Spencer Wawak

9/2/13

Review of the Reviews

We’re the Millers

            http://christylemire.com/were-the-millers/

http://www.timeout.com/london/film/were-the-millers

1.  Both of these reviews are in paragraph form.  The critics basically re-tell the plot of the story, which was a predictable one.  They talk about all of the events taking place in this movie and while projecting their opinions through comments on the choices made by the writers, directors and actors. 

It was very clear which one was negative and which one was positive.  The negative one had sarcasm evident throughout, making fun of the climax, and making it seem unworthy.  The positive one focuses on their pleasure of seeing Jennifer Aniston pick this role whereas the other one does the exact opposite. 

The positive one is definitely a lot smarter than the negative one based off of their word choice and flow throughout.  Both of the people were focusing on Jennifer Aniston, whether it be positive or negative cementation is not the question at hand.  The point being that they do not pay much attention to the non- “big name” players in this film.  That tells me that there were no surprises which I find interesting because I thought Will Poulter did an excellent job. 

2.  A negative review of We’re the Millers states “Their high-risk strategy is to go deep undercover – disguised as wholesome midwestern American tourists. A couple of delinquent teenagers (Emma Roberts and Will Poulter) are roped into playing their fake kids. They’re the Millers”.  This is obviously a very sarcastic and smug comment in which the critic was attempting to take a jab at this films dignity.  I agree with them when the critic is implying that the plot was obvious before you even saw it but the connotation is just flat out incorrect and misused.  The Positive Critic said,  “Will this fake family end up functioning as a real family in time? Of course they will. It’s pure formula — you can tell where “We’re the Millers” is going from the billboards alone. But to its credit, the comedy from director Rawson Marshall Thurber, from a script by small army of writers, stays mean and maintains a bit of an edge even when it threatens to go all soft and gooey”.  This critic says that it is predictable but the connotation of this person is completely the opposite.  They say that it’s okay because the director made it happen. 

3.  The negative one would be more convincing because it is very far that way.  It says that it is horrible and basically recommends no one see this movie.  But, the positive one says that its good, even though it is predictable.  In this case the person is not ecstatic about this movie but it is likeable.  I would probably side with the negative one if I had never seen this movie because of the strength of its hatred. 

4.  I would include all of the outstanding performances by the actors, directors and writers, whether it be good or bad.  I would also include what I think the meaning of the film was in order to stir thought in the minds of my readers.  Finally I would elaborate on the themes that were evident in the film in order to give a deeper understanding to the meaning.