![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. Dueling Superman Reviews - which unintentionally depict how to write a film review and how not to write a film review.
Professional film/music/book critic and science fiction novelist John Scalzi and his daughter, an inspiring blogger (who to date has primarily written blog posts in her father's blog) post dual reviews of the new film - Superman (directed by James Gunn).
Go HERE (Warning, Athena Scalzi's review is filled with spoilers, although I got confused halfway through, jumped to the end and gave up on her review, her father, John Scalzi's review has relatively few - actually no spoilers outside of what you might see in the trailers.)
The dueling reviews - which are quite different takes on the film - unintentionally show the dos and don'ts of writing reviews, and glaringly show the difference between a professional film critic's review and a amateur film reviewer who saw a flick.
Snippets for examples of the difference:
Beginning of AS's review: "I love Superman. He is my favorite superhero, and I am always defending him against those who claim he is “boring.” Needless to say, I was extremely excited for Superman (2025), and had to go and see it on the big screen. I’m sad to report I didn’t really like it all that much. Though I’ve been seeing tons of high praise across the Internet, it was pretty mid in my book, so let’s talk about it. And, of course, here is your spoiler warning."
Beginning of JS's review: "There have been several live action Superman movies, going back to Christopher Reeve’s iconic portrayal in the 1978 film (and actually before then, as there was a 1948 serial starring Kirk Alyn, but I’m doing a Jedi hand wave on that for this conversation). Across these many films and actors who have essayed the character, it’s generally agreed upon that the ’78 film, and Reeve’s turn in the blue suit, are the best of the bunch. After watching the 2025 Superman, with David Corenswet as the lead character, Reeve and the ’78 film still remain on top. But! Now there’s a new film, and new actor, in second place."
And..
Ending of AS's review: "So, yeah. I didn’t really like this movie. Which is a shame because I think they nailed Superman’s morals, beliefs, his personality, the way he would interact with the world and with people. They absolutely killed it with Superman’s character. But that’s about it. A good Superman does not a good Superman movie make.
Overall, this movie was like a 5/10, very middling. I didn’t hate it but I don’t like it much, either. To be honest, I prefer Man of Steel. That’s right, I said it. I miss Henry Cavill, what can I say?
What did you think of Superman? What is your favorite Superman movie/media? Let me know in the comments, and have a great day!"
Ending of JS's review: "With that said, this is the second-best Superman film for a reason. Overstuffed though it might be, it also hits the marks of making a good film with a fundamentally decent main character. The supporting cast ably supports. The antagonist viciously antagonizes. The worldbuilding is solid and mostly smart. The lightness and sense of humor pull us through. Is it a great film? No. But if simply being good is good enough for the character of Superman, it’s good enough for this story about him. James Gunn has put his stamp on the character and the universe, and I’m looking forward to seeing where both of them go from here."
The trick in reviewing anything - is to give the reader just enough information for them to determine privately if they want to see, read, or listen to the item being reviewed themselves. Is it worth their time? Their taste more likely than not will differ greatly from the reviewer's - so the trick is to give them enough information, without spoiling them, to know whether to check it out for themselves. And at the same time - entertaining them, giving them interesting information, and not boring or confusing them in the process. This is not easy to do. Most amateur reviewers haven't a clue how to do it, as you can see from AS's review.
I figured out from John Scalzi's whether it made sense to see the film in a big theater, and whether I'd like it. And that was without being insanely spoiled on it. Besides giving me a headache, Athena's review confused me and spoiled me about various bits, I'd prefer not to be spoiled on. Also, AS's review only works for those who have already seen the film and not as a review - whose audience is those who haven't seen the film yet. You can't make sense of AS's review without having seen the film. I also couldn't tell if I'd like the film or not. But I knew without a doubt whether I would reading her father's review. (I won't and will wait for it to come on television. It's like Gunn's other films - too busy. And movie theaters aren't comfortable any longer? And have too many distractions? I'd rather watch at home.)
John Scalzi also made me want to re-watch the 1978 Superman flick - which I did see in theaters and adored at the time. (I've seen the 1978 Superman film, all of its sequels, including the final or fourth one that I almost walked out on - that was in Wales, outdoors, and with others, and we were bored and wanted to see a movie in Britain - it was in 1987). Also seen the Brandon Routh/Bryan Singer flick, Zack Snyder's Superman films, Whedon's Justice League, Smallville, Lois and Clark, Lois and Superman, and the cartoons. What can I say? I have a weakness for superhero flicks? And happen to like Superman? I was very tempted by this one - but the last James Gunn film I saw in a theater gave me a headache - John Scalzi is right - Gunn has a juvenile and somewhat overt sense of humor, and likes to load his films with way too much information and characters for one two to three hour flick. Simple is not his thing. (Suicide Squad also gave me a headache). Mileage may vary on this? But I do not like busy films - want busy - do a television series. Film is like a short story or novella - it's a slice. It should not be busy.
Actually only a handful of films worked for me - that were busy. Infinity War, Endgame, and the Godfather flicks. There are most likely others out there, I just can't think of them at the moment.
I've been skimming reviews for Gunn's Superman because it's apparently controversial? And deemed Woke, because Superman states he's an immigrant. And some idiots, including one who played him (Dean Cain) don't believe he was or is? He is an alien. Of course he's an immigrant. Actually that was the whole point in the comics - the writers deliberately made him an alien or immigrant because they were writing the comics during or just post WWII and about the Jewish Immigrants fleeing Nazi Germany. I don't understand people? Were they bounced on their heads as children?
2. Books
I think I've landed on The Rook -
Per Good Reads: Myfanwy Thomas awakens in a London park surrounded by dead bodies. With her memory gone, she must trust the instructions left by her former in order to survive. She quickly learns that she is a Rook, a high-level operative in a secret agency that protects the world from supernatural threats. But there is a mole inside the organization, and this person wants her dead. Battling to save herself, Myfanwy will encounter a person with four bodies, a woman who can enter her dreams, children transformed into deadly fighters, and terrifyingly vast conspiracy. Suspenseful and hilarious, The Rook is an outrageously imaginative thriller for readers who like their espionage with a dollop of purple slime.
"Utterly convincing and engrossing -- -totally thought-through and frequently hilarious....Even this aging, jaded, attention-deficit-disordered critic was blown away."-Lev Grossman, Time
About the author: Dan O'Malley graduated from Michigan State University and earned a Master's Degree in medieval history from Ohio State University. He then returned to his childhood home, Australia. He now works for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, writing press releases for government investigations of plane crashes and runaway boats.
This may work for me - it fits my sense of humor, and I'm also a jaded, attention-deficit-disordered critic at the moment.
Plus it's on Kindle so not hard to lug around.
Finished Remarkably Bright Creatures - my difficulty with it was all the characters were frustratingly dense. The writer contrived ways to keep them apart which irritated me. I deal with dense people daily, I can't handle reading about them? Also the writing style didn't work for me, for some reason?
Re-listening to all of the Kate Daniels Graphic Audio Dramatizations - there's ten in all. Plus several single audio books, which aren't. Maybe by the time I finish there will be more? The Kate Daniels series scratches whatever itch I need scratched at the moment. Also they are kind of comfort reads.
And still making my way through the thick paperback of Fair Folk.
Professional film/music/book critic and science fiction novelist John Scalzi and his daughter, an inspiring blogger (who to date has primarily written blog posts in her father's blog) post dual reviews of the new film - Superman (directed by James Gunn).
Go HERE (Warning, Athena Scalzi's review is filled with spoilers, although I got confused halfway through, jumped to the end and gave up on her review, her father, John Scalzi's review has relatively few - actually no spoilers outside of what you might see in the trailers.)
The dueling reviews - which are quite different takes on the film - unintentionally show the dos and don'ts of writing reviews, and glaringly show the difference between a professional film critic's review and a amateur film reviewer who saw a flick.
Snippets for examples of the difference:
Beginning of AS's review: "I love Superman. He is my favorite superhero, and I am always defending him against those who claim he is “boring.” Needless to say, I was extremely excited for Superman (2025), and had to go and see it on the big screen. I’m sad to report I didn’t really like it all that much. Though I’ve been seeing tons of high praise across the Internet, it was pretty mid in my book, so let’s talk about it. And, of course, here is your spoiler warning."
Beginning of JS's review: "There have been several live action Superman movies, going back to Christopher Reeve’s iconic portrayal in the 1978 film (and actually before then, as there was a 1948 serial starring Kirk Alyn, but I’m doing a Jedi hand wave on that for this conversation). Across these many films and actors who have essayed the character, it’s generally agreed upon that the ’78 film, and Reeve’s turn in the blue suit, are the best of the bunch. After watching the 2025 Superman, with David Corenswet as the lead character, Reeve and the ’78 film still remain on top. But! Now there’s a new film, and new actor, in second place."
And..
Ending of AS's review: "So, yeah. I didn’t really like this movie. Which is a shame because I think they nailed Superman’s morals, beliefs, his personality, the way he would interact with the world and with people. They absolutely killed it with Superman’s character. But that’s about it. A good Superman does not a good Superman movie make.
Overall, this movie was like a 5/10, very middling. I didn’t hate it but I don’t like it much, either. To be honest, I prefer Man of Steel. That’s right, I said it. I miss Henry Cavill, what can I say?
What did you think of Superman? What is your favorite Superman movie/media? Let me know in the comments, and have a great day!"
Ending of JS's review: "With that said, this is the second-best Superman film for a reason. Overstuffed though it might be, it also hits the marks of making a good film with a fundamentally decent main character. The supporting cast ably supports. The antagonist viciously antagonizes. The worldbuilding is solid and mostly smart. The lightness and sense of humor pull us through. Is it a great film? No. But if simply being good is good enough for the character of Superman, it’s good enough for this story about him. James Gunn has put his stamp on the character and the universe, and I’m looking forward to seeing where both of them go from here."
The trick in reviewing anything - is to give the reader just enough information for them to determine privately if they want to see, read, or listen to the item being reviewed themselves. Is it worth their time? Their taste more likely than not will differ greatly from the reviewer's - so the trick is to give them enough information, without spoiling them, to know whether to check it out for themselves. And at the same time - entertaining them, giving them interesting information, and not boring or confusing them in the process. This is not easy to do. Most amateur reviewers haven't a clue how to do it, as you can see from AS's review.
I figured out from John Scalzi's whether it made sense to see the film in a big theater, and whether I'd like it. And that was without being insanely spoiled on it. Besides giving me a headache, Athena's review confused me and spoiled me about various bits, I'd prefer not to be spoiled on. Also, AS's review only works for those who have already seen the film and not as a review - whose audience is those who haven't seen the film yet. You can't make sense of AS's review without having seen the film. I also couldn't tell if I'd like the film or not. But I knew without a doubt whether I would reading her father's review. (I won't and will wait for it to come on television. It's like Gunn's other films - too busy. And movie theaters aren't comfortable any longer? And have too many distractions? I'd rather watch at home.)
John Scalzi also made me want to re-watch the 1978 Superman flick - which I did see in theaters and adored at the time. (I've seen the 1978 Superman film, all of its sequels, including the final or fourth one that I almost walked out on - that was in Wales, outdoors, and with others, and we were bored and wanted to see a movie in Britain - it was in 1987). Also seen the Brandon Routh/Bryan Singer flick, Zack Snyder's Superman films, Whedon's Justice League, Smallville, Lois and Clark, Lois and Superman, and the cartoons. What can I say? I have a weakness for superhero flicks? And happen to like Superman? I was very tempted by this one - but the last James Gunn film I saw in a theater gave me a headache - John Scalzi is right - Gunn has a juvenile and somewhat overt sense of humor, and likes to load his films with way too much information and characters for one two to three hour flick. Simple is not his thing. (Suicide Squad also gave me a headache). Mileage may vary on this? But I do not like busy films - want busy - do a television series. Film is like a short story or novella - it's a slice. It should not be busy.
Actually only a handful of films worked for me - that were busy. Infinity War, Endgame, and the Godfather flicks. There are most likely others out there, I just can't think of them at the moment.
I've been skimming reviews for Gunn's Superman because it's apparently controversial? And deemed Woke, because Superman states he's an immigrant. And some idiots, including one who played him (Dean Cain) don't believe he was or is? He is an alien. Of course he's an immigrant. Actually that was the whole point in the comics - the writers deliberately made him an alien or immigrant because they were writing the comics during or just post WWII and about the Jewish Immigrants fleeing Nazi Germany. I don't understand people? Were they bounced on their heads as children?
2. Books
I think I've landed on The Rook -
Per Good Reads: Myfanwy Thomas awakens in a London park surrounded by dead bodies. With her memory gone, she must trust the instructions left by her former in order to survive. She quickly learns that she is a Rook, a high-level operative in a secret agency that protects the world from supernatural threats. But there is a mole inside the organization, and this person wants her dead. Battling to save herself, Myfanwy will encounter a person with four bodies, a woman who can enter her dreams, children transformed into deadly fighters, and terrifyingly vast conspiracy. Suspenseful and hilarious, The Rook is an outrageously imaginative thriller for readers who like their espionage with a dollop of purple slime.
"Utterly convincing and engrossing -- -totally thought-through and frequently hilarious....Even this aging, jaded, attention-deficit-disordered critic was blown away."-Lev Grossman, Time
About the author: Dan O'Malley graduated from Michigan State University and earned a Master's Degree in medieval history from Ohio State University. He then returned to his childhood home, Australia. He now works for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, writing press releases for government investigations of plane crashes and runaway boats.
This may work for me - it fits my sense of humor, and I'm also a jaded, attention-deficit-disordered critic at the moment.
Plus it's on Kindle so not hard to lug around.
Finished Remarkably Bright Creatures - my difficulty with it was all the characters were frustratingly dense. The writer contrived ways to keep them apart which irritated me. I deal with dense people daily, I can't handle reading about them? Also the writing style didn't work for me, for some reason?
Re-listening to all of the Kate Daniels Graphic Audio Dramatizations - there's ten in all. Plus several single audio books, which aren't. Maybe by the time I finish there will be more? The Kate Daniels series scratches whatever itch I need scratched at the moment. Also they are kind of comfort reads.
And still making my way through the thick paperback of Fair Folk.
no subject
Date: 2025-07-17 07:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2025-07-17 12:23 pm (UTC)Oh, a lot of folks do that - write about places they've never been, it's not that hard to do - pick up a map, google, and voila. You really don't have to live in a place to write about it. And in some respects its easier than writing about where you reside - less chances of accidentally writing people or places you visit into the story and getting in trouble later for it. Many writers write about areas of the world where they don't reside or have never been, provides better deniability. But their family may have originated from or they visited, or none of the above. I've read a few Australian writers who've written historical romances or mysteries about the UK. UK writers who have written fiction about the US. US writers who have written about Italy or Europe. US writers do it more - mainly because everyone in the US either immigrated from somewhere else, or all their ancestors did.
There's a myth that you should only write what you know. That's BS. Most writers don't do that.