The first review I looked at was 'Made in Dagenham' cut from closer magazine. This was a very basic review but bright and attractive to the eye. A large image at the top of the review was clear and acted as a sum up of the film. Each character is looking directing into the lens, creating a direct mode of address which makes it more personal, giving the idea that the audience is being looked at directly and included as part of the film. In the bottom right hand side of the picture there is a caption. Because the magazine the review is taken from is a gossip magazine, the caption is fun & has relevance to the image rather than the actual film. Below the image we are told the name of the film in large bold clear text which our eye is directly drawn too. Next we are made aware of the genre (comedy/drama') which is in a yellow font with pink background below the name of the film. I like this idea as the audience don't have to search through the text for the genre. Directly next to the genre the reviewer goes straight into a very basic plot outline, not giving too much away but still using positive persuasive language such as 'feel-good' to promote the film. Within this other films are mentioned which are similar to the film in question. This is a way of letting people know what the film is like, generally making it sound better. The cast, but not the director are labeled after the subplot at the end of the review. I would have expected this information to be at the top of the review so was quite surprised when it was at the bottom, not standing out from the plot overview. A star rating was also shown at the bottom of the page, however unlike the crew stands out due to the hot pink colour, keeping up a colour scheme & matching the genre type text. The small amount of text is placed in one column which is slim, giving short lines quick and easy to read, attracting those who are maybe flicking through a magazine and don't want to be put off with a huge amount of text.
Overall, I do like the simple layout of this review which is easy on the eye and the amount of text doesn't overwhelm the reader. The image which is placed at the top is clear and acts as a mini film sum up which indicates the relevance of an appropriate image, something I hadn't even thought about. I also like how the genre is immediately established and the star rating stands out from the rest of the text.
The second of the two reviews was from a similar kind of magazine as the first, named Star and the film is called Eat, Pray, Love. Again the layout is simple, with a large attractive image at the top. The actors in the image are looking away from the camera which suggests it is taken straight from filming. The close proximity of the male and female in the picture suggest the film is a romance however looking below we are not clear made aware of what the genre is without looking deeper in to the text. Overlapping the image, rather than a caption like the review before, there is a positive critic quote. I like this idea better than a caption which seemed to have no real relevance. Below the image we are told the name of the film in a bold red font, drawing our eye and making us aware of what we are reading. The certificate rating is also next to this, a feature we were not told in the first review but a vital piece of information for the reader. The stars of this film are presented underneath the name of the film in a bold text. If well known actors are in the film this may act as a form of persuasion & attract the readers attention. The reviewer, Louise Purser, sets out the review in the form of questions. I like this idea and think its original. The first of the two questions is 'What's the Story?'. Written beside this is a brief plot outline, stating who the actors are in terms of characters. The second question is, 'What's it Like?' gives the reviewers opinion of the film. Unlike the first review, a negative point is put forward ('way too long') however, this is backed up straight away by a positive ('good humour'). The term 'feast for the senses' is also used, which is a good strong opinion, persuading people to watch the film. At the end of the review the running time is stated, as well as an overall verdict and star rating. These are important details which make up a review so are presented in a bold red font. The final thing I notice is the layout of text, which is set out in columns stretching across the length of the image which makes the text easier to read, whilst at the same time making good use of space.
I prefer this review to the last. This is partly due to the extra bits of information given about the film, like the running time and certificate rating, as well as the names of the stars given immediately. I would have decided however to state the genre at the top of the review as I believe this is of relevance. I also like the colour red used on the review for important pieces of information. This is consistent throughout and works well at drawing the eye.
As the final review I looked at was short I decided to stick two from the same magazine on the page rather than just one. The films written about in these two reviews were 'Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Flashbacks of a Fool'. Unlike the other two reviews I have looked at, the name of these films are written above the main image. The text is white on both, however there is a block colour as a background, making it stand out from the page. Both images are cuts from the films, giving the audience an idea of genre the film is which again isn't stated immediately to us without looking deeper into the text. These reviews taken from Glamour magazine have a fun caption written over the image in the bottom right hand corner. I don't like this idea as I don't see the relevance of it, I would prefer a critic review if anything. Other than the name of film and image the only other colour is the star rating. This is in pink and original to the magazine as the stars are circles with mini G's for Glamour inside. This is a clever way of identifying the magazine.Within the text we are given a few names of the cast, as well as a very brief outline of the films stated and references to other films these two are similar to. We only get the reviewers opinion of the films in the last line (i.e. Forgetting Sarah Marshall - 'enough helium giggles & happy endings to make this sweet medicine for the recently dumped').
These two Glamour reviews are very simple and lacking pieces of information we plan to put into our own review, for example, the running time and genre. I like the name of the film at the top of the page above the image so it is established immediately.
I also used the internet to look at three film reviews on Borat, Confetti and The office to get an idea of the type of language used and writing styles.
Borat
Sacha Baron Cohen looks set to have an even bigger success with his second film than he did with Ali G Indahouse. Borat (full title: Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan) is the year's funniest film. Most viewers are probably going to want to watch it at least twice, as their laughter the first time around is likely to obscure much of the soundtrack.
From the opening scenes which show us Borat's supposed village in Kazakhstan (highlights include his sister, the country's fourth-best prostitute) to his trip across the Atlantic with his ursine producer Bagatov (Ken Davitian) in order to make a 'reporting' about the United States, the movie rarely fails to be anything less than spectacularly hysterical.
Baron Cohen takes a major swipe at the US in every scene and it's astonishing that he comes out alive. His initial attempts to make friends in a subway train are met with hostility bordering on physical aggression (Borat being Borat, he decides to calm the situation by releasing his pet cockerel in the carriage). He naively asks a group of street youths for fashion advice, attempts a bizarre version of the Star Spangled Banner in front of a rodeo crowd who boo him off the stage, and manages to convince a bunch of fervent evangelists that he is not only saved but speaking in tongues.
Everywhere he goes, calamity follows, not least if his bedraggled producer is in tow: their naked wrestling match proving to be the film's comic highlight. Even Pamela Anderson gets in on the act as the object of his cross-country affections.
Right wing evangelical Americans will be mortified and outraged: exactly the response Baron Cohen is looking for (and deserves). One can only hope that the more tolerant sections of the biggest power on earth may just realize that although most of this is largely exaggerated, their country faces becoming the butt of the rest of the world's jokes.
The film's slim running time, not usually a great sign, is also one of its strengths: it's hard to laugh non-stop for ninety minutes. With regular Curb Your Enthusiasm director Larry Charles at the helm it's not only a masterpiece of character comedy, but of comic timing.
Paul Hurley
-(talktalk.co.uk)
Plot Summary
Borat, a journalist in the nation of Kazahkstan, is sent to America by his government to film a documentary about US culture in an attempt to improve the standard of living in his own country. He and his producer, Azamat, arrive in New York City, where Borat, falling prey to culture clash, doesn't exactly make a great first impression (i.e., letting chickens loose on a subway, kissing random men on the street, etc.) While watching TV in his hotel room, he comes across a "Baywatch" rerun and falls in love with Pamela Anderson. He decides to leave New York to travel to Los Angeles to find her, but neglects to tell his producer the real reason he wants to travel to California. On the way, Borat meets many people, but ends up either humiliating or enfuriating all of them. For example, when he receives a driving lesson, he attempts to drink while driving, shouts obscenities at the other drivers, and asks his instructor to be his boyfriend. He attends a dinner party with some members of high society and successfully dismisses himself from the table to use the restroom politely, but brings a bag of... the result of the bathroom visit... back to the table with him. Minutes later, a prostitute he invited to the dinner shows up, causing the hosts of the party to throw him out. He stops at a rodeo to sing our National Anthem, but draws boos from the crowd when he replaces the lyrics to the Star-Spangled Banner with lyrics about his own native land and tells the crowd that he hopes for George W. Bush to "drink the blood of every man, woman, and child" who opposes us in the war on terror. One night, Borat finds Azamat, um, really enjoying a photo of his (Borat's) beloved Pam Anderson. They fight (in quite a crude way,) and in the end, Borat is left all alone in a strange place with no money and no passport. He ends up falling asleep on a sidewalk, but wakes up to realize that he is in front of a church. He goes inside, becomes saved, and journies on to California to find his beloved Pam Anderson.
(http://www.ruinedendings.com/film6289plot)
Confetti
CONFETTI
A bright and breezy British comedy which is frequently very amusing, Confetti borrows from the mockumentary style developed by Christopher Guest (Best in Show, Waiting for Guffman), but actually manages to be a lot funnier than his last effort A Mighty Wind. It also benefits from using a cast largely familiar from recent TV comedies, who all make an impressive leap on to the big screen.
Writer/director Debbie Isitt shows great confidence in a genre that could so easily provide plenty of pitfalls. This is sharp, well-observed and infectious stuff which surprisingly pulls at the heartstrings and deserves to be a commercial success.
It's a relatively simple plot that is explained very quickly at the beginning: the owner of Confetti magazine (an obnoxious Jimmy Carr) decides on a competition to find the Most Original Wedding of the Year. He and his editor (Felicity Montagu, best known as Alan Partridge's long-suffering assistant Lynn) choose the three couples who will contest the final and the rest of the film charts their progress as they attempt to win their dream marriage.
Couple one (Martin Freeman and Jessica Stevenson) are intent on an old-fashioned musical wedding, despite the fact that neither of them show much prowess in that department. Couple two (Stephen Mangan and Meredith Macneill) are competitive tennis freaks who insist on a centre court wedding (complete with Cliff Richard lookalike). Finally, Robert Webb and Olivia Colman (two of the stars of the excellent Peep Show) play a pair of naturists, and bravely wander around for ninety minutes in the buff.
Most of the preparations for the weddings prove to be very funny, but best of all are the two wedding organisers Heron and Hough (Vincent Franklin and Jason Watkins). A camp postmodern Gilbert and George, they are the comedic highlight of the affair and hold it all together, without diminishing the impact of the main three couples.
Confetti won't change the world, and doesn't even have a big message to make. It sets out to entertain, and more than does so. It looks like it was a lot of fun to make, and it's certainly a lot of fun to watch.
Paul Hurley
-(talktalk.co.uk)
Plot
Three couples endure the living hell that is the happiest day of their lives in this comic mockumentary. Confetti is the United Kingdom's most prestigious wedding magazine, and publisher Antoni (Jimmy_Carr) and editor Vivien (Felicity_Montagu) have made a career out of documenting the cutting edge in nuptial ceremonies. Antoni and Vivien have decided to stage a contest to find the most original wedding concepts in Britain; the Confetti staff will narrow the field down to three candidates, help the couples stage their weddings, and treat the grand prize winner to a major photo spread in the magazine as well as a new home worth 500,000 pounds. Before long, Antoni and Vivien announce the finalists: Josef and Isabelle (Stephen_Mangan and Meredith MacNeill), fitness enthusiasts who want a tennis-themed wedding; Matt and Sam (Martin_Freeman and Jessica_Stevenson), whose ceremony will be inspired by Hollywood movie musicals; and Michael and Joanna (Robert_Webb and Olivia_Colman), a pair of naturists who seldom wear clothes and want to be nude throughout the ceremony). Veteran wedding planners Archie Heron (Vincent_Franklin) and Gregory Hough (Jason_Watkins) are hired to help each couple have a day they'll always remember, though they may not look back on their work with fondness. Confetti was the second theatrical feature from director Debbie_Isitt; all the dialogue was improvised by the film's cast during the filming. Mark Deming, Rovi.
(http://www.starpulse.com/Movies/Confetti/Summary/)
The Office
Set in the bleak, awfully-named industrial town of Slough and the fictional office of the Wernam-Hogg paper merchants, a BBC film crew documents the expressionless workers, ringing phones, copiers churning out clone after clone after clone, pointless meetings and pointless bureaucracy that exist within typical, uninspiring companies.
Sadly, the majority of people in Britain work in dull, dead-end office jobs with lives that go nowhere and even the most meager of ambitions going unrealized. Maybe if they had a boss like David Brent their day would be livened up. Not because he's the 'boss/entertainer' he thinks he is, but for the morbid curiosity of watching a desperate, delusional and detestable man slowly crash and burn.
The majority of laughs in The Office come from awkward and embarrassing situations. Brent constantly forces his bullheaded and bawdy humor on unwitting staff. At first they appear scared of his ruthlessly imposing presence but towards the end they all ignore him completely. But he never realizes this and resorts to even more tasteless ways of getting attention. He loves the camera and rather than acting 'normal' for the purposes of the mockumentary he exaggerates his beastly character to the point of being sickening. He gets what he deserves in the end and by this point the audience has lost all sympathy for him.
His brutalized and beleaguered staff struggle to get on with their work as Brent's tyranny escalates. Among them we have Tim, an increasingly unhappy man who wishes to escape the monotony and drudgery 'ordinary life' brings him. He's long had the confidence crushed out of him but still has more humanity than anyone else.
Gareth is Tim's worst enemy. A dorky, 95 pound weakling who boasts of being in the (territorial) Army and is keen to assume more and more power from Brent's failing management. Like Brent, he has no clue about social interaction and behaves strangely among potential friends.
Dawn is the receptionist. She is engaged to a controlling, unloving boyfriend who insists she spend her life doing dull work despite the fact that she has higher and happier dreams. She has feelings for Tim, and they are more than mutual. But fear of change and happiness stops her from falling for him.
As soon as once branch of Wernam-Hogg incorporates the other it becomes clear how useless Brent is. The new staff are amazed at how such a horrid man has been employed at all, never mind become a boss. Complaints and unfinished work rise and the upper management are forced to take action. Sadly, Brent just won't learn.
In the end, his staff have the slightest chance at happiness and escape. Brent however doesn't learn from his mistakes and will probably go on to have an endlessly miserable life.
If you work in an office, get out! Among the blackest of humor there is a message; office life is fit for no human being. And Ricky Gervais' dark comedy is filled with thousands of examples of why this is so. It's absolutely classic stuff that is far ahead of dozens of canned laughter sitcoms.
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0290978/)
Plot
A mockumentary about life in a mid-sized suboffice paper merchants in a bleak British industrial town, where manager David Brent thinks he's the coolest, funniest, and most popular boss ever. He isn't. That doesn't stop him from embarrassing himself in front of the cameras on a regular basis, whether from his political sermonizing, his stand-up 'comedy', or his incredibly unique dancing. Meanwhile, long-suffering Tim longs after Dawn the engaged receptionist and keeps himself sane by playing childish practical jokes on his insufferable, army-obsessed deskmate Gareth. Will the Slough office be closed? Will the BBC give David a game show? Will Tim and Dawn end up with each other? And more importantly, will Gareth realize what a hopeless prat he is?
(www.imdb.com/title/tt0290978/)
No comments:
Post a Comment