Chief among its flaws is the misspelling of one of the character's names. In the review I handed in, the character Sue's name was incorrectly written as Su (I fixed it in the blog review). As I learned in last quarter's journalism class, this alone is enough to condemn the review's grade to an F.
However, there are is another major flaw with the analysis. It dedicates the majority of three paragraphs (more than half of the entire article) to what basically amounts to plot summary. This is unacceptable; after all, it's intended to be a review, not a synopsis.
One thing done correctly in this piece was a clear statement of opinion. The "but" is, "Nothing else in the film stands out quite so well, and overall, it is thoroughly mediocre compared with other more recent Eastwood movies, such as his 'Unforgiven.' See it, if at all, only for Eastwood's masterful performance." However, there's not much defense behind this statement, yet another problem. I'd give myself an F for the misspelling of Sue's name and the review's other problems.
No comments:
Post a Comment