Title: Analyzing Film Reviews: A Comparison of Scott’s Review of Ratatouille and Turan’s Review of Titanic

As we saw in Saltz’s review of Urs Fischer’s You (remember, the hole in the ground?), sometimes a reviewer can become so ecstatic over a work of art that his review begins to slip into what might be called hyperbole, yet reviewers can be reasonably enthusiastic about a good work of art, as critic A.O. Scott is in his review of Ratatouille.
I especially like it because, rather than addressing an elite circle of art connoisseurs as Saltz did (after all, who else could understand You?), Scott shares his enthusiasm in a more grounded, accessible way.
Even if you already like Ratatouille, you will likely come away appreciating the artistry of film even more after reading this review! 
Turan’s review of Cameron’s Titanic, on the other hand, is a fine example of a negative review. Turan thinks Cameron’s work a bloated product of the director’s overweening ego and does a fine job explaining why.
In your response, respond to these questions along with offering your own perspective upon our two reading assignments for this module: Scott’s review of Ratatouille and Turan’s review of Titanic:
Can you identify a thesis statement in each film review? In your own words, restate each reviewer’s opinion of the film.
What is one subpoint each reviewer uses to support his thesis idea? What examples and analysis does each reviewer use to explain this subpoint?
Does the reviewer use the right amount of plot summary? Why or why not? Please explain your response using examples from the text to support your analysis.
How would you describe the style and tone of each reviewer?
Which reviewer has a stronger ethos? Give evidence from the reviews to support your opinion.