Review of the Reviews

Positive Review:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303932504579253683274985194?mod=WSJ_ArtsEnt_LifestyleArtEnt_6

Negative Review:
http://nypost.com/2013/12/10/american-hustle-is-a-polyester-filled-mess/

After hearing so much about it the past couple weeks, I finally went to see American Hustle in theaters this past weekend. I was intrigued to see the movie that earned the Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actress – Motion Picture and was not let down. It had an attention-grabbing plot line that flowed well throughout the movie along with properly dressed characters. However, the movie was at times drawn out too much and the acting was questionable at times, so I can understand why some people might not have enjoyed it as much.

Overall, American Hustle earned a solid rating for its screenplay and characters. For example, I chose to analyze a review written by Joe Morgenstern from the Wall Street Journal. His review was formatted so that he started with his thoughts about the movie and then went on to describe each character thoroughly. The tone of this review was one that was contemptuous and straightforward, with a hint of humor, while also using direct quotes as a way to prove his points. An example is when Morgenstern described Christian Bale, who played Irving in the movie, as “flabby” in his review but referred back to Sydney, played by Amy Adams, who said that Irving was “not necessarily in good shape” in the movie. Other than this description of Irving, Joe Morgenstern described all the other characters by using a very eccentric choice of word like “quick-witted floozy” to describe Jennifer Lawrence’s role as Rosalyn. By categorizing the movie as a comedy and drama, it was evident that Morgenstern was pleased with the outcome of American Hustle.

In contrast, a review by Kyle Smith from the New York Post categorized the movie as “sort of a mob thriller” and “in part a con-job movie”. Smith clearly portrays the fact that he was not too appreciative of the movie in both the content of it and some of its acting. The tone of Smith’s review was one that was more sarcastic, critical, and condescending compared to Morgenstern’s review. Kyle Smith makes many sarcastic comments like his comment about the hair styles of the characters and his comments about their personalities. He formatted his review so that it went chronologically with what occurred in the movie. While describing the events of the movie, Smith criticizes it by saying that there are “too many movies” about con artists and that the director of the movie is in some “strange, loopy bliss.” Seeing the way Kyle Smith talks about the characters, the director, and the movie as a whole, one can see that he disapproves of how the movie was made.

However, both movie reviews did have some common aspects as to how they were written. In between the parentheses of the two reviews, the writers included additional side notes, or comments, that were not completely necessary but helped the reader to see what their real thoughts were and maybe even learn some new information. Both reviews also focused mainly on explaining the plot and the characters in American Hustle. They made sure to elaborate on their thoughts of what each star’s role was in the movie and whether or not they thought they fit their role. Though the tone of each review was different, each had their own way of incorporating humor. Morgenstern’s review showed humor through some of the ways she described the movie and how much she seemed to fawn over it. In Smith’s review, he used sarcasm and satire as a form of humor. Many references were also made in both of the reviews, both historical and ones to other films. In Smith’s review, he referenced many more movies than in Morgenstern’s. Both commented on the fact that Bradley Cooper starred in Silver Linings Playbook and that he did a splendid job in it. Both also added a tidbit about how American Hustle was based off of an FBI scam in the 1970s called Abscam. So despite the differences of opinion and tone in the two reviews, both had some similar ideas on what should be included in their reviews and what is the most important.

Of the many points that I agree with in Morgenstern’s review, there was one point that I wholeheartedly agree with the most without a doubt. It was the comment he made about Jennifer Lawrence’s ability to act and her humor. He said that, “Comedy seems to come naturally to her, though so far there's no sign of anything in acting that doesn't” (Morgenstern). I agree with this because I think that Jennifer Lawrence is a very talented person and actress. She starred in both American Hustle as a ditsy wife that had a terrible relationship with her husband and in the Hunger Games series as a girl who is fighting to keep her and her partner, Peeta, alive and to properly represent her district. These two roles are completely different and Lawrence plays both roles very well. This shows that she is fit for any role and that nothing can hold her back. She is also portrayed as a comedic person through interviews on television and her stories that she tells. Although I agree with Morgenstern’s view of the movie more, Smith made a good point about American Hustle in his review. He said that, "There's a fake sheik in there somewhere, too, and you may remember, if barely, the underlying true story of the '70s "Abscam" plot that led to the conviction of several congressmen and a senator. But that part of the story      the one part that matters!      interests Russell the least" (Smith). I agree with this statement about the movie because although this movie is supposed to represent the 1970s Abscam that occurred, it focused primarily on the characters and their lives rather than the actual conning.

I think that the positive review by Joe Morgenstern was the more convincing review of the two. His comments and opinions on the movie seemed much more professional than those of Kyle Smith. Smith's review seemed to come from a very bitter person's point of view. He mainly just found different ways to make fun of the movie rather than giving constructive criticism for it. On the other hand, Morgenstern's multitude of eccentric words made his review stick in your mind more and made you more intrigued to continue reading. His review would have made a larger impact on whether or not I would have wanted to see the movie.

If I were to write a review on a movie that I have recently watched, I would consider inputting multiple key points. First of all, I would make sure to include my opinion of the movie, of course. This means that I would add whether or not I thought the actors were fit for their roles and if the cinematography was well done. I would also be sure to include some direct quotes to support any arguments I would be trying to make. References would also play a big role, whether it is a historical reference or a reference to other films and stars. This could affect whether or not the reader wants to watch it, based off of if they are interested in the topic or not. Something I would make sure I did not have, however, is an excessive amount of sarcasm. I would surely have a couple of sarcastic comments, but not much more because I would want my review to be handled seriously. And last but not least, I would be sure to include what my overall rating is out of 5 stars so it is easy to see my opinion of the movie at a quick glance if needed.