Comparason of two film reviews

Both reviews I will be comparing are from The Guardian, so therefore aimed at similar audiences; high brow film enthusiasts. However, they both vary in structure. Both starting with elements of humour; “there were moments when I thought I would not just need to change my trousers…” (from the ‘Paranormal Activity’ review) and “and claw the bejeepers out of her” (from the ‘New Moon’ review.) Each review gives us an instant idea of how the critic feels about the film. It is clear that the ‘New Moon’ reviewer found it laughable, and the ‘Paranormal Activity’ reviewer found it petrifying.
The ‘Paranormal Activity’ review begins with a personal reference and then goes on to generalise the horror genre, and comment on how the film successfully breaks away from the repetitive clichés, managing to scare the critic therefore achieving its aim. In the second paragraph, the critic makes comparisons to existing films, and uses film and media lexis to place the film in a category (“digital mocu-real nightmare”). They then go on to comment on how ‘Paranormal Activity’ was successful where the two box-office hits were feeble; “wouldn’t they just drop the camera and run?”

In the following paragraph, is the first mention of the characters in the film along with a brief synopsis. Here, the critic makes use of technical language; “fixed spotlight,” “restricted light,” “harsh light halo…middle of the frame.” They then make another reference to the Blair Witch Project, and comment on both films similarities in terms of lighting.
The critic continues to talk about specific moments in the film, using technical language such as “fast-forward effect” and “superimpose.” It isn’t until the final paragraph when the writer-director is first mentioned, and the critic praises him highly, and concludes with a theory on the metaphorical value of the film. The reviewer’s final words are a warning to the reader, making the review personal.

The ‘New Moon review’, similarly to the to the ‘Paranormal Activity’’ review instantly makes the reader aware of the critics opinion on the film, and in this review, unlike in the other, the great use of sarcasm is the critics way of portraying his views on the film. The opening lines are an extremely brief reminder of the first of the saga, and then a similarly brief overview of the current film itself. There is a great use of humour and puns in the opening paragraph more-so than in the ‘Paranormal’…review.
The critic continues with reference to the plot of the saga, negatively critiquing it to have become “somewhat predictable” and he then comments on the metaphorical value of the film, as did the ‘Paranormal…’ reviewer. Unlike in the review of ‘Paranormal…’ this critic mentions the director within the first two paragraphs and then proceeds to mention the actors names, which the ‘Paranormal…’ reviewer didn’t do at all. In the same second paragraph, the critic gives a synopsis of the film, keeping with the element of humour to his tone; “not-sex-activities.” This review is obviously far more humorous than the former, and is almost constantly comical. The final paragraph does what the previous review did not, which is comment on the actors’ performances. The sarcasm continues as he refers to particular scenes and ends with a negative and sarcastic pun on the physical appearance of the characters. Unlike in the ‘Paranormal…’ review, the ‘New Moon’ critic makes no use of technical language, and fails to refer to technicalities within the film, regarding for example, lighting. Where the ‘Paranormal…’ review had a serious tone, and looked at the conventions of the film, the ‘New Moon’ reviewer just went into further detail of the synopsis and sarcastically criticised the story, appearances, and actors.