Medina 1

Chris Medina
Zack De Piero
Writing 2
18 January 2016
Reviewing Movie Reviews: The Revenant
The enjoyment derived from watching films is subjective. It is difficult to simply claim
whether a film is good or bad. However, it is possible to critique using details and descriptions
expanding farther than just good and bad. This is the job of film critics, analyzing movies as a
whole and the quality of the viewing experience. When moviegoers are undecided whether they
should watch a particular movie or not, the film critics reviews are the closest place they can go
to for a legitimate answer. But first, film critics must gain their audiences trust to create any kind
of impact. To persuade their audience into accepting their claims, they use a set of rhetorical
techniques within their reviews to get their message through. Some credible periodicals that
publish movie reviews include The New York Times, Rolling Stone, and Variety. Recently, they
all published reviews for the film The Revenant, a story about the survival of frontiersman Hugh
Glass. Although all of them fit into the movie review genre, each have their own unique
approach to reviewing the movie. The simple and clean style of The New York Times, the
adventurous style of Rolling Stone, and the eloquent style of Variety are each embedded into their
respective reviews, differentiating them from the rest to serve their own targeted audience, while
producing the same work.
As with every other piece of writing, the movie reviews in The New York Times, Rolling
Stone, and Variety are works of rhetoric; they contain exigence, and audience. According to
Laura Bolin Carroll in Writing Spaces, Exigence is the circumstance or condition that invites a

Medina 2
response (Lowe). In the case of the periodicals, the condition inviting a response would be the
need to provide moviegoers an experts judgement of the quality of The Revenant. Critics are
able to watch films before their general release, giving their readers time before the public
release to decide whether they should watch the movie. All of the three periodicals have the same
exigence; however, their approach to responding to it are different.
The New York Times is a newspaper, so naturally, they would present the review of The
Revenant as news. Their purpose for providing a review is mainly for information. The review
consisted mostly of facts and was less opinionated. Information about the directors previous
films and how the film was based on a book was given but there are only a couple of instances
where the text is an argument (Dargis). Without including too much details to prevent any
spoilers, a brief summary is given. People read the review to get an idea of the movie, not the
whole thing.
Unlike The New York Times review, Rolling Stones has more character. It is clearer to
pinpoint whether the author stands in favor of the movie or against it as seen in the quote, Set in
the untamed West of 1823, it's one brutal, badass epic (The). Their description of the movie is
exaggerated and the statements are opinionated. Their uses of metaphors and similes to provide a
description of the movie could easily be disputed by someone. Another example would be,
We're relieved when Glass heads into the forest and a scene that will surely blow you away, in
reference to a bear attack scene (The). The promise of the movie blowing away its audience is
given, but obviously, there could still be some people who may say they otherwise.
Author of entertainment magazine Varietys review also makes it clear to their audience
whether they approved of the movie or not, however their approach is more sophisticated
compared to Rolling Stones. In short, The Revenant must be appreciated first and foremost as

Medina 3
a sensory and aesthetic marvel, a brutal hymn to the beauty and terror of the natural world that
exerts a hypnotic pull from the opening frame (Film). Their use of language is formal, stating
facts while still being able to convey their opinion. They do not just state to their audience an
answer of good or bad. They provide details in how the movie exceeds and how it does not and
why. As a magazine that focuses on entertainment, Variety proves to be the keenest in reviewing
The Revenant.
Another critical aspect of a rhetoric is the audience. Each periodical has their own
targeted audience and writes in the way that would satisfy them. Throughout the review, The
New York Times uses understandable everyday language. This use of a specific language is a
form of constraint, a limiting factor of a work of rhetoric to successfully satisfy the exigence
(Lowe). With this information, the targeted audience of The New York Times must be the average
news-reader who is looking for a direct answer concerning the quality of the film. It does not
necessarily mean the reader does not have a vast vocabulary; it just means for the sake of
information, the newsreaders prefer a straightforward review without any frills. The demographic
of movie-review readers are extensive, but the only people The New York Times focuses on is its
own audience.
Despite the wild tone Rolling Stone emits, it must also be controlled by constraints. As
young people are their target audience, they use a casual, informal language in their writing. The
review starts with, Note to movie pussies: The Revenant is not for you. The magazines writers
have to use a casual tone to make it suitable for young viewers, occasionally using slang and
curse words. The purpose of this use of language is meant to make their targeted audience more
comfortable. As they see how similar the language is with their own, they will relate to the
review more easily. This also builds a bond between reader and writer. Readers will see the

Medina 4
writer as one of their own and are more willing to trust the writers claims. For readers to accept
a writers claim, they will first need to trust them.
With a reputation of focusing on entertainment, Varietys target audience is closer to
connoisseurs of film. The way they review their movies must be professional and refined. As
the surviving trappers flee with whatever pelts they can salvage, we feel not just ambushed but
surrounded by the attackers lurking just off screen They state their opinions as truths,
avoiding the use of first-person pronouns except for we. By using we, the quote implies that
the readers automatically agree with the writer. Ethos, the credibility of the writers, is also
important in determining the relationship between writer and reader. The tone of the writing and
whether that tone is appropriate for the context helps build a writers ethos (Lowe). Readers
of Rolling Stone might think that the intellectual language of Variety is too arrogant, while
readers of The New York Times might think that Rolling Stone is too childish. As the higher the
respect readers have for the writers, the higher the chance the readers are willing to accept the
writers claims. The multiple amount of reviews helps target different demographics. For one
who still doubts a review, they could also confirm its legitimacy by comparing it to another.
Critics have spent their time critiquing others, but now it shows that they can also be
critiqued. Any form of writing that tries to persuade have a reason and means of doing so.
Although The New York Times, Rolling Stone, and Variety share the same motive of providing a
movie review for potential moviegoers, they use different tactics. Knowing this and why can
help understand the true purpose of movie reviewers. It could help improve writing, build
audience relationships, and even save time and money for knowing which movie not to watch.

Medina 5
Works Cited

Dargis, Manohla. "Review: The Revenant Welcomes You to Paradise. Now Prepare to Fall."
"Film Review: 'The Revenant'" Variety. 4 Dec. 2015. Web. 19 Jan. 2016.
Lowe, Charles, Pavel Zemliansky, and Laura Carroll. Writing Spaces 1 Readings on Writing,
Volume 1. Anderson: Parlor, 2010. Print.
The New York Times. The New York Times, 24 Dec. 2015. Web. 18 Jan. 2016.
"The Revenant." Rolling Stone. Web. 18 Jan. 2016.