Deadly Dreams final review - group work

film review final draft by mya kira adrina

Deadly Dreams Poster By; ADORENA, MYA ,KIRAN

First Draft Review for Deadly Dreams

Magazine Analysis 3

Film review for scream- by Kiran tariq

Film review annotation:


This review is from the bbc and in written in a formal context .The review introduces the film by talikng about what effect it had when it first got released." . It appeared to be clever, dangerous, witty, and fresh, but it sadly became victim to the movies it mocked, even before it had ended this quote from the review suggest that the film was different nd was smart but due to the previous failures of the other films it had be judged  even before its release.The review tends to focus more on the narrative of the film as it tals about what happens in the film and the different stages of the film in a quite detail. The review uses standard english and doesnt use complicated words. At the top of the review it is given  a rating , their are two types of ratings the reviewers rating and the users rating this is for the audience to see what rating the people  have given to the review.

By kiran tariq

Magazine Review from Sight & Sound

By: MAK

Magazine review from Total Film

By: Adorena, Mya & Kiran

Adorena- Scream 2 review from BBC

Reviewed by Neil Smith

Everyone who survived "Scream" came back for the second instalment in Wes Craven's tongue-in-cheek slasher trilogy, which - just as the first movie had mocked the conventions of the horror genre - pokes fun at the clichés of Hollywood sequels.
Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is now in college, where she is studying drama, dating Derek (Jerry O'Connell), and trying to put the Woodsboro murders far behind her. Unfortunately a movie based on the killings - "Stab" - is about to open, despite the fact that two unwary teens were butchered at the first preview.
In no time at all a new crop of victims are attracting the attention of the knife-wielding psycho in the ghost mask, among them Buffy star Sarah Michelle Gellar. Luckily, Sydney and her pals have the assistance of movie nerd Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy), who tutors them in the ways of the sequel.
According to Randy, the body count in a sequel is always bigger and the deaths always more elaborate - rules that screenwriter Kevin Williamson takes to heart in a bloodsoaked follow-up that leaves few of the cast unscathed.
While the shocks come thick and fast, the real pleasure comes from the knowing humour and ingenious spoofing of genre tropes. There's even a nod back to the first film, in which Sidney jokingly remarked that, if a movie were made about her, she'd probably be played by Tori Spelling. And guess who plays Sidney in "Stab"?

Annotation of Review

The language in this review is formal.

Adorena; Scream 2- Movie Reveiw From ROTTEN TOMATOES

I truly hope that Scream 2 proves to all of the doubters that horror movies are not all the same. They are not all equally bad, and by God, they are not all equally good. However, they don't get any better than Scream 2, the terrific sequel to the hit blockbuster w2hich grossed $100 mil. and is credited to reviving the horror genre. And while the original Scream(***) played almost like a straight out satire, it's sequel is more concerned with looking good, and it succeeds with flying colors. Scream 2 is the most technically accomplished horror picture yet. There are two scenes here which are the best and most well-made that I've seen in any slasher flick.
While I won't reveal any crucial plot details, I will tell you this; Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell, playing the character with he most unappealing personality) is being spooked again, by a copycat killer who wants to recreate the "legendary" Woodsboro murders (the subject of the original Scream). Gale Weathers, the sleazy tabloid reporter has written a book about the murders which has been turned into a movie called "Stab". It is at a sneak preview of that movie where the first slaying occurs.
From there on out, Scream 2 is a frightening and frighteningly smart slasher flick. Smart slasher flick? Saying that leaves a sour taste in my mouth, but the saying fits well, as the movie works in almost every respect. It has a wonderful cast (enter - Courtney Cox and David Arquette), style, wit (counting every possible way in which sequels suck and then not making a sequel that sucks), and most importantly scars. Yes, if jolts are what you are looking for, this film has them aplenty, thanks to Wes Craven who has a flair for scaring with the most obvious things. The movie, despite all of its jokes sets a very eerie atmosphere.
No, Scream 2 is not perfect. The ending is weak and too long. However, it's nice to know that the Scream franchise doesn't suffer from sequelphobia. It has produced the first superior sequel since the Star Wars saga, which got better as it went. I doubt that Scream 3 which is bound to surface late this year will surpass Scream 2. If it does, however, the Scream trilogy will rank right up there with Star Wars

Annotation of review
The language used in this revew is both formal and informal as the writer speaks informally at times but he also speaks formally. For example when the wirtter says "I won't reveal any crucial plot details", h is being formal, however when he says "counting every possible way in which sequels suck and then not making a sequel that sucks" he is being informal.
The writertalks about te baic storyline of the film, he gives the reader a taste of what the movie Scream 2 is like. He breifly tells the reader about the opening sequence and ow the movie carries on from that point. "Gale Weathers, the sleazy tabloid reporter has written a book about the murders which has been turned into a movie called "Stab". It is at a sneak preview of that movie where the first slaying occurs." "Sidney is being spooked again, by a copycat killer who wants to recreate the "legendary" Woodsboro murders". The reviewer describes the film in a posetive attitude as he states that the movie is a "smart slasher flick". However he does not state that the movie is the best sequel as he states that "Scream 2 is not perfect. The ending is weak and too long" which shows the reviews opinion on the film is average.

Film review for scream - by Kiran Tariq

---

    Film review by WenQing

---

Directed by : Wes Craven
Written by : Kevin Williamson
Principal Cast : Neve Campbell (Sidney), Skeet Ulrich (Billy), Matthew Lillard (Stuart), Courteney Cox (Gale Weathers), Rose McGowan (Tatum), Jamie Kennedy (Randy)
Produced by : Dimension Films
Length : 104 minutes
Rating : *** 1/2
Theatres : Cathay Cinemas
All things considered, SCREAM is really quite good. There's an adequate (an understatement) amount of blood, gore, and unsavoury gutting and on-screen killing. There's also plenty of shock value (at least the preview audience seemed to find mountains of it, screaming at every relevant juncture), but it wasn't too scary (for desensitised me anyway).
SCREAM is really about Sidney Prescott -- played by Neve Campbell who seems to have a "Party of Five" hangover (especially the crying scenes and snatches of teen angst) -- her boyfriend Billy, and a killer in the town dressed as the Grim Reaper. Sidney i s a disturbed teenager whose mother was raped and murdered brutally a year before. Her boyfriend Billy is suspected to be the blade-happy killer, and the plot goes from a cameo Drew Barrymore being slaughtered (and hung from a tree with all her insides da ngling from her stomach) in the first few minutes, to a festival of killings in the protracted finale, with practically all the teens in town boozing and watching horror movies all night in Stuart's house (and getting picked off one by one of course). The re's also an attached plot of Gale Weathers, a reporter bent on covering the sensational series of killings (she wrote a book about the murder of Sidney's mom a year ago... so you can guess Sidney doesn't like her much), which sneakily plugs Courteney Cox into the centre of the movie with Campbell and Ulrich.
What makes SCREAM just that little bit more flashy is the irreverent respect it has for the horror-slasher-epic genre it's swimming in. Sidney sums it up aptly, saying horror movies are "all the same... some big-breasted blonde who can't act" getting her self directly in harm's way like a moth to a flame. SCREAM takes all the conventions made popular and easily identifiable by horror "classics" like HALLOWEEN and FRIDAY THE 13TH (and of course Craven's own A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET) and twists them into a freaky homage to all these slasher epics. Some characters in SCREAM are self-referential, expounding on how they must be in "one great big movie," and how each event is reminiscent of a horror flick convention. The centre of this revelation is Jamie Kenn edy's character Randy (who works in a video store... echoes of Tarantino?) who declares that there are three basic rules to surviving a horror flick, striking home with deadly wit, comic effect and aplomb : never have sex (virgins always live through the movie), never drink alcohol, and never say: "I'll be right back" (because surely they never will).
The special thing about SCREAM is that it never descends into becoming just a plain silly self-effacing film... even as Randy describes each golden rule of horror films, they are being broken with grisly results. It's almost a sophisticated satire of the genre (almost- but that bit tacky because the conclusion to SCREAM is a little bit of a cop-out), yet maintaining the balance of the thriller so as to keep the action compelling, and the shocks stinging enough to be effective.
Even though convincing acting is rarely a part of horror flicks, SCREAM has quite a good cast. There are stand-out performances (within the dramatic restrictions of a horror film!) from Rose McGowan and Jamie Kennedy, both of whom are quite likeable and fun to watch. There's also Matthew Lillard (HACKERS) who is just plain crazy in SCREAM, and who is more convincing as an unadulterated nutcase (read : acts weird for no apparent reason) than Courteney Cox and Neve Campbell as dramatic leads put together.
But there were some problems I had with SCREAM. While it was altogether an enjoyable movie, with lots of twists and turns as to the identity of the killer, and really suspenseful action sequences (kudos to Craven), there are several weaknesses I could no t blink away. Somehow, I can't forget the disturbing fear that Freddy Kreuger represented in the original NIGHTMARE (before he became the over-used and very visible clown in the NIGHTMARE sequels). In SCREAM our Grim Reaper is not supernatural (fair enoug h, just plain human), but so very human that his victims consistently punch and kick him where it hurts (so he groans in pain) and they close doors on his arms (and he can't get in because he's just a human being anyway). Somehow, the killer's humanity be comes the undoing of how much we fear him. Similarly, the body count is spectacular, and the killings on screen so explicit (with the censors having a field day with the early gutting scene) that desensitising me was just another blood-bath away. There wa s too much carnage to really turn the killer's work into an anomaly in the normal life of common teens, the anomaly that forms the basis of fear- the unknown and uncertain unnaturalness of things.
These two things (including the cop-out ending which I can't reveal because it would spoil the ride) made the killer too ordinary and the grisly murders so commonplace that SCREAM became a flashy, clever gimmick of a flick. It was a thriller with a witty and comic twist in its in-joke treatment of the horror film genre, plenty of style in execution, but somehow lacking the convincing element of fear that made the original NIGHTMARE outstanding (except for its own strangely incongruous ending after the eff ective build up).
All in all, SCREAM comes across as very competent and quite smart. Not very scary but lots of shocks and gore to compensate. Craven is finding a new way to make his horror films, but SCREAM is as far as this self-referential sub-genre can go. I gave SCRE AM lots of stars because it's done better than any horror flick I've seen in the past 5 years (I've even caught TCS' "Tuesdays After Dark" features and its precursor "Terrifying Tuesdays" quite avidly). SCREAM's not perfect but it's really quite good.

film review annotation- Scream

The film review by WenQing is wriiten in a formal text and has alot of detail of the storyline of the film., it talks about the differeent stages of the film starting with the first stage were the first victim"Kacey" was brutley murderd and the hung from a tree in her back garden and then goes on to talk about the party that the teenagers had at the end.The review enagages the target audience of  mostly teenagers by using language such as  " amount of blood, gore, and unsavoury gutting and on-screen killing." This line suggest that it is for a teenage audience as it decribes the action in more simplier terms in other words it doesnt really use complex words. The layout of the film review is formal it has the main detaild of the film written at the top of the page which makes it easier to understand the film it also uses images to attract the target audience of teenagers so that they dont only have writing to read but have pictures which link to the writing and make it easier for the target audience to understand the film. This film review mostly focuses on the storyline of the film  as it talks about the different stages of the film in some detail. The film review also tals about what make the film "Scream" different from the horror films " What makes SCREAM just that little bit more flashy is the irreverent respect it has for the horror-slasher-epic genre it's swimming in" This line tells us as audience what makes  flm unique and differnt from the other horror films in other words you could say its trying to persuade the audience to watch the film by telling them that it is different and unique.

It also tells the audience the techniques the film uses to make the film different and unique   " The special thing about SCREAM is that it never descends into becoming just a plain silly self-effacing film... even as Randy describes each golden rule of horror films, they are being broken with grisly results."

Film review for scream-by Kiran Tariq

Review byMike Oliveri

It's not often that a movie comes along and sparks a whole new outlook on its genre, but SCREAM did just that. Several hip teenage slasher flicks surfed the wake of its success, putting a Generation X stamp on the characters and hiring teenage prime time drama icons to portray them.

And it's ironic, because SCREAM, written by Kevin Williamson Kevin Smith (I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER, THE FACULTY), is essentially a parody of slasher flicks. During the course of the movie, the characters lambast "traditional" horror films such as FRIDAY THE 13TH or HALLOWEEN, yet the plot of SCREAM itself follows the formula almost exactly, essentially showing us exactly what the characters were talking about.

Our heroine is high school senior Sidney Prescott (Neve Cambell: SCREAM 2). Previous to events in the film, Sid's mother is murdered and the man she was having an affair with, Cotton Weary Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber: SPHERE, PHANTOMS) is sent to prison for life for the crime thanks to Sid's court testimony.

When a killer strikes Woodsboro and slaughters Casey Backer (Drew Barrymore: ALTERED STATES, FIRESTARTER, CAT'S EYE) and her boyfriend, the community is gripped by fear. Sid's father reluctantly leaves town on a business trip, and soon after Sid receives strange phone calls from the killer, who knows a little too much about Sid's mother.

The killer claims more victims, including the high school principal (cameo by Henry Winkler), and continues to stalk Sid in his spare time. In an act of defiance, the group of friends throws a party, only to have the killer attack there as well.

When the sheriff is killed, the local deputy Dewey Riley (David Arquette: BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER, SCREAM, RAVENOUS) is left to handle the investigations, and at the same time has to keep nosy reporter Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox: SCREAM 2, SCREAM 3) away from the murder scene.

I could fill you in on more of the plot, but it's really just more formulaic chase-and-kill on behalf of the killer. Yet somehow Director Wes Craven (DEADLY BLESSING, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS, and much more) manages to make a lot of it look fresh and new. Some may attribute it to the fresh young faces or to the updated camera techniques, but I'd say it's mostly the writing. While the killer on the phone plot device was used more effectively in BLACK CHRISTMAS, the almost seductive quality of the killer's voice (Roger L. Jackson: MARS ATTACKS!) in SCREAM gives it a different appeal and suits the tone of the film. Some of the murders are typical (Barrymore's short-lived role), while others are fairly clever (keep an eye on the news cameraman in the van).

Perhaps the best part of the writing, however, is the way in which different characters are made out to be suspects. Rather than a big creepy guy or a supernatural entity chasing down the kids, we know the killer is human and probably someone close to Sid. It could be film fanatic Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy: ENEMY OF THE STATE), the know-it-all that applies the rules of horror filmdom to the murders. It could be the asshole of the bunch, the excitable Stuart Macher (Matthew Lillard: GHOULIES 3, THE CURVE). And it could even be Sid's sensitive-but-tough boyfriend, Billy Loomis (Skeet Ulrich: THE CRAFT, TAKEDOWN). Even Sid's father is implicated at one point (though I have to wonder if anyone really ever believed he'd turn out to be the killer).

Overall a good flick with some thrills and even a dash of dark humor. The action is intense, and the ending, if somewhat predictable by the time you get there, is entertaining. It set the new trend for a reason. I give it four shriek girls.

Film review annotation

The languge used for this film review is generlly formal. The film review  talks about the storyline of the film scream in alot of detail, it talks about the diiferent aspects of the films and talks about the murderes that happened and tells the audience of what they thought of the murders. It talss about how some of the murders were easy to guess and some were really clever.. It sort of compliments the reader by saying things such as" it's really just more formulaic chase-and-kill on behalf of the killer. Yet somehow Director Wes Craven (DEADLY BLESSING, A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, THE PEOPLE UNDER THE STAIRS, and much more) manages to make a lot of it look fresh and new" . This line suggests that even though the film has typical conventions that can be easy to guess the director gives the film a new and unique style which makes the film "Scream" different from the other horror films.The review i think focuses more on the plot of the film and the actors, because it talks alot about the plot in some detail and also talks about the actors invovled in the film and makes references to the other successfull films the actors and the director has been apart of  in order to make the film look good. The film review targets the target audienece of 15-24 olds it does this by using standard english and not using complicated words  and it also m akes references to other films and other characters so that it is easier for the target audience to understand and trys to persuade them to watch the film..It also states the actors clearly and then makes atleast one reference to any other film or drama they have been part of this is a good technique because if some one like a specific actor for example "David Arquette" the audience will see his name stated and will be drawn to watch the film as they are his fans.

POSTER ANALYSIS by ADORENA

post annotation kiran

Overall the poster is simple and does not reveal allot of information, however it does use allot of persuasive techniques to attract the audience. The poster uses Critical acclaim, the USP , images the, right colours which link to the film and uses the actors names.

Mya - The Ring Review - Variety.com - Todd Mccarthy

The Ring

By TODD MCCARTHY

A DreamWorks Pictures release of a MacDonald/Parkes-Bender-Spink production. Produced by Walter F. Parkes, Laurie MacDonald. Executive producers, Mike Macari, Roy Lee, Michele Weisler. Co-producer, Christine Iso. Co-executive producers, Neal Edelstein, J.C. Spink. Directed by Gore Verbinski. Screenplay, Ehren Kruger, based on the novel by Koji Suzuki and the motion picture by the Ring/Spiral Production Group.

Rachel Keller - Naomi Watts
Noah - Martin Henderson
Aidan - David Dorfman
Richard Morgan - Brian Cox
Dr. Grasnik - Jane Alexander
Ruth - Lindsay Frost
Beth - Pauley Perrette
Katie - Amber Tamblyn
Becca - Rachael Bella
Babysitter - Sara Rue
Anna Morgan - Shannon Cochran
Samara - Daveigh Chase
 

"The Ring" is a stylish Hollywood remake of the Japanese horror sensation that unfortunately has little personality of its own. Insinuating creepiness of this tale of a bizarre videotape that brings death to those who watch it comes across in muted fashion, with uninvolving characters and lack of genuine excitement or fright creating a second-rate, second-hand feel. DreamWorks release could fill a need as a Halloween season scare item in the absence of anything similar in the marketplace but looks unlikely to spawn two follow-ups as the Japanese original did. A rather ordinary picture artistically apart from its arresting premise, the Nipponese "The Ring," directed by Hideo Nakata and based on a novel by Koji Suzuki (the so-called Stephen King of Japan), became one of the biggest domestic grossers of all time after its release in January 1998. Huge in other Asian markets as well, such as Hong Kong, it was followed by "The Ring 2," another smash also helmed by Nakata, and finally by "Ring 0: The Birthday," a prequel directed by Norio Tsuruta in 2001.
Unnerving quality of the original surely had something to do with the universal consciousness of the invasiveness of television and the telephone in everyday lives, as well as with the irresistibility of both inventions; if a TV is on, it's almost impossible not to look at it, and if the phone rings, it's hard not to answer it.
Both impulses are central to the way "The Ring," old and new, grab viewer attention at the very outset. Hanging out alone one night, teenage best friends Katie and Becca share what they know about a weird video that's been making the rounds of high school circles. Turns out Katie and her b.f. saw it during an illicit visit to a mountain cabin a week earlier, then got a phone call informing them that they will die in seven days.
Separately, Katie, Josh and two other teens meet untimely ends that night, spurring Katie's aunt, newspaper reporter Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts), to investigate the case. Single mom Rachel has an odd little son, Aidan (David Dorfman), who has recently taken to drawing pictures featuring buried bodies, which momentarily introduces a "Sixth Sense" element that ultimately amounts to a red herring.
Making her way to the remote cabin, Rachel finds the video and watches it with appropriate trepidation. The black-and-white tape is like an intense but maddeningly obscure surrealist short, featuring a collection of stark and seemingly unrelated images, including those of a stern-looking middle-aged woman, a centipede, an old house and the woman dumping the body of a girl into a well. Then comes the dreaded "seven days" call.
Director Gore Verbinski handles the setup in quiet, understated fashion, the ominous mood strengthened by the wet, overcast Seattle-area weather. Feeling of an inexorable oppressive force closing in is furthered by the ticking clock that now hangs over Rachel's life, in that she is now convinced that she has but a week to learn enough about the tape, its source and its lethal power to prevent her death.
But as the film slips more into procedural mode, with Rachel enlisting the aid of Aidan's dad Noah (Martin Henderson), a skeptical video expert, the knitting holding the yarn together begins to fray and show its weakness; the leads that enable Rachel to pursue the case are often implausibly discovered and connected, timelines and logistics don't convince, and the principal characters reveal themselves as conventional, one-dimensional types of no distinction, quirks or special interest.
While scenarist Ehren Kruger has added a few dramatic wrinkles of his own to the Japanese version, he's crucially neglected to give the characters anything to play other than to react as average people would to adverse circumstances. When first seen in her newspaper office, Rachel appears to be on the brink of being fired until she informs her editor of the teen deaths story she's working on. Why was she about to be canned? Is she an unreliable reporter? Is she too stressed by being a single working mom to handle the demands of her job? Is she sleeping with her boss' son? We never learn why, which doesn't matter in and of itself though it does reflect the fact that we know absolutely nothing about this woman and therefore have no way to engage with her as a character except as a standard-issue woman-in-peril. This goes double for the character of Noah.
Therefore, in her much-anticipated first starring role since her startling and fabulous performance in "Mulholland Drive," Watts has been straightjacketed into a role that gives her nothing to play other than attempted resourcefulness under duress. To make matters worse, Verbinski and lenser Bojan Bazelli, neither of them slouches when it comes to visual style, don't find a way to photograph her to maximum advantage until about an hour in, when, having discovered some of the video's secrets, Rachel visits an island farm and has a dodgy encounter with a difficult older man (Brian Cox).
Latter-going, which clarifies many aspects of the contents of the video but still doesn't begin to explain everything that's happened in the film, is more elaborated than in the Japanese original. Thesping is unexceptional across the board, while craft elements are fine, with special kudos to the Method Studios for creating the compellingly mysterious Ring video as well as visual effects, of which Charles Gibson was supervisor. Rick Baker delivers some convincingly bruised, battered and decomposed makeup effects.
Pic emerges in the end as a low-impact suspenser that sustains a certain mood but doesn't approach the full potential of its premise.

Camera (Technicolor), Bojan Bazelli; editor, Craig Wood; music, Hans Zimmer; production designer, Tom Duffield; art director, Patrick M. Sullivan Jr.; set designer, Maya Shimoguchi; set decorator, Rosemary Brandenburg; costume designer, Julie Weiss; sound (Dolby Digital/DTS/SDDS), Lee Orloff; supervising sound editor, Tim Holland; sound designer, Peter Miller; visual effects supervisor, Charles Gibson; special visual effects and Ring videotape, Method Studios; special makeup effects, Rick Baker; associate producer-assistant director, Benita Allen-Honess; second unit director, Gibson; second unit camera, Patrick Loungway; casting, Denise Chamian. Reviewed at USA screening room, West Hollywood, Sept. 30, 2002. (In Hollywood Film Festival -- opening night.) MPAA Rating: R. Running time: 109 MIN. (without end credits)

Annotation of the Review

The film has been written in a pretty formal context with a lot of depth detail, talking about many different aspects to do with the film. It has been written formally, however it used language which is very detailed such as "Pic emerges in the end as a low-impact suspenser that sustains a certain mood but doesn't approach the full potential of its premise." this has been written formally with great detail, however with just a few words it tells the reader a lot about the film. The review has been written to the target market of 19 - 40. this is because the language that has been used may be too complex for the actual age group of 15+.
Within the review, the reviewer has included talking about several different things. He first starts of by mentiong the distribution company "DreamWorks", and all the directors and producers.  He then states the actors and the character they are playing. This is good, because if a viewer likes a specific actor i.e. "Naomi Watts", they will see that she is the main actor, and will be drawn in to go and watch the film. He then goes onto talking abit about the films history, which is a remake of the Japanese film "Ringu". He then tells the synopsis "The black-and-white tape is like an intense but maddeningly obscure surrealist short". After telling the synopsis, at the end, the reviewer states  the main prodfuction crew, running time etc.

Mya - The Ring - Review 1 - BY Chicago Sun Times Roger Ebert

The Ring

BY ROGER EBERT / October 18, 2002

Cast & Credits Rachel Keller: Naomi Watts Noah: Martin Henderson Richard Morgan: Brian Cox Aidan: David Dorfman Ruth: Lindsay Frost Katie: Amber Tamblyn Dreamworks Presents A Film Directed By Gore Verbinski. Written By Ehren Kruger. Based On The Novel By Koji Suzuki. Running Time: 115 Minutes. Rated PG-13 (For Thematic Elements, Disturbing Images, Language And Some Drug References). Printer-friendly » E-mail this to a friend »

Rarely has a more serious effort produced a less serious result than in "The Ring," the kind of dread dark horror film where you better hope nobody in the audience snickers, because the film teeters right on the edge of the ridiculous.

Enormous craft has been put into the movie, which looks just great, but the story goes beyond contrivance into the dizzy realms of the absurd. And although there is no way for everything to be explained (and many events lack any possible explanation), the movie's ending explains and explains and explains , until finally you'd rather just give it a pass than sit through one more tedious flashback.

The story involves a video that brings certain death. You look at it, the phone rings, and you find out you have seven days to live. A prologue shows some teenage victims of the dread curse, and then newspaper reporter Rachel Keller (Naomi Watts) gets on the case, helped by eerie drawings by her young son, Aidan (David Dorfman).

The story has been recycled from a popular Japanese thriller by Hideo Nakata, which was held off the market in this country to clear the field for this remake. Alas, the same idea was ripped off in August by "feardotcom," also a bad movie, but more plain fun than "The Ring," and with a climax that used brilliant visual effects while this one drags on endlessly.


I dare not reveal too much of the story but will say that the video does indeed bring death in a week, something we are reminded of as Rachel tries to solve the case while titles tick off the days. A single mom, she enlists Aidan's father, a video geek named Noah (Martin Henderson) to analyze the deadly tape. He tags along for the adventure, which inevitably leads to their learning to care for one another, I guess, although the movie is not big on relationships. Her investigation leads her to a remote cottage on an island and to the weird, hostile man (Brian Cox) who lives there. And then the explanations start to pile up.

This is Naomi Watts' first move since "Mulholland Drive" and I was going to complain that we essentially learn nothing about her character except that she's a newspaper reporter--but then I remembered that in "Mulholland Drive" we essentially learned nothing except that she was a small-town girl in Hollywood, and by the end of the movie we weren't even sure we had learned that. "Mulholland Drive," however, evoked juicy emotions and dimensions that "The Ring" is lacking, and involved us in a puzzle that was intriguing instead of simply tedious.

There are a couple of moments when we think "The Ring" is going to end, and it doesn't. One is that old reliable where the heroine, soaking wet and saved from death, says "I want to go home," and the hero cushions her head on his shoulder. But no, there's more. Another is when Aidan says, "You didn't let her out, did you?" That would have been a nice ironic closer, but the movie spells out the entire backstory in merciless detail, until when we're finally walking out of the theater, we're almost ashamed to find ourselves wondering, hey, who was that on the phone?

Annotation of the Review.

This review has been written in a formal format, however the language engages with the target audience of 15-40. The context within the review, makes the reader want to read on further because the use of written language engages the reader in. "I dare not reveal too much of the story but will say that the video does indeed bring death in a week" This makes the reader think that the reviewer want to read on because he may think that the reviewer ay tell abit more. However it does make the reader want to watch the film.

The reviewer talks about genre "dread dark horror film"  the visuals in the film "Enormous craft has been put into the movie, which looks just great" a bit of the synopsis "The story involves a video that brings certain death." The reviewer also talks a little about the characters "This is Naomi Watts' first move since "Mulholland Drive"." 

Production Schedule

Production Schedule

First Cut of film due: Friday 5th November

Plan

Thursday 14th October 2010 - Friday 22nd October 2010

Start shooting on the 14th October

Time: From 9am to 12pm

Location: Adorena's House & College & Street & Bus Stop

Camera operator: Adorena, Kiran,

Actor: Mya & Kiran

Finish Filming by: Thursday 21st October 2010

Start Editing

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 - Thursday 5th November

Editors: Adorena, Mya, Kiran

Finish Editing by: Thursday 4th November 2010

Film Poster (draft) Deadline Friday 19th November 2010

Monday 8th November 2010: Start creating the poster

Finish Creating the Poster by;  the 16th November 2010

2nd Cut of Film & Draft Magazine page Due: Friday 19th November 2010

Tuesday 9th November 2010: Start shooting the corrections

Finish Shooting Improvements and corrections By: 11th November 2010

Start Creating the Magazine Page: Wednesday 10h November - 12th November 2010

Editing 2nd Draft

Tuesday 16th November: Start Editing the second draft

Thursday 18th November 2010: Finish Editing Second Draft

Film Poster 2nd Deadline ; Friday 26th November 2010

Start Improvements on Poster; Tuesday 23rd November 2010

Finish Creating the Final Draft of Poster: Friday 26th November

Magazine Page Due: Friday 3rd December 2010

Start working on Magazine page: Monday 29th November 2010

Finish Magazine Page by: Friday 3rd December 2010

Final Cut Of Film: Friday 10th December 2010

Shoot Imrpovements: Monday 6th December 2010

Editing: Tuesday 7th December - Friday 10th December 2010.

By: Adorena & Kiran

Mya's Textual Analysis

Textual Analysis: The Ring

The film I am going to analyse is The Ring. The release date for the film was the 18^th of October 2002. The director is Gore Verbinski. The genre of the film is a Super natural horror. Super natural horror is anything above or beyond what one holds to be natural, which adheres with a sense of horror.

PART ONE

The Ring’s Equilibrium

Tzevan Todrov argued that all stories share a common structure. The stories begin with a state of normality a balance which is the equilibrium. There is then disequilibrium: a disruption something that happens that sets off a chain of other reactions. After there is a resolution to the problem then a new equilibrium is then established, that is different to the first.

Equilibrium

There is a state of normality at the start when two school girls named Becca and Katie are watching T.V. and start to talk about a tape that kills you if you watch it.

Disruption

Katie is gets a phone call which tells the audience that she is going to die. Katie is then killed. Her auntie Rachel who is the main protagonist in the film starts to research about the tape. Rachel gets the tape and watches it too and has seven days to live. Therefore she has seven days to complete her mission to save her son and husband from death because they have watched it too. Rachel does her research and finds the clues into how death can be stopped. Rachel reaches day seven and is stuck in a well. She manages to save herself along with her son and husband from death. The next day Noah (her husband) is killed.

New Equilibrium

Rachel and her son Aidan do not die. She has saved them from death.

Binary Oppositions

Claude Levi – Strauss was an anthropologist who suggested that the production of meaning depended of the concept of binary oppositions. Binary oppositions are opposites within a film. I.e. in the horror film scream, the police are doing the right thing by obeying the law and the killer is doing the opposite. In The Ring the opposites are the parents of Samara abusing their daughter in other words being evil, when most parents love and care for their children therefore are good. Another binary opposition in my film is

Omniscent is when the audience are aware of everything that can be known i.e. characters feelings, thoughts etd. The Ring is omniscent, and the film is in chronological order, which helps the film to be omniscent. Open narrrative is when there is no clear sencse of ending. In The Ring, there is an open narrative, because it keeps the audience wondering what happens at the end. The film ends with the boy saying “what happens to them?” It is a "cliff hanger"

PART TWO

When there is a state of balance in the film, it starts off with two sixteen year old girls in there school uniform. White shirts and pleated black skirts. Their hair is out and looks natural, that it has not been straightened. This is how the ‘typical average’ school girl would go to school. They are not wearing any make up. There are many mid shots and close ups. The close ups show the facial expressions of the girls when they are talking about the scary tape. The mid length/long shots show the body language i.e. when the girls are walking slowly to the phone and are trembling shows there fear.

Rachel is a mother, who works in an editor’s office who is a journalist. So most of the time she is dressed in smart loose fit trousers, and blouses. His hair is short and blonde, with very subtle make up. This shows that she is not dressed up on a normal day. At the funeral, Rachel wears black dress, black shoes, black cardigan. This represents darkness and death which links to the disruption.

Aidan is wearing his school uniform when he goes to school, and a black suit when he goes to the funeral which represents darkness and death, which related to the disruption. His hair is mousy brown, short and straight. Aidan is always drawing pictures of death; he does not talk much, and talks in a very deep steady voice. This is a bit creepy for the audience because most ten year olds do not talk like that. They are usually happy and loud, whereas Aidan is sad and in his own world all the time.

Noah wears casual denim dark jeans, and T-Shirts, which represents him being an ‘average’ man on a usual day. Noah has a stubble and messy hair.

The spooky character who is in the tape is a little girl called Samara. She has long black dirty hair. It is messy and wet. She wears a white dress which is very dirty and also wet, because she lives in a well. Her body is bruised black and blue. She has scars on her body and face. This is typical of a Horror film, because there is always a creepy masked man or a creepy character i.e. Scream has a white man.

Throughout the film, it is usually raining. The weather is always dull and depressing. If there was sunlight it would brighten up the audience’s attitudes. By having dull depressing weather, it puts the audience in a gloomy mood.  There is very dull lighting inside the house, or it is either very dark. There is mainly darkness throughout the film, which is typical convention of the Horror genre. This is because the whole image is not so clear, which makes the audience concentrate more.

There is a lot of sudden sounds throughout the film which is a screeching noise, and a lot of drum beats. In the beginning of the film where the girls are talking about the tape, there is non-diegetic sound which is a low quick steady drum beat building up the suspense. There are diegetic sounds such as the phone ringing and the rain. Throughout the film there are many shot angles such as mid lengths when two people are talking, with an over the shoulder shot. There are close ups which show the facial expressions of characters, such as Aidan’s face when he tells Rachel about Samara. Long shots show body language, i.e. when the horse is running towards Rachel, she is walking backwards and jumps to the ground, which shows her fear. There is quick seconds shots that show the dead characters in the film i.e. Katie in a cupboard dead. This makes the audience jump. This is the typical convention of a horror film.   

There are a few props used throughout the film. The first main prop is the tape. This tape is talked about from the start, and is consistently used throughout the film. The other main prop is the telephone. The telephone rings every time the tape has been watched. Another prop is the television with the tape player. Without this no one would be able to watch the tape, and no one would die.

Mya's Poster Analysis

Recce Report






                                 

                                    

The progonist's bedroom . This is where the girl is having her nightmare and we see her fidgeting in bed. The reason for why we have  used this location is because for this particular shot is because it is the appropriate place for a teenage girl to sleep and do her homework etc...

                                         

   This image is of  when the prtagonist pushes the curtains away after she woke up from her nightmare and sees the killer standing in the front garden,for the first time in real life. We chose to use this location because it is creepy to see a masked man standing right in her front garden because it shows that he has acsess to  her private property and so he is invading her privacy and that her life may be in danger.

This image  shows the stair case the  protagonist uses to comes downstairs to eat breakfast. the reason for why we chose this location is to show the protagonist exiting one scene and entering the other. The problem we might encounter are that there might not be enough space to shoot appropriatly as the staircase is quite small. We will overcome this problem by moving the table aside to make space for the camera.

The dining room where the ptotagonist will be eating her cereal. The reason for why we chose this location is because it is the correct location to eat. The problem we might have is poor lighting becaue if wwe try to shoot form an angle where the lightsource is directly reflecting the camera lense this might make the whole shot look darker. So to overcome this problem we will be shooting from the appropriate angle. Another problem we might have is that a family memeber might walk in so to overcome this problem we will tell all family memeber not to enter the dining room untill we are finished.

This image shows where the protagonist enters the house after a long day at college. The reason for why we chose this location is because the audience will know that this is he house as we see her leaving for college in the morning. So this will emphasise that she is entering her comfort zone showing that she will feel safe and be away from danger.

                                 Shot of the girl walking in from the other side ( camera will pan)

 The protagonist will freshen up in the bathroom when she gets home after college. This is the point where she will see the masked man in the reflection of the mirror, which will spook her out. Which will show that she is now no longer safe in her comfort zone. Lighting could be an issue at this location because the bupls may fuse, or if we are shooting from a certain angle the reflection of the light from the window will reflect the camera lense which will ruin the shot.

This is where the girl will be walking into college. In the next shot we see her swiping her ID card. And then there is a shot of the clock going from 9am to 3pm. The problems we might encounter here is that there might be too many people passing by. We would have to wait until the place gets a little empty so that we are able to shoot the way we want it.

This is the location where the girl will be walking into college going through the gate. Reason for why we chose this location is because this is an appropriate location showing that the protagonist is a regular college girl. Problem we might encounter is that the place might be crowded so we would have to shoot at a different time so that it becomes appropriate.

By: Adorena & Kiran

Questionnaire analysis

Questionnaire Analysis

Introduction:

The questionnaire was given out to 20 people around the college. The purpose for designing this questionnaire was to find out, what type of horror films where most popular and what people liked and disliked about our storyline for our film “Deadly dreams”. In order for us to achieve our objective we asked the following questions to help us with our film.

These are the questions that we asked on our questionnaire:

1)      What is your gender?

This pie chart shows, out of all the 20 students we gave our questionnaire to answer, 60% of them were males. Th reason for why we asked this question was to find out who prefers horror films the most females or males.

2)      Do you watch films regularly?

The bar chart above, shows out of the entire student that answered our questionnaire a large number of them said they do watch films regularly. The reason for why we asked this question was to find out if people in odays generation watch films regularly.

3)      If yes, what is your favourite film genre?

The pie chart above shows, a large percentage of students chose horror as their favourite genre. The purpose for asking this questions was to find out what genre people prefred and what genre was most liked.

4) What attracts you to a film?

This bar chart shows that most people are attracted to a film, by the actors in the film and the films storyline. This is shown in the bar chart above as both “Actors” and the “storyline” got the same results. The purpose for asking this question was to find out what elements attracted people to a film , so therefore we could use the same elements to make our film successful.

5) Where do you watch films?

The pie chart above shows that 60% of the students who answered our questionnaire said they watch films at a cinema. The reason for why we asked this question was to find out what was the main resourse people used to watch their films.

6)  Do you like watching horror films?

This bar chart show 12 out of the 20 students we gave a questionnaire to answer said they like watching horror films. This was one of the main questions which we asked , the purpose for asking his question was to find out what percentage of students watch horror films.

7) If yes what is your favourite horror film?

 For this question a large number of the students said their favourite horror film is SCREAM” OR “SAW” these were the two main films that came up in the response of this question. This was also an important question which we asked in our questionnaire. The purpose for asking this question was so that we could find out which horror film people liked the most and use that film as a guideline to help us make our film successful

8)  A girl has a dream, in her dream she sees a man in a mask, throughout the day strange things happen to her, where she keeps on seeing the same man wearing the mask. When she finishes college she leaves to go home where she again thinks she is being followed. What score would you give our synopsis out of 1-10?

The bar chart above shows that most of the students who answer our questionnaire gave our idea for film “DEADLY DREAMS” a score of 5/10. I think this was one of the main questions in our questionnaire, as this allowed us to find out what people would give our synopsis of our film in terms of rating.

9) How could we improve our idea?

For this question the main response that we got was that we as a group need to make our film a bit scarier and add a twist to the idea so that it is not easy to predict what is going to happen, as most students said that they find horror films predictable. This question was also important as it allowed us to know how we can improve the idea of our film to please our target audience.

10) What do you dislike about horror films?

For this question we got two main different responses. The males who answered this question on our questionnaire said they, find horror films too easy to predict and they don’t like this because it makes the film less entertaining to watch, and they also added that horror films should be more unpredictable so that the film would be more excitable to watch. Most of the females said that they find horror films too traumatising and disgusting to watch.

Conclusion:

As a result of designing our questionnaire, I think we have been successful in achieving our objective as we have found out all the main points that we need in order for us to make our film successful. From the questionnaire we have found out,  today’s generation people often do tend to watch films regularly and the most common place where they watch their films is in cinema. From this questionnaire we have also found out, that people are often attracted to a film by the actors in it and the film storyline. This questionnaire also shows that the most popular and liked horror films are “SCREAM” and “SAW”. This question allowed us to find out what people dislike about horror films so , we knew not to include that in our horror film.

Overall the most important thing that we have found out from our questionnaire is, that some people mostly, males find horror films less entertaining because they feel that the films are easy to predict and are not scarier enough, as a result we now know that we should add something different to our film which will make the storyline hard to predict, and will challenge the target audience.

BY KIRAN TARIQ