REVIEW OF THE REVIEWS

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19950113/REVIEWS/501130302/1023

Mr. Ebert's review on Legends Of The Fall is a fairly positive one. He starts his review with his opinion of the movie and a somewhat short summary of it. Ebert described the movie as a  "high-class horse opera", meaning that it had all the passions of an opera, yet he did not find the movie serious. In fact, he poked fun at some characters and parts of the plot in his review.

 He focused primarily on the actors though, and how they portrayed their characters. I believe he did that because the cast of Legends Of The Fall consists of primarily successful actors and they are expected to do a good job. Ebert also made a couple of references to the movie Giant, starring James Dean. He made these references because two characters in the movie have a lot of parallels to James Dean's character in Giant. 


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/legendsofthefallrhowe_c0049e.htm

Mr. Howe gave quite a negative review for Legends Of The Fall. He starts off the review with a quick summary of the movie, and then picks out all the little things he did not like in the movie. The tone of the review was very sarcastic and Howe uses words like "overwrought", "ridiculous" and " dreadful" to describe the movie.

Howe primarily focused on the plot of the movie and how he that it "deteriorated" " right around the time youngest brother Thomas -- to his fiancee's horror -- volunteers to fight for the English in World War I. Quinn follows him too, and Pitt tags along to protect Thomas."(Desson Howe, Washington Post Staff Writer). 

Having seen Legends Of The Fall, there are things in the movie that I like and do not like. "On that basis it is enormously entertaining, a throwback to the days when Hollywood didn't apologize for passionate stories involving three brothers whose fates are intertwined with that of a legendary woman, as they're all outlined against the Big Sky." ( Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times).  I completely agree with Ebert on this, Legends Of The Fall is an entertaining, dramatic, love story and there are not as many movies like this anymore. The acting/cast was great, the setting was beautiful and the music score was absolutely stunning. 

However, there were details in the movie that made me think a little bit. " So while Brits, Canadians and Germans die in the muddy fields of Europe, Pitt rides around on horseback, hair still excellent, taking care of Thomas. Which army unit is Pitt in, anyway -- the Cowboy Detail?" As Howe mentions in his review, Brad Pitt's character went to fight in WWI and he still had long, flowing hair. There is also a scene in the movie where he sneaks into a German trench and kills two Germans by hand. It is a bit ridiculous. It still is a really great movie though.

If I had not seen Legends Of The Fall and I read both of these reviews, I believe Roger Ebert's review would be more convincing. In the first paragraph of his review he described the movie as an "epic Western saga", that really grabbed my attention. In film reviews readers want to find out if the movie is good, what the summary of the film is and how good the acting is. 

If I were to write a review on a film I would include the summary of the film, but not give too much away. I would also write about the setting. If a film has a bad setting, it can really ruin a good story. Costumes and lighting are also important. For instance, I began watching a version of the story Sense and Sensibility, the costumes were not too great and the lighting was extremely artificial and awful. Those two things ruined the entire movie for me, even though the plot was great. Lastly, I would make sure to include my opinion of the acting quality. Bad acting can ruin a movie. I would leave out the film soundtrack, because it isn't as important. Sometimes films don't even need music or sound effects to be good.