How To Do a Movie CritiquePART ONE: InformationBegin with including the name of the movie, the director, producer, the three top stars, and the year of release. Also include when and where you watched the film and any special comments on its release. Is the Director & Producer qualified to do such a film? State clearly the historical issues covered. (was it an abridged or colorized version, was it in more than one part, was it part of a series or genre, was it based on a novel, etc.)PART TWO: The PlotIn no more than a couple pages retell the plot. Of course, you will not be able to give all the details. Just condense the main story line.PART THREE: The RealityWere there any characters in the movie based on real people? If so, who were they and were they treated with historical accuracy? Were there any real events (battles, migrations, laws, etc.)? If so, were they correct as to event, time period, etc.? If there were NO real characters or events in a historical movie, it was probably a conscious decision on the part of the writers and director. Try to analyze why reality was omitted. Use class resources as a comparison. (HINT: It is very probable you will need to do serious research for this information both to find out if people or things were real and if they were presented accurately.)PART FOUR: The SettingWhen and where was the movie set? If several locations were used, were they all depicted realistically? (Were there forests, mountains, rivers, etc. where they should have been for the real setting?) How long a time span did it cover? Were the houses, furnishings, foods, tools, weapons, clothes, hairstyles, shoes, streets, etc. shown with accuracy? Give some examples of period props you think were especially well or especially poorly presented. Again, you will need to research.PART FIVE: EvaluationGive an evaluation of the film. Don’t just say, “I liked it because it was a good movie,” or “I hated it because it was boring.” Like a real film critic, point out the strengths and weaknesses of the movie. Which actors did a good job and which were inadequate? Were there places where the plot was vague, too slow, or too fast? Were there stereotyped roles or rounded characterizations? Did the story build to a logical climax and resolve itself satisfactorily? Did it hold the viewer’s interest uniformly? Why? If the film wasdone many years ago, would it be done differently now? Why? Did the film make the viewer more aware of history or just confuse the issue? What would have made the film better? Would you recommend the film to another student? Why?
