Review of the Reviews

Bridesmaids

The review of Bridesmaids on Rotten Tomatoes was structured very well. It clearly had expert ratings and audience ratings right next too it along with Top Critic reviews when you scrolled down. It was very easy to navigate and it was all right there on the page you didn’t need to click on anything to get what you were looking for. Metacritic's review had a very similar structure as Rotten Tomatoes; they were practically identical. Therefore, it was very easy to navigate as well. In the review I read on Rotten Tomatoes the writer, David Denby, described the humor in the movie and provided examples from the movie. For example, Denby references the scene where Kristen Wiig is drunk on the airplane. He also adds more funny bits of the movie that further support his argument that this is a hilarious movie. In the second review I read by Elizabeth Weitzman she argues that Bridesmaids isn't like any other stereotypical date movie. She supports this by stating that although it's about a woman who can't find love it is extremely exaggerated with out of control events, which makes it humorous and unlike anything before it. 

The tone of both reviews is light hearted. Since they both liked the movie neither were negative or seemed angry. They were fun, because they highlighted funny parts in the movie, making the tone more fun. The vocabulary used in both reviews was somewhat odd. I felt they used too big of words for the movie genre and audience it attracts. The movie is a simple and funny movie, yet they were describing it in elaborate ways that, I felt, were unnecessary. Such words and phrases are appropriate for a review of a more educational or intense movie, but I felt it was unnecessary in this context.

In the review by David Denby he focuses on the plot and explaining the movie. He gives a play by play of what the movie is about and who the characters are. However, he does it with minimal detail in order to not spoil anything. Elizabeth Weitzman, on the other hand, discusses a lot of background info on Kristen Wiig and the director. Although she later discusses the plot line and characters further down in her review. She also talks about the plot and characters in greater detail than Denby, and also discusses the director and further discusses Wiig and her unique role. In this review she referenced how Kristen Wiig and Maya Rudolph aren’t your typical starring roles. They aren't fake or plastic, playing real best friends and looking like real best friends. She contrasts the two from the lead best friends in "Something Borrowed", and basically says they are no Kate Hudson, yet the movie was still a hit. And, she feels it was a hit because of how real they were in it. The review by Denby referenced Wiig's time on Saturday Night Live, but other than that there weren't very many references. 

In Denby's review I loved the quote "In this new comedy, Kristen Wiig, a “Saturday Night Live” regular since 2005, gives a largely realistic performance as a woman without any ego at all", because I greatly agree with it. One of the reasons I enjoyed the movie so much was because I didn't feel like I was watching a movie, instead I felt like I was watching two friends interact with each other. Kristen Wiig and Maya Rudolph were so natural that it didn't seem scripted or like a movie, and that’s why I feel so many people enjoyed it. I feel Denby hit this point perfectly with this quote. In Weitzman's review the quote I connected to the most was "Wiig and her co-writer, Annie Mumolo, were clearly determined to make a movie that actually reflected reality, albeit in the most exaggerated manner imaginable, and with as much alcohol as possible." Like I said earlier the reality of the movie is what makes it great, however I like this quote, because the extremely crazy and exaggerated situations the girls find themselves in are what makes the movie so hilarious. This quote does a good job of addressing that aspect of the movie, which is why I like it. 

If I had never seen the movie, Weitzman's review would be a lot more convincing to me. I feel this way, because she didn't just talk about the movie, but she had a lot of background knowledge and a lot of knowledge in other areas. Denby, on the other hand, only talked about the movie plot and characters. Therefore, it felt although he just watched the movie and wrote about it where it seems although Weitzman did some research and had prior knowledge of the movie. Therefore, she was more convincing. 

If I were to write a review I would include what the plot is and brief bios of any main characters. I would give some info on what the movie is about and what the idea is. However, I would leave out any spoilers or anything that gives away big parts in the movie. I'd also discuss the director and actors in the movie and add some background knowledge. But, I wouldn't add too much background info that defers away from my point of reviewing. I'd also give clear reasons on why I liked or didn't like a film and possibly relate it to other movies I’ve seen so my audience and know if they relate to me and if they'd like it or dislike it as well.