Typically, reviews of films will give context of a film while providing a clear position on the effectiveness and likability of the movie itself. The review of "Still Alice" written by Peter Debruge fails to establish a clear claim, hardly discussing anything but the plot. While he has implicitly suggested he enjoyed the film, because of his syntax and points chosen to discuss, the reader is left still curious to the question of whether or not to see the movie, which is usually the reason they turned to the article in the first place.
Debruge opens his article by explaining that Still Alice is not like other movies dealing with Alzheimer's, as it is organized through the victim's point of view and not that of family members/friends. While Debruge does explain how this allows the audience to connect better with someone suffering from the disease, he does so so casually that it is almost missed. His diction is weak and undirected, leading to the reader feeling only semi-satisfied.
That being said, Debruge does make it clear that the lead of the movie, Julianne Moore, is impeccable. Her performance is praised, but in a somewhat confusing manner. Debruge utilizes words like "underplaying" which carries a negative connotation, as a way to support his claim that she was powerful and accomplished. Once again, the reader is left with a sense of confusion, unsure whether or not what took place in the film was bad, good, or neither.
Debruge also takes a lot of time to discuss the lives of the directors, without ever mentioning that the names given were the directors at all! While their lives are indeed fascinating, clearly paralleling the essence of the movie, the amount of time and detail attending to their story is inappropriate for the context of the review. DEbruge really missed the mark when it came to providing evidence to support his claim, which is unsurprising as his claim hardly exists.
No comments:
Post a Comment