Roger Ebert is considered one of the best reviewers and from looking at two of his movie reviews, the consideration is very justified. Ebert uses a vocabulary that gets right to the point and doesn’t contradict himself while explaining his thoughts. He provides a certain imagery for those who may not have seen or understood the movie without spoiling anything and thats what makes his reviews so renowned.
This is also why his review of Lincoln was the one I felt was the best written. He explained the movie and took a firm stance on how he felt about it. No contradictions were made in his review, rather they we’re things he thought could have been changed about the film.
I feel like the short reviews were effective. For people who don’t necessarily like to read long articles or paragraphs, both of the reviews get straight to the point without adding any fluff and extra wordiness.
A good review has to have a firm opinion about the subject and do a good job of not contradicting itself. It can provide suggestions about improvement as a means to get people to debate about the movie.