Poniewozik's Use Of Humor In Disaster Films

Throughout the years, disaster films have always been loved by many such as Armageddon, Independence Day, and Twister, just to name a few but in 2013 Syfy released a disaster film unlike others in the genre. In Syfy’s latest venture, instead of a disaster movie based off the end of the world, or earthquakes or hurricanes, the world is facing a new natural disaster: a tornado, full of sharks; and thus the movie Sharknado was born. As Time Magazine TV critic, James Poniewozik, wrote in the article “Perfect Storm: The Genius of Sharknado” the movie gave exactly what was expected, a tornado full of sharks, and while it will not be up to par with serious films such as Band of Brothers, it will do its job and entertain the audience (Time). Although

Not only does the film play off of simple humor without getting too full of itself, Poniewozik also describes this humor in similar fashion when he states, “Oh sure, you’d think it’s as easy as casting Ian Ziering and Tara Reid, hiring a hobo to do the CGI, and letting the magic make itself. But it’s easy to see where a title like this could become self-serious or smirky(Time)”. Just from the title, Sharknado, it can be deduced that this will not be a serious film, and plans on winning the audience by cheap laughs and that is exactly what Poniewozik promises that the movie will deliver. This promise along with snarky remarks, that can be somewhat expected when a professional film critic must review a movie with a name such as Sharknado, appeal to an audience that loves humor. Poniewozik uses figurative language to make remarks about a “hobo doing the CGI”, it can be inferred that Syfy did not actually hire a hobo to do the CGI, computer generated imagery, effects but the humorous metaphor appeals to the reader because it makes fun of itself for having out of place CGI. Even though Time is a more serious magazine company that reports on anything from business to current events to world affairs, Time appeals to a less serious audience, such as those who are interested who are interested in not just any movies but movies that are full of

It was shown to be a low budget movie made mediocrely as Poniewozik questions if the film makers have ever seen it rain or hurricane, as the ground was dry during shots where it was storming with sharks. He goes on to show how the film was made without a shred of common sense, as it shows the way to stop tornados is to fly up in a helicopter and throw a bomb in it. Poniewozik sums up all the unprofessionalism by questioning “whether any scene for this movie was shot in more than one take” (Time). A well-seasoned movie critic can show both the positives and the negatives in a movie, while still critiquing the movie. Poniewozik showed this skill by pragmatically giving it a positive review based off of slapstick humor but by honestly pointing out the flaws in plot and production realism. Poniewozik uses honesty to appeal to ethos so that he can remain a credible as a television critic for a respectable brand such as Time. Although it would be easier to gloss over any issues in the movie, or even omit the parts that do not fit with a positive review of the movie, Poniewozik is blunt about the movie’s shortcomings but going as harsh to say that the movie was shot in one take. This comment is a blanket statement that covers the shortcomings of everyone in the cast and crew in the movie. Although