Writing a Movie Review
Learn the conventions of an evaluative movie review, including how to blend summary, evidence and personal judgement in a register that guides the reader's decision.
A movie review is different from a summary. A summary just tells someone what happens. A review tells someone whether it is worth watching, and why -- it is an evaluative piece of writing, which means your opinion needs to be supported by evidence, not just stated.
Think about who reads reviews and why: an audience deciding whether to spend time or money on a film. This audience imperative shapes everything about the format -- reviews are usually short, punchy, and organised so that the writer's judgement is clear from the first paragraph, not saved for a surprise ending.
Writing whose main purpose is to judge the quality or value of something, using evidence and reasoning to support that judgement, rather than just describing or narrating it.
- Hook + verdict: open with a striking line about the film, then state your overall judgement early (do not make the reader wait).
- Brief context: one or two sentences on genre, director/actors, and premise -- enough to orient a reader who has not seen it, without retelling the whole plot.
- Strengths: what works, with a specific example from the film as evidence for each point (acting, pacing, a particular scene, dialogue, music).
- Weaknesses: what does not work, again with specific evidence -- a fair review usually has both.
- Craft comment: a brief note on how the film is made (editing, camera choices, structure) rather than only what happens in it.
- Closing verdict + audience recommendation: restate your judgement and say who the film is (or is not) for.
Avoid retelling the plot in order like a summary. A common mistake is writing three paragraphs of 'and then... and then...' with no judgement in sight. Every paragraph of a review should be doing evaluative work -- even the context paragraph should lean toward your verdict.
Annotated review opening (original example, invented film 'Silent Harbour')
- Hook + verdict: 'Silent Harbour drifts along for its first hour, then suddenly finds a current that carries it to one of the most satisfying endings I've seen in a small-budget drama this year.' [Note: the verdict -- 'satisfying' -- appears in sentence one, not paragraph five.]
- Brief context: 'Directed by a first-time filmmaker, the film follows a lighthouse keeper waiting for a ship that may never arrive.' [Note: two sentences, no spoilers, just enough setup.]
- Strength with evidence: 'The lead actor's stillness does more work than dialogue -- in one long, wordless shot, his hands tightening on the railing tell us everything about his fear.' [Note: names a specific technique (the wordless shot) as evidence, not just 'good acting'.]
- Weakness with evidence: 'The subplot involving the keeper's daughter, however, is rushed -- she appears in only two scenes before a decision that should carry real weight.' [Note: names exactly what is missing (screen time) rather than vaguely saying 'the subplot is bad'.]
- Craft comment: 'The director's choice to hold shots for several extra seconds past the point of comfort builds a tension that faster editing would have flattened.' [Note: comments on a directing/editing choice, not just plot.]
- Closing verdict + audience: 'Patient viewers who enjoy quiet character studies will find this rewarding; anyone wanting fast plot movement should look elsewhere.' [Note: verdict restated, matched to a specific type of viewer.]
- A review states its overall verdict early -- don't save judgement for the end.
- Every paragraph should evaluate, not just summarise plot.
- Support each opinion with specific evidence from the film (a scene, a technique, a line).
- Include at least one comment on craft (editing, acting choice, structure), not only story.
- End by matching your verdict to a specific audience -- who should or shouldn't watch it.
3 more sections in this topic
Pick this up in your Library: it holds the whole topic, notes, cheatsheet and questions.