Category 8: Critical Review
Judge: Josh Veal, Revue West Michigan/Serendipity Media
first place
Molly Mullen
Henry Ford CC
Judge Feedback: When writing a review of something with a story, it's my opinion that details of the plot should primarily be deployed in service of making your critical case. This is something Mullen seems to understand, tying the events of the second movie to the first in a way that even someone who hasn't seen either movie (such as myself) can easily process. Mullen's thoughts are nicely incorporated throughout the piece, and doesn't get hung up on writing a plot synopsis.
​
Mullen does a great job talking about how the world has changed culturally, ethically and technologically, and how that affects the second movie's message and humor, without belaboring the point. I feel that I understand exactly what the movie did right and what it got wrong (in Mullen's mind, at least), again, without ever having seen the movie.
​
My only critique here is that the piece didn't need to be as long as it is, and could still get the same points across with a little tightening up. However, I know word counts are rarely up to the writer, and it's a minor point. All in all, excellent, thoughtful work with a nice flow and compelling arguments.
SECOND PLACE
Joseph Poulos
grand rapids CC
Judge Feedback: In many ways, Poulos' review is highly compelling and very well-written, with quality prose. The opening hooks you, with the "narcotics and cheeseburgers" line conveying some of the tone of this over-the-top movie. Poulos flows nicely from idea to idea, pushing the reader forward while giving very thoughtful critique of the performances and filmmaking.
​
However, when the review reaches the "second act", it turns into a bit more of a scene-by-scene walkthrough. It's a very well-written synopsis, but not necessarily what I'm looking for in a critical review. I'd suggest in the future focusing on the main points you want to make about the movie, and then only including the plot details that directly relate to those points and back up your core idea.
​
That said, once again, the prose is really excellent and the ideas Poulos conveys are compelling. This is the work of an experienced writer.
THIRD PLACE
Abigail Mulonas
GRAND RAPIDS CC
Judge Feedback: As someone who hasn't seen Bridgerton, it's impressive the way Mulonas' review lays out everything I need to know about the first and second season in such a concise way. This review is compelling, thoughtful and kicks off with a nice overarching thesis. While not every critical review has to be structured this way, I appreciate how there is a main point to be made and the review focuses on that. My only advice here for the future would to be to avoid vague statements like "with ongoing themes that dive deeper into analysis." That's a minor critique though, and this is a well written review, from which I can tell Mulonas is passionate about analyzing and discussing media.
honorable mention
Emily Doyle
Delta College
Judge Feedback: Writing a concert review can be extremely difficult. It's hard to remember details, to make note of standout moments, to write for people who don't already know the artist's work, etc. Yet, Doyle did a great job explaining the appeal of Jason Isbell, giving a bit of his backstory and how it dived into the performance, highlighting a few of the best songs, and even talking about the beauty and atmosphere the venue provided. All without unnecessary asides. Great work!
honorable mention
Ben Bolstrum
Schoolcraft College
Judge Feedback: This review is extremely thorough, well-researched and overall easy to follow. I'd simply suggest focusing a bit more on your own opinions on the movie, rather than leaving them for the final paragraphs. When it comes to a review, readers typically want to know not just what happens and which songs are sung, but how those plot details and musical pieces contribute to the entertainment or thematic message of the movie/play/show. As a skilled writer, you can be confident in asserting and backing up your opinions.