First review that I read of the movie was a good one I found on Rotten Tomatoes. (http://variety.com/2011/film/reviews/the-tunnel-1117945376/) The movie received a 100% on that website although it only received five reviews. According to a top critic of Rotten Tomatoes, Richard Kuipers, The Tunnel was very appealing to him. His review proves to be a good read with very well written sentences. He is wanting to point out how good of a film this actually is and being that is is free many people also like it. The main point he is trying to convey about the movie is that it uses "the less is more technique" and proves to be effective. He mostly touched upon the technique and style that the movie uses and less of the actual plot. He also states which actors fall to the "thing" in the movie and which ones survive. There were not many references but since the movie was Australian, more movies from that country were shown.
The only slightly negative review I found for this movie was on Horror-movies.ca.(http://www.horror-movies.ca/2013/08/the-tunnel-movie-review/) Obviously this would mean that this movie was great overall. On this website, it received four out of five stars. This review as put together very well and also included a preview of the movie to get you extra excited. He states that this movie is called a "found footage film." The author also states that he usually doesn't like this style of horror films, but this one is one that stands out for him. This review is laid back and trying to convey to the reader that this is a great, free movie. The author mostly starts out by talking about the plot and next comparing it to some other movies of that style of filming. He referred to some movies like Alien and Blair Witch Project.
The review from Rotten Tomatoes states "The movie itself has a tasty hook. Purporting to be based on "true events and police evidence" from 2007." I liked this quote a lot because even my friend asked after the movie wondering if it is real or not. Secondly, I like the quote from Horror-movies.ca that said "half of the film is shot in documentary style, interviewing our characters, and the other half is "actual footage."" This is a great point that also intrigues the viewer and makes them believe that the movie is real life.
Personally, I think the review from "horror-reviews.ca" is more convincing because the whole website is revolved around just horror films. Also, they are a tad bit harsher in the grading of movies. Finally, I also think their review is more convincing because they talk more about the plot without revealing too much which is a big deal breaker for me.
If I were to write a review I would be the review writer that leaves the audience on a cliff hanger to make them watch the movie themselves. Also, I would want to briefly talk about the style of the movie and some of the actors. I would leave out how much the movie cost to make because the audience can be the judge of if "it looks crappy" or not. I would also leave out too many films that are similar to that, but would include one or two famous ones that the audience would know of.
