Movies  •  Critics  •  About
Existimatum  >  Movies  >  Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2  >  Reviews  >  Eye for Film

Amber Wilkinson Whips Up a Bland Dish With “Meatballs”

In response to Amber Wilkinson’s 508‑word review of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 on Eye for Film 

http://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/cloudy-with-a-chance-of-meatballs-2-2013-film-review-by-amber-wilkinson

By ,

Even when the writing is otherwise good, it’s hard to look past misspelled words and poor punctuation in a professional piece of writing. There are a few here in Amber Wilkinson’s “Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2” and they distract mightily.

The lion’s share of the review is thoughtful (if a bit light), and generally well written, but these small errors nag. Why wasn’t this caught? Did anyone proofread? It calls into question the attentiveness of the critic; if they missed this, how else is the reader being shortchanged?

Maybe not at all, but these kinds of mistakes tend to plague sites like this and have no place among the pros.

Okay, the high horse is getting tired.  

Wilkinson gets to the critique in the last two paragraphs and there are some salient points; she calls the film “more goofy than groundbreaking”, and at its best “when its delivering a quick one-liner or fun food pun, even if the memory of it is likely to leave your brain in a (sugar) rush.”

Wilkinson obviously loves film and knows how to analyze a movie, but Cloudy just doesn’t do enough to stand out and gets dragged down by poor fundamentals.     

Quality of Writing Quality of Argument Spoiler Avoidance Presentation