“The Expendables 3”
By: Peter Travers
Source: Rolling Stone
http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/reviews/the-expendables-3-20140815
“If
you’ve seen Sylvester Stallone and his over-the-hill gang in 2010’s The Expendables, paid up for the 2012
follow up, and can’t wait to see The
Expendables 3, then you’re a glutton for movie punishment and I can’t help
you” (1). Peter Travers started his review by criticizing the movie on the
first sentence. This movie was rated one star (out of four), and is considered
a waste of time. Since this is a review, there is no claim of fact. Although,
there is claim of value. Through Travers’ harsh criticism, one gets persuaded
to not watch this movie and instead look for alternatives. Automatic ethos is
also shown in this review. Travers says that since this movie has Sylvester
Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lungren, Randy Couture, Terry Crews, and
Arnold Schwarzenegger, people expect something big. “The Expendables 3, trading our affection for action stars of the
past, has officially worn out its already shaky welcome” (1). An example of
claim of value is again shown. Travers argues that this is an undesired movie,
and persuades its audience to not watch it. These arguments are effective,
since they are to the correct audience. People visit the Rolling Stone website to read reviews and so on about new movies,
albums. Therefore this review will have an impact on its audience. This review
is completely biased, therefore it does not include any facts or logos. It also
does not fight for a change, thus having no claim of policy. Travers argues
that this is a terrible movie, and states why.
No comments:
Post a Comment