In Orr’s review of “There Will Be Blood”, it gives a more detailed overview of the whole movie. It critiques the movie to give details that maybe the reader didn’t catch in the movie or details they will be familiar with while watching the movie. With Orr’s interview, I really learned and felt a different view about the movie. Without fully watching “There Will Be Blood”, I have gotten a good sense now on what I have watched and what I will be watching in the future. This review has done a good job in my terms on giving the overview of the movie in detail.
In Scott’s review of “Good Night, Good Luck”, I really understood the meaning of the movie itself. I read the review before watching the movie; I really wasn’t interested at all. But reading the review after the movie, I really grasped the whole point of the movie. It gave a lot more personality to the movie and I caught the important points and theme to the missed detail I missed while watching the movie.
I think that both of the reviews were well-written. I think that Scott did a better job of getting the real meaning of the movie, while Orr did his work with comparing his movie to another, which made it easy to read and understand. Both of the writers really were accurate with the true meaning of the films. If I had to write a review on both of these movies, I would find it very complicated to copy their reviews. They did a great job on giving their insights on the films. Their work really can help me in my future review on a particular movie.
