Reviews of Safe HouseRoger Moore's, a critic from McClatchy Tribune News Service, review of Safe house paints a positive picture for his readers. The author begins by giving the reader background of the film, like main characters/ the actors that play them and the setting. The author also uses direct quotes from the movie to help portray the thrill element that is prevalent throughout the whole film. Then the author goes into detail about his opinion on the film and then finally wraps it up by naming the cast of the film. The writer has an excited tone throughout the whole film. He mentions the excitement the viewer feels as he describes things the chase scenes and gun fights. The writer does not forget to add in the counterargument though. He explains how the director had a grand opportunity to use the scenic backdrop of South Africa, but instead made it more general to seem as if it could be any city worldwide. The vocabulary that the author uses helps add to the tone the author uses. He utilizes phrases like "keeps the movie rolling" to describe how fast paced the movie was. This helps add to the pathos applied to the reader as well. The writer focused mostly on the plot and the techniques the director used to keep the movie on "it's feet." References to other films were brief in this review, only being mentioned in the beginning, vaguely only mentioning how the films plot and action were similar to other films before it. Overall, this review was convincing and made the film more intriguing.
http://rogersmovienation.com/2013/01/05/movie-review-safe-house/
This next article by Rex Reed, of the New York Observer, is an attack on the film. Reed runs through a summary in which he states no real opinion. Then, out of no where, in two short paragraphs he attacks Daniel Espinosa, director of the film, and even decorated actor Denzel Washington, for his role in the film. This author states no counter argument and does not even leave the discussion open for debate. The vocabulary used throughout the review is simple and easy to understand. This adds to the bluntness of the review. The writers tone is negative and relentless in its attack on the film and anyone involved. He goes as far as to question Washngton's credibility for partaking in the film. There are references used in the attack, where the author state how the movie has been done many time before making it "predictable." Overall, I felt the author did a poor job trying to relay his message to the readers and needs to leave it to readers to make up their own minds.http://observer.com/2012/02/safe-house-experiences-blowback/
"The Photography is state-of-the-Bourne-art-exciting." To me, this is one of the best action films there is. the combination of Denzel Washington's villain role and his Training Day type attitude along with the wit that the film incorporates makes the film exciting throughout. The chase scenes in this film are exciting and keep you on the edge of you seat."Even GQ coverboy Ryan Reynolds has bags under his eyes as big as walnuts." I have to agree that throughout the film Reynolds does not look like himself. Usually he is "prettied up" in movies, but in Safe House he is not. I do not agree, however, that this is a bad thing. I believe that this adds to the films realism. He is supposed to play a stressed out, under experienced, low level a FBI agent and the way he looks throughout the film adds to that.
The more convincing argument is produced by Moore in the review first mentioned. This is for a couple of reasons. First, he has a more laid back approach to informing the reader to his opinion. Second, he does not attack those related to the film, especially highly respected actors. The author also allows the reader to form their own opinion and does not tell them what they need to think. I also believe that taking direct quotes from the film helped add to Moore's, a good fast pace, argument. Finally, Moore uses elaborate yet understandable vocabulary that vividly describes key scenes in the movie. If I were to write a review of this film, there are a few key things that would need to be included. First, respect would have to be shown to the actors and director that worked hard on the film. Second, I would try to depict scenes that I felt helped add to my argument. I also feel that it is important to leave the discussion open for debate and to recognize that my own point of view is not the only point of view. The counterargument is also not to be forgotten. Addressing the counterargument adds to your ethos as a writer. I would be sure to leave out any criticism of highly commended actors. Overall, the reviews of this film were convincing, and the techniques varied, for a good film.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IfQY4fNcnw
