Art

1. Is there a broad description of the piece If so, what is it

The piece is clearly about the film Roving Mars and its features that typify the future entertainment technology. However, in the essay, the movie is not broadly described. Well, there are a couple or so descriptions about it, but that is all to it. It does not explore its plot, characters and other significant features. Instead, the author dedicates the larger portion of the paper in describing the OMNIMAX theater. He makes breathtaking narration about the movie house, leisurely enumerating several high technology gadgets, including the seats and screen. The author appears to be overwhelmed by the advancement of the theater that he bombards his descriptions with superlative adjectives. In effect, the author deviates from the thesis statement. He focuses on the high domed theatre and forgets that paper is all about the movie. The movie description becomes mere filler that does not make an impact at all.
The essay should prove that Roving Mars draws the future technology in entertainment closer to the people, as the thesis states. This is supposedly done by using OMNIMAX as supporting evidence, but the author fails to do this. Instead, the outcome is two topics, the movie and OMNIMAX, which are discussed separately, as if they have their own realms. The two topics are like two parallel lines that cannot meet no matter how far they go.

2.  In the conclusion, does the author successfully connect his evaluation to the thesis (introduced in the first paragraph) Explain your answer.

The conclusion is way far from the thesis. In fact, it is not a conclusion at all rather, it is merely a continuing description of the movie. The last paragraph, supposedly conclusive, does not wrap up the essay. It seems that the author does not have an intention, or does not know how, to end the paper. He ends his essay by rating the movie and restating the amazing features of the roving mars, leaving the OMNIMAX nowhere to be found. In this last hurrah, the author completely disregards the theatre which comprises the larger portion of the paper. Even at the end, the two parallel topics, the movie and the theater, do not meet. The conclusion fails seriously to prove how and why the movie puts the future entertainment within the grasp of the moviegoers.

3. What final thought or question does the author leave us with
The author leaves the reader an idea about the latest technology in entertainment. With the detailed description of the high-domed theater, it leaves an impression that film viewing is fast changing. It is a fascinating fact that moviegoers have a chance to be a virtual part of the movie they are watching as if they are involve in the actions and drama that transpire in the movie itself. However, it is hard to ignore that the essay leaves an unanswered question How does Roving Mars typify the advance technology of the World of Tomorrows entertainment 4. Conclude your paragraph by answering this question What is your opinion of this students Art Review Essay Why The first thing I notice is the authors excessive use of superlative adjectives and transition words that appear inappropriate in some instances. However, this is minute compared to the authors negligence of one important element of writing cohesiveness.

The thesis states the main topic, but as I read along, I find out that the main topic (Roving Mars) and the supposedly supporting evidence (OMNIMAX theater) are discussed separately. They have no solid connection. This leaves me confused most of the way as I cannot determine which is supporting which. Worse, the shifting between the descriptions of the theatre and the movie only confuses me further. I cannot help but to think that the author obtains parcels of review from the internet or some other sources, rephrases them a bit and puts them together to create an essay without paying attention to the unity that must bind the composition together.