Kassi Musick

ENG 103

Review Analysis

Comparing Ashes to Ashes

The 1999 film Angela’s Ashes attempted to create a life like version of Frank McCourt’s sad story

of his miserable Irish- Catholic childhood. However, there are a few things missing from the movie which

made the book as great as it was. Many critics have tried to tackle the missing aspects of the movie, but

Richard Corliss, Kenneth Turan, and Roger Ebert wrote my favorite reviews and offered the best

arguments for opinions on the movie.

Richard Corliss is a well- known reviewer who has worked for TIME Magazine since 1980. In a

December 1999 edition of TIME, Corlisswrote a review consisting of no more than two paragraphs that

were cleverly written to provide all the information necessary. He includes a large picture to act as the

majority of the summary. The picture shows the McCourt family struggling with all the children and

what little luggage they have through the streets of Limerick because they can no longer afford to live in

the United States. With a carefully chosen picture, Corliss provided a silent summary which did not need

explanation. Spending little time on summarizing the movie, he concentrated on comparing the movie to

the book it was inspired by. He seems amazed by director Alan Parker for attempting an“impossible task”

of creating a movie that would satisfy those who read the book. Although he does not agree the movie

successfully illustratedthe entire book, he does consider it to be “anecdotal” to Frank McCourt’s

masterpiece. In doing this, Corliss can quietly mock the movie and its director for the failure of

reproducing the book in its entirety without setting himself up for trouble. Basically, he describes Parker

as giving it a good try, and keeps his complaints under his breath.

The second article I reviewed was written by Kenneth Turanfor the Los Angela’s Times only a

few short days after Corliss’s review. Turan provides excellent reviews in both written form and over the

radio. His review of Angela’s Ashes is much more detailed than Corliss’s. He includes a larger summary

although,it is not introduced until halfway through the review. Turanstarts by saying this “is not the usual
case of a book being trashed on its way to the screen. By stating this in the very beginning, he maintains

the attention of those who have read the book and were not originally willing to give the movie a chance.

Actors are praised throughout the review and are considered “established professionals” by Turan. He

goes on to criticize the movie slightly for not being able to fulfill all the heart as the book had. He does

not stay on this topic long before he switches to the summary which includes more description about the

characters than anything else. Turan believes Parker chose astounding actors that perfectly portrayed the

characters of the three ages of Frankie as well as Malachyand Angela (Frankie’s parents). The summary

is ended with Turan’sfascination of Frankie’s education by the Jesuit fathers. Turan closes up with the

thought “if this beautifully made if flawed film sends people back to [McCourt’s] book, it will have done

good work for sure.”

The final review was done by one of my favorite critics of all time, Roger Ebert. His review of

Angela’s Ashes is tricky to understand if you are not familiar withhis scattered and complex writing style,

but I found it to be my favorite review of the three. Ebert’s review is simply a more detailed version of

Turan’sincluding many similar beliefs about the movie. The first paragraph acts as an introduction to the

rest of his review by relating Angela’s Ashes to the common idea of Irish history, “suffering recollected in

hilarity.” Right of the bat, Ebert is already mocking the movie, thenhe goes further to tell what the movie

is lacking. He explains that humor is missing in the movie that was in the book. However, he is also

impressedto see that “the film is so faithful to the content of the book” and describes how to movie

perfectly portrayed pictures he had already formed in his mind when he read the book. Here, he relates to

and convinces the reader that even though the humor is missing, the movie follows the book quite well.

Ebert finds it important to provide the readers who had read the book, with a short comparison to the

movie. Although he thinks the movie “lacks heart,” he does not blame the actors. Ebert agrees with

Turan insistingEmily Watson was perfect stating” it is impossible to conceive of better casting. He is

thrilled with the three boys who played the various ages of Frankie as well. Ebert continues to describe

the actors and characters as excellent while he presents a partial summary of the movie. This is one of the

few reviews Roger Ebert actually writes more compliments on the movie that negative comments.

Obviously if Ebert, likes it, the movie is worth watching.

 All three reviewers had strong opinions towards the movie and offered excellent arguments as to

why they had those opinions. Richard Corliss put forward a great review, but left out the summary. The

summary is important in order for readers who have not yet seen the movie to understand the review.

Both Kenneth Turanand Roger Ebert gave great reviews that included well written summaries that were

not to complex. Summaries are important, but being straight and to the point is important as well; readers

do not want to read a five page review before they go see a movie. Although Turanpresented a

commendable review, my favorite was that of Roger Ebert’s. Ebert included much more information

without going overboard. The other two reviewers included many of the things Ebert mentioned, but

Ebert put it together in a more interesting fashion.

 Works Cited

“Alan Parker: Angela’s Ashes.” The Guardian. 7 Jan. 2000: 18.17. 26 Nov. 2008

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2000/jan/07/guardianinterviewsatbfisouthbank1>

“Angela’s Ashes” IMDb. 24 Nov. 2008 < http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0145653/>

Corliss, Richard. “Angela’s Ashes.” TIME 27 Dec. (1999): 2 pars. 24 Nov. 2008

<http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992971,00.html>

“Corliss, Richard.” Nation Master.com Encyclopedia. 26 Nov. 2008

<http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Corliss,_Richard>

Ebert, Roger. “Angela’s Ashes.” Roger Ebert.com 21 Jan. 2000. 24 Nov. 2008

<http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20000121/REVIEWS/1210302/1023

>

McCourt, Frank. Angela’s Ashes. New York: Scribner, 1996.

“Emily Watson.” IMDb 2008. 26 Nov. 2008 <http://www.imdb.com/find?q=Emily%20Watson;s=nm>

“Robert Carlyle.” IMDb. 2008. 26 Nov. 2008

<http://www.imdb.com/find?s=nm&q=Rober+Carlyle&x=0&y=0>

“The Limerick of Angela’s Ashes.” 12 Oct. 2001 <http://homepages.iol.ie/~avondoyl/angelas1.htm>

TIME Magazine. Issues from1999, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Binded Periodicals, Ball State University.

Turan, Kenneth. “Angela’s Ashes (1999).” Las Angela’s Times 24 Dec. 1999. 26 Nov. 2008

<http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/angelas_ashes/?page=4&critic=columns&sortby=date&name

_order=asc>