Language Font

ImageColourThe black and red colour paletteconnotes danger, violence and murder.The colour is clearly representative ofthe genre the film is trying to portray.Due to the contrast in brightness ofthe colours, it is easy to see eachindividual section of the poster. Thewhite of the character’s eyes contrastagainst the black background and makethem look more sinister.

The language used clearly parodies thegenre the film is representing. By juxtaposingthe tongue in cheek title with the horrificimages, the language is representative ofthe tone of the film (such as ‘horribly slow’and ‘extremely inefficient’). The tagline also lampoonsthe genre and further elaborates on the tone of thefilm. This is supported by the advertisement on therelease date, as it says continuously.

The font used is bold and embeddedonto the poster for clearer reading.By using a blocky and harsh font, it

also portrays the severity of the film’stopic and the situation that may occur.The shadow of the character overlaps

onto the red font, implying that therewill be a dark shadow over the character

in the film.

The image implies scenes of a horrificnature due to the sinister eyes in the

background. The image in theforeground is small enough to keepthe ‘extremely inefficient weapon’ a

mystery, but the costume anddemeanour of the character is horrific

enough to establish the supposedtone of the film further. The symbol under

the character’s legs is a portentand foreshadows events to come

in the film.

Layout

The poster consists of two halves; one for images, one for the title. The colours and different parts of the poster juxtapose against each other. Very simple images are used to

accompany the title, and the halving of the poster show that both components are as important as each other.

LanguageThe language used in this film poster is very simplistic and reflects the two main characters as they could be described as “simple”. The language is short and straight to the point and clearly illustrates the films content.

Image The image is an evident cliché of a school photo

which juxtaposes the two characters photographed in it. The two characters are clearly men who are middle aged and have

exceeded the age of education this is highlighted by them wearing dated tank tops which are

seemingly mature but have a childish element as they are both matching . This connotes the sense

of humour of the film and the childish element that threads throughout. This attracts the target

audience as the image is simple but is a clear representation of what they are about to watch.

ColourThe colour palette of this film poster consists of rather dull colours which have vivid tones and make the poster really stand out considering the use of dull colours which connote the two characters life and how it is dull and boring. The blue background reflects their childish qualities as it is a light blue and has a soft childish feel to it.

FontThe font is very simple and shows a definite divide

between the text and image, this allows the audience to be informed easily as the font is bold and in a vivid

colour that stands out for the purposes of advertising.

The layout of the poster allows the audience to see every feature of the poster without clutter. The poster is centralised with the image and has

symmetrical text running along the top and bottom.

Layout

Image

Language

Colour

FontThe font style is very clear and simple to

read, this shows the clarity in the films intentions. It is simple and is masking of the

film’s high concept.

The two main characters of the film are composed on the top of the poster next to the fracture of the ice. Metaphorically

this shows although there is a crack in there relationship they are still together.

This also shows us that the genre is a romance as they are united and gazing

into each others eyes. Also the image of the characters head in the bottom

corner is underneath the words; spotless mind. It shows that his mind and brain are the central parts of the

film.

The number of blues signify an icy demeanour, which juxtaposes against the colour orange, which represents sunshine, being bright and of this colour. The main female’s hair is also a bright colour, thus representing her spontaneity.

The title of the film goes from dark to faint colouring as the film is about memories being erased. This shows the connection of fading memories by using fading writing. The words refer to the theme of memories and mind, and the cleansing of it, i.e. spotless.

Layout

The poster is made up of two halves, one showing two main characters and one having the title and a

close up. It shows themes and the main star in which to sell the film on.

The writing style is personal and alludesto an event in the writer’s past. It alsorefers to their critique of a previous filmby the director, thus furthering therelationship between reader, criticand director. It implies a sense of familiarity and grounds that it is apersonal review. The reviewer has aninformal tone.

Outlines the plot in detail,enabling the reviewer a

chance to attract an audience; bothfans of the genre or those

interested by the plot.

Hints at promise for thedirector, and concludes witha superlative comment. Thereview is in agreement with thefinal score.

Film titles are in italics.

Use of rhetorical questionand exclamation markfurthers the use of personal style.

Brennan (Ferrell) is a 39 year-old stay-at-home layabout. So is Dale (Reilly), except he’s 40. When Brennan’s mum (Steenburgen) marries Dale’s dad (Jenkins), the two are forced to live together. Can they put their differences aside and finally get off their asses?

Talladega Nights, the second movie from the SNL-spawned creative team of Will Ferrell and Adam McKay, may have made big bucks but it was pretty disappointing, failing to capture the magic of Anchorman, their free-wheeling debut. But in introducing John C. Reilly as an unexpected comedic foil for Ferrell’s blustering idiocy, McKay and his writing partner laid the foundations for their third movie. And if it’s still a few notches beneath the inspired lunacy of Ron Burgundy and chums, it’s a definite return to form.   Although the problem of grown men refusing to leave the parental home is very real, McKay and Ferrell aren’t interested in social comment. Instead, they’re focused on making us laugh, a policy that hinges on the chemistry generated by Ferrell and Reilly. Though the line blurs between Brennan and Dale (both are idiotic curly-haired man-children, engines of id, impulse, immature posturing and, Ferrell fans will be pleased to hear, primal screaming), Ferrell and Reilly are a superb double-act, Reilly’s cockiness meshing well with Ferrell’s puppy dog innocence. They’re fine separately, but when the two are together, be it during an extended fight scene with a bunch of kids, or a demented sleepwalking sequence, the movie is a blast. Crucially, they also make Dale and Brennan - who could very easily be obnoxious and unpleasant - likable.However, there are missteps, such as the decision to root the action in a mundane world, which works against the outlandish humour (even Jenkins and Steenburgen, both fine actors, can’t sell the concept that anyone would put up with the crap Dale and Brennan pull). More damaging is McKay’s pursuit of an R rating (most likely a 15 over here), which doesn’t sit well with the tone of the movie or their established universe, which previously - erection gags and all - felt innocent and joyous. Gags about exposed balls or licking dog shit do not.But when McKay focuses on the pure simplicity of the pair getting stupidly excited over tree houses, Chewbacca masks and samurai swords, Step Brothers is a hugely entertaining exercise in the comedy of the random, complete with improvised non-sequiturs, bonkers one-liners (“Your voice is a combination of Fergie and Jesus”), and a triumphant climactic sequence featuring a montage that’s actually funny.

It’s no Anchorman, but it’s several steps in the right direction.

The opening of the film review explains the plot very briefly and shortly to the reader, who may or may not have seen the film. A convention of this part of the film review is the way they write about the characters instead of just telling you about the characters they also inform you of the actor playing the character by putting their surname in brackets afterwards e.g. Brennan (Ferrell). At the end of this section the reviewer uses a rhetoric device to capture the readers attention “Can they put their differences aside and finally get off their asses?” this questions the reader and makes the reader want to read on.

At the end of the review there is a finalising sentence which sums up the entire analysis, it references a modern day film and puts the film into context of its credibility in modern day cinema. It is a statement that the reader will remember and associate with the film

The main section of this article is the review. The review looks back on the film and expresses the opinion of the film reviewer. The review consists of a cocktail of adjectives such as “blustering idiocy…puppy dog innocence” the elaborate language picks out the films content as well as characters and explores them in a critical depth. The review is mainly bias but is very clear it is a single persons view point. There is quotes from the film referencing specific key moments such as “bonkers one-liners (“your voice is a combination between Fergie and Jesus”)”. The reviewer references modern day society and is clearly targeting the review at a relevant audience to the time the film was released. The film review highlights key parts of the film and weaving critique of the characters and production team throughout. Another key feature on other film reviews is an overall rating such as a star rating or score.

Charlie Kaufman has a problem with endings. As a pure ideas man, the Oscar-nominated screenwriter of Being John Malkovich and Adaptation is without peer. But the third act of his Confessions Of A Dangerous Mind script gets tangled up in its own intrigue; and Malkovich also ends without conviction, limping over the line as if it has not drawn breath since that sprint start. Kaufman's problem with third acts is, in fact, so acute that it becomes the very substance of Adaptation's sour last half hour.

But just as everyone (including Kaufman) was ready to conclude that Charlie's acorns simply do not develop into full-sized trees, along comes the measured growth and glorious blossom of Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, his most satisfying fantasy yet. Make no mistake, Eternal Sunshine has a really terrific third act – it's just the first two that threaten to get in the way.

Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind is, in fact, the second Kaufman script helmed by Michel Gondry who, like previous collaborator Spike Jonze, is an acclaimed director of music videos. Their first underrated and unseen venture was Human Nature which – setting aside the almost obligatory 'third act problems' – simply didn't boast the sugary star coating (Rhys Ifans?) that is apparently necessary to make the patented Kaufman weirdness palatable (Cusack, Cage, Clooney). Eternal Sunshine has no such problems, with both an embarrassment of riches on the bench and, front and centre, the biggest star yet to be drawn to the cult of Kaufman: Jim Carrey.

Carrey, his dramatic ego keeping that famous comic id on a tight leash, will no doubt bemuse the Bruce Almighty crowd with his most interior, least expressive role so far – Joel Barish, a character actually described as "close-mouthed". But before any self-styled sophisticates start shouting "see-ya!", Adaptation fans might find themselves equally discomfited, for Eternal Sunshine is not the headlong rush of ideas that its high-concept pitch might have you believe.

A cute but low-key and very long pre-credits sequence gives way to a potentially bewildering opening in which we share Joel's confusion at why his girlfriend is ignoring him. Once Barish discovers her visit to Lacuna Inc. and decides on a tit-for-tat strategy, the majority of the action takes place over one night in one small room and inside one man's rapidly disintegrating memory.

Part fever dream and part chamber piece, it takes a long time before any sunshine at all breaks into what is a melancholic and occasionally bitter first half. However, once Joel's subconscious decides that the procedure is a bad idea and enlists the 'memory' of Clementine (Winslet at her most winning) in a daring escape plan, the movie picks up pace and starts to explore comic areas – teenage humiliation, suppressed trauma – that play to Carrey's obvious strengths and best showcase the undoubted visual verve of Gondry. (The dazzling editing alone demands repeat viewings to unscramble.)

Even better, as Joel's situation becomes more hopeless, the tone miraculously becomes more hopeful, journeying right back to those first, deeply romantic, days with Clementine. All at once, Kaufman's master plan snaps into focus, with the true purpose of the Lacuna technical team (everyone scores in small parts, notably a disarming Dunst) revealed with an unexpected reversal.

A final, bittersweet coda seals the deal; the movie has travelled into light but the memories of darkness past can never be entirely wiped away. No movie since Annie Hall has better captured the entire arc of a relationship, and even Woody Allen stopped short of presenting the beginning and the end at the exact same time.

VerdictEternal Sunshine is not particularly funny, or even very sunny, but it is Charlie Kaufman's first whole screenplay, and as wonderful as it is weird. Some people may find the early going tough, but this remarkable movie is in possession of a serious mind and a rare, true heart.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - Review

First paragraph briefly outlines the plot- actor names are put into brackets

Background to the screen writer. This will highlight him as popular.

Lots of adjectives used.

Informal tone.

Talking about it being his second script, and the fist having ‘third act problems’

Talks about Jim Carrey playing a different type of role to what he usually plays.

Judgement of actresses performance, talking about her being at her ‘most winning’

Review ends with a verdict summarising the reviewers thought in a nut shell.