"HOT FUZZ"
Positive Review: The review started off with Corliss introducing the movie with a bit of dialogue from the movie and contemplating whether the moviegoers would welcome and guns blazing cop comedy a week after the Virginia Tech shootings. However he quickly finds an answer to his question in the next paragraph stating, "We interrupt this rant for a review of the best, surely the smartest, English-language movie of the year to date." An interesting analogy he made was when he said, "Sanford might be the Shire, and the residents human Hobbits, to an alpha-male Aragorn like Nick." This could be seen as an odd analogy, but it fit the review, because much of the movie parodies or mimics other movies. Corliss really seemed to focus on "how bloody English it is. By which I mean, bloody funny." He goes on to comment on how it resembled the heyday of English humor of the late 60's and 70's, referencing greats like Peter Sellers and the Monty Python troupe. I think he makes these references because he believes that the humor and direction from Edgar Wright are both things that American films can do. Corliss, rather bluntly states, "If American film-comedy writers have any sense, they'll start stealing from Hot Fuzz."
"To Wright, the movie screen offers a smorgasbord of small, savory gags to be sampled by the attentive viewer; it's not a grapefruit pushed in your face."- I agree with this sentence because the first time I saw this movie, I actually didn't really enjoy it, finding it a bit slow and not really "getting" it. However I watched a few more times and each time I noticed little things in the editing or dialogue. A quick shot of Pegg grabbing a pen, then another shot of him zipping his coat up, all done in rapid fashion, that subtly allude to the action movies who edit without much self-awareness.
Negative Review: This review seemed rather amateur. It consisted of five rather short paragraphs each one describing how "Sitting through this 2 hour, four minute monstrosity was literally painful." The review was rather straightforward, but also rather vague. He summed up the movie and then described how it was "deplorable". He found its faults to be in lack of "humor and intelligence" and no substantial role for a woman. He concedes that he "didn't even smile once." He likened the humor in it to that of Ferrell, Carrey, and Sandler, because he believed that the humor was rather sophomoric. He seemed to be rather angry for having spent money on the film, and found himself "exhausted" by the end of it.
"If you are interested in a competent, intelligent, funny satire, forget this and wait for Death at a Funeral that comes out the end of May." I really disagree with this sentence because nothing really describes this movie better than the way he described Death at a Funeral. I feel he might have missed on some of the irony and satire found in Hot Fuzz, and was expecting more of a straightforward comedy.
3. I found the positive review more convincing because it went a lot more in depth about why it liked certain elements in the movie, but the other one just seemed to be preconceived opinions without really any support. I feel like the first critic understood the movie better, while the other may have been confused by the humor and tone in the movie.
4. I would definitely include references to Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright's first movie, "Shaun of the Dead", which both critics also did. This movie has a similar style to that movie. Also, I would talk about how the violence in the movie isn't meant to glorify it, but rather to allude to the writer's love for action movies, which is mentioned many times in the film. I would leave out the big plot twist that happens near the end as that would ruin a lot of the movie's suspense.
