Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Saturday, 11 December 2010
Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
Annotation Of Film Content Review By Malachi Davis Barzey
EMPIRE
http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?DVDID=7119
The review begins with a star rating of the film. Empire rated the film 3 stars (good). The opening paragraph gives a very brief outline of the films plot. Empire summed the film up in two lines, "Amongst the dilapidated tenement blocks of Coney Island, a mother and son descend separately into drug addiction."
The following paragraph gives an introduction to the concept of the "drug movie" which is the films sub-genre. It gave examples of films that made huge impacts in Hollywood such as 'The Trip' and 'Reefer Madness'. The reviewer then begins to criticise the director Darren Aronofsky by saying the film doesn't have up to his previous film 'Pi'. He says Requiem for a Dream adds little to the preachy sub-genre.
Rather than complimenting the actors performance the reviewer instead briefly comments on the two main characters role in the film and refers to their individual downward spirals as " a lazy plot."
The reviewer then talks about how people hale Aronofsky to be a "real filmmaker" but agai criticises his work saying that he is "busy gettig high on his own style." The reviewer uses this pun to give a negative reception of the film by using conventional factors of the film genre. This was done by the use of the word "high"
In the final parapragh the reviewer compares the film and states that his new "superficial elements" of fil aking does not suit the outdated book. The reviewer says that the film is depressing and predictibale. The fial verdict makes you not want to watch the film is the reviewer labels it as "not quite the masterpiece it was hailed to be" and it is given a three star rating.
The reviewer adopts a conversational tone which makes it seem as if he is directily talking to us as the readers. "You will want to look away, you may want to laugh." is an example. By doing this we are able to accept his personal opinion. Whilst doing this he uses very formal laguage which shows the opinion is given by an intellectual
TOTAL FILMS
http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/requiem-for-a-dream
The review begins with a four star rating which straight away indicates that the review will give positive commentary on the film.
On the side of the key information is given e.g. film rating, release date, main cast and director.
In the first opening paragraph the reviewer comments on the common themes brough up in the original novel "Requim For A Dream" by Hubert Selby Jr . The reviewer then compliments the fact that Darren Aronofsky had major success with his previous film Pi, and comments oin his belief that "Requim For A Dream" continues the success.
The bulk of the review focuses on mainly the visual aspects of the film (i.e. the acting and CG Effects) and brands the direction and performances as "Oscar-deservingly outstanding." The reviewer also says he likes Aronofsky's chose of editing, using split screens for multiple view points of the characters. Out of all the cast he singles out acctress Ellen Burstyn who he says "convingly portrays her lonely, pathetic character." He also says the overall cast performance is "all-too-believable" which again shows he thinks highly of the cast performance throughout the film.
The review ends with a positive four line verdict. The reviewer again praises how Aronofsky managed to make a dark and negative story look visually amazing. He says the film is able to "drag you through Hell and still make you glad you took the tour." which implys it can give a negative experiance as well as good, but overall he thinks the film is good.
FILM4
http://www.film4.com/reviews/2000/requiem-for-a-dream
Out of the three reviews this one is the shortes tin length.
The review begins with a star rating for the reviewer and a user rating (users give their own personal ratings then an overall mean rating is given). Film4 gave a zero star rating where as the user rating is 5 which shows a huge contrast in audience reaction compared to the main review. The rating highlights the following review will be negative
The first sentence/introductory paragraph just explains that the film is an adaption of the Hubert Selby Jr. novel.
The following paragraph then summarises the plot and highlight each of the main cast members roles in the film. For example it reads "Sara (Burstyn), a self-consciously overweight widow, is addicted to TV, chocolate and 'diet pills'.
The third paragragh seems to riducle the film, labelling it as a "contemporary fairy tale" and calls the main
characters drug addiction on the film a "parody of TV addiction". The reviewer does comment on Aronosky's good use of rich colours and editing effects such as slow motion and timelapse which he carried on from the other film 'Pi'. However that is the only positives he seems to draw from the film
The final verdict reads "A visually adventurous cautionary tale that continues to linger in the system long after the credits roll," which implys the film is hard hitting. This short verdict shows the reviewer never had a huge deal to comment on about the film. However, it does seem as if he likes the film a bit, even though it was given a low rating
http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?DVDID=7119
The review begins with a star rating of the film. Empire rated the film 3 stars (good). The opening paragraph gives a very brief outline of the films plot. Empire summed the film up in two lines, "Amongst the dilapidated tenement blocks of Coney Island, a mother and son descend separately into drug addiction."
The following paragraph gives an introduction to the concept of the "drug movie" which is the films sub-genre. It gave examples of films that made huge impacts in Hollywood such as 'The Trip' and 'Reefer Madness'. The reviewer then begins to criticise the director Darren Aronofsky by saying the film doesn't have up to his previous film 'Pi'. He says Requiem for a Dream adds little to the preachy sub-genre.
Rather than complimenting the actors performance the reviewer instead briefly comments on the two main characters role in the film and refers to their individual downward spirals as " a lazy plot."
The reviewer then talks about how people hale Aronofsky to be a "real filmmaker" but agai criticises his work saying that he is "busy gettig high on his own style." The reviewer uses this pun to give a negative reception of the film by using conventional factors of the film genre. This was done by the use of the word "high"
In the final parapragh the reviewer compares the film and states that his new "superficial elements" of fil aking does not suit the outdated book. The reviewer says that the film is depressing and predictibale. The fial verdict makes you not want to watch the film is the reviewer labels it as "not quite the masterpiece it was hailed to be" and it is given a three star rating.
The reviewer adopts a conversational tone which makes it seem as if he is directily talking to us as the readers. "You will want to look away, you may want to laugh." is an example. By doing this we are able to accept his personal opinion. Whilst doing this he uses very formal laguage which shows the opinion is given by an intellectual
TOTAL FILMS
http://www.totalfilm.com/reviews/cinema/requiem-for-a-dream
The review begins with a four star rating which straight away indicates that the review will give positive commentary on the film.
On the side of the key information is given e.g. film rating, release date, main cast and director.
In the first opening paragraph the reviewer comments on the common themes brough up in the original novel "Requim For A Dream" by Hubert Selby Jr . The reviewer then compliments the fact that Darren Aronofsky had major success with his previous film Pi, and comments oin his belief that "Requim For A Dream" continues the success.
The bulk of the review focuses on mainly the visual aspects of the film (i.e. the acting and CG Effects) and brands the direction and performances as "Oscar-deservingly outstanding." The reviewer also says he likes Aronofsky's chose of editing, using split screens for multiple view points of the characters. Out of all the cast he singles out acctress Ellen Burstyn who he says "convingly portrays her lonely, pathetic character." He also says the overall cast performance is "all-too-believable" which again shows he thinks highly of the cast performance throughout the film.
The review ends with a positive four line verdict. The reviewer again praises how Aronofsky managed to make a dark and negative story look visually amazing. He says the film is able to "drag you through Hell and still make you glad you took the tour." which implys it can give a negative experiance as well as good, but overall he thinks the film is good.
FILM4
http://www.film4.com/reviews/2000/requiem-for-a-dream
Out of the three reviews this one is the shortes tin length.
The review begins with a star rating for the reviewer and a user rating (users give their own personal ratings then an overall mean rating is given). Film4 gave a zero star rating where as the user rating is 5 which shows a huge contrast in audience reaction compared to the main review. The rating highlights the following review will be negative
The first sentence/introductory paragraph just explains that the film is an adaption of the Hubert Selby Jr. novel.
The following paragraph then summarises the plot and highlight each of the main cast members roles in the film. For example it reads "Sara (Burstyn), a self-consciously overweight widow, is addicted to TV, chocolate and 'diet pills'.
The third paragragh seems to riducle the film, labelling it as a "contemporary fairy tale" and calls the main
characters drug addiction on the film a "parody of TV addiction". The reviewer does comment on Aronosky's good use of rich colours and editing effects such as slow motion and timelapse which he carried on from the other film 'Pi'. However that is the only positives he seems to draw from the film
The final verdict reads "A visually adventurous cautionary tale that continues to linger in the system long after the credits roll," which implys the film is hard hitting. This short verdict shows the reviewer never had a huge deal to comment on about the film. However, it does seem as if he likes the film a bit, even though it was given a low rating
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
Thursday, 18 November 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)