Empire Film Reviews
 |
| http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?DVDID=5045 |
The film review for this film starts off with the film name and the age rating next to it in brackets. Beneath this is the star rating system used and for this film, it was given four stars. The use of language used in the film is very descriptive and analytical. As it says ‘Set in and around Washington DC over Christmas, it has plenty to offer visually (Scott's lens laps up the winter chill, the fairy lights and the large government buildings), and it is against this handsome backdrop that the action takes place’. This allows the audience to have a picture of what the film may be like if they haven’t seen it before. The type of language used also makes the audience sympathise with the main actor (Will Smith). For example it says, ‘The ultra-secret National Security Agency (nicknamed No Such Agency), which is behind all this, targets the innocent Dean: he's smeared, loses his job, and is booted out of his delightful home.’ This is significant to the review because it allows the audience to express their sympathy with the character and also engages them within the story. Towards the end of the review (in the last paragraph) the type of language the editor uses starts to become more informal. ‘David Marconi's script clunks a little in the establishing scenes, but once Jason Lee makes his discovery and declares, "Fuck a duck!” it relaxes no end. When the NSA supernerds utter that era-defining phrase, "Gentlemen, we are back on-line!” it's as if they are taking over the world, not just Washington. Great fun.’ The use of this language allows a wider variety of audiences to understand the film, especially a younger audience. The target audience for this film is mainly young people aged 19-26 in my view and the editor uses language in a way that this type of audience can come to terms with. One example of this is shown in the opening paragraph of the review where the editor says ‘But when Scott's camera happens upon a decent story and some really fine performers, as with Crimson Tide, the effect is like having your inside leg stroked in the dark for two hours. Enemy of the State is like that.’ In this case, the writer uses a simile to compare the movie to something else and this is a good writing technique. The element of the film which the reviewer tends to focus on is the setting of the film and how the director uses this as an advantage for the whole film. ‘Set in and around Washington DC over Christmas, it has plenty to offer visually (Scott's lens laps up the winter chill, the fairy lights and the large government buildings), and it is against this handsome backdrop that the action takes place.’ As the film is set in the heart of New York City, this is a excellent setting for a high-paced, action packed movie such as this one and the editor puts a lot of emphasis on this. Overall, I feel that this is a solid review for the film as the editor covers the main aspects which the audience will want to know.
Total Film Reviews
This film review also starts offf in the same manner; with the name of the film at the top, the rating of the film given by the review website and the release date of the film. The type of language used is very attractive and starts off in a wway that will make the reader want to continue to read on. It starts off by describing the film as ‘Brash, big and loud. And this instanly draws the attention o the audience. In the opening paragraphy, teh reviewer also state sthe main conventions taht you wouyld expect to see in an action film, ‘Buildings blow up, cars crash, men brawl, men bond.’ He then goes son to say ‘In other words, Scott and Bruckheimer are making movies for the 15-year-old boy in all of us. Got a problem with that?’ He uses a rhetorical question at the end and this is a tool people use in debate to avoid making an outright declaration, but at the same time still being able to make a point, and in this case the writer is trying to say that everyone one who watches these types of films has a 15-year-old boy inside them. In the second paragraph, the writer describes the plot of the film and in some instances he uses informal language. ‘The friend sprints off to his death and Dean goes home to his yuppie townhouse, never imagining that he's carrying a thingummybob of government-toppling proportions.’ This is done in order for the younger target audience to relate to the film and ultimately, they are used to seeing this type of language being used. The type of language used is predominantly descriptive and this is beneficial for the audience as they can have an in sight into what the film is going to be about. The writer also says that the director ‘delivers plenty of visual flair.’ He also compares some scenes of the film to other movies such as ‘Diva, The Conversation, Mission: Impossible and even The Truman Show.’ In the review, the writer mainly focuses on the actors and the narrative. ‘In Enemy Of The State, all these things happen to, and around, Washington DC lawyer Robert Dean, played (mostly straight) by Men In Black star Will Smith.’ In this case, the writer is reminding the reader what previous films Will Smith has appeared in and promotes the actor. The writer also says ‘Hackman and Smith spar like a pair of top heavyweights and Scott has enough experience to keep out of their way.’ The writer compares the way the two actors act in the film to ‘a pair of top heavyweights’. The writer also focuses on the narrative of the film and does this in a structured way in terms of how the film is being showed chronologically. The writer also addresses the message which the film sends out. He says that the film raises serious questions about privacy versus national security. This enables the audience to contemplate the other side of the movie and the message which it sends across to global audiences. Ultimately, this is a good review and gives the reader a general overview of how the film is like and this is supported by the fact that the writer focuses on the narrative of the film.
The review on this website is very plain and basic but includes interesting sections about the film. The review starts off by summarising the plot of the film and it also includes some rhetorical questions, asking the audience ‘But who is Brill? A tough-talking stranger (Gabriel Byrne) who corners him in a lavatory? A pugnacious nerd (Gene Hackman) who threatens him with bodily harm? Or someone else?’ this attracts the attention of the audience and puts them in a position fir them to go and watch the film if they have not seen it already. The type of language that is used to communicate with the target audience is very straightforward and is done in a way for the audience to understand with ease. However, this point may be contradicted by the fact that the sentences that are used within the review are very long, therefore it makes it hard for the reader to digest as there are no breaks for the reader. The main element of the film which the writer tends to focus on is the actors once again. ‘Will Smith proves he can carry a film as a dramatic lead, joining the ranks of Wesley, Denzel, Samuel, Angela, et al. (It’s no longer sheer tokenism that puts black actors in top roles).’ In this case, the writer also compares Will Smith to other top black actors who dominate in the film industry. Also, as in the previous review, the writer inputs the message in which this film is trying to convey. ‘This film suggests – and demonstrates with its hypothetical story – that more surveillance is a bad and dangerous thing for you and me. So there is a moral/political issue to give the film ballast, while the private and personal stories gives it the zing to hook us.’ In general, this film review is very simple and uncomplicated and this is beneficial to the audience but on the other hand, one may look at this review and say that t doe snit go much into depth about other aspects of the film which the writer could have covered in his review.
No comments:
Post a Comment