ayase
State Alchemist
[quoted post has been deleted]
I couldn’t really care less what they thought of the film (which... they didn’t actually bother to share besides a star rating) but I must respectfully disagree. It’s a genuinely terrible review and I think anyone interested in reviewing should take note of why. Let’s just examine its structure:
[disclaimer the reviewer is not familiar with the franchise]
[physical description of the characters]
[they liked the animation] < Hey! An opinion!
[brief plot synopsis]
[half-hearted attempt to link the plot to current affairs]
A good review, imho, should be close to a 1:1 mixture of description and personal opinion. This was like 9:1 in favour of description with almost NO opinion and also bafflingly short. Like, so short your middle school English teacher would mark you down for low effort. What’s the point of reviewing if not to explain what you liked/didn’t like about something and why? Where in this review did the writer do that? They didn’t.
Edit: If I seem a bit annoyed, it’s because I normally try not to be too critical of things I couldn’t do a better job of, but I know for an absolute fact I could write a better review than this one, written by someone who is employed by a national newspaper specifically to do so. I think any of the reviewers here on AUKN could do a better job, and they don’t get paid (unless anything’s changed, if so pls let me back in @chaos)
I couldn’t really care less what they thought of the film (which... they didn’t actually bother to share besides a star rating) but I must respectfully disagree. It’s a genuinely terrible review and I think anyone interested in reviewing should take note of why. Let’s just examine its structure:
[disclaimer the reviewer is not familiar with the franchise]
[physical description of the characters]
[they liked the animation] < Hey! An opinion!
[brief plot synopsis]
[half-hearted attempt to link the plot to current affairs]
A good review, imho, should be close to a 1:1 mixture of description and personal opinion. This was like 9:1 in favour of description with almost NO opinion and also bafflingly short. Like, so short your middle school English teacher would mark you down for low effort. What’s the point of reviewing if not to explain what you liked/didn’t like about something and why? Where in this review did the writer do that? They didn’t.
Edit: If I seem a bit annoyed, it’s because I normally try not to be too critical of things I couldn’t do a better job of, but I know for an absolute fact I could write a better review than this one, written by someone who is employed by a national newspaper specifically to do so. I think any of the reviewers here on AUKN could do a better job, and they don’t get paid (unless anything’s changed, if so pls let me back in @chaos)
Last edited by a moderator: