies,has the potential to piss off half his readers. His essay was very short, non-descriptive and non-informative and his opinion was non-original. I'm sure most guys who see "chick flicks" would be able to articulate what he did.
This review is written using a mocking tone. Ebert believes the movie is a typical chick flick and not worth wasting the two hours or ten dollars to see two people fall in love and live happily ever after. The criteria is not explicitly stated, rather he states what the movie lacks. Exposing the flaws of “Life As We Know It” does not prove an effective way to relay the criteria. Mainly because it is up to the reader to decipher his criteria. Ebert’s main criterion is an unpredictable ending. He starts by saying that viewers will never guess the ending but he is the one who gives it away. The use of “Awwww” at the beginning of each paragraph not only gives the movie and high “cuteness” factor but also can be used to describe the characters. Like Ebert points out, the actors are all beautiful. The predictable male falling in love with the overworking female aids the romantic comedy label this movie has. Ebert does not describe his dislike for the movie in great detail using examples; rather he describes quintessential romantic comedy scenes from the movie. His delivery of the review will likely turn off many readers. Basically, he is making fun of ‘pointless’ scenes in the movie. The review provides no insight into the movie more of just a summary and reasons not to see it. After reading the review I do not think that his review is an effective evaluation.
Obviously Roger Ebert is a great believer in sarcasm. His sardonic overview of “Life as We Know It” shows his critique of the movie as being cliché, unoriginal, and extremely predictable. Ebert is not new to the business, nor is naïve enough to pass on a film that might have bombed in the box-office. So when he uses such blatant sarcasm to tear down a movie with widely known actors, it is for good reason. His sarcasm in fact is the one aspect of his review that shows his outright mockery for the film and its predictable and overused plot. He seems to have no respect for a film that has been done a million times over, and that portrayal in his review makes the reader lack respect for the film as well. His purpose is to show how uncreative, boring, and mainstream the film is, and is plainly saying it is not worth the time, especially since just about anybody can guess the ending before they even see it. Ultimately, the evaluation is successful. Ebert is able to show criteria to the reader without saying it directly, and is able to clearly get his point across. The brevity of this review alone shows undoubtedly that it is not a movie that he would plan to see again.
Roger Ebert started his critique of "Life as We Know it" with awww. Readers can obviously tell that "awww" in this case is a double meaning. He incorporates "aww" to give the notion that "Life as We Know it" is a sweet chick flick, and also as sarcasm. Ebert depicts how the movie makes life seem so simple and sweet. In his critique, Ebert doesn't come straight forward about his criteria. As readers continue reading the article many will figure out what Ebert's criterion are. For a good movie Ebert needs to find the movie interesting and unpredictable. In this case "Life as We Know It" is too predictable. This movie has been done over and over but with a difference of two different actors. The movie also has a flaw of how it perceive life as simple and carefree as possible. Which in reality it is not as "perfect" as the movie has projected it to be. An example of this is how " the mortgage is pre-paid for a year" who in real life can prepay a year long mortgage. The movie's plot is too perfect. Peter and Alison left their mansion to Holly and Eric to raise baby Sophie. Ebert's ultimate goal in his critique is to make the audiences realize how this movie is unoriginal and predictable. His article is very effective in persuading one to spend their money on a more original and unpredictable film.
Roger Ebert utilizes a sarcastic tone and jeering demeanor in order to reveal his opinion about the movie “Life As We Know It”. His consistent use of the term “Awwww” epitomizes his writing style for this particular review and further supports his belief that the entire movie was unoriginal and incredibly predictable. He constantly makes snide remarks about the unrealistic nature of the story line and by doing so reveals his underlying criteria for movies. He indirectly suggests that movies that are unpredictable yet realistic hold his attention. Also, he provides relatable evidence to this point by bringing attention to the fact that the first “dramatic” scene of “Life As We Know It” is when the baby “does do-do in her diaper.” Although this may be realistic he harps on the fact that it is insultingly foreseeable. Finally, Ebert ends his review by stating that he does not like when people spoil the end of movies, but then continues on to tell his audience the ending. Overall, I would agree that this movie review is an effective examination because Ebert chose to hate this movie and explained why. I am definitely not going to waste any money on this movie, I won’t even rent it. Honestly, if someone gave it to me for free I would still be unsure of what to do with it. I already hate it, and I didn’t even know it was a movie until yesterday. That is how much of an effect Ebert’s movie review had on my opinion of the quality of the film.
This review was very amusing to me. Not only does it accentuate the level of cliché, but it provides a good laugh at the expense of the movie. Basically, Ebert takes aspects of the movie that the characters think to be horrible and unimaginable and presents them in terms of reality. For instance, the example he gives of them getting a mansion for free with the mortgage pre-paid for a year is pretty priceless. The characters all feel like their lives are miserable. This is an example of relativity. Horribly ignorant people (in this case characters) always complain about the little things even though their circumstance is incredible or extraordinary.
I believe the underlying criteria are originality, level of interest the movie evokes, and a good plot. As he points out, and as I agree, the movie fails horribly in satisfying those requirements.
I believe that this evaluation is extremely effective. It really hits home with what viewers would be thinking while watching the movie. I almost pictured myself watching the movie and saying exactly the same things that Ebert said. After reading this review, I have no interest in seeing this movie ever. And if that is the case, then this review succeeds in ways that the movie wishes it could have.
I believe his underlying criteria is if there is any originality or depth to the plot, whether the movie is feasible or not, and whether the movie is predictable. In a brief yet effective review, Ebert quickly shoots down "Life as We Know It" as it does not meet his criteria whatsoever.
To do so, he uses the repetition of "Awww" to create a scoffing tone for this predictable chick flick. Also using examples from the movie's plot and undermining them with sarcasm supports his claim the whole review through. Apart from the little to no depth or originality in the movie's plot, it also seems as though little thought or depth was put into the characters as well. His description of the two protagonists is one we've heard a hundred times before; a tidy, organized girl and a free spirit.
This review was effective because of Ebert's strong point of view that was clear and well stated throughout the essay. I thought his simplistic overview of the plot was a subtle yet persuasive way to mirror the simplicity of the movie. He definitely convinced me to not go anywhere near this movie this weekend.
Ebert makes a joke out of "Life As We Know It." The review starts off with "awwww" giving the reader a sense that this movie is going to be a romance. But after reading the first paragraph about the opening of the movie and see the second and rest of the paragraphs start with "awww" you realize that it is a mockery of the film. The point Ebert is trying to get across is that this film is not worth watching. He makes it pretty clear in is array of sarcasm about the predictable nature of the movie. In addition, not only does he have such blatant satire at the end of the review he gives away the movies ending, thus giving the reader less of a want to see this movie in theaters. His point is to bash this movie and to save the readers time and money on this predictable, boring film. Criteria for a good film is nowhere in "Life as We Know It" but for Ebert criteria includes an unpredictable plot, with a real life situation, not one where the deceased were able to afford such a large home at such a young age. Ebert also wasn't very found of the lack of depth in the characters. However, the review was an effective evaluation of the movie because he was easily able to get his point across. Besides for the cynicism in almost every sentence Ebert did a good job in helping me decide to not watch this movie.
After reading this review, I dont want to see this movie. Ebert makes a joke out of "Life As We Know It." through the use of sarcasm and satire.
He uses the repetition of "Awww" to create a bemuzing tone for this obvious chick flick. He uses Sarcasm and satire in his review to explictly inform people that this movie is not worth watching. The constant use of sarcasm shows that this movie clearly did not satisfy his criteria for a good romantic comedy.
This was an effective approach because he amuses his readers while at the same time informing them of the quality of the movie and persuading their decision to watch it or not.
The movie review written by Ebert is gross. The movie sounds boring and his review sparked no interest to go see it. By his description, this movie is predictable and a failed attempt at being cute. The "Awwww" at the beginning of every paragraph isnt very clever and gives him a sarcastic tone which almost mocks the movie. I found it kind of strange that the two deceased people with the baby wrote their will already like they were planning on dying. His evaluation is effective only if he is trying to make this movie as unappealing as possible.
This review uses mockery and a male, egotistical persona to make the movie sound girly, predictable, and a waste of money. The multiple use of the word "Awwww" makes the plot of the movie and all its components, like the baby, the actors, the setting, and the storyline, unoriginal. Ebert, in a indirect way, states his criteria by saying what he does not like, in a sarcastic mocking way. He thinks the large house is unrealistic and Hollywood, because everything is paid for and too good to be true. Sophie is a cute and lovable one year old, the actors in the movie are typical romantic comedy actors and are very attractive. He mocks the typical romantic comedy character roles too of the stud guy and the workaholic girl who find love by saying, "Awww. This is never going to work out." And finally he mocks the end by saying it's unpredictable, but gives away the ending. BY his indirect writing, a person can assume he prefers realistic movies with original cast, setting, and plot, that has a good ending. His evaluation was not very effective. By mocking women and their like for romantic comedies,has the potential to piss off half his readers. His essay was very short, non-descriptive and non-informative and his opinion was non-original. I'm sure most guys who see "chick flicks" would be able to articulate what he did.
ReplyDeleteThis review is written using a mocking tone. Ebert believes the movie is a typical chick flick and not worth wasting the two hours or ten dollars to see two people fall in love and live happily ever after. The criteria is not explicitly stated, rather he states what the movie lacks. Exposing the flaws of “Life As We Know It” does not prove an effective way to relay the criteria. Mainly because it is up to the reader to decipher his criteria. Ebert’s main criterion is an unpredictable ending. He starts by saying that viewers will never guess the ending but he is the one who gives it away. The use of “Awwww” at the beginning of each paragraph not only gives the movie and high “cuteness” factor but also can be used to describe the characters. Like Ebert points out, the actors are all beautiful. The predictable male falling in love with the overworking female aids the romantic comedy label this movie has. Ebert does not describe his dislike for the movie in great detail using examples; rather he describes quintessential romantic comedy scenes from the movie. His delivery of the review will likely turn off many readers. Basically, he is making fun of ‘pointless’ scenes in the movie. The review provides no insight into the movie more of just a summary and reasons not to see it. After reading the review I do not think that his review is an effective evaluation.
ReplyDeleteObviously Roger Ebert is a great believer in sarcasm. His sardonic overview of “Life as We Know It” shows his critique of the movie as being cliché, unoriginal, and extremely predictable. Ebert is not new to the business, nor is naïve enough to pass on a film that might have bombed in the box-office. So when he uses such blatant sarcasm to tear down a movie with widely known actors, it is for good reason. His sarcasm in fact is the one aspect of his review that shows his outright mockery for the film and its predictable and overused plot. He seems to have no respect for a film that has been done a million times over, and that portrayal in his review makes the reader lack respect for the film as well. His purpose is to show how uncreative, boring, and mainstream the film is, and is plainly saying it is not worth the time, especially since just about anybody can guess the ending before they even see it. Ultimately, the evaluation is successful. Ebert is able to show criteria to the reader without saying it directly, and is able to clearly get his point across. The brevity of this review alone shows undoubtedly that it is not a movie that he would plan to see again.
ReplyDeleteRoger Ebert started his critique of "Life as We Know it" with awww. Readers can obviously tell that "awww" in this case is a double meaning. He incorporates "aww" to give the notion that "Life as We Know it" is a sweet chick flick, and also as sarcasm. Ebert depicts how the movie makes life seem so simple and sweet. In his critique, Ebert doesn't come straight forward about his criteria. As readers continue reading the article many will figure out what Ebert's criterion are. For a good movie Ebert needs to find the movie interesting and unpredictable. In this case "Life as We Know It" is too predictable. This movie has been done over and over but with a difference of two different actors. The movie also has a flaw of how it perceive life as simple and carefree as possible. Which in reality it is not as "perfect" as the movie has projected it to be. An example of this is how " the mortgage is pre-paid for a year" who in real life can prepay a year long mortgage. The movie's plot is too perfect. Peter and Alison left their mansion to Holly and Eric to raise baby Sophie. Ebert's ultimate goal in his critique is to make the audiences realize how this movie is unoriginal and predictable. His article is very effective in persuading one to spend their money on a more original and unpredictable film.
ReplyDeleteRoger Ebert utilizes a sarcastic tone and jeering demeanor in order to reveal his opinion about the movie “Life As We Know It”. His consistent use of the term “Awwww” epitomizes his writing style for this particular review and further supports his belief that the entire movie was unoriginal and incredibly predictable. He constantly makes snide remarks about the unrealistic nature of the story line and by doing so reveals his underlying criteria for movies. He indirectly suggests that movies that are unpredictable yet realistic hold his attention. Also, he provides relatable evidence to this point by bringing attention to the fact that the first “dramatic” scene of “Life As We Know It” is when the baby “does do-do in her diaper.” Although this may be realistic he harps on the fact that it is insultingly foreseeable. Finally, Ebert ends his review by stating that he does not like when people spoil the end of movies, but then continues on to tell his audience the ending. Overall, I would agree that this movie review is an effective examination because Ebert chose to hate this movie and explained why. I am definitely not going to waste any money on this movie, I won’t even rent it. Honestly, if someone gave it to me for free I would still be unsure of what to do with it. I already hate it, and I didn’t even know it was a movie until yesterday. That is how much of an effect Ebert’s movie review had on my opinion of the quality of the film.
ReplyDeleteThis review was very amusing to me. Not only does it accentuate the level of cliché, but it provides a good laugh at the expense of the movie. Basically, Ebert takes aspects of the movie that the characters think to be horrible and unimaginable and presents them in terms of reality. For instance, the example he gives of them getting a mansion for free with the mortgage pre-paid for a year is pretty priceless. The characters all feel like their lives are miserable. This is an example of relativity. Horribly ignorant people (in this case characters) always complain about the little things even though their circumstance is incredible or extraordinary.
ReplyDeleteI believe the underlying criteria are originality, level of interest the movie evokes, and a good plot. As he points out, and as I agree, the movie fails horribly in satisfying those requirements.
I believe that this evaluation is extremely effective. It really hits home with what viewers would be thinking while watching the movie. I almost pictured myself watching the movie and saying exactly the same things that Ebert said. After reading this review, I have no interest in seeing this movie ever. And if that is the case, then this review succeeds in ways that the movie wishes it could have.
I believe his underlying criteria is if there is any originality or depth to the plot, whether the movie is feasible or not, and whether the movie is predictable. In a brief yet effective review, Ebert quickly shoots down "Life as We Know It" as it does not meet his criteria whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteTo do so, he uses the repetition of "Awww" to create a scoffing tone for this predictable chick flick. Also using examples from the movie's plot and undermining them with sarcasm supports his claim the whole review through. Apart from the little to no depth or originality in the movie's plot, it also seems as though little thought or depth was put into the characters as well. His description of the two protagonists is one we've heard a hundred times before; a tidy, organized girl and a free spirit.
This review was effective because of Ebert's strong point of view that was clear and well stated throughout the essay. I thought his simplistic overview of the plot was a subtle yet persuasive way to mirror the simplicity of the movie. He definitely convinced me to not go anywhere near this movie this weekend.
Ebert makes a joke out of "Life As We Know It." The review starts off with "awwww" giving the reader a sense that this movie is going to be a romance. But after reading the first paragraph about the opening of the movie and see the second and rest of the paragraphs start with "awww" you realize that it is a mockery of the film. The point Ebert is trying to get across is that this film is not worth watching. He makes it pretty clear in is array of sarcasm about the predictable nature of the movie. In addition, not only does he have such blatant satire at the end of the review he gives away the movies ending, thus giving the reader less of a want to see this movie in theaters. His point is to bash this movie and to save the readers time and money on this predictable, boring film. Criteria for a good film is nowhere in "Life as We Know It" but for Ebert criteria includes an unpredictable plot, with a real life situation, not one where the deceased were able to afford such a large home at such a young age. Ebert also wasn't very found of the lack of depth in the characters. However, the review was an effective evaluation of the movie because he was easily able to get his point across. Besides for the cynicism in almost every sentence Ebert did a good job in helping me decide to not watch this movie.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this review, I dont want to see this movie. Ebert makes a joke out of "Life As We Know It." through the use of sarcasm and satire.
ReplyDeleteHe uses the repetition of "Awww" to create a bemuzing tone for this obvious chick flick. He uses Sarcasm and satire in his review to explictly inform people that this movie is not worth watching. The constant use of sarcasm shows that this movie clearly did not satisfy his criteria for a good romantic comedy.
This was an effective approach because he amuses his readers while at the same time informing them of the quality of the movie and persuading their decision to watch it or not.
The movie review written by Ebert is gross. The movie sounds boring and his review sparked no interest to go see it. By his description, this movie is predictable and a failed attempt at being cute. The "Awwww" at the beginning of every paragraph isnt very clever and gives him a sarcastic tone which almost mocks the movie. I found it kind of strange that the two deceased people with the baby wrote their will already like they were planning on dying. His evaluation is effective only if he is trying to make this movie as unappealing as possible.
ReplyDelete