The 'Review' of 'Reviews'

Oh my God. I absolutely love this movie.

Tim Burton's 'Corpse Bride' is a cinematic masterpiece, and in my opinion, one of the greatest and most visually stunning films to ever grace the Earth. The story is engaging, the script is beautifully simple, the music is elegant and playful coming from the genius mind of Danny Elfman, the voice-acting is some of the most well-done of all time, and there is so much more that I could say about this movie that would take much more than 1 paragraph for me to emphasize. Seriously. If you haven't seen this movie, you are missing out on one of the greatest and cutest love stories you will ever see.

There are two reviews here, one from the Washington Post and the other from the London magazine 'Timeout.' Regardless of how I feel about this movie, I will analyze both for the commonality and the differences between them, and see how critics attacked or praised one of my absolute favorite movies of all time.

We'll start with the TimeOut review. It's a very poetic aesthetic, with the author attempting to introduce the film and what it contains with varied syntax and much less sophisticated diction. The author attempts to introduce the film by quoting one of the most memorable lines, and as a result sort of funnels his way into talking about the specifics of the film. The whole tone of the piece doesn't come off as very sophisticated, but instead sounds almost like an angry user trying to write some sort of negative criticism based on personal objection. I don't dislike the review because of my obvious bias towards the film; I happen to be a huge fan of his vocabulary and the way that the review acts almost as a story within itself. While he didn't love the movie, he did a great job of introducing the whimsical and wonderful plot of the movie, and using some of the film's technical grasps to hitch what he felt was not good. Overall, the review is very solid, and very enticing to read.

The second review is a more positive one stemming from the Washington Post. What's more interesting here is the review plays off of the dynamic on who Tim Burton actually is. By establishing that Tim Burton is the one who brought us the Michael Jackson 'Charlie and the Chocolate Factory' and the gorgeous 'Edward Scissorhands,' the review automatically gives the reader the sense of the film they're talking about. As well, it focuses primarily on what the movie does relative to its animation and story, and compares the beauty of the movie's cinematography to it's maybe 'not-perfect' storyline (which I completely disagree with, for the record). It's actually very nice that the review is structured to give an entrance into who Tim Burton is as a director, and then stylistically braid the plot with the cinematography to give two separate perspectives on what the film contains, making it a very solid review.

There is 1 quote from each review that I completely agree with. From 'Timeout,' it's "As in 1993’s ‘Nightmare Before Christmas’ – also executed by another director and accompanied by Danny Elfman’s creepy-swoopy score and wordy songs – animation proves the ideal mode for Burton’s cute-Gothic aesthetic, with its curlicue scenery, dry-twig limbs and macabre flourishes." The diction here is absolutely spectacular; very few reviews take the time to flourish the true value of the Gothic and macabre world of Tim Burton, and word it in a way that sounds poetically pleasing to the common ear. As well, it defines the value of stop-motion animation beautifully in discussing how Burton focuses on the dark and mixed it with the vivacious. From the 'Washington Post,' it's "With Tim Burton, it is understood that you're going to take a walk on the macabre side: a creepy guy with blades for hands; a cross-dressing auteur; a campy chocolate factory owner working out Oedipal issues." What's interesting here is how the author of the review chooses consciously to almost sarcastically attack Tim Burton, almost warning the audience of his profoundly creepy nature. While it's a little personal, it's a fantastic description that describes the true weird factor of what makes Burton movies Burton movies, and gives the reader a good psychological image of the type of film that they'll be dealing with.

Had I never seen this movie before, I'd be much more inclined to follow the Washington Post. The issue with the TimeOut article is that it's one paragraph long, and doesn't do a whole lot of justice to the point it's trying to make. It's obviously a negative review, but leaves so much dead weight in the midst of it's review by making a point and then never expanding on it. As well, it's very short, so the point comes across almost radically and it's hard to latch onto what it's trying to say. The Post review is much better because not only does it acknowledge the flaws and wrongs of the film, but provides a structured analysis that gives insight into two key features and does justice to both descriptions. Because of it's more sophisticated level of style and mannerism, it's a better review than the other.

When I write movie reviews, I try to talk about the film in general. I don't think it's right to specifically focus on one piece of the move that was bad or good, because I feel like that takes away from the sense of what the movie is trying to accomplish. For example, if a movie has a very engaging story, but the author is hell-bent on talking about how poorly the movie was 'casted' or 'scripted,' then the story is lost in the midst of fuddling about how much worse the acting is and the good part of the movie is never brought to light. Thus, I really don't like focusing specifics unless they really played a part in making the movie good or bad, such as the chemistry between Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart in 'American Ultra.' Overall, I think it's better to cover a variety of topics and grant a movie it's true justice than to focus on a single piece that takes away from the entire viewing experience.

So overall, movie reviews are interesting. Some good, some bad, some laughable and some absolutely terrible, some sophisticated and some not, movie reviews are everywhere. Personally, I know what I like and what I don't like, and I think that there are many things that need to be covered in a movie's review than just a simple fact about the movie itself. As a result, even the worst movies have their nuances. So, in looking at Tim Burton's stop-motion masterpiece 'Corpse Bride,' you may read the two reviews and come to your own conclusions on what's good and what's not. Overall, I've said what I need to say, and I think everything has it's place. This was my review of reviews, and I hope it helped.

And by the way, just watch Corpse Bride. I'll guarantee you won't be disappointed.

If you want to view both reviews mentioned in the article, they are hyperlinked below. Thanks so much!

TimeOut - Corpse Bride Review (Negative)

Washington Post - Corpse Bride Review (Positive)