In order to complete a film review of my own film, I am going to explore and analyse existing film reviews and their codes and conventions in
The Guardian, Empire, and later,
Sight and Sound. Each of these materials target their reviews to specific audiences, for example
The Guardian is aimed at liberal, left-wing, arty
professionals, and the way the text is written implies that the reader is already aware of all of the technical terms and director names.
Empire, contrary to the former, is written in a less formal style, lacking in the technical terms that are present in
The Guardian's reviews, and also there are many more conventions of humour and sarcasm.
The Empire review is also a lot less detailed in
comparison. Here I have analysed two reviews from
The Guardian, and one from
Empire. Review of 'Paper Heart' in The Guardian 
The critic begins with introducing the lead and executive producer of the film, giving a brief history of her previous roles. Immediately, the reviewer makes his views on the film evident, calling it "annoying" and "pointless" within the first sentence. Also within the first sentence, the critic identifies and generalises the nature of the film using film jargon and naming it a "
docu-
rom-com." The critic then goes on to talk briefly about the purpose of the film, and then criticizes the performance of the star.
The critic uses adverbs to better describe his feelings towards the film and the cast, for example "placidly giggling
Yi" when talking about the lead. The writer uses a substantial amount of adjectives in his description, painting a clearer picture of
Paper Heart and giving us a clear understanding of his own perception of it, for example; "her Zany journey," "burgeoning relationship," "phony and staged." During his criticism, he informs, although insultingly, the reader about the general plot of the film, and generalises it, calling
Paper Heart a "vanity project."
Towards the end of the review, the reviewer mentions briefly one of the stars (Michael
Cera) popularity, and comments on how he doubts that without his appearance in the film, it would never have been lifted off the ground. This allows the reader to see the films main attribute and selling point. The critic ends the review with their own recommendation of
Paper Heart, being a negative one.
Review of 'The Lovely Bones' in The GuardianThe reviewer opens up the review addressing the reader with a rhetorical question, questioning the directors intention; "how does one make a PG-certificate film about the rape and murder of a 14 year-old girl?" Instantly, the contents of the film is revealed, as well as the questionable age certificate. The opening question doesn't reveal anything about the reviewers personal views about the film just yet. There is then an instant mention of the director himself (Peter Jackson.) They are then critical about the directors answer to the question calling it an answer "of sorts." The reviewer uses sarcastic language about the film itself and the directors purpose;"our reward is
anyone's guess."
The third paragraph gives the reader an introduction of the films protagonist and her past appearances, and a short and indifferent synopsis of the film, with no criticism evident. The critic then praises the acting and the creation of the film in the next paragraph, and uses film lexis when referring to the atmosphere of
The Lovely Bones. The reviewer then references Peter Jackson's previous works, comparing them to this current one.
The reviewer pays attention to detail as he talks about the setting of the film, again using film lexis such as "cartoon archetypes." They open the next paragraph again with another rhetorical question, this time questioning the source of the films fault. The make use of a metaphor when referring to the story; "offsetting the tang of sulphur with the sweet taste of candyfloss." They make comparisons between the original book, and the film itself.
The writer concludes with critical adjectives, calling the films attempts to re-invent the novel "infuriatingly coy" and "desperate." In the final paragraph, the critic uses repetition of the word "gone" suggesting the film is stripped of the key elements of the book. Finally, the writer ends with yet another rhetorical question, questioning this time whether Peter Jackson had the right idea, and the final sentence is a metaphor of how Jackson has ignored the true "grisly tragedy."
Review of Ghosts of Girlfriends past in Empire. 
This review, in general, is sarcastic and humorously critical of, in particular, Matthew
McConaughey's performance. The very first line of the review praises Michael Douglas, but then swiftly goes on to criticize the films being centralized around
McConaughey. After the negative and fairly humorous reference to the lead, the reviewer gives a brief over-view of the plot, and there is a sense of sarcasm in the tone of their writing; "how miserable all that meaningless sex is going to make him." The critic is not completely negative about the film, calling some of it "quite amusing" but then goes on again to criticize the protagonist and the audiences response to him, and then ends the review with a personal attack at
McConaughey "who plays the conceited sleaze just a little too well."
From what I've gathered from studying these reviews, each review includes a brief overview of the film itself, and then goes onto criticise, and/or praise the film for particular elements. In each of these reviews, the critic does not focus on specific technical elements, but more so the actors' and actress' performances, and the story lines, however The Guardian's review of The Lovely Bones is about the most in depth in terms of technical aspects. Empire seems more focused on humorously criticising the performance of the star of the film, and so suggesting that this magazine perhaps focuses their reviews based on entertainment value rather than commenting on the technical elements.