Harry Potter & The Sorcerer's Stone Review Questions

Critical Thinking: The Writer's Ideas
1.Make a list of the evaluative criteria Roger Ebert uses to judge this film.
How fair is the evaluation that he makes? Why?
-different characters portrayed in the movie
-the plot
-the way computers are used and how they affected the film
His evaluation is fair because he really looks into each characteristic of the topics he talks about.

2.Do the same with Mitchell's review:list his evaluative criteria. How fair is Mitchell's evaluation? Why?
-Mitchell looked into other movies for comparison
-cast & characters
-book & plot
-This is the criteria Mitchell used when evaluating the movie. Personally, I am not a fan of this movie so it wasn't difficult for me to agree with most of the ideas he stated. He posed his opinion on the acting, the special affects and the roles they gave each character. He even got a little racial.

3.Of the two reviewers, which one do you see as being more fairer in his review?
-Honestly, I think Ebert was being more fair because he actually had some backup points and compared to other movies in a positive way. He talked about some other classic films Columbus had done and why he thought Harry Potter was so successful. He also mentioned some other great movies such as Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory and The Wizard of Oz. Although I agree with Mitchell I don't think he was as fair as Ebert.

Composing Processes and Knowledge of Conventions: The Writer's Strategies
1.What is the strongest part of Eberts review? Why? His best part was at the end when he let his readers know he was sure Harry Potter would be a classic as he was watching it because it is a movie that cares to tella story and not just throw thrills at people. he really stated his opinion there.
-Of Mitchell's' review? Why? The strongest part of Mitchell's review was when he talked about how Mr.Columbus goes out his way to throw a couple of lines to a well-groomed boy with dreadlocks in his head. I thought this was interesting because he is so sincere as to the way he feels and he takes a racial standpoint.
-What do you consider to be the last effective part of each review? I think the last effective part of each review is the way they sum it up. Ebert summed up his review by talking about other classics as I stated beforehand and Mitchell basically rips up this film from beginning to end without a pause.

2.One criterion for an effective evaluation is that the writer explains the criteria on which he or she bases the evaluation. In what ways does Ebert do this? Ebert does this because he sort of introduces the next topic he is going to touch on in the start of his paragraph. he did it for characters, computer usage for special affects and plot.
-In what ways does Mitchell? I don't think Mitchell was real based on a criteria to evaluate which is the reason that might have made him somewhat of a poor evaluator.

3.In addition to its evaluative features, in what ways are Ebert's and Mitchell's essays also persuasive?
-Ebert's critique is persuasive to me because he makes me think about the actual story the plot is telling and how this affects kids and also how important each role is in the movie.
-Mitchell uses the fact that there is no imagination left to the mind because the movie is followed directly from the book in order to persuade me.

4.Which reviewer do you find more convincing? Why?
- find Ebert to be more convincing because of the fact that he doesn't attack the story although he is the one who likes it. Mitchell on the other hand wasn't really using any real support, but I still agree with him.

5.Ebert uses many examples from Rowling's novel in his own text. How helpful are they for purposes of constructing a film review? Why? They are helpful in the sense of persuasion. I think as a critic you want to be ab le to make people see your point of view and if you use first hand info like Rowling herself than whats better than that?