Headline of Review Newspaper or Website Name Date Published 

1. Dead Poets Society | https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/dead-poets-society-1989 | June 9, 1989

2. `DEAD POETS SOCIETY` IS REFRESHER COURSE IN DRAMA | https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1989-06-09-8902080016-story.html | June 9, 1989

3. ‘Dead Poets Society’ seizes the day: 1989 review | https://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/movies/dead-poets-society-seize-day-1989-review-article-1.2655911 |June 2, 1989

A. How do the leads differ? Which is the best and why? 

Two out of the three leads seem to be leaning in a more positive way about the film yet one of them goes in a more negative direction regarding the film and the acting portrayed by Robin Williams. I feel the best lead out of the three critics I picked would have to be the Chicago Tribune review over the film.

B. How do the reviewers give their opinion in the lead? Which is the most clever or entertaining? Why? 

The way the reviewers give their opinions in their posts are by using specific adjectives describing the film. For example, the first review I read by Roger Ebert said words such as “pious platitudes masquerading as a courageous stand in favor of something”, “I was so moved, I wanted to throw up”, or when the Chicago Tribune said, “Our Flick of the Week is ”Dead Poets Society,” a refreshing if obvious drama amid a summer of frivolous filmed entertainments”. I think the most entertaining way to show how they felt was when Ebert said, “I was so moved, I wanted to throw up.” I thought it was witty, funny, and relatable for how I personally felt after watching the film as well.

C. In the body of each review, what type of support do they use? Examples from film? Comparisons to other works, etc? Give one specific example from each review. 

For this film all the reviews talked about Robin Williams and his take on his main character in the movie and how it was better or worse than his other performances in his previous movies.

a. Review 1: “For much of the time, Williams does a good job of playing an intelligent, quick-witted, well-read young man.” Roger Ebert

b. Review 2: “Director Peter Weir’s “Dead Poets Society” is a truly lovely movie about seven boys coming of age in a world about to be thrown into social and emotional upheaval. ” New York Daily News

c. Review 3: “Director Peter Weir keeps Williams from running away with the movie, and the film works as well when he is off-screen as on.” Chicago Tribune

D. Which review does the best job with support, and why? 

I believe the best review is actually the one that goes directly against my views of the film. It was the review written by Roger Ebert, this review pretty much is the opposite of what I thought the movie was. This is my favorite movie of all time but this review did have the most support, and had the best wording and information to support his claim compared to the other articles in my opinion.

E. How does each review conclude his or her piece? 

a. Review 1: “Dead Poets Society” is not the worst of the countless recent movies about good kids and hidebound, authoritarian older people. It may, however, be the most shameless in its attempt to pander to an adolescent audience.”

b. Review 2: “”Dead Poets Society” doesn’t have the action sequences or special effects that seem to insure summertime blockbuster success.”

c. Review 3: “The Williams character created it when he was a student and it is his gift to the current class and to all young people watching the film.”

F. Overall, which did you find most helpful, and why? 

Overall, I thought the Chicago tribune piece was more informative rather than reviewing the piece itself. Then there is the Roger Ebert review, it was a little harsh, and in some parts too opinionated in my opinion of an extraordinary film, but I guess that is my opinion getting the best of me. In fact I think he probably did the best job in honestly reviewing the film even though it may steer people away from viewing it. Then the New York Daily News piece did a fine job in talking about the film but it was pretty bland, it was more informative and focused on Robin Williams work in the film rather than the film in the entirety. At the same time I hold stronger connections with their assessment compared to the other two reviews though.