Review Text
Definition:
Review
text is an evaluation of publication, such as a movie, video game, musical
composition, book; a piece of hardware like a car, home appliance, or computer;
or an event or performance, such as a live concert, a ply, musical theater show
or dance show. (Ulasan teks evaluasi publikasi, seperti film, video game, komposisi musik,
buku; hardware
seperti mobil, alat rumah, atau komputer; atau
suatu peristiwa atau kinerja, seperti konser, lapis sebuah, musik pertunjukan
teater atau tari pertunjukan.)
Purpose:
Ø Review
text is used to critic the events or art works for the reader or listener, such
as movies, shows, book, and others. (Ulasan
teks digunakan untuk kritikus peristiwa atau karya seni untuk pembaca atau
pendengar, seperti film, acara, buku, dan lain-lain.)
Ø To critique
or evaluate an art work or event for a public audience. (Untuk kritik atau mengevaluasi karya seni
atau acara untuk khalayak umum)
Generic Structure:
ü Orientation/Introduction: General
information of the text. (Informasi umum dari teks.)
ü Interpretative Recount: Summary
of an art works including character and plot. (Ringkasan dari karya seni termasuk karakter dan
plot.)
ü Evaluation: Concluding statement: Judgment,
opinion, or recommendation. It can consist of more than one. (Penutup
pernyataan: Judgment, pendapat, atau rekomendasi. Hal
ini dapat terdiri dari lebih dari satu.)
ü Summary: The last opinion consist the
appraisal or the punch line of the art works being criticized. (Pendapat
terakhir terdiri appraisal atau garis pukulan dari karya seni dikritik.)
Language Features:
1. Using the
present tense (Menggunakan present tense)
2. Focus on
specific participants (Fokus
pada peserta tertentu)
3. Using
adjectives form example like ad, good, valuable, etc. (Menggunakan kata sifat membentuk contoh seperti
iklan, baik, berharga, dll)
4. Using long
and complex clauses (Menggunakan
klausa panjang dan kompleks)
5. Using
metaphor (Menggunakan metafora (di
Indonesia itu disebut Majas / Pengandaian)
Example of Review Text:
The Chronicles Of Narnia: Prince Caspian
Let’s
get straight to the point: If you liked the first Chronicles of Narnia
movie, you’ll like this one even better. For some reason I never wrote a review
of the first one, but if I had I probably would have given it about , a full
point lower than Prince Caspian.
On
the other hand, if you’re a big fan of the book upon which this film is based,
you’re going to be torn because it deviates heavily from that story. I wouldn’t
have known that myself, but my daughter re-read the book just recently and
found herself pulled in two directions regarding the movie. On its own she
thought it was very good, but she was perturbed over the inclusion of entire
sequences that never appeared in the book while parts of the original story
were completely absent from the film.
The
nature of this lord (not a king) becomes immediately apparent when he orders
the execution of prince Caspian, who is only saved with the help of his long
time professor. Caspian is sent into the woods which legend (and superstition)
says is populated by all kinds of scary creatures. Eventually Caspian runs into
some denizens of Nania, long thought extinct and calls upon “the kings of old”
for help.
Of
course the kings of old turn out not to be very old at all but are out intrepid
young ‘uns from the first film. Peter, the oldest is not happy that they’ve
been away from Narnia for a year and has not adjusted well to life here in the
real world. If you recall they lived an entire lifetime in Narnia during the
first film and returned at their original ages. Meanwhile Susan, next oldest,
is just trying to come to terms with the fact that they’ll never return to
Narnia and get on with her life.
Once
they return they slowly discover that over 1,000 years have passed since they left
and things have (obviously) changed dramatically. Unknown to them it will be
their task to bring Narnia out of hiding and back to a flourishing
civilization.
I thought that
Ben Barnes as Prince Caspian did an OK job in the role… adequate, but nothing to
write home about. I think the star of the group of four heroes is 12 year old
(but much younger looking) Georgie Henley as Lucy. For me the weak point is the
most important character, Peter. I feel like there’s just something a bit to
“vanilla” about William Moseley’s performance which takes away from the film. I
will say I thought he was more believable and engaging than he was in the last
movie, however.
There’s
a great cast of supporting characters, topped by Peter Dinklage as the
diminutive Trumpkin. He’s a little guy with a very commanding presence and
that’s tough to pull off. I also thought Predrag Bjelac played a great villian
as Lord Donnon.
For
some folks the film may move a bit slow at times, but I thought it was fine –
really a lot of character development/growth in this one, and the final battle
sequence is really damned cool. On a side note, as I’ve seen expressed on other
sites I was surprised that this received a PG rating. I think it pushed it
pretty hard for PG, but despite all the sword fights and battles not a drop of
blood (OK, maybe a small cut here and there) was to be seen.
All
in all I thought it was quite good, but not stellar. A big improvement over the
first and well worth checking out if you’re a fan of the first one and/or a parent
looking for a grand adventure film you can bring the kids to.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar