Empire Magazine
What I love about Empire magazine is that it's extremely engaging. the first thing that catches your eye when you look at this article is the amazing background picture of the astronomical wallpaper. This then indicates to you that it's otherworldly and it's interesting. plus the quotation: "They don't understand human emotions..." is unusual and makes you want to read on to what they're talking about.
One of the nice things about Empire magazine is that in different ways they promote the film in this article they're talking about Actress Saoirse Ronan and her latest debut: The Host. The Journalist has given a small insight into what The Host is about, that it was originally a fiction Novel by well known author Stephanie Meyer and it gives us a short understanding of what the movie is about without actually giving to much away.
The Journalist has also given examples of other Movies that Ronan has been in and compared the roles so it makes you admire the actress more for her varied roles and realise that at such a young age she is extremely talented.
The format is fairly informal and quite colloquial creating an easy reading review and creates an enjoyable atmosphere. It's great propaganda for the film as they have quotes from the director and the readers can relate to the director and actress as all quotes seem very down-to-earth and human "...the hairs on the back of my neck stood up." (Nick Wechler-Producer) and "Best on-set birthday ever!" (Saoirse Ronan-Actress)
From reading this material I have had a certain understanding of how I would like to write my review I want the review to be eye-catching and colloquial unlike other reviewers such as:
The New York Times
A foul tale foully told, the Israeli horror flick “Big
Bad Wolves” begins on a dreamy, once-upon-a-time note with three
children playing hide-and-seek. As a boy counts down, two girls, one dressed in
red and the other in blue, enter a derelict building. One stays, the other
leaves; one dies; the other, well, who knows, much less cares, what happens to
her? Certainly not the writers and directors, Aharon Keshales and Navot
Papushado, for whom murdered children are just an easy, conveniently blunt and
effectively faceless (and headless) means to a self-satisfied, jokey and
blood-slicked
end.
In other words, there’s a serial killer loose, and he’s
raping, torturing and decapitating girls, whose heads he then hides, mainly, it
seems, to give this otherwise generic setup extra ick. As the police futilely
chase clues, a motley triangle emerges: a suspended cop, Micki (Lior
Ashkenazi); a religious teacher, Dror (Rotem Keinan); and a mourning father,
Gidi (Tzahi Grad). In time, the three converge in an isolated cabin that turns
into a chamber of horrors as they play a psychological game of no exit amid
Jewish mother jokes, some noshing and one character’s — after taking a
blowtorch to another man’s chest — sniffing the air and wistfully reminiscing
about barbecue.
In one of those ill-advised director statements included
with the press material, Mr. Keshales and Mr. Papushado invoke the “existential
anxiety” that “serves as Israel’s foundation” and promise that their movie will
ask, “Does being the victim give you the legitimate right” to become a vigilante?
Nice try, guys. Although they toss in a sympathetic Arab character, his pacific
presence is soon eclipsed by a tortured man’s agony. Is that the point? Is
there a point? All the filmmakers seem interested in is the ugliness of the
main Israeli characters, each of whom proves a virtuoso of violence. Micki’s
weapon of choice is a bluntly wielded phone book, while Gidi prefers a saw and
pliers. For their part, the filmmakers do their dirty work with swoopy cameras,
shock cuts, giggles and gore.
Although the review is bad it gives away too much of what is
actually happening. The Journalist has used a lot of unusual language
such as "derelict" rather than reviewing the film and saying whether
the film is good or not the reviewer has just put into words what the movies
about it pretty much ruins the movie and doesn't make the movie sound
interesting at all. I also think that the Journalist was trying to be clever in
his Format and it ended up with a terrible review. Even if the Film was or was
not awful it starts to make you think about whether the reviewer is being a
fair critic or whether he is thinking of whether he enjoyed it at all.
He is also fairly passive about the good things that happens
in the movie, or the actors, the director and the shots it seems to be more of
a critique on the plot rather than the way it was made or whether the
shots were good or if they used any CGI etc.
-CM
No comments:
Post a Comment