Unknown Innocence: Film Magazine Reviews - Panic Room (Joe Gilbert)

Here are 3 different reviews of the film 'Panic Room' all within different types of mass media

Total Film: Reviewed by 'Total Film' (May 3rd 2002)
BBC Films: Reviewed by Neil Smith (May 2nd 2002)
The Chicago Sun Times: Reviewed by 'Roger Ebert (March 29th 2002)

Total Film Review
This review seems to be talking directly at the audience, and strait away the writer uses imperatives such as 'Do not' to address certain 'rules' to the reader. It is clear the the review is written is second person as throughout , the writer uses words like 'you' and 'we'. At first the review seems to be more formal, due to the use of these imperatives, and also through the constant use of strong adjectives, for example, 'bruising masterpiece' and 'another brainscorcher'. However there is also a sense to the review being informal as the writer also asks the reader rhetorical questions, he write 'wouldn't you if you knew it contained a safe, and inside that safe was several million dollars?'. The use of rhetorical questions contradicts the use of imperatives as he goes from command the reader, to asking them a question. The sense of the review being informal continues as the writes uses 'slang' words as he refers to Forest Whitaker as being a 'baddie', and also calls Jared Leto a 'crackhead'

The writer seems to use a lot of content as he switches from talking about the actors, the plot of the story to then talking about the director, the use of camera, and the location. He starts off with describing the plot of the story to the reader, however he then just swaps and mentions how the actors are 'faultless'. He mentions Kristen Stewart, who he calls the 'newcomer', and says how she isn't like other cine-kids, he then refers to her as being 'real'. He then again just changes and mention the director by saying 'this is fincher's movie', literally strait after he says that, he mentions the 'coffee pot shot' which he defines as being 'absolutely mindblowing' He asks the views a rhetorical question when mentioning the use of location, he says 'how do you conjure something cinematic out of a single location'. As you can see this writer has truly packed this review with a large variety of content

Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun Times) Review

Different to the review by Total Film, this review by Roger Ebert is written in first person, as constantly throughout he uses the word 'I'. However even though this review is him talking to himself directly we can strait away see that this review tends to be a more formal review of this film by his use of vocabulary, he uses words like 'scoffing' and 'plausibility. He also uses similes as he compares the movie to a game of chess, as he says 'both sides know the rules' but the 'winner will simply be the better strategist. Throughout this review he always keep comparing the film to a game of chess,this could be because it is a hobby that maybe his readers are interested in, so therefore it attracts their attention more. As the review progress, he also keeps using there more formal words such as 'vertiginous' and 'intriguing'.

However unlike the review by total film, Ebert doesn't go in to the content of the film in as depth how ever he does mention quite a lot. He clearly states that the movie is directed my 'David Fincher', and then further on he simultaneously talks about the actors and their involvement in the plot. Similarly to the Total Film review he mentions the use of camera, which by his description of it seems to be the 'coffee pot shot' that Total Films was referring to, because of this he calls Fincher a 'visual virtuoso' and a 'master of psychological gamesmanship'. Ebert also mentions a little bit of the background of the film as he says 'Nicole Kidman' was originally suppose to play the role of Meg, however despite this he calls Jodie Foster's performance 'spellbinding'. Throughout this review, the writer didn't have one negative comment to say about the film.

BBC Films
Unlike the other two reviews, this review is written is third person, so its like the writer is reading a story to the reader. The use of language used in this review is much more informal and is probably aimed more at a general reader, where as the reviews by Total Film and Ebert are academic and formal. The writer starts by trying to say a joke, 'They should call it a Don't Panic Room' this clearly shows it is informal. The writer also uses some sense of writing in second person when he asks a rhetorical question, 'But what happens when the very thing the intruders want is in there with you?'. Another reason why it is informal is by the use of vocabulary, the writer uses more general words such as 'slick' and 'criminals'.

The writer makes it clear that David Fincher is the director of this film as he says 'David Finchers's slick new thriller'. However in this review the writer doesn't really mention the actors, except when, like Ebert he brings up the fact that Foster took over the role of Meg from Nicole Kidman. There is some mention of the use of location as he says 'A journeyman director might feel limited by a film where all the action takes place in a single house'. There is also mention to the use of camera as he writes that Fincher takes up the challenge with 'dazzling visual flair'. Like the other writers, Smith also talks about Finchers amazing camera use as it glides through walls and also prowls upstairs, this is talking about the 'coffe pot shot' that both writers also mention in there reviews.