Critics have only one purpose in life; that is to write reviews about certain topics. However, among all these critics, there are ones that especially captivate the reader and some other ones that are really dull and slow. The way a reviewer reviews something is very important as it can truly show how good something is.
By starting off with a lot of descriptive adjectives, a reader can already tell that the review will be a good one. A Play That Will Not Come to Dust While It’s a Troupe’s Lucky Charm by Ben Brantley displays how a good review can really compel the reader to watch something. He starts by complementing how the play showed the headless corpse scene. Ben continues to say how the plot of “Cymbeline” was told in a way that was easily understood. He praises how all the actors are true and display no type of facade. He also comments on how the actors don’t “goof around” like some of the other plays he has seen. Ben concludes his review by saying that even the props on stage contribute to a great play’s success.
One thing about a bad review is the summarizing a play. A Couple’s Big Break That’s Not So Lucky by Neil Genzlinger has a lot about the plot. Throughout the entire review, he talks about “Temporal Powers'” plot instead of reviewing the quality of the play. He also includes a few lines from the play itself. However, the quality of the play is only said in one sentence without an elaborating.
As you can see, a good review is leagues from a terrible one. The first one was very descriptive and full of criticism of the play. However, the second one only summarized the plot which doesn’t tell readers how good the play actually is.
I agree with you that the review of “Temporal Powers” is not great. Way too many plot details and not enough commentary on how the actors performed or how enjoyable the play was.
I agree with your points about the two reviews and about how some individuals might find certain reviews more interesting and alluring than others. Everyone has different tastes in works of art and what may seem dull and unentertaining to some, may be appealing to others.
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The poster sent us ‘541021773 which is not a hashcash value.
There was absolutely no criticism in that review either. All that was present was the plot, after a review like that who needs to see the play?
I completely agree with you guys, and I thought that the review on “temporal powers” could barely be considered a review more of a summary.
I agree with you. I feel that a good review has to have a ‘voice’ to it. A summary without an opinion is very dry. I want to know what is good or bad about what I’m reading.
I disagree. Shouldn’t the review give a summary of the play and have opinion of the play as well? I mean in a way Genzlinger’s review is like a movie trailer in words. He takes a piece of the play and puts it in his review, maybe to attract a reader’s attention, which he did in my case. I liked his review because of the summary. I mean I wouldn’t want to watch a play and not know what it was about. I feel like Brantley’s review was just descriptions of everything and nothing about the play. After reading his review, I still don’t know what the play is about, but that the it was played out was good.
I agree with all of you guys. In the case of “Temporal Powers,” Genzlinger quickly lost my attention as I was reading the review. I enjoy reading reviews when the author gives a short description of the plot, however, he gave away the whole play. If I was planning to see the play, I wouldn’t have seen it after he described the whole plot.