The Old Ways Re-emerge

I have mentioned Peter Travers many times now especially considering how few posts I have written, but I always keep coming back to him because of the way he writes and also because I usually agree with what he has to say. His writing is captivating to me in the way it changes and morphs depending on the way he is reviewing. In this review he did on "Titanic 3D" he encompasses some ways of criticism that are all but dead in critiques today, especially in movie reviews. His review is long. It's not nearly as long as what it could be or what it would have been fifty, thirty, or even ten years ago, before, as the media and everything else keeps telling us, our attentions spans were reduced by the Internet. I don't know exactly how I feel about this review, I will have to see the movie first, so I can fully understand what he is talking about in some parts, but I do believe that he did a wonderful job in keeping my attention.

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/titanic-3d-20120405

This next review is also uncharacteristically long for a movie review and breaks the rule of keeping "I" out of your reviews (or at least that is a rule in my opinion and my professors), but it also is captivating. I do like the way Dana Stevens writes. It flows very well and reads more as a story then a review while still giving the reader good fodder as they go along to base their decision of whether or not to go see the movie on (which is the whole reason I think most people read reviews today).

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2012/04/james_cameron_s_titanic_starring_leonardo_dicaprio_and_kate_winslet_now_in_3d_reviewed.html

I must admit that I am partial to these longer reviews, I think they have a deeper and longer lasting effect on the reader by having that extra time with that reader. The extra space inside the reader's head as they substantiate their views or opinions in a more concrete manner is crucial for the critic. Quick and dirty reviews have their advantage as well, but they are mainly only advantageous to a viewer who is making a fly-by-the-seat of their pants decision as they stand in line waiting to buy a ticket to a movie. They really haven't had enough commercials of any of the movies up on the board thrown at them to make them remember any as worth seeing, so they turn to their IPhone and start clicking through Rotten Tomatoes to make a quick decision. If they came across a review as long as either Travers's or Stevens's they would have double backed and tried to find one that was shorter. This is a shame I think because they would not understand nearly as much as they would by reading these if they had found a review that was 250 words and just got to the punch of whether or not that reviewer liked the movie.