David Haglund sits with me easily because he tries to be
unbiased about his writing. Right from the start, in his article about Louie, he mentions how he used to think Girls was the best HBO show out there.
He can change his mind and not be set on one show like a lot of other critics
out there who seem to ramble on about one series that they’re particular to. He
then goes on to explain why it’s a great show based on other comedies out
there. Another critic I like who makes great comparisons is Richard Roeper.
Roeper in his videos reviews made an excellent point by comparing 21 Jump Street to The Other Guys. Roper brings a realistic and critical view to
comedies such as 21 Jump Street where
he gave props to actors Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum but not so much anyone
else. Matt Zoller Seitz typically writes about more dramatic shows, when he
reviewed the second season of Game of
Thrones he pointed out the obvious characteristics of the show, while
making brilliant observations in the camera work. I like this style of writing
because it includes more technical and advanced film terminology. All three of
these critics stand out to me because they write smart and unbiased material in
ways that are interesting to the viewers.
Haglund:
Roeper:
Seitz:
First of all: Your font, while awesome, is making us go blind. If you want to use this font, try breaking your writing up into separate paragraphs (for example: one paragraph per critic).
ReplyDeleteYour intros were nice, but a few terms need some more explanation. When you say Haglund is "unbiased" what does that really mean, since all critics come with their own set of biases. And rambling critics... who do you exactly mean? Provide some more examples.