British Film Reviewer Mark Kermode’s film review on the second installment in the Pirates of the Caribbean film series, “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest”, which stars actor Johnny Depp, is anything short of a well written review that is very informative, and criticizes and evaluates every aspect of the movie perfectly. In the review, Kermode descriptively points out all of the faults and flaws in the movie, as well as explain to readers his dislike of the movie also. Kermode stated that the film lacked narrative, its “pout performances, and most of all its “interminable length.” Kermode’s focus is to inform readers who are movie goers his opinion on the film by using persuasive evaluation. Some criteria that is mentioned in the review that Kermode feels is missing is narrative. Kermode states “In the absence of narrative we are left with a string of “spectacular” set pieces to hold our attention.” This means that the movie doesn’t tell the story very well, and the audience is left to put bits and pieces of the story together themselves. Kermode also points the technology used to make the movie as he says, “On the contrary; the digitally enhanced squid-faced villain Davey Jones (he of the locker) is very well rendered, demonstrating the wonders of CGI and motion-capture technology.”
Kermode mentions previous works from the film’s director, Gore Verbinksi in the article as he implies that he expected this film to have somewhat of the same effects on him as Verbinksi’s later works done. I think that Kermode did a wonderful job at following all of Ballenger’s “Features of the Form” in The Curious Writer. He touched on all the basis of a well written review for a movie, as he gave us his thoughts and opinions in a highly detailed way, while applying the features of the form. Ballenger states that “Relevant comparisons may form the backbone of a review.” In other words Ballenger is saying you must make sure you compare apples to apples and not apple to oranges. In Kermode’s review, he compares the tone of the film to other great films by well know directors, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. He exclaims “The romping tone may aspire to the nostalgic swashbuckler of Steven Spielberg’s Raiders of the Lost Ark series (replete with John Williams-lite “ta-ran-ta raaa” score by Hans Zimmer), but it is the rambling blather of Lucas’s Star Wars prequels which is most pungently evoked.” Here Kemode compares and contrast the pirates’ films with these other two movies that are similar in some ways, but over all a better performance than Verbinksi’s film. Mark Kermode gets a little cocky in his writing by mentioning these two directors and movies, it shows his readers that his review and opinion can be valued, because he is very educated in this category and he knows his stuff.
Overall I think this was a well written and organized movie review, and it followed Ballenger’s features of the form very precisely. I feel as though Kermode was fair in his writing and also mentioned some positives and not just negatives. He also had a very sarcastic, joking way of writing his review so that it could appeal to his audience. Overall, I enjoyed reading this review and I thought that it was well written and detailed.
kcarmouche 
Excellent start, Ke’Juan
Remember, the bulk of your essay should be about what makes a good review essay, following Ballenger’s features of the form. The review you have chosen should then be used to show how its author achieves a good review—citing specific examples from the essay itself in the form of quotations and/or paraphrases.
Think of your essay as having three major focuses. It should tell readers what the elements of a good review are. Then, it should use the review you chose to critique to show how the author tries to employ the elements of good review writing you mention in your essay. Then, it should judge whether or not the author’s use of these elements is successful. You can address all three of these things simultaneously in each paragraph. You shouldn’t have three separate sections in your essay for each. For example, one paragraph could discuss how important descriptive writing is in review essays, and the same paragraph could show an example of descriptive writing from the review you chose to write about. The paragraph will then explain how/why the author uses this description well. Other paragraphs could be focused on other “features” of review writing.
It is appropriate to use Ballenger’s “features of the form” for review writing as “research” for your rhetorical analysis. You could even quote from that section of the textbook (“In The Curious Writer, Bruce Ballenger says that review essays should…..”)