Movies  •  Critics  •  About
Existimatum  >  Movies  >  Out of the Furnace  >  Reviews  >  Reeling Reviews

It’s Too Easy to Forget Robin Clifford’s “Out of the Furnace” Afterwards

In response to Robin Clifford’s 553‑word review of Out of the Furnace on Reeling Reviews 

http://www.reelingreviews.com/outofthefurnace.htm

By ,

One of the problems with Robin Clifford’s “Out of the Furnace” is that it is so predictable. There are no surprises, and the prose is such an example of template writing that it will be gone from memory two minutes after you’ve finished reading it.

The critic’s work here reads like it has a strict outline to follow. Opening statement, followed by a (loonngg) plot description. Follow this with a brief opinion of each of the principals’ performances. End with a final wrap sentence and overall review grade. Piece: finished. Audience: big yawn.

Not that following an outline is a problem in and of itself. as long as the prose has some pizzazz. But this piece has none. Zero. It’s not bad. It’s just bland as bland can be.

The piece also repeats itself. Why, for example, does the reviewer feel the need to give such a long plot synopsis early in the review when the site page starts with a nifty one paragraph synopsis of the plot before jumping into Clifford’s review? The opening description is fine and all the piece needs.

Also, early in the piece, the critic describes certain traits of the characters. Then he basically tells the audience the same thing about the characters later on in the work. This creates an unintended sense of deja vu, causing the audience to ask itself, “Wait a minute! Didn’t I just read that?”

Well, yes, you did.  And this repetitiveness is part of the lazy writing that is on display here. Which means finding something else to do instead of reading Out of the Furnace is a better use of your time.    

Quality of Writing Quality of Argument Spoiler Avoidance Presentation