Hey Emily :) The flow, academic 'voice' and integrated use of supporting evidence here is to be commended. There is an assurance about this second review that bodes well, and in terms of 'plot synopsis' you keep the ratio just about right. I think the next stage of your evolution as a thinker and writer is to perhaps read a little more widely and seek some slightly more 'academic' sources - for example, this site is given in the footnote of your brief, and I did a quick search for Metropolis - scroll down past all the info about directors and actors etc and have a read of the article at the bottom - really good, very 'ideas, themes and design' driven...
I think, as you think about your next review of King Kong, you should spend some time with more reputable, more sholarly sources, and watch how the sophistication of your writing (and thinking!) will develop :)
Hey Emily :) The flow, academic 'voice' and integrated use of supporting evidence here is to be commended. There is an assurance about this second review that bodes well, and in terms of 'plot synopsis' you keep the ratio just about right. I think the next stage of your evolution as a thinker and writer is to perhaps read a little more widely and seek some slightly more 'academic' sources - for example, this site is given in the footnote of your brief, and I did a quick search for Metropolis - scroll down past all the info about directors and actors etc and have a read of the article at the bottom - really good, very 'ideas, themes and design' driven...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.filmreference.com/Films-Ma-Me/Metropolis.html
I think, as you think about your next review of King Kong, you should spend some time with more reputable, more sholarly sources, and watch how the sophistication of your writing (and thinking!) will develop :)