'To what extent would you say that online film reviews are postmodern?'
Are online reviews intertextual or bricolage? how?
We believe that online film reviews are intertextual rather than bricolage as they are analysing more than one media, like films and books as well as being a media type themselves. They are not combining many media types to create a collage and new meaning from this combination. The online film reviews are using films, a different media text, to add a new layer of meaning.
How do the reviews relate to Baudrillards theory of Simulacra?
Film reviews are not originals because they refer frequently to films which are copies of copies. E.g Batman begins is a copy of the original Batman films which are not even original themselves as they are copied from the cartoons. Therefore film reviews relate to Baudrillards theory of conveyed reality.
Are these reviews positive or negative?
The Da Vinchci Code - Mainly negative- Review from the Guardian made a lot of positive comments about the book, however towards the end of the review, after a synopsis of the film, the reviewer was very critical about the film, a quote to support this would be : 'The Da Vinci Code is a gloomy, murky, solemn picture. The stylised, monochrome flashbacks to the Emperor Constantine's Rome, the Crusades and the Inquisition look like the work of film school students, and their ineptness serves to raise doubts about their authenticity.'
Wallace and Gromit- Mainly positive- Review from Rotten Tomatoes had many positive aspects and was barely critical at all. It said that the quality of the film was excellent and that it was well made. The only negative comment made was that it could have been made in CGI rather than stop-motion. A quote to support this positivity is: 'The quality of the animation in Steve Box and Nick Park’s feature-length cartoon is so slick and smooth that you’d be forgiven for thinking it was just another computer-animated job. It isn’t. '
Snatch- Very negative-Review from the BBC was harsh and critical of the film snatch and how the it was similar to another film in many ways (lock, stock and two smoking barrels). The reviewer also states that the film lacks laughs, is uninteresting and has unnecessary characters. A quote to sum up this negative review is: 'don't believe the film-makers' hype that "Snatch" is 'completely different' to "Lock, Stock". It isn't.' and 'Unfortunately, that whole is patchy, crippled by a lack of laughs, too many uninteresting and therefore unnecessary characters and dialogue which now seems plain cheesy.'
How much of the reviews are reliable? Would you see a film based on its review? Why?
We feel that most of these reviews are reliable, apart from the one from the BBC where the reviewer gave it 2 out of five stars and the viewer gave it 5 out of 5 stars. We would want to watch a film if it had a review from a fellow viewer opposed to a critic because the reviews from critics are very in depth and negative and not necessarily from a typical viewers perspective. We would only read reviews if we wanted to see a good in depth film at the cinema, for example, not just for light entertainment.
No comments:
Post a Comment