Liu 1

Michelle Liu

ENC1102

Taylor Munsell

2/19/22

Rhetorical Analysis of a film review

“Arthur Curry, known to the surface as Aquaman, is the hybrid son of Tom Curry

and Queen Atlanna who is superhero split between two worlds, being a member of the

Justice League as well as being the sometimes ruler of the ancient kingdom of Atlantis.”

(wiki) The authors main review and claim of this movie is that this movie is well made as

marvel focuses on characterization traits and the plot of the climax throughout the film

review. He interprets and compares other well-known movies such as spiderman to

aquaman as “sweet, goofy, at times psychedelically weird films that mostly reject the

sour gloom that gets mistaken for maturity. But that’s not to say that these movies aren’t

serious in their own way. Aquaman, in particular feels simultaneously like a spoof and an

operatic melodrama. Any film that can combine those modes is a force to be reckoned

with.” Combining logos and ethos, he expresses what he views from these two movies

and backs up with unruly evidence when creating the review. With the logic and reason

that Spiderman would be more about shots and fighting while Aquaman would have

more depth and character on why he does things. I would say this is somewhat effective,

but the structure can be improved on examples of why and where between Spiderman and

Aquaman or the “Kairos” in the review. When analyzing the author's review, he states

“Arthur has long hair and tattoos, a knack for wisecracks, and a fondness for beer. He
 Liu 2

rejects allegiance to land or sea. He just wants to be left alone. But he still succumbs to

prodding by the idealistic Atlantean Mera and becomes a uniter at a time when radical

forces, led by Arthur’s treacherous half-brother Orm, want to destroy the land-dwellers as

revenge for polluting and militarizing the ocean. Arthur is one of those Joseph Campbell-

certified, Fated-for-Great-Things heroes, thus the mythically resonant first name. He even

has the equivalent of the moment when the future King Arthur pulls Excalibur from the

stone.” I notice he again compares two stories. He this time compares the feeling of the

movie as pathos instead of logos. The author is seen empathizing with Aquaman and the

historic moment of King Arthur. This is effective as the rhetoric situation is all about the

character of Aquaman, how he conveys himself. The tone of these two comparisons

further advances the feeling the author and audience might get when watching Aquaman,

possibly a shocked or relaxation moment. The argument of the author is to push out the

idea the Aquaman although is unrealistic as to no real “talk bubbles” and the scientific

faults that audiences may not have noticed and repetitive with marvel superhero movies.

Opposing to, they very well have human moments where one would try to protect as a

superhero would and let their emotions run with anger and violence but some of the most

mature wins would be sought out to a conversation. “The sight is treated not as a

shameful loss of dignity, but as the normal byproduct of pain or joy. For all its wild

spectacle and cartoon cleverness, this is a quietly subversive movie, and an evolutionary

step forward for the genre.” In this statement he uses pathos which I will claim is

effective when writing a film review of describing the shameful loss of the situation who

makes the audience feel remorse with. Generally speaking, I can concur with the author

with his viewpoints, yet I would agree that that the argument could be moved along. The
 Liu 3

argument isn't significant. I would work on the argument by adding more Aquaman's

choices rather than contrasting it with talking bubbles whenever they speak and the

scientific faults of the production. Overall, great review.

 Liu 4

Work cited:

Aquaman (film) - Wikipedia

Aquaman movie review & film summary, Roger Ebert, 2018