Review of the Reviews-The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (directed by Peter Jackson)

1.)
The first review I read was that of a fan of the movie and I thought that his analysis was better structured. While it is more broken down than the second review, that stated the movie was "rotten", I thought it was more able to communicate it's argument by giving each piece of analysis emphasis and attention. The tone of the first review, written by Chris Vognar, had a much more up-beat and interested feeling that brings the reader in. He writes in a conversational feeling that allows people to feel comfortable with reading his review on the movie. While I am bias, I believe the second writer, Christopher Orr, wrote his review in a very sophisticated and more professional manner, which in some contexts, such as professional, is good, but, I believe readers respond more to opinions when they have relatable feeling to them. Similar to the tone of the reviews, Vognar's vocabulary choices are more conversational with a few bigger words mixed in. On the other hand, Orr uses words like "absconded" and "extraneous". Though big words make you seem smart and likely a reliable source of information, the big words are too sophisticated for the whimsical nature of the movie being reviewed.

Appart from the semantics of Honors English classes, these reviews contain much more valuable information. These reviews after all, are exactly that, reviews. So lets focus more about these writers opinions and the facts that they based their "top critic" opinions on. Vognar's positive review of the movie is based on the movie's well-done story weaving that allows non-readers to understand the plot of the movie. He also applauds the movie's whimsical and humorous nature. He does realize the movie is long, but he remedies the negative with the insight that even though the book was short, the journey was still a long and arduous one, thus the movie should be the same. Vognar also references other successful works such as the movie Skyfall and Paradise Lost the book, explaining that we all love well done villains that have humors that can even outshine our favorite protagonists, in the case of the Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins is often out-shined by CGI character Gollum (voiced by Andy Serkis). Of course,, he also references the previous movies by Jackson that pick up the tale of Middle Earth after the movie in question, the Hobbit. He does this for the obvious reason of acknowledging the great success the previous movies had.

Looking at Orr's review we get a different perspective on the same movie. In rather a bias opinion, Orr's review lacks analysis. His only focus seems to be that Peter Jackson made the movie too long. Saying that he spends too much time on pointless scenes. He also declares that Jackson used the Hobbit  more as a way to promote his other Middle Earth related movies and in addition to that didn't make something original. Orr uses references mostly to compare things in the movie to real-world things like Wyatt Earp's mustache and fleeting glimpses of Godzilla. Other than these references the other references refer back to judgements on the previous movies and how they pertain to the movie at stake.

2.)
For Vognar's I choose the quote, "Occasionally a slog, 'the Hobbit' also has a fair amount of charm". Indeed, the movie is full of charm from the surreal film locations of New Zealand to the wide ranging personalities of the dwarf company, not to mention an old man that is so much more than your average wizard. Peter Jackson fills his movie with the whimsical charm of Middle Earth and the far-awayness that the movie brings us. 

In Orr's review I choose the quote, "Bilbo's mortal game of riddles with Gollum (Andy Serkis) is nearly worth the price of admission by itself: tense, textured, and devoid of the embellishments that slow down so much of the film. I agree with the first half of the quote at the very least...the riddle scene between Bilbo and Gollum is humorous, serious, tense, and all-round great fun to observe. The actor's have great command of their body language (in which case Gollum is just a CGI) and even greater command of their vocal inflection (which Andy Serkis does the voice over for Gollum). 

3.)  
Personally, neither one of the reviews seemed that strong. Orr's was not convincing at all, the only thing I saw going for it was that it was written professionally and with sophisticated, which in my opinion belongs in a different style of writing. On the other hand, while I thought Vognar's review was written well on an English class standard, the content lacked in the ability to persuade a reader that the movie was a must see due his seeming undecidedness. Qualities that would have made a convincing review would have made a convincing review (both those used and not) are flow, natural tone, obvious personal interest in topic, mention of main actors, a brief plot explanation without giving important information away (no spoilers). Also a review should be similar in style to the movie for better reader understanding and have a clear position even if it's undecided. The writer needs to explain why they are undecided or love/hate the movie. 

4.)
If I were to review this movie I would let people know the kind of movie it is since not everyone is going to like the type of movie right from the beginning. It is important to understand that everyone has different tastes. I would tell people that there are appearances from actors from the previous movies in the sequence as well as some great new actors. I would inform readers that the movie hosts some great action and includes humor even in some of the serious scenes. I would make note but not in detail that the movie is rather long and for those that like a long sitting of adventure. I would also leave out that the movie, while true to the book, does include information that Tolkien wrote elsewhere to fill in the gaps that the book may have left out. Overall, I would give this movie an A-/B+ for its great acting, engaging action, wide range of emotions, and central themes that the movie includes. Not to mention the filming was done with a 48 frame rate camera to optimize clarity in action scenes.