
How to write a Film Review
A review is a critical evaluation of a text, event, object, or phenomenon. Reviews can consider books, articles, films, entire genres or fields of literature, architecture, art, fashion, restaurants, policies, exhibitions, performances, and many other forms.
Above all, a review makes an argument. The most important element of a review is that it is a commentary, not merely a summary. It allows you to enter into dialogue and discussion with the work's creator and with other audiences. You can offer agreement or disagreement and identify where you find the work exemplary or deficient in its knowledge, judgments, or organization. You should clearly state your opinion of the work in question, and that statement will probably resemble other types of academic writing, with a thesis statement, supporting body paragraphs, and a conclusion.
Typically, reviews are brief. In newspapers and academic journals, they rarely exceed 1000 words, although you may encounter lengthier assignments and extended commentaries. In either case, reviews need to be succinct. While they vary in tone, subject, and style, they share some common features:
· First, a review gives the reader a concise summary of the content. This includes a relevant description of the topic as well as its overall perspective, argument, or purpose.
· Second, and more importantly, a review offers a critical assessment of the content. This involves your reactions to the work under review: what strikes you as noteworthy, whether or not it was effective or persuasive, and how it enhanced your understanding of the issues at hand.
· Finally, in addition to analyzing the work, a review often suggests whether or not the audience would appreciate it.
Becoming an expert reviewer
Reviewing can be a daunting task. Someone has asked for your opinion about something that you may feel unqualified to evaluate. Who are you to criticize Toni Morrison's new book if you've never written a novel yourself, much less won a Nobel Prize? The point is that someone—a professor, a journal editor, peers in a study group—wants to know what you think about a particular work. You may not be (or feel like) an expert, but you need to pretend to be one for your particular audience. Nobody expects you to be the intellectual equal of the work's creator, but your careful observations can provide you with the raw material to make reasoned judgments. Tactfully voicing agreement and disagreement, praise and criticism, is a valuable, challenging skill, and like many forms of writing, reviews require you to provide concrete evidence for your assertions.
Developing an assessment: before you write
There is no definitive method to writing a review, although some critical thinking about the work at hand is necessary before you actually begin writing. Thus, writing a review is a two-step process: developing an argument about the work under consideration, and making that argument as you write an organized and well-supported draft.
What follows is a series of questions to focus your thinking as you dig into the work at hand. While the questions specifically consider book reviews, you can easily transpose them to an analysis of performances, exhibitions, and other review subjects. Don't feel obligated to address each of the questions; some will be more relevant than others to the film in question.
· What is the thesis—or main argument—of the film? If the author wanted you to get one idea from the film, what would it be? How does it compare or contrast to the world you know? What has the film accomplished?
· What exactly is the subject or topic of the film? Does the author cover the subject adequately? Does the author cover all aspects of the subject in a balanced fashion? What is the approach to the subject (topical, analytical, chronological, descriptive)?
· How does the author support her argument? What evidence does she use to prove her point? Do you find that evidence convincing? Why or why not? Does any of the author's information (or conclusions) conflict with other books/films you've read, courses you've taken or just previous assumptions you had of the subject?
· How does the author structure her argument? What are the parts that make up the whole? Does the argument make sense? Does it persuade you? Why or why not?
· How has this film helped you understand the subject? Would you recommend the film to your friends?
Beyond the internal workings of the film, you may also consider some information about the author and the circumstances of the film's production:
· Who is the director? Nationality, political persuasion, training, intellectual interests, personal history, and historical context may provide crucial details about how a work takes shape.
· What is the film's genre? Out of what field does it emerge? Does it conform to or depart from the conventions of its genre? These questions can provide a historical or literary standard on which to base your evaluations. If you are reviewing the first film/book ever made/written on the subject, it will be important for your audience to know. Keep in mind, though, that naming "firsts"—alongside naming "bests" and "onlys"—can be a risky business unless you're absolutely certain.
Writing the review
Once you have made your observations and assessments of the work under review, carefully survey your notes and attempt to unify your impressions into a statement that will describe the purpose or thesis of your review. Then, outline the arguments that support your thesis.
Your arguments should develop the thesis in a logical manner. That logic, unlike more standard academic writing, may initially emphasize the author's argument while you develop your own in the course of the review. The relative emphasis depends on the nature of the review: if readers may be more interested in the work itself, you may want to make the work and the author more prominent; if you want the review to be about your perspective and opinions, then you may structure the review to privilege your observations over (but never separate from) those of the work under review. What follows is just one of many ways to organize a review.
Introduction
Since most reviews are brief, many writers begin with a catchy quip or anecdote that succinctly delivers their argument. But you can introduce your review differently depending on the argument and audience. In general, you should include:
· The name of the director and the film title and the main theme.
· Relevant details about who the director is and where he/she stands in the genre or field of inquiry. You could also link the title to the subject to show how the title explains the subject matter.
· The context of the film and/or your review. Placing your review in a framework that makes sense to your audience alerts readers to your "take" on the film. Perhaps you want to situate a film about the Cuban revolution in the context of Cold War rivalries between the United States and the Soviet Union. Another reviewer might want to consider the film in the framework of Latin American social movements. Your choice of context informs your argument.
· The thesis of the film. If you are reviewing fiction, this may be difficult since novels, plays, and short stories rarely have explicit arguments. But identifying the film’s particular novelty, angle, or originality allows you to show what specific contribution the piece is trying to make.
· Your thesis about the film.
Summary of content
· This should be brief, as analysis takes priority. In the course of making your assessment, you'll hopefully be backing up your assertions with concrete evidence from the film, so some summary will be dispersed throughout other parts of the review.
· The necessary amount of summary also depends on your audience. Graduate students, beware! If you are writing book reviews for colleagues—to prepare for comprehensive exams, for example—you may want to devote more attention to summarizing the book's contents. If, on the other hand, your audience has already read the book—such as an class assignment on the same work—you may have more liberty to explore more subtle points and to emphasize your own argument.
Analysis and evaluation of the Film
· Your analysis and evaluation should be organized into paragraphs that deal with single aspects of your argument. This arrangement can be challenging when your purpose is to consider the film as a whole, but it can help you differentiate elements of your criticism and pair assertions with evidence more clearly.
· You do not necessarily need to work chronologically through the film as you discuss it. Given the argument you want to make, you can organize your paragraphs more usefully by themes, methods, or other elements of the film.
· If you find it useful to include comparisons to other films, keep them brief so that the film under review remains in the spotlight.
· Avoid excessive quotation and give a specific page reference in parentheses when you do quote. Remember that you can state many of the author's points in your own words.
Conclusion
· Sum up or restate your thesis or make the final judgment regarding the film. You should not introduce new evidence for your argument in the conclusion. You can, however, introduce new ideas that go beyond the film if they extend the logic of your own thesis.
· This paragraph needs to balance the film's strengths and weaknesses in order to unify your evaluation. Did the body of your review have three negative paragraphs and one favorable one? What do they all add up to?
Finally, a few general considerations:
· Review the film in front of you, not the film you wish the director had made. You can and should point out shortcomings or failures, but don't criticize the film for not being something it was never intended to be.
· With any luck, the director of the film worked hard to find the right things to express her ideas. You should attempt to do the same. Precise language allows you to control the tone of your review.
· Never hesitate to challenge an assumption, approach, or argument. Be sure, however, to cite specific examples to back up your assertions carefully.
· Try to present a balanced argument about the value of the film for its audience. You're entitled—and sometimes obligated—to voice strong agreement or disagreement. But keep in mind that a bad film takes as long to make as a good one, and every director deserves fair treatment. Harsh judgments are difficult to prove and can give readers the sense that you were unfair in your assessment.
FILM ANALYSIS RUBRIC
GRADE |
Intro Paragraph / Thesis |
Body Paragraphs / Organization |
Literary Analysis |
Language Style / Voice |
Mechanics |
||
A (excellent) |
Engaging opening introduces the essay’s general topic and inspires thinking about that topic; logically proceeds to thesis; thesis is an easily identifiable, well-phrased argument that assesses the text and addresses a specific idea to be analyzed and proven in the essay; the idea offered in the thesis reflects sound critical, analytical thinking; title and author of work are appropriately referenced |
Each topic sentence clearly connects to the thesis and offers an identifiable, well-phrased idea to be proven in the paragraph; concrete details are well-chosen and incorporated; paragraphs are well-organized to create a coherent, carefully developed and supported argument; transitions between ideas are logical and each idea builds on the preceding; writer maintains focus and control of argument so that the point of each paragraph is always clear |
Writing reflects a critical, analytical understanding of the text; through clear reasoning, writer draws sophisticated, insightful inferences from concrete details to support the connected ideas of the TS and thesis; inferences are developed so that all claims and points made are well-supported and persuasive; analysis focuses on both thematic and stylistic elements of the text, demonstrating writer’s ability to interpret the function of literary devices in the service of thematic meaning; appropriate balance of quotes & writer's analysis; writer is clearly engaged with and moved by his/her thinking process |
Writing is academic in tone, demonstrating a clear sense of purpose and audience; writer's voice is evident -- confident and sophisticated; vocabulary and phrasing are academically appropriate, persuasive, and sophisticated without being pretentious |
Essay includes a variety of sentences marked by varying opening words and structure; effective syntax and grammar demonstrate a mastery of writing conventions and serve the author’s purpose; consistent adherence to MLA guidelines; accurate Work Cited page; absence of misspellings, punctuation errors |
||
B (good) |
Generally engaging opening; areas to be strengthened may include: presentation of general topic; development of transition between general opening and specific thesis statement; thesis statement is phrased as an argument but may be strengthened through clarification of the main idea being offered |
Each topic sentence generally connects to the thesis but in one or more TS the main idea may need to be clarified; concrete details are generally well-chosen though some may be irrelevant or insufficient as evidence to effectively support the thesis and/or TS; paragraphs are generally well-organized, although some transitions may be awkward and there may be gaps in the development of ideas; focus and control of argument may need improvement because the point of a paragraph may not always be clear |
Writing generally reflects a critical, analytical understanding of the text but is uneven; inferences demonstrate interpretive ability but could be developed further to better explain significance of detail and support thesis and/or TS; some claims may be vague, generalized, or lacking in support; analysis could be stronger through focus on stylistic elements that create thematic meaning; some imbalance of quotes and writer's analysis |
Writing is generally academic in tone; writer’s voice may not be consistently persuasive but is discernible; writing demonstrates an awareness of the purpose to persuade; vocabulary in some places may be simplistic or ineffective |
Essay’s sentences generally effective but may lack appropriate variety (some repeated opening words and structure); syntax and grammar may be awkward in places (but not distracting); a few misspellings (but not distracting); consistent adherence to MLA guidelines; accurate Work Cited page |
||
C (satisfactory) |
Opening is functional but too brief and/or simplistic, essay’s topic is apparent but needs to be developed to engage the reader; abrupt transition from first sentences to thesis statement; paragraph may be incoherent, jumping from one point to the next without developing a smooth progression of ideas; thesis may be too general, vague, or imprecisely phrased; thesis may not directly address the prompt (though still an argument that assesses the text) |
Topic sentences are present but more than one is weak in the following areas: main idea not discernible; a fact about the text is summarized; unclear connection to thesis. Concrete details are present but weak because they provide insufficient evidence to support TS and/or are irrelevant because they do not support an insightful inference. Lack of coherent organization of ideas within individual paragraphs or from one paragraph to the next; abrupt transitions impede smooth flow of ideas; essay lacks consistent focus and control of argument; paragraph(s) may lack clear point(s); content of paragraphs does not consistently support or connect with thesis and/orTS |
Writing demonstrates basic comprehension of the text but not a critical, analytical understanding of it, as reflected by one or more of the following: lack of focused, developed idea guiding essay; interpretive analysis inconsistent or unsubstantiated; frequent summary of plot details that retell the story; writer restates the content of cited concrete details rather than draws significant inferences about sub-textual meaning; little or no analysis of how stylistic elements of the text create meaning. Writing marked and weakened by frequent generalizations, unsupported claims, assumptions, vague statements. |
Writing tends to be mechanical in tone; writer’s voice is not discernible in the essay; writing demonstrates inconsistent awareness of the purpose to persuade; vocabulary tends to be simplistic, marked by instances of informal or imprecise diction |
Essay sentences lack variety (frequently repeated opening words and sentence structure); awkward syntax and grammar confuse writer’s point and distract reader; misspellings, contractions, fragments, referring to “you” diminish academic nature of the writing and distract reader; inconsistent adherence to MLA guidelines (but does not compromise integrity of essay); Work Cited page may contain inaccuracies (but does not compromise the integrity of essay) |
||
D (marginal) |
Opening is ineffective, poorly organized, and undeveloped (inappropriately brief); thesis may summarize plot point rather than present argument about text; thesis may not address the prompt at all; author and/or title of text may not be referenced properly (i.e. only author's last name, title incorrectly formatted) |
Topic sentences absent or consistently lack focused ideas, either offering general, irrelevant comments or stating facts about the text; there is no discernible argument or point guiding essay; concrete details are absent or ineffective/ insufficient; consistent lack of coherent organization of ideas within paragraphs and from one paragraph to the next; points of paragraphs are unclear |
Writing demonstrates some awareness of text details but not a critical, analytical understanding of the text; points made are vague and unsubstantiated; essay lacks focus; no literary analysis present |
Writing is mechanical in tone; writer’s voice is not discernible in essay; writing demonstrates no awareness of purpose to persuade; vocabulary is simplistic and/or inappropriate |
Frequent syntax, grammar, misspelling errors that distract the reader; lack of adherence to MLA guidelines undermines integrity of essay; inaccurate Work Cited page compromises integrity of essay |
||
F (unacceptable) |
Fails to fulfill the requirements of the assignment |
Fails to fulfill the requirements of the assignment |
Fails to fulfill the requirements of the assignment |
Fails to fulfill the requirements of the assignment |
No adherence to MLA guidelines (missing citations, lack of proper format); No Work Cited page |
||
0
681