Matthew Leigh G324 Advanced Portfolio

'Empire' is a very popular film magazine in the U.K, providing various articles about films including previews, reviews, special large features and interviews. For the purpose of finding information on how to construct my own film review, I shall deconstruct the review of the Spanish film 'Biutiful' from the February 2011 issue of 'Empire'.

'Biutiful' is a foreign film, and so only gets half a page dedicated to it's review. Flicking through the issue, it is apparent that the large blockbusters get a two-page spread, and most other mainstream films get a single page. As a short film by an unheard of director and no big name actors, it is likely that the most space my film would have dedicated to it is a half-page, hence my reason for choosing this particular review to analyse.

The title of the film is displayed in large, blue/green font in the top left hand corner of the review. It is the larges and boldest text on the page, making it very clear to readers exactly which film is being reviewed, so it is easy for those looking for a specific film to find. The title indents on to a central image, which is a still taken from the film, and the largest object in the review, immediately drawing a viewers attention. It is appropriate therefore that the main actors are displayed in this image (and are in every review in the magazine), as they are usually the films biggest draw.

Directly under the film title is a tag line for the review, the example in this review being 'Inarritu's latest packs a dark, emotional punch'. This line is displayed in large italics, drawing attention to it, and is bound to appeal to the target audience of the film being reviewed, and mainly fans of the director. Looking briefly through other reviews in the issue, this tag-line rarely does not feature a name, whether it be the director or lead actor, further proving it to be a draw for the target audience of the film.

The text of the review is then split into four columns, providing it with a clean look by breaking up the text, and making it look more manageable and easy to read. The first column mainly consists of specific details of the film such as release date, age certificate, director, cast, running time and a short synopsis of the first part of the plot. These are displayed via subheadings in the same bold colourful text as main title, albeit much smaller, clearly defining what information is going to be given and where. The information itself is displayed alongside and below the subheadings, and is once again in italics, but much smaller than the tagline. This provides the review with aesthetic consistency, making it easy to read and pleasing to look at.

The first line of the review proper is in bold, and is slightly bigger than the rest of the review, making it clear where it begins and separating it from the rest of the detail on the page. The language used throughout quite simple but flows smoothly. The simplicity is most likely a device for mass appeal and ease of reading.

The name of the review is printed at the end of the review, in bold italics. Although this doesn't really add to either the content of the review or the visual design, it allows the writer to put their stamp on the review, and may appeal to people who are very specific about whose reviews they like.

A small paragraph subtitled 'Verdict' in the same blue/green lettering and size as the earlier subtitles is displayed beneath the main review, containing a summary of the review and a star rating out of five. The text of this summary is in bold, cleanly separating it from the main review, and the stars are slightly larger than the text. The boldness of the text and the largeness of the stars instantly draw a viewers attention to this part of the page, which immediately allows the reader to see whether the review of the film is a positive one or not, without them having to read the entire review. This adds to the ease of reading, specifically of gaining insight into the quality of each film.