Reviews Appendix H: Rubric for Film Reviews

Appendix description or content:

 

EXCELLENT

GOOD

FAIR

POOR

 

Polished and professional, this review is ready for publication and does the following:

 

❍ Offers critical but fair analysis of key features of the film

 

❍ Puts forward a convincing, firm, developed point of view

 

❍ Works in an engaging theme and/or the story of the film, its director or actors.

 

❍ Employs an interesting hook, a developed body, and a fresh wrap-up

 

❍ Uses show-not-tell, multi-sensory writing to support all claims; no clichés

 

❍ Shows strong control of syntax, diction and voice, with few errors in conventions of written English

 

❍ Continually engages readers with extra touches

 

 

Strong stuff. This review does most or all of the following:

 

❍ Offers critical but fair analysis of the film’s key features

 

❍ Puts forward a largely convincing, generally well-developed POV

 

❍ Works in an engaging theme and/or story, although to a lesser degree than a better review

 

❍ Generally uses show-not-tell writing to support all claims; few clichés

 

❍ Includes a clear hook, body and wrap-up

 

❍ Shows control of syntax, diction and voice, with few errors in the conventions of written English

 

❍ Often engages readers with extra touches.  

 

Promising effort that generally complies with requirements, but not ready for  publishing. This review does most or all of the following:

 

❍ Offers analysis of the film’s key features; fairness may not always be convincing

 

❍ May work in a theme and/or story but to a lesser degree than a better review

 

❍ May only minimally use show-not-tell writing claims; more clichés

 

❍ Includes a  hook, body and wrap-up

 

❍ May show unstable control of syntax, diction and voice; errors in conventions of written English may be more apparent

 

❍ Offers few extra touches

 

 

This review may have some strong elements, but the overall impression is substandard. This review does most or all of the following:

 

❍ May show some analysis of the film’s key features, but evaluation may be noticeably unconvincing or unfair in spots.

 

❍ Works in at best a vague awareness of theme or story

 

❍ More telling than showing to support claims; multiple clichés

 

❍ Structure (hook, body, wrap-up) of piece is unclear;

 

❍ Little or sporadic control of syntax, diction and voice; errors in conventions of written English are more apparent

 

❍ Writing likely is flat and uncompelling

 

 

 


Back