Looking at Magazines.

When flicking through various film magazines, such as Empire and Total Film  it becomes apparent that how these magazines really do make they're money.  For example looking through Total Film the lay out is extremely fragmented, concerning the reviewing of films. The films either get a 2 page spread or half, or mini snip-its, there is never just a one  A4 page with a review on it.   I questioned why this was and realsed that where there is a spare single page, this is where they have the advertising for things such as home cinema Jack Daniels. These are how the film magazine market really make they're money. Also seemingly the films that have the large double page spread are the huge block busters, such as Kings Speech, Bridesmaids and  Water for Elephants. Seemingly as well as these being the large mainstream block busters, they also have well known actors in. Its been proven that when looking for a good film to watch, the majority of audiences will look at the actors, and make their decision as to whether to watch it  from that. This is why film magazines and poster makers often use the actors name or a huge picture to lure in the audiences. This is all well and good, however none of this leaves much room for the smaller films and the more unknown actors. In magazines such as Total Film, they have a number of double page spreads with tiny reviews, fitting about 14 on a double page. There's a tiny blurb about the film and then the generic star system that we all recognise. To me, this seems a bit odd and backwards. Surely if a film is less mainstream, more left wing and has new actors in, they need a larger space to lure in audiences, otherwise they will just be looked over by the Hollywood blockbusters. Because there isn't a great amount of information about the film, people may be swayed against watching it. This causes more individual film makers to be stuck in a rut, if the larger films are being splashed across these prestigious film magazines,then the littler ones are being pushed aside. 

Also there is a huge question mark over the honesty when it comes to reviews. For example, the June 2011 issue there is a huge double page spread of the review of Kings Speech; Colin Firths face along with Helena Bonham Carter and Geoffrey Rush, these are all extremely established people in the film world.  If the writer of the review (Neil Smith) were to rate the film 2 Stars, or something low down on the star scale and write and awful review, then the film company would be extremely hesitant as to let they're film be reviewed by Neil Smith, or Total Film Magazine. This would put the magazine in danger, and no doubt make them lose a large amount of money. Similarly if they were to write a bad review about Colin Firth, combined with having his face splashed across the pages of their magazine. This wouldn't go down to well either.