Positive Review:
This review starts off by giving a sense of what the reviewer thought of it: "...silly and poignant at once," and comparing it to other movies by the same director. Then he summarizes the plot and explains things that are hard to understand about the quirky film. He then explains what makes it a unique film, why he likes the tone and characters, and ended the critique with what he believes the movie is trying to say. Kohn uses words like "charming," "wise," and "abstract" to defend the movie's...peculiarities. His tone is admirable, giving a lot of credit to the prowess of the director and his ability to evoke true emotion during an otherwise up-beat, playful movie. It was difficult to tell what exactly Kohn basis his critiques on, since he seemed to like everything about this movie, from the characters, which he found "supremely likable," (I thought them under-developed) to the tone, which he somehow saw as "good-natured" despite being filled with "dark humor." He puts large emphasis on the meaning of the movie, which he derives to be "Time waits for no one" and that we are all prisoners of our own destiny. This interpretation allowed him to view the whole movie as full of symbolism and genius, while most would see it as confusing and drab.
QUOTE:"...By its later scenes, the movie has settled into its breathless rhythm, allowing the filmmaker to combine his absurd style with uniquely formulated pathos within the context of the outlandishness narrative." I can see what Kohn means by "breathless rhythm," because the movie (with no action whatsoever) does have a calming effect. And I certainly agree that the director has an absurd style, so viewers should be well-warned going in that this movie doesn't end wrapped in a pretty bow. I can also attest to the unique pathos of the movie, how characters are killed off in an abrupt and apathetic way, making you sympathize for their quick plunge into obscurity.
Negative Review:In this review, Debruge's thesis is that the movie is confusing, doesn't actually say much, and is based on the shocking immaturity of the main character. He backs this by describing how unlikable the main character Max is, citing his complete apathy towards life to be the cause of his unhappiness. He also explains the obscurity of the structure, saying that with "no clear plot to drive the action, it's hard to distinguish between a normal scene break and one of the film's many flash-forwards." He also uses the strange, magical, youth-giving suit-case as an example for how confusing the film is, saying that the director "wants this magic device to remain ambiguous, but it's mostly just unclear." I think Debruge's thesis is backed up with examples and concrete imagery that gives me a good idea of the characters. Debruge's tone is scornful, which he aims mostly at the main character Max, saying he "could be the poster-boy for a generation of disengaged young men." He explains that viewers close in age to him might relate to his humor and/or outlook, but will soon realize that Max, who "continues to repeat the same mistakes," is not a satisfying protagonist. He also jabs at the compilation of the movie, first describing it as "discrete, disconnected scenes," and later as "bemusing vignettes." Debruge sums it up by saying that the movie simply isn't fun to watch.
QUOTE:
"She is passionate about breadsticks, he is passionate about nothing, and so they proceed, hoping it will all work out."
This quote resonated with me because it perfectly sums up two of the main characters, shows the movie's oddness, and its unbelievability as a story about an average man's life. When I read this sentence, I realized what bothered me about Max-that he isn't passionate about anything. Like many people, I love to see passionate, expressive characters who are hoping to achieve something. Max is the opposite of this, and because of that I had a hard time relating to him. His wife's unbelievable obsession with bread sticks is about as far as her character development gets, and their needless rush into marriage makes such an interesting part of a persons life-finding their significant other-completely anti-climactic.
Honestly, apart from the fact that I didn't like the movie, I much prefer the negative review. The positive review tells the basic plot of the story amid confusing sentences such as, "including during the quasi-science fiction finale, a version of the future that brings to mind 'Idiocracy.'" Like the movie, Kohn's review was hard to understand because it used so many references I was unfamiliar with. The negative review, on the other hand, so accurately describes the main character that I have a much deeper understanding of the movie than the surface-value plot description offered by the positive review. Debruge's simplified writing style is so much more accessible that immediately his ethos is heightened. In fact, I would say the main feature that made Debruge's review better than Kohn's was its simplicity.
If I were writing a film review, I would make sure to include what I thought the meaning of the movie was. Since one's views towards a movie can be characterized by how well the movie achieved its purpose, it's a good idea to include what I interpreted that purpose to be. I would also include any original ideas I noticed about the movie, features that either added or took away from the movie that I think viewers should look out for. I would mention stand-outs among the cast or crew, and what I thought of the director, after also doing some research.
