Review Movie Close A Cinematic Deep Dive
xjaypro
December 19, 2024 7:13 pm
.
3 min read
The Reviewer’s Perspective and “Close”: Review Movie Close
Movie reviews, those seemingly objective pronouncements on cinematic excellence, are actually fascinatingly subjective explorations. A critic’s interpretation of a film, particularly their use of words like “close,” is heavily influenced by their unique background, experiences, and – let’s be honest – their own biases. It’s a delicate dance between personal taste and professional analysis, a blend that can sometimes create a cocktail as potent as a well-crafted film itself.
A reviewer’s personal history acts as a lens through which they view a movie. Did they grow up watching classic Hollywood films? Are they fans of independent cinema? Do they have a particular fondness for a certain genre or director? These factors will inevitably shape their understanding of a film’s themes and overall impact. The word “close,” for example, can be interpreted in numerous ways. To one critic, “close” might mean the film almost reached greatness, falling just short of perfection. To another, it might indicate a film that narrowly avoided being a complete disaster. The context, of course, is crucial, but the critic’s individual perspective undeniably colors the meaning.
Contrasting Perspectives on a Single Film, Review movie close
The subjective nature of film criticism is best illustrated by comparing reviews of the same movie from different critics. Let’s imagine two reviews of a fictional film called “The Sentient Spoon.”
Also Read:
Imagine Critic A, a seasoned reviewer known for their appreciation of experimental cinema, and Critic B, a more traditional reviewer who values clear narratives and relatable characters.
- Critic A: Praises the film’s avant-garde approach to storytelling, finding the ambiguity and symbolism “close” to achieving a truly transcendent cinematic experience. They appreciate the unconventional narrative structure and unconventional characters, highlighting the film’s artistic merit above all else. They might even use “close” to suggest that the film was almost too ambitious for its own good, falling just shy of complete cohesion.
- Critic B: Finds the film frustrating and confusing, stating that while it had moments of brilliance, it was ultimately “close” to being incomprehensible. They criticize the lack of a traditional narrative arc and the characters’ unconventionality, emphasizing their desire for a more straightforward and emotionally engaging experience. To Critic B, “close” signifies a near-miss with complete failure to connect with the average viewer.
These contrasting viewpoints highlight how the same film can elicit drastically different responses depending on the critic’s individual tastes and critical framework. One critic’s “close” is another’s “far, far away.”
Also Read:
The Role of Subjectivity in Movie Reviews
Subjectivity is not the enemy of good criticism; rather, it is its unavoidable reality. While objective criteria like cinematography, acting, and script quality can be assessed, the ultimate impact of a film – its emotional resonance, its intellectual provocation – is fundamentally subjective. A movie’s “closeness” to perfection, therefore, is not a quantifiable measurement but a reflection of the critic’s individual response. Acknowledging this inherent subjectivity allows for a richer and more nuanced understanding of film criticism, moving beyond simplistic star ratings and embracing the diverse perspectives that contribute to a vibrant cinematic discourse. The beauty of film criticism lies not in finding a singular “truth” about a movie, but in exploring the myriad ways in which it can be experienced and interpreted.
Also Read:
