The document provides an analysis of existing film review products that could inform the development of the author's own film review series. It examines critic reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, audience reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, and a YouTube film reviewer. For the critic reviews, the author notes issues with some reviews taking a hypocritical tone or lacking meaningful analysis. For audience reviews, the author analyzes length and depth of explanation. For the YouTube reviewer, the author critiques a lack of technical film analysis and reliance on superficial presentation techniques. The document aims to identify strengths and weaknesses of different review styles to help shape the author's original review approach.

1. Factual Research
Luke Ross

2. Existing Product – I hate everything YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr
O9lsxnorA
Principle
The principle behind this video is a set of series
that goes on the search for the worst films made
and explains scene for scene why in their
opinion the film is terrible. In this series they go
in depth as to all points, this ranges from the
characters that are in the film explaining their
story arc and the reason behind it and if it
works, I feel that the principle of this series
works because of how the video is made, the
style and content entrances the audience and
the humor that is present in a critic’s review is
important as it delivers comedic relief and
becomes as important as the viewing
experience.
Style
The style of this video is where the narrator
explains what's happening and the visuals
reflect how he is feeling, for example if he s
unhappy with a part of the movie the clip from
the film is edited to make it look worse than it is
to show what he sees as its happening and also
to bring some comedy in light of the hate that
he shows towards the product. The editing style
uses a animated picture of himself in the corner
at times to demonstrate his visual facial
response without actually having to show his
face, this takes longer and more time to make
but the effort is shown and makes it more
entertaining to watch, having base boosted
scenes in the film are funny when done correctly
also it keeps the audience entertained because
your waiting for the next bit with the same type
of editing. the film is cut up into sections and
the dialogued review of the film matches to the
part of the film that its on.
Tone
The tome of the review is light hearted as he puts across
a serous review of what he actually feels about the
movie, it is understandable that with his views being an
opinion, as people often get upset with opinions he turns
his content to a comedic side so that its entrancing and
inviting for people of both opinions, the tone has to be
right in this to entrance an audience and keep them
entertained while watching it, a tone has to be made that
gets the point across using a tone of voice that shows a
series view on the film while keeping a comedic tone
using cheery music and jokey comments.
Script
I hate everything thought through the
script in detail working out what
information should be included in the
script while structuring it so that it could
follow a order that is easy to understand,
he starts by talking about the plotline and
then progresses onto the characters and
then technicalities. In the script he follows
a routine where he makes a series point
references it something then makes a
joke, in this he starts of by presenting
something that he hates about the film to
get you thinking, then references it to
something that you also know to back up
the point and then makes a joke out of it
to show that it can be criticized but also
makes it memorable. Trying to make
points memorable is important on
changing opinion, as if it gets the audience
thinking then when they watch the film in
the future they will reference back to the
points he makes in the script.
Comedy
I hate everything uses a range of comedy
in his videos, he uses witty comments that
adults will get while having visual comedy
onscreen that appeals more to teenagers.
There's comedy where he edits the film to
look worse than it is. There is comedy
where he jokes about aspects of the film
while keeping in point.
Audience Appeal
I find this film critic the most interesting to watch, unlike
other film critics that base there view off if they agree
with the politics this reviewer reviews it off writing,
dialogue, soundtrack, cinematography and acting. He
takes all into account when talking about the film and on
to of that I feel he is actually funny and entertaining to
watch which cant be said for many film reviewers. The
way he does it brings in a large audience, this can be seen
in the 1.8 million subscribers he has which is a much
larger audience than other film critics have on YouTube
as the average is about 100 thousands.
Difference in this product to mine
I hate everything as the name suggests only talks about
films he hates except for a few exceptions where as my
series would be a fair mix between films I like and films I
dislike.

3. Existing Product – critic reviews
Introduction
These critic reviews where taken off rotten tomatoes, which is a site where critics voice there ‘opinion’ on the films and all the critics ratings are changes into
a percentage to reflect the film. These images are taken from the film Thor Ragnarok and the reason I find them interesting is because of how they word there
opinions, opinions are important for a film critic. Allot of film critics on this site they are hypocritical, void in meaning and believe for some reason that people
cant like a film that they hate. The reason that some of them are hypocrites for an example can be seen where they say how ‘amazing Ragnarok comedy’ was
but they criticize the same comedy in other films like scary movie for an example, both films use cheap gags to try and make the audience non of the jokes in
either are smart, clever or well thought out, but scary movie works because it’s a parody its meant to be silly so that is the point, but in Ragnarok its not
supposed to be a comedy, it presents itself as a parody film but its not one and it had no intention to be one, so with that in mind these critics think the
comedy in Ragnarok is ‘gold’ but the comedy in scary movie is awful even though they are the exact same. When it comes down to it people should be able to
like whatever film they want, if they enjoy then you enjoy it, but a film rating can change the mind of people watching it, if you see a rating above 90% you will
go in thinking you should enjoy and then come out saying you did because that’s everyone's opinion and vise versa if a film is badly rated you go in thinking
you will hate it. It is easy to suggest that peoples minds can be set before seeing the film and the fact its done by something as simple as a rating, people don’t
check what the critics said they just see the ratings. The reason this annoys me is because when you read a review from one of these critics they don’t actually
have anything valuable to say, instead they put forward the idea that if you don’t agree with them then your less intelligent then them and on this topic
imperticular which is ‘comedy’ the most subjective thing in films to be shown by them is lazy on the critics behalf, they don’t put in a disclaimer at the start
saying ‘this is just my opinion’ this is important because it suggests opinions can be different rather than ‘How dare you not like what I like’ its more
professional and better to read and shows more class to your opinion and more respect to people of other opinions.
Matthew Rozsa
This review is the top on the rotten tomatoes site for the top critic, the article opens with “audience
seem to be smart enough these days…to know a good movie.” my first issue with this si the wording it
blatantly says that if you dont like the film then your not smart. Strange opening considering there was
alot of faults in the film that can be easily critised even if you like the film, however in this mans entire
article he doesnt once talk about the content of the film just the audience and how they shold like it. Its
amsot as if this reviews souls intension is to make minipulate you into liking the movie before you see it,
this could be forgiven but its not geniune or comedic instead its him going out of his way to do so, the
only reason someone would have to be this fake is if they where paid to do so in other words baught
off, but since its my opnion thats the case i will add the disclaimer that it is just my opinion, which
already make me look better than matt. There is lots wrong with his full review to comment on but in
jist, my rveiew will be no where near as bland or fake as this.
Christopher Orr
This critic review is more professional in how its written and what it talks about, in this review Chris
starts by talking about how he sees thor as more of a comedy than an action movie and sees that as
a positive however he doesn't back up his point as a reviewer he makes a statement doesn't’t give a
reason for it and then makes another statement, this is not what I will be doing in my review of
Ragnarok I will be giving reasons as to why I like or dislike the movie and I will mention these critic
comments in my video to back up why I rotten tomatoes cant be trusted as a reliable decisions on
movies.

4. Existing Product – Audience reviews
Introduction
The audience reviews are different to the critic reviews as the audience that take part in this get no money from it, its just a place for them to give there opinion on
the movie and show how they took the film, this is yet again for Thor Ragnarok. When I was looking through meteoritic to find reviews I was looking for in depth
reviews, there was more positive reviews than negative but when looking the positive reviews simply sated it was a good film without explaining why. The only
reviews that I could find with explanation where when the people that didn't’t like it because they have to explain why its bad to people it seems but people don’t
have to explain why you like something. I feel that the audience score would be more reliable to people viewing it than the critic ratings but I also take into account
that the audience is influenced by critics. I hose this as an existing to look at how reviews are worded from the audience and what they talk about compared to s top
critic.
User Goo4you
In this review the member of the audience criticizes the film, the open is their opinion on the film stating it’s the worst film he has seen and is upset that it treats the
fan base and product badly, this is because the marvel comic Ragnarok is a very dark comic that fans love and in the comics is the death of Asgard and thor so to fans it
becoming a comedy with bad writing is insulting. He calls the movie an abomination to put emphasize on his feeling of the movie and then moves onto why he feels
this was. His first point is essentially inconsistency in the movie with other movies in the universe and how the characters have completely changed from who they
basically going form heroes to useless simply for lazy comedy, they also highlight how the character become just boring stereotypes. Next they question the writing,
stating “does every line have to be humor "this question is rhetorical and a good use as it can get people thinking if it was necessary and realize that a film can be
serious and have funny moments without having every line trying to be funny, I like this use of language and techniques it’s a good way to try and prove your point.
User Bkumar
I feel that this review is very bland and doesn’t use
much language or techniques to back up there point
although I agree with there point, they don’t explain
it just leaving it as a statement which doesn’t bare
much weight and isn't entrancing or memorable.
They start off by making the point of cheap comedy
and compare the after film feeling to walking out of a
stand up rather than a superhero movie which is
although a good point left, he goes onto say it’s the
best thor film to date and he hates Ragnarok so that
can only say what he thinks of the other two movies,
he goes onto say it adds to the guardians of the
galaxy, obviously like me he isn't a fan of this style of
comedy. He goes onto to say that captain America
the winter solider is the best marvel film to date.
It is impressive that in a blind review that is
three lines long they managed to insult four
movies at once while praising another. I
found this review helpful as it has shown me
not what to do but also given me a film that I
can use to compare.

5. Existing Product – Film Review
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BTkd5kHsRg
Intro
This is a film reviewer with lots of subscribers, my
issue with him is that he claims to be a big movie
guy and apparently know a lot about shots and
cinematography and scripting, but in the review
he will talk general knowledge and completely
miss out technicality’s. this is fine to do if your
reviewing a film as an audience member and that
is your audience, however his audience is
according to him “people that want to work in the
movie industry” and I cant help but feel that when
he doesn't’t analyses the movie as you would to
that audience. Another point for reference when I
do my project is that he doesn't’t explain his point,
he makes one and then move on, which yet again
is fine f your reviewing it as a day out but when
your profession is a movie reviewer you expect a
little more from him.
His introductions
In his opening there s no disclaimer, this wouldn’t
be an issue but if I feel its necessary because it
shows that you understand that its your opinion
and other people can have different, when he
doesn't’t include one and jumps into his view, it
seems in how he acts that he thinks he is write and
when talking about a comedy which is subjective
that's not the attitude to have. Then before
opening into the point of the video he begs you to
stay till the end of the video to hear about charity
work with a university but really what he wants is
you to stay till the end so he gets more YouTube
revenue which is a very cheap tactic to get people
to stay on the video almost like a guilt trip, its not
just this video he always has a reason for people to
stay. Sadly you tubers always do this kind of thing
now its just how it is but I certainly wont be doing
it.
Points made
He starts off my making the point that all the
characters stole the show in how they where
performed – this point could be developed further
but is left will be something that I pick up on in my
video to give credit where its due in the film.
he also makes the point that its well written,
states as a fact one that you can easily disagree
with and you cant disagree with facts this was a
error on his wording and I will make sure not to do
that on my review.
He then makes the point that 80% of it was
improvised and states it’s a great thing about but
yet again he doe this without stating it as an
opinion instead he states it as it it’s a fact that cant
be disagreed with but if you was to watch the film
properly you could disagree or agree.
Style
The style of this video is making it so that instead
of the film playing in the background its just the
man siting down with a face cam telling people
what he thought of the film, he has lots of DVDS
behind him and this is to resemble that he has
seen a lot of films, this is to push that his opinion is
valid because he's seen films, visual manipulation.
In his video he makes sure he is always smiling, in
his film reviews even if he doesn’t like a movie he
has a happy face on, this could work on this style
of video because it gives a happy attitude to
everything but when your making a video like this
and your upset about film the audience wants to
see emotions and passion towards the subject to
emphasize your feelings.
Mood
there is a distinct mood to these types of videos and
that’s a happy and jolly vibe, I feel that this can work
but with mine I wont be using the face cam aspect of
the video instead I will be showing scenes to back up
my points and to visually illustrate what I'm saying to
make it easier to understand and get.
Audience appeal
The audience that this product appeals to is a casual
audience that are not after a in depth analysis, they
are simply after a quick and sharp review that tells
them his view. This is a different audience to mine as
I will be going for an in depth analysis that justifies
my view on the subject.
Difference in this product to mine
My product will be different as it won’t have myself
on facecam while filming I will record my voice and
commentate over the clips from the movie on
screen. I will have a more calm attitude towards the
movie than on this product.
The principle
The principle of tis piece was to share a review of the
film and what he thought of it, trying to get other
people to agree and think the same. And also his
principle is to entertain.
Script
This video wasn’t scripted it was just a review after
seeing the film, you can tell its not scripted as he
repeats himself and doesn’t show parts of the film
he's talking about while talking about it, he makes
points but doesn’t explain them or provide evidence,
and the points he makes are convoluted and
contradict previous points as well as there being no
structure to what's said.

6. Research summary
First existing product
In my first exiting product I looked at a critic review like what I wanted to create, this review was about a film that the reviewer disliked but he presented
his feelings in a comedic way this meant that he could get his point across while keeping people entertained. The best part of this review I felt was that even
if you disagree with his opinion you can still find it very entertaining because its funny. He does a series of videos like this called search for the worst and
that is the same type of series that I would like to set up with my first video. His comedy style is dark and subtle humour that goes with what he talks about
and elevates some of the seriousness that is in those films. I find his style interesting and fun to watch and it definitely appeals to his audience and I would
want to use those same techniques in my video and follow the same style while not copying but to fit into that audience.
Second existing product
The second product that I reviewed was critic scores from rotten tomatoes, I picked 2 reviews that pretty much defined all the other reviews on the
website. I found these reviews from ‘top’ critics was very bland and failed to fully convey the points that the put forward, without explaining why they gave
It the score they did they instead left a remark. This is not something that I will be following in my review as I intend to give my opinion with evidence to
why I think a certain way about.
Third existing product
In this product instead of looking at critic scores I looked at audience scores, I chose audience scores that where less popular with general opinion but I did
this because those where the only reviews on the website with reasoning behind why they thought a certain way and as they where negative reviews it
seems that they needed to justify there opinion on the movie. I found them to be useful as they showed me two sides of opinions. I will be using some of
the points that these reviews used in my video but I will do a better job of explaining it.
Fourth existing product
in this I watched a review on YouTube for Thor Ragnarok, this review was a reviewer giving his view on the film it was again quite bland but he put forward
points, it could have been better scripted if it was scripted. I wont be following this type of structure in my video.
Overall summary
I would say each of these products that I researched I found to helpful showing my what and what not to do in this game and I found that certain styles
work really well, also what type of comedy would best entertain myself while making the video and what could make me enjoy it, I also saw what products
got the biggest audience and how it can affect peoples opinions.

7. Initial Ideas

8. Idea 1
Movie review on Thor Ragnarok
Reason why
The reason why I have chosen Ragnarök as a movie to
review is because I'm passionate about my opinion on this
film and feel that I would enjoy sharing it, my opinion will be
backed up with evidence and facts and I need to maintain a
good vibe and atmosphere in the video to keep it
entertaining while presenting that its just an opinion and
people shouldn’t get upset about it.
concept
My concept is to use a commentary YouTube format for a
film review, this is where I would have footage from the film
on the screen while I talk about my opinion on the film and
the clips from the film will correlate with the parts of the
movie that I will be talking about.
How I will find the clips
I will find the clips form the film by watching the film
multiple time and then capturing the parts of the film that I
want to talk about or any parts of the movie that I relevant.
How I will write the script
I will watch the film scene by seen to spot faults in the film
and parts I don’t like, I will then make a note on these
scenes and describe what happens in them. Then I will
categorise the scenes into its relevant topic of review then I
will write a script off all these scenes that is short, easy to
understand and is able to carry all the points I make with
sufficient backup and explanation as to what I mean.
Research
I will use google to research facts about the film this will
include the box office results, DVD sales and critics reviews
on the movie, for the different parts of the film that I will be
criticising. I will try and include the research I find through
google in my project as it gives example of effort to the
viewer watching the video.
Category's for the video
1. Disclaimer – this is where I will explain that this video is
about my opinion and for people not to get upset about
my opinion.
2. Introduction – this is where I will introduce the video
and what its going to be about and a brief and short
explanation as to why I'm making it.
3. Comedy – this is the part where I point out the film is
known for people finding it funny and comedy is
subjective and just because someone finds it funny
doesn’t mean that everyone will.
4. Point one – this will be aimed at the comedy, I will
explain why the films comedy is lazily written and why it
shouldn’t be funny, I will also point out the repition in
comedy as in this film they repeat the same joke 5 times
within 3 seconds of each other and its done
unintentionally by the writer.
5. Plot – this where I will talk about the plot of the film and
give spoilers run down of what happens very quickly as
not much does.
6. Point 2 – I will explain why the plot doesn’t work as
people think it does, why there is no steaks in the movie
which is supposed to have them and why its bad that
the writers tried to make steaks and failed.
7. Fans - this will address the fanbase to the universe its in
and why they defend a movie no matter what.
8. Point 2 – this will address that the fans are pushed by
critics to like films and hate different films and that fans
should make there own opinions.
9. Characters – in his part I will list the characters of Thor
Ragnarok in relevant to irrelevant.
10. Point 3 – I well talk about why each character had the
same level of character development from the
characters that are in the film for two minutes to the
ones that are in the entire film and that character
development for all characters is non exitance
11. This will be the conclusion is will talk about how all of
my points combine to make the movie and affect how it
does as a whole.

9. Idea 2
Movie review on interstellar
Reason for making this
The reason why I would choose this film is because of how
much I enjoy it, from the soundtrack to the story and the
characters, each character has meaning and motivation
and fits to the story, the director Christopher Nolan has
made some of my favourite films and this is one of them.
Concept
The concept is the same as the previous idea that I had as
it would be a commentary over the film, the difference is
that this time I will be making it around the topic of me
liking the film rather than me disliking it.
How will I find my clips
I will find them by watching through interstellar and
finding clips that would suit the reasons I have as to why its
great. I will buy the digital download from amazon for the
movie ad watch it a few times, I will choose the scenes I
like download them and then add them into the video that
I'm making.
How I will write my script
I will write my script by choosing different parts of the
movie that I like and different parts that I didn’t like and
then from then I can build up a two sided case and then
share my final thoughts on the movie fairly.
Research
I will be researching the movie history cast and director
and how the film did on the box office as well as how the
film was made and I will be using google to do this. I would
also research the science behind the film how its based on
possible theory's of black holes and planets.
cast and help
I will be doing all the research, clips and voice by myself
this is so I can say and do everything how I want it to be
and make sure its right.
Category's for the video
Disclaimer – this is to let people know that what I say
in the idea is just my opinion and that people
shouldn’t get upset or hurt by what I say.
Plot – this part will talk about the plot of the movie
and as the plot is long and complex it might take a
while to go through each part, I would start off in
sections of the story from school to NASA to space
then to worm hole then planets and finally black hole
and ending, each of these are key structure points to
the plot and are important.
Characters – I would talk about the characters on an
individual level, motivation and how they fit into the
plot, if they are relevant. I would do this by listing
them and then following a structure of most relevant
first and least relevant last.
Box office - on this part I will discuss the box office
results and audience scores and why it made the
money it did as well as how much it cost them to
make the film and what budget they was given.
Christopher Nolan – in this section I will talk about
the director and his other movies his art styles and
how his story telling can be seen in this film.
Science – in this section I would talk about the
science of the movie and how it takes theory's and
facts to make a sci fi thriller, I find it fascinating how
things in the movie are Theas able in reality and it
only interests me more in the movie.
Cast – in this side of my factual I would look at the
casting and how they all acted in the roles they had
and if it was affective.
Critics – in this part I will talk about critics and how
they rated the movie and how they rated it, looking
for good and bad reviews to see different opinions.
Audience – here I would look at the audience scores
for the film are seeing what the general public think
of the film
My opinion – the ending where I explain tat I love the
movie and then state why I love it.

10. Idea 3
Documentary
Documentary idea 1
My first idea is that I could make a documentary on life in college
showing what its like outside and inside of class. This concept is simple
and easy to do but not very interesting as a concept and is a reason
why I wont be choosing it but it is still a thought.
Documentary idea 2
This would be a big documentary on religion, this would look at all
religions from ancient Greek to modern day Christianity and discuss the
disadvantages and advantages of religion in everyday life. This would
involve me having to research lots of information, the research will be
one of the hardest parts of this idea as there is so many religions and so
little time to go through the story's and people, culture of each. The
script will be difficult when pointing out disadvantages and advantages
because when talking about religion you can offend people no matter
what you say or how you say it, this would be a huge issue for me and
would mean I would have to take serious time to think about what I'm
writing in the script. I would do it in a commentary style as I would
narrate over videos and images from texts or the bible to people
walking in the street I think on a subject like this having a mix would be
important in the style side of the work.
Documentary idea 3
This idea would be a documentary on films. By this I mean that I would
talk about films in history, from the begging of films to where we are
today, how times and audiences have changes over the years and what
genres of film was big on certain years. This would also be in the format
style of a commentary, I feel that this would look more professional. I
would do all of the research and clip finding on my own and I would
also be the voice that is narrating on this part. I would write a script
that would be captivating but this would take time to make. I would
have to be careful not to give any opinions on the religions in this as
movies are a very touchy subject.
Documentary idea 4
This documentary would be on the gaming industry and how it has
changed over the years, this would include game company's that
have changed and how they have changed in the games they have
made, I would explain how some companies make games focused off
earning as much money as they can through loot boxes that
everyone hates and the company's that make games based on telling
a good story. I would focus on bad companies like EA and then go
into good developers like Rockstar and naughty dog. I would go all
the way back to the early games of Pac man through to goonies and
arcade games all the way to the games that where on today.
Documentary idea 5
This would be a documentary on rabies a viral infection that has
been spread around the world on average killing 55 thousand people
a year. This documentary would look at the start of this infection and
how over the years it has spread it would be done in a common
documentary style like planet earth 3 but it would be about rabies
instead.
Documentary idea 6
Asian food this would be a documentary looking into the different
foods of Asia. I would talk about the history of Asian food where
certain foods originated in different parts. This would be done by
showing pictures and video clips while I narrate over it.
Documentary idea 7
A documentary on magazines is always a idea, this would be how the
media in news papers and magazines has changed over the years,
gone from telling news and story's to gossip and pushing forward
agendas.
Overall
This gives me a large range of ideas that I could use in my factual
piece.