REVIEW OF THE REVIEWS

1. 
Cath Clarke from TimeOut gave a review on Rotten Tomatoes about the conjuring. She gave it a 4 out of 5. the review is four paragraphs long. she starts out with a good hook, "Getting a blood transfusion of molten steel is possibly the only way you’ll stay in your seat all the way through this haunted house movie." and describes how scared she was throughout the film. She then goes into detail and points out specific elements of the film that made it scary and made the movie a success. She gives the perfect amount of detail and information about the film to persuade people to view it without giving away too much. she gives a plot overview, and talks about the set, actors, and specific scenes. The review itself gives off a creepy vibe, just as the movie does. It is a good persuader to those who love horror films. The critic uses words like mounting dread, unsettling, spooked, and skeletal. while she focuses mainly on the overview the plot, she adds in detail like the directors style, the farmhouse set, and the reason for its R rating. She references the directors other work like Saw, and Insidious. Also she mentions the directors use of predictable movie cliches which are still spooky. She jokes about Justin Beiber being dangles in front of the child actress head in order to achieves the perfect look of pure terror. 

Graham young from the Birmingham mail writes a review on rotten tomatoes. He starts off questioning the truth in the film that is based on a true story and points out the fact that the film had little competition. The review references many other older films that the conjuring is echoing. most of the review is talking about how unoriginal and cliche the film is. The tone is very questioning of all the directors choices. He uses words like yawn, over hyped, mind-numbing, and dead ends to show how uninterested he was in the film. His main focus is pointing out other films that the conjuring has copied like Psycho, Rosemary’s Baby, The Exorcist, The Orphanage. He talked about how this film is just like any other ghost movie and gave it a 2 out of 5 

2.
Cath Clarke says, "Wan is going great guns right up until he unveils the source of the evil, and with it unleashes prosthetics and predictable horror movie cliches (he did the same in ‘Insidious’). But by this time you’ll have had the sweet bejesus spooked out of you and may not care." I agree with this quote because I don't believe that cliche is always a bad thing. If horror film lover have once loves specific elements in their favorite horror films then they will probably love when they are repeated. Although this film is like many other ghost movies it is still very creepy and entertaining. 

Graham Young says, "The action begins in 1968-71, so why the crisp, digital format instead of grainier celluloid?" I agree with this because when I viewed the movie it did not seem like it was from the 70's. The filming was way too good for it to be from the 70's and I feel like it would have been more authentic if the picture looked like that of a 1970's movie. 

3.
I think the review by Cath Clarke would have been more persuading because she sounds more passionate about her review then Graham young. Graham Young only really talks about the unoriginality of the film while Clarke brings up many different good elements of the movie that make it desirable to see. 

4. If I were to write my own film review I would talk about the scary suspenseful moments and how real it feels to the viewer. I would point out the fact that there are cliche aspects for any of those who get sick of old ideas. But I would say that although it has some unoriginality it is still really scary and entertaining. I would not talk about the lack of authenticity in the set because I don't feel that it had a major impact on the film. The set was fine but it was nothing to be discussed.