Harry Potter and The Deathly Hollows Part 2



HarryPotter and The Deathly Hollows: Part 2

1.Inthe reviews both Ebert and O’Hehir discuss the success of theseries of Harry Potter Films. Does this technique help audiencesbetter understand their reviews?

Ofcourse, itoffers the audience a better understanding of both the reviews. WhenEbertand O’Hehirspeak positivelyconcerningthemovie that has captured a broad audience, it invites many people totake a keen interest in their reviews. Consequently,theyareableto present their opinions to the audience without sounding as thoughthey lack substance.

2.Howsimilar are Ebert’s and O’Hehir’s purposes for writing theirreviews?

BothEbert and O’Hehir all intend that their audience will view the filmin a more critical manner and not just solely for the entertainment.

3.Howdo Ebert and O’Hehir reveal their attitude towards the movie andtheir readers? Does O’Hehir’s negative review make you want tosee the film? Discourage you from wanting to see the movie? Why?

Ebertishumorousand satirical in his review of the film. He engages his readers toexperience the movie for themselves but offers a deeper insight intothe film. On the other hand, O’Hehir’s attitude exposes hisreaders to indifference towards the film. His overly critical natureis not appreciated by the audience of the movie. Nonetheless,O’Hehir’s general negative review inspires me to watch the filmbecause I want to confirm if he is right in his analysis.

4.Towhat extent do Ebert and O’Hehir seem responsible to their readers?How responsible should movie reviewers be to their readers? Why?

Ebertand O’Hehir should offer the real picture of the film. They areresponsible to the readers by telling them the truth.

5.Considerhow this film has been anticipated by a huge audience. How does thatanticipation seem to affect both reviews? A movie review typicallyincludes some plot summary to help readers who have not seen thefilm. How effectively has each reviewer summarized the plot of HarryPotter and The Deathly Hollows: Part 2?

Theaudience expects a lot from the film of Harry Potter. It is thefinale, and its audience is longingly waiting to watch how the eventsare summed up. In effect, the reviews must be able to produce thesubstance that will satisfy this urge. Ebert’s summary of the plotis simple to understand, and his manner through casting sarcasm inthe film makes his review even interesting to read. As for O’Hehir,he sounds overly critical of the whole film. In as much as heappreciates the acting, he somewhat suggests that the final film isgoing to be a failure.

7.Ifyou have seen , on whatpoints do you agree or disagree most strongly with Ebert and withO’Hehir? If you have not seen the film, which review is mosteffective in convincing you to see or not see the film?

Ihave not seen the film just yet. But if I read the review by Ebert Iwould take an interest in the movie. Ebert progresses his review fromthe time Harry is young to when he is grown. It would be easy to havea recap of the entire film from the beginning in Ebert’sarrangement, which would offer a better understanding of the finalchapter. O’Hehir’s review is developed with a more stern voicethat would scare away the audience of the Harry Potter film.

8.Comparethe attention that Ebert and O’Hehir pay to the plot and character.How do they differ?

Ebertgives the analysis of the movie from the beginning to explain theflow of the film, which consequently, assertsmore sense in his critique of the last chapter, whereas O’Hehirdoes not major in the assessment of character. He speaks more on theacting than the actors. His plot does not widely cover the film asEbert’s.

9.Howclearly do Ebert and O’Hehir state their criteria for evaluating? Where in each review doyou find their criteria indicated?

Ebertfocuses on acting as criteria for evaluation, while O’Hehir focuseson special effects as the key criteria. O’Hehir describes themanner in which the film has been performed. He explains that thereis a lot of spell casting, Death eating and exploding Gothicarchitecture. On the other hand, Ebert involves more the charactersin describing his review.