A good review is one which can eloquently and effectively communicates a critic's opinion on a certain subject, regardless of the opinion of the reader. A great review goes a step beyond that and actively enhances the reader's enjoyment of what is being reviewed. Roger Ebert's January 12th review of the "The Illusionist" does just that. The review begins by discussing the storyline of the film, it doesn't give much away yet manages beautifully to pull us into the story. These first few paragraphs also manage to communicate the tone and pace of the story, allowing the reader to get a well-rounded feel for the film itself. In the second half of the review Ebert delves deeper into the story behind the film, telling the reader of the screenwriter's dark past and giving us a small biography of Jacques Tati, the man who was meant to direct and star in the film. Ebert's elaboration on the history of the production gives the reader a wonderful level of depth and insight that would otherwise be absent. This review masterfully provides information as well as opinion, allowing the reader a deeper understanding of the review and in turn, of the film. Reviews like this one, which can enlighten as well as entertain, may be the most valuable kind of all in an era where the headline has become a substitute for the article and in-depth research is virtually nowhere.
On the other end of the spectrum lie reviews that add nothing to the discussion and do little except throw mean spirited jabs. Armond White's November 23rd review of "The King's Speech" is a prime example of the type of reviews that have made White something of a pariah among film critics. White finds little to enjoy in "The King's Speech" which, though different than most, is a perfectly valid opinion. The problem arises when White attempts to explain his distaste for the film and can find little more than superficial or political criticism for the film. From the beginning of the review White seems to have some kind of resentment for the royals and instead of discussing the filmmaking he spends a solid two paragraphs mocking the royal family. When White finally reaches the subject of the filmmaking he dismisses huge sections with a wave of his hand. White doesn't seem to examine the reasons behind the cinematography or blocking, calling them "inept" and "frivolous" respectively, without giving much of a reason for his opinion. The review continues in this spiteful tone until the conclusion where it wraps up with a few more tasteless jabs at the monarchy. The review fails not because of its strong opinions but because of its lack of its substance. Even if a reviewer disagrees with a choice or dislikes a film, the reader deserves an explanation of why. When a review becomes completely about the reviewer and gives no information for the reader to explore the subject themselves it becomes masturbatory and pointless.
