The word “review” of Latin origin. “Translation” means “viewing, reporting, evaluating, reviewing something.” It can be said that a review is a genre based on a review (primarily critical) about the production of fiction, art, science, journalism, etc. In whatever form such feedback is given, its essence is to express the reviewer’s attitude to the studied product. The difference of the review from other newspaper genres is primarily that the subject of the review is not the immediate facts of reality on which essays, correspondence, sketches, reports, etc. are based, and information phenomena – books, pamphlets, plays, movies, television programs .
The review, as a rule, considers one or two works and gives them an appropriate assessment, without setting themselves other, more complex tasks.
The question of what to review is of primary importance for the paper writer. It is clear that the reviewer is simply unable to capture all the phenomena of cultural or scientific life with his attention, and this is impossible because of the limited possibilities of the media. Therefore, as a rule, the most outstanding performances, books, films, including “scandalous” works are criticized, that is, they hurt the audience. The review, of course, must pursue some practical goal – to tell the audience what is really deserves her attention, and that her attention is unworthy, to help her better understand the issues of the sphere to which the peer-reviewed work relates.
The review should be clear in content and form, accessible to the category of readers, listeners, viewers to whom it is addressed. To do this, the referee must deeply study the peer-reviewed work, taking into account those principles and rules that guided the writer, scientist or artist, to be able to use the methods of analysis and be fluent in the language of the peer-reviewed work. But the main task of the reviewer is to see in the reviewed work what is imperceptible to the uninitiated. And this is difficult to do without having special knowledge in a certain field of activity (literature, theatrical life, art, etc.). This knowledge can not replace ordinary life experience or intuition. The more a stock of special knowledge the author has, the more he has the chance to prepare a truly professional review.
The basis of the review is analysis, so it is necessary that it be comprehensive, objective. The author must be able to notice in the analyzed work something new that can become a “center” around which his thoughts and judgments will “rotate”. Very often reviewers focus their attention on retelling the plot lines of the work, characterizing the actions of the characters. This should not be an end in itself. Only if this paraphrase is organically interwoven into the analysis can, it becomes justified. Particularly unsuccessful such a way of reviewing will be when the audience is well aware of the work in question.