As I was reading Orr’s (movie critic) review, the first thing that I automatically noticed is that his review was very easy to follow. He wrote in a simple yet elegant way. He started off the review with exactly how the movie started out and went to describe the intense scene that had everyone closely watching. I know that when I started watching the movie, the first moments were intense…there was action but no words and that is exactly what Orr mentions in his review too. Orr wrote as part of his review,

 ”In these dialogue-free opening scenes, set to a score that buzzes like a plague of locusts, There Will Be Blood establishes itself as a film of Darwinian ferocity, a stark and pitiless parable of American capitalism. One man lives and one man dies. One hoists himself from the Earth’s embrace; the other is sucked into it. One winner, one loser.”

Then Orr went on and basically wrote the whole movie in a few paragraphs and took the highlights and put them in a very nice short reading. He went and described the meaning beneath everything that was happening. He also went about to describe the main character, Daniel. His review made it very easy for readers to understand because I know that sometimes when I read review, they lose me because they get so complicated.

If I was to follow the way that Orr wrote the review, I would do everything just as he did. His review was in my opinion very well done. I would start the review with the opening of the movie and I would take the readers on the most important parts of the movie with my review and then I would also mention the main characters and how the actors portrayed them.

When I compare Orr’s review with the one from Scott, the first thing that I notice is the fact that both reviews start with how the movie start. They both plunge into the scene and make it intense. But Scott focus’s more on the behind the movie meaning talking about the characters and really looking at them using a microscope while Orr does his review in a summary sort of way.