Film Magazine Reviews - Phone booth - Kieran Brown

Empire Film Review



http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?DVDID=9391

The name of the film is stated at the top of the page and beneath this is the rating system shown out of 5 stars, which this film has 4 stars out of 5.

The language used is descriptive and written in a foral manner. As shown in the review they use very descriptive 'But that was before two men decided to take fatal pot shots at innocent American citizens, and the country froze in fear of 'The Washington Sniper'. This will give the reader an insight of the film before they have see it and gives them an imaginative visual context of the narrative. The review also describes the narrative ad explains how the main character is show in the film 'At first we're on the side of 'the caller' because we've seen what a manipulative asshole Stu is. Okay, the confessions he's forced to make will ruin his career, but he is only reaping what he has sown' This quote explains a sense of sides which can be linked to the generic binary opposites of an action film of good vs evil. The review also gives a justification for the reason why the directors chose this plot for the film as shown 'Writer Larry Cohen and director Joel Schumacher surely thought that the only real-life raw nerves they'd touch with this tense but funny thriller would belong to the sleazebag publicists upon whom the main character is based'. The review also references the use of camera 'Visual breaks are provided by split screens that show either end of the phone conversations' but in the review it isnt explained in depth. The location in the film is explained as low budget but effective as shown 'The filmmakers' clever, low-budget scenario - one man trapped in a single location (in real time) by an unknown, gun-wielding adversary - suddenly became front page news'. Because the writer exaplains it as clever it gives the film a sense of good narrative.

BBCi Films Review

http://www.bbc.co.uk/films/2003/02/25/phone_booth_2003_review.shtml

The name of the Film and the year of release are shown together at the top of the review as a main heading.

Above the film name and year of release is the reviewer's ratings and the site user ratings out of 5 stars and the reviewer's rating is 3 out 5 and the users gave the film 4 out of 5 stars.

This review seems to use informal writing throughout as it is reviewed to be shown to a mass audience and is meant to make the reader feel more inclusive. an example of the informal language being used is 'As the tagline would have it, Stu's "life is on the line".' This use of informal writing is effective as it is explaining the simplicity of the films tagline which gives away most of the story. The language is descriptive as the review explains the narrative throughout. The actors are described based on their behaviour which gives the audience an insight of the way their character will be. There is a reference to the camera use and the director and script writers as shown
'Schumacher stacks up the stylistic tricks, keeping his camera flighty, flicking round the static situation, feeding off the fear of the protagonist. Veteran journeyman scripter Larry Cohen, meanwhile, mostly avoids or undercuts clichés - creating dialogue a little too bespoke to be believable, but amusing and angry nonetheless.' This gives the a rough idea of the people involved behind the makings and will help them paint a visual imaginative picture of how the film should be based on the people involved. There is no reference towards where the location is in the film as it is only shot in one place but in the information at the bottom of the page along with the duration of the film is the place which it is set which it is set in the USA.

http://www.urbancinefile.com.au/home/view.asp?a=7402&s=Reviews

The review on this site is very simplistic but includes some informative language about the film. The review firstly summarises the plot of the film, giving some highly descriptive language which gives the audience a formal insight about what will happen in the film. The opening line shows this 'Stu (Colin Farrell) is a New York hustler publicist, married to Kelly (Radha Mitchell) but in hot pursuit of Manhattan waitress Pamela (Katie Holmes).' The language used is formal and informative and gives the audience a detailed description of the plot. The actors are described by their body language and behaviour. also in terms of their costumes as shwon 'as we meet and get to know a cocky, charming con man who wastes no time on people who are of no use to him. At first we meet him superficially – we watch him at work as he hustles clients on a mobile phone, handsome in his designer Italian suit and trendy raspberry shirt, walking confidently along his everyday stomping ground in Time Square. He arrogantly tosses orders to his young apprentice; he is rude, arrogant and brash. When he first enters the phone booth and makes the call to his fantasy girl Pamela, he takes off his wedding ring. We quickly get the picture. Then the phone rings and he just can’t help himself '. There is no main information about this review such as the rating system,location,use of camera and special effects but one may argue that this review is effective at informing the audience of a descriptive insight of the film and what will occur and also it's simplicity may be effective at giving the audience the information they want.