[Roger Ebert] Review analysis by Alfred Ademi
Roger Ebert engages the reader with he’s first sentence because of the clear form of repetition which is used, the sentence alone creates imagery to the audiences head and also gives a mini indication on what this review is about.
The reviewer makes he’s personal feelings towards the storyline very clear and cut by labelling it as ‘Doozy’ which is informal language , he then seems to expand on the basic feature of the story line in the most simplistic way which he does purposely to emphasise he’s own view and how rubbish it is. Roger Ebert continuous to criticise the film “Some guy finds himself with a fake identity, wants to know who he really is and spends three movies finding out at breakneck speed” he refers to Jason Bourne as ‘some guy’ this further emphasise the hatred shown against the film.
On the 4th paragraph the reviewer talks about the settings in the film “a desperate hunt through, alphabetically, London, Madrid, Moscow, New York, Paris, Tangier and Turin” the use of the word “alphabetically” suggests that Jason Bourne travel through many different places on a quest to find his identity.
He then continues to talk about the narrative “he is proof that the CIA runs a murderous secret extra-legal black-ops branch that violates laws here and abroad” this shows the audience some of the plot of the movie and what they can expect.
The director, Paul Greengrass has “masterminding formidable effects and stunt teams”. Roger Ebert comment on the director and his use of different shots “amazingly long takes” suggesting that in most films long shots do not work propyl however in this one it was pulled off correctly .the long takes work because they are spliced together by invisible wipes “which causes a such mind-blowing action that I forgot to keep track.” The reviewer tell the reader about 2 different long shots one found in the movie “Goodfellas” and one shown in Bourne Ultimatum.
Although Roger Ebert has been giving some negative feedback he actually liked the film. In the last paragraph he tells the reader “But why, if I liked the movie so much, am I going on like this?” then he suggests that the “action assaults you” then he goes on to say that it is boring. He is contradicting himself a lot throughout the review.
The rating that Roger Ebert has giving the film, even though he liked it was not an impressive score of 3.5 STARS. This is unusual for a film that has received numerous awards and worldwide critical acclaim.
No comments:
Post a Comment