Little White Lies Reviews - Laura

I have annotated 5 film reviews from Little White Lies (Hyde Park on Hudson, Flight, Bullet to the Head, Chained and Antiviral). With 3 of the annotated copies being scanned and attached in this post. I have annotated the language features, and how this lexis was used to establish an opinion, as well as creating a tone to go witth this opinion. For example, for a more negative review of Hyde Park on Hudson, the reviewer was quite sarcastic, to appear cynical of the film, but to also create comedic effect. The way these features were used, the reviewer is trying to create a connection with the reader. This is for entertainment for the reader, but also in order for them to build trust. As this is a review, the reader is relying on the reviewers opinion, so if they feel connected to them; they are more likely to believe it. For example the same review, Hyde Park on Hudson, there is a line where it says "how we Brits don't vote". This creates unity with the reader, and we know from the magazine's reader profile, as well as that their publishers are in London, that it is a British audience.
The reviews appeared rather conversational, for example with the many humorous asides "(no, that's not a euphemism)" and "(a potentially disposable one at that)". This is to keep up the connection with the reader, but it also carries on this 'quirky' theme that the magazine portrays throughout the magazine, for example, with the use of handrawn pictures making it personal.
Other features that made the review quite colloquial and quirky are: alliteration ("films familiar flightplan"), puns ("Flight takes a little too long to bring us home"), coined hyphonated compounds ("testosterone-charged buddy-movie"), onomatopoeiac words ("slam-bang" and "gulp"), common phrases ("across the pond"), colloquialisms ("stuff") and cliched expressions ("until his world turns upside down").
The phonetic features such as alliteration and onomatopoeia makes the tone of the review quite 'catchy', to, again, keep the theme of the magazine running, even through the review section. However, the use of the features such as cliched expressions and hyphonated compounds, conforms to the movie-based blog, as many of thses cliches are used in the films themselves. Furthermore, many of the hyphonated compounds that have been used, have been coined by the movie industry, for example "muscle-flexing".
There are also structural features used for a more practical purpose. For example, the use of: rhetorical questions, opening and closing summarative sentences and triplication (rule of three). The use of rhetorical questions can be used in order to make the reader of the review into an active audience, as they are having to think of answers. Alternatively though, it also creates emphasis on the point they are making, or it makes the reviewer look more knowledgable of the film if they know the answer, again building this trust. The use of summarative sentences, often in the form of declaratives as these are abrupt, making the opinion seem like a fact. These are important for the purpose of the review, as the reviewer essentially needs to give their opinion on the film. Adjectives and pre-modification is very important for this, as certian words have certain connotations, therefore reflecting the opinion. For example the use of pre-modification in the review for Flight: "unforgettable opener", has positive connotations, linking with their overall postive review. However, for Hyde Park on Hudson, the use of "directionless royal romp", has negative connotations.

I have written a rough, first draft review bearing these features in mind. I then annotated it (above), in the same frame of mind when I annotated the reviews, to see how many similar features I used. The main language features I have used are: alliteration ("cold-hearted character" and "audience aware"), cliched expression ("we enter a world"), hyphonated compounds ("subtly-growing" and "cold-hearted"), adjectives ("excellent", "chilling" and "gripping"), repetition of sounds ("chilling feeling") and a common phrase ("oh-so-sweet"). I have also used a rhetorical question to make the audience think, ("however, is it really twisting reality?"). Furthermore, I have used an intensifier ("truly"), to heighten my opinion. Finally, I have also used a pun that is similar to one of the ones I read in a previous review. I have said, "We are made to believe that Amy is to Sam, as Lady is to Tramp". This references the intertextuality that we have also used, but also conformed to the writing conventions used in LWL reviews. It is similar to one I found when annotating the review on Chained: " is an emaciated Laurel to his captor's Hardy".