How to Write a Film Review for a Class

An academic film review is not a recommendation – nobody is deciding what to watch on your say-so.

Film reviews set as coursework are a different genre from the ones in newspapers. A published review helps a reader decide whether to see something. An academic review analyses how a film achieves its effects and what it means. Students who write the first when asked for the second lose marks for summarising plot and offering opinion in place of analysis.

Watch it more than once

The first viewing tells you what happens; the second shows you how. Watch once for the experience, then again with a notebook, pausing to record specific moments: a shot that held longer than expected, a cut that jarred, a sound that arrived before its source. Note timecodes. Being able to cite a precise moment is the equivalent of a page reference and separates analysis from impression.

Analyse technique, not story

Plot summary should occupy a couple of sentences at most, and only to orient a reader who may not have seen the film. Everything else belongs to how the film was made.

• Cinematography — framing, camera movement, depth of field, colour.
• Editing — pace, continuity, juxtaposition, what is withheld.
• Sound — score, diegetic sound, silence, how sound bridges cuts.
• Mise-en-scène — set, costume, lighting, blocking, what is in the frame.
• Performance — gesture, stillness, delivery.

The analytical move is always the same: identify a choice, then say what it does. A low-angle shot is a fact; a low-angle shot that makes a character loom over a scene they are losing control of is an argument.

Use the vocabulary accurately

Film terminology earns marks when used correctly and costs them when used loosely. A tracking shot is not a pan; a jump cut is not simply a fast edit; diegetic sound exists within the world of the film. If you are unsure of a term, describe what you saw plainly instead — accurate description beats confident misuse.

Build an argument

A review needs a thesis just as an essay does. “The film uses shallow focus throughout to keep its protagonist isolated even in crowded frames, so that her eventual decision reads as inevitable rather than sudden” is a claim the review can then demonstrate. Without one, you produce a list of observations in the order you noticed them.

Organise around your argument, not around the film’s chronology. Walking through the film scene by scene is the structural equivalent of plot summary.

Situate the film

Most assignments expect some context: the director’s other work, the genre’s conventions, the period in which it was made, the industrial conditions that shaped it. Context should serve the argument rather than sit in a block of background. If genre matters because the film subverts an expectation, introduce the convention at the moment you show it being broken.

Support judgements with evidence

Evaluation is legitimate — you may argue a film fails — but it must rest on analysis. “The third act does not work” is an opinion. “The third act abandons the restrained visual grammar established earlier, and the shift is not motivated by anything in the story, so the resolution feels imposed” is a judgement with reasons. The second can be argued with; the first can only be agreed or disagreed with.

Handle spoilers by ignoring the convention

Academic writing about film assumes the reader knows the work or accepts being told. You cannot analyse an ending you refuse to discuss. Write about whatever the argument requires, without the coyness appropriate to a consumer review.

Reference properly

Cite the film itself in whatever style your course uses, usually with director and year, and cite any criticism you draw on. Where you describe a specific moment, give the timecode. If you quote dialogue, quote it exactly — paraphrasing a line and then analysing its wording is a mistake markers spot immediately, and it undermines the close attention the rest of the review is trying to demonstrate.

Structure it around the argument

A workable shape opens with a brief orientation and your thesis, moves through two or three analytical sections each built on a technique or theme, and closes with what the film achieves and where it falls short. Group your evidence by idea rather than by chronology — all the sound observations together, all the framing observations together — so the reader follows an argument rather than a viewing.

Length and proportion

In a 1,500-word review, plot orientation should take fifty words at most, context perhaps two hundred, and everything else analysis. If you find yourself explaining what happens for a page, the review has become a summary. A useful check on any draft: highlight every sentence that only reports what occurred. If more than a tenth of the page is lit up, the balance is wrong.

Take notes that you can cite

Analysis depends on specific moments, and specific moments are lost without notes. Record timecodes as you watch, along with a brief description of what happens and what you noticed about how it was shot, cut or scored. A timecode functions as a page reference and lets a reader verify your reading.

Note your own reactions too, and where they changed. A moment where your response shifted is usually a moment where the film did something worth analysing.

Watch for what the film withholds

Analysis tends to focus on what is present. Often the more revealing question is what a film declines to show: a violent act kept offscreen, a reaction shot that never comes, a character whose perspective is systematically excluded. Absence is a choice with the same status as any other.

Distinguish the film’s view from the character’s

A common analytical error is attributing a character’s position to the film. Films frequently present views they undercut — through framing, through what happens next, through the gap between what a character says and what we see. Identifying that gap is often the core of a good reading.

Use context to explain, not to decorate

Production history, genre convention and critical reception can all illuminate a film, but only where they bear on your argument. A paragraph of background that leads nowhere is padding. Introduce a genre convention at the moment you show the film subverting it; mention a production constraint where it explains a formal choice.

• Genre — what conventions does it use, invert or refuse?
• Period — what was possible or contentious when it was made?
• Auteur — how does it sit against the director’s other work?
• Reception — where has critical consensus been contested?

Write with precision about what you saw

Vague visual description is the most common weakness in student film writing. “The lighting was dramatic” says almost nothing; “a single hard source from screen left, throwing half the face into shadow” describes something a reader can picture and you can analyse. Where you lack the term, describe accurately in plain words rather than reaching for vocabulary you are unsure of.

Close on the argument, not the verdict

Academic reviews end on what the film achieves and how, rather than on a recommendation. A conclusion that says “overall this is a strong film” restates a judgement; one that says what the film’s formal strategy accomplishes, and where it stops short, completes an argument. The reader should finish understanding the film differently, not knowing whether you enjoyed it.