As it has been difficult to find reviews for the film which I have analysed for my textual analysis and the poster I had to find a similar film and analyse it's reviews. The film I chose is “Leaving Las Vegas” directed by Mike Figgis.
The first review which I'll be looking out comes from Time Out London , written by WH. http://www.timeout.com/film/reviews/80243/leaving_las_vegas.html
The use of language in this review can be described as an academical, formal type of language. The reviewer focuses strongly on the actors in the film whose names have been mentioned at the beginning of the review. However the importance of the director of this film is also highlighted as we see his name being mentioned in the review several times. Additionally to that, at the end of the review the reviewer drifts away from the film itself and mentions success of both the main actor in the film as the director's.
Moreover there has been a slight mention of the locations used in the film suggesting that those might be desirable by the viewer.
The review however, starts off with a description of few opening shots of the film and a few quotes. In that part the reviewer is also focusing on the narrative and the theme of the film itself. There is no mention of any camera or editing techniques used in this film.
The second review of “Leaving Las Vegas” which I will annotate is written by Janet Maslin for New York Times.http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9C07EFDE1F39F934A15753C1A963958260
In contrast to the review from Time Out London, this review is written academically and uses a few colloquial phrases however; it is still acceptably formal language.
Also in comparison to the previous review, this review is presented in much more detail. The reviewer starts off by focusing on the main actor in the film who seems to be the USP. Then goes on to talking about the director and his previous film and career. Janet Maslin then mentions that the film was based on a novel and gives us some back story on the writer.
She also mentions the soundtrack of the film and elaborates on some of the artists.
Most of this review is however focusing on the storyline in the film as the reviewer gives us a glimpse to what happens to the characters throughout the film.
The reviewer goes on to talking about the certificate of the film and what content we will find there while watching it. She finishes off by mentioning names of all the main characters in the film, the director, production designer, editor, and producers. Also mentions the release date.
The third and final review which I will analyse is written by Roger Ebert for Chicago Sun-Times.http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19951110/REVIEWS/511100303
This review is also very different to the two I have already annotated. In this one the reviewer used mostly informal language to connect better with his audience. He also focuses on many different things. The main focus in his review is the storyline of the film as he outlines particular scenes and quotes from the film. He also mentions actors who he empathises a lot on. He also mentions locations in detail he describes how particular locations look like and says what effect they have on the audience. The reviewer also questions the level of reality of this film by saying that is unrealistic to drink so much alcohol and still stay conscious. He also focuses on the theme of this film; he mentions the genre but also says what the film seems like to him. The reviewer does give a lot of opinion coming from his own perspective. Roger Ebert ends his review by giving it a critical acclaim of one of the best films of the year.
No comments:
Post a Comment