The Film review which I will be analysing is from the ‘Time
Entertainment.’ The Film which is contained in the review is Paranormal
Activity 2. The film was reviewed by Mary Pols.
The mode of address used throughout the review is slightly informal due to a number of words that she uses. The film review is targeted at a general audience rather than a niche one. The critic briefly summarises each aspect of the film – directors, narrative actors etc.
Firstly, the critic talks briefly about the narrative in paranormal activity 2. ‘’ I retained almost no memory of its narrative content’’ she then breaks down the narrative from the previous paranormal activity, in informal tone. As explained above she used the word ‘dope’ which lower in register of the review. As the review progresses she then brakes down the narrative structure of the second film and how the movie opens.
The film critic clearly contains the actor’s names in brackets with the characters that they play. She describe (Micah Sloath) as a dope which is a slang/informal discourse.
Pols mentions that the director from the previous film had been replaced by a new director. (Todd Williams) which she goes on to say she had doubts about that change. Later on in the review she talks about the writer and director from paranormal activity (Oren Peli) she went on to talk about the budget of that film and said ‘it’s the kind of budget you could use to get a pretty used car’ this statement is non-standardised as she uses ‘pretty used car’ meaning a really old car. She later on explains she thought the budget in this current film had increased.
Lastly, towards the end of the review, she talks about some of the camera shot in the film. For example the surveillance shots in the film. She said it brought thrills and chills throughout the audience.
The mode of address used throughout the review is slightly informal due to a number of words that she uses. The film review is targeted at a general audience rather than a niche one. The critic briefly summarises each aspect of the film – directors, narrative actors etc.
Firstly, the critic talks briefly about the narrative in paranormal activity 2. ‘’ I retained almost no memory of its narrative content’’ she then breaks down the narrative from the previous paranormal activity, in informal tone. As explained above she used the word ‘dope’ which lower in register of the review. As the review progresses she then brakes down the narrative structure of the second film and how the movie opens.
The film critic clearly contains the actor’s names in brackets with the characters that they play. She describe (Micah Sloath) as a dope which is a slang/informal discourse.
Pols mentions that the director from the previous film had been replaced by a new director. (Todd Williams) which she goes on to say she had doubts about that change. Later on in the review she talks about the writer and director from paranormal activity (Oren Peli) she went on to talk about the budget of that film and said ‘it’s the kind of budget you could use to get a pretty used car’ this statement is non-standardised as she uses ‘pretty used car’ meaning a really old car. She later on explains she thought the budget in this current film had increased.
Lastly, towards the end of the review, she talks about some of the camera shot in the film. For example the surveillance shots in the film. She said it brought thrills and chills throughout the audience.
The Second review which I analysed was from Empire magazine,
by Kim Newman. In comparison to the first review, her review is organised into
3 Sections; plot, review and verdict. Also an image from the film was added. It
is short compared to the first, and uses both formal and informal language, to
reach out to a wider audience. The USP in the review is the Narrative as it is
included throughout the whole review; however, Newman makes references to the
change of directors in the sequel and the actors who play in the film.
At the end of the review Kim, also makes reference to other films that the viewer may also enjoy which also reaches out to a wider audience.
The last review which I looked at was from the Chicago Sun Times. A common factor which all the reviews contained was the same image from paranormal activity.
In the introduction it contains an informal tone, when describing moments of the film as ‘Gotcha moments’ in this case meaning moments where the film is loud and scary. Unlike the other to review Roger talks about camera in the middle of the review. The review is organised well, with the cast and credits in a section.
At the end of the review Kim, also makes reference to other films that the viewer may also enjoy which also reaches out to a wider audience.
The last review which I looked at was from the Chicago Sun Times. A common factor which all the reviews contained was the same image from paranormal activity.
In the introduction it contains an informal tone, when describing moments of the film as ‘Gotcha moments’ in this case meaning moments where the film is loud and scary. Unlike the other to review Roger talks about camera in the middle of the review. The review is organised well, with the cast and credits in a section.
Links.
1) http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,2027132,00.html
2) http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/ReviewComplete.asp?FID=136856
3) http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101022/REVIEWS/101029991
No comments:
Post a Comment