Modul English For Design 1 (TM6) Movie Review

MODUL PERKULIAHAN
English for Design 1
Writing Historical Movie Review
Fakultas Program Studi Tatap Muka Kode MK Disusun oleh

Fakultas Desain Desain Produk A71196CA Waridah Muthi’ah, M.Ds.
dan Seni Kreatif
06
Abstract Kompetensi
Pembahasan mengenai pembuatan Mahasiswa mengetahui pengertian,
review film untuk memahami sejarah fungsi, jenis, dan teknik pembuatan
seni Asia review film untuk memahami seni Asia
Historical Movie
MOVIE REVIEW
Purpose
The main purpose of a movie review is to inform the reader about the film and its ideas.
Writing film reviews also beneficial for reasons other than informing others about a movie.
Writing such types of essays can help to stretch your imagination and as a media to apply
various skills that you got during your studies.
Writing a film review has many resemblance to writing a book review. In both cases, you have
to consider the work from different angles, dwell upon stylistic devices, plot and characters
described. Such types of works require general knowledge about cinema as well as knowing
peculiar facts about a film itself and the genre to which it belongs. You have to be very
attentive to each detail of the film even the ones that seem to have no meaning whatsoever.
As you analyze the film, you start to watch it more attentively. This helps you widen your
perception of the film industry itself. You may notice that it is a hard task to shoot a good
movie so that you can feel more respect to people involved in the creation of films. Moreover,
you will have an excellent opportunity to discover a new genre or a great director whose
works are quite worthy. This can turn you into a newbie fan of an entirely different genre that
you weren't familiar with before.
Such types of essays are remarkably popular with many professors as they serve quite well to
illustrate the abilities of a student to carry out a respectable piece of analytic work. A paper
like this mainly stems from describing your own opinions and feelings about a movie watched.
Also, one can appreciate your vocabulary and writing skills. Each review is unique, that is why
it is hard to find two similar papers that concern the same film, as every person gets
impressed differently. Finally, it is more interesting to write about a movie than about a boring
book or a historical event, so some professors use these tasks as a means of motivation for
those students who are not fond of writing.
How to Write a Movie Review for Educational Purposes
Writing a movie review have long become a very common task in the world of academic
writings. Even though it looks simple, beginners tends to report all events that happen and
state their opinions. While movie review allows writers to express their opinions about some
film or documentary, there is also the need for the unbiased and objective approach. For
2018 English for Design 1

2 Waridah Muthi’ah, M.Ds
PusatBahan Ajar dan eLearning
http://www.mercubuana.ac.id
those who try to write a movie review for the first time, here are few tips written by Ben M. and
Joshua from edusson.com
Choose a Movie
First step is to choose a movie that is relevant to the task itself. In academic task, you often
are asked to write a review about a movie that have specific genre or cover specific theme. It
is imperative to have a background data about the genre and the theme itself, and to choose
a movie based on that data. Choosing an acclaimed movie with good critical review, either
based on its content, cinematography, or socio-historical value, could be a good start.
Watch Twice and Take Notes
Watch the movie or documentary twice and take notes of both major and minor events and
characters. It’s a mistake to rely on the power of your memory only, there’s always something
we overlook or forget.
Background Research
Carry out a thorough research. Watching the movie isn’t enough, research is equally
important. Look for details such as the name of filmmaker and his/her motivation to make that
film or documentary work, locations, plot, characterization, historic events that served as an
inspiration for the movie (if applicable). Basically, your research should serve to collect
information that provides more depth to the review
Analyze the movie
Analyze the movie after you watching it. Don’t start working on the review if you aren’t sure
you understand the film. Evaluate the movie from beginning to an end. Re-watch it, if
necessary, if you find some parts confusing. Only when you understand events that happened
on the screen will you find it easier to create the review.
Outline
Draft an outline that you will follow to write the review in a concise and cohesive fashion.
Provide Examples for Claims
Include examples for claims you make about the movie. If the plot has holes, then mention an
example of a situation or scene when that was evident. Also, if the character(s) is poorly
developed or bad casting affected the movie quality, name examples too. Provide examples

when commenting dialogues, locations, plot, everything. If you want the reader to agree with
you, it’s essential to back up your claims with evidence. You don’t want to make it seem like
you’re praising or criticizing the movie without any reason whatsoever
Comments and Critiques
Consider and comment a movie’s originality and quality of scenes. Explain how the movie
stands out or whether it just uses the same approach that worked for previous works in the
industry
Elements in a Movie Review
Title
The title of your review or analysis should contain the name of the movie. Along with its main
titles, some movies also have subtitles, especially when they are part of trilogy or series. It is
imperative to mention the title completely, along with the production or release date. On the
introduction part, you can also add some background informations regarding the movie.
Summary
Summarize the movie by mentioning the plot and characters clearly, but remember try to not
give all the details. Focus only on the important and significant parts that are relevant to the
theme or main purpose of the analysis/review. Present the events that happened in the movie
and give your opinion whether the director managed to deliver a film worthy of the viewer's
attention or not. However, a movie review should not be overly subjective, for example by
using expressions such as "I like it" or "I hated it". In delivering your opinion, remember to
support every statement with evidence.
Filmmaker
Each film bears a significant mark of a filmmaker who created it. The filmmaker, either the
director or producer, have an essential part in determining the stylistic choice or content of the
movie. If it is related to the theme of your review, you may do a background research about
the style of a filmmaker, his/her political agenda, and any controversy about the director's
persona. Your review could also including background data about the filmmaker’s most
important influences or the movie’s connection with his/her earlier works.
Significance

Think over what significance the film has for your study. It could be about the content,
historical accuracy, socio-historical value, or cinematography, based on your theme.
Creative Elements
Creative elements bear important values, either to the plot, setting, or to movie in general. or
example, costumes can either enhance the movie or betray its intent. Colors can be vivid and
lift the atmosphere or mood in the movie or they can be dull and make it seem depressing.
Good sound effects enrich the viewing experience while bad ones only destroy everything.
Moreover, camera movements and angles also add elements to the story. Some movie could
also include symbolic meanings, therefore it is also important to pay attention to details.
Casts
Another critical point in determining the success of a movie is the casts. Actors and actresses
are key elements in delivering a storyline. Casting or choosing the right actors or actresses
are not always relied on their popularity, but also their characters and performance.
Outline
A distinct outline will help you to organize your work and keeping it logical and relevant
For academic purpose, especially in Literary Studies, the review needs to follow an outline as
issued by Modern Language Association. The review must consists:
 Introduction (the title of the film, the date of its release, the essential information
about the film)
 Summary of the plot
 The plot elements analysis (action, climax, etc.)
 Description about the creative part of the film (script, actors, special effects, work of
the camera crew, locations, hidden meanings, the mood, the atmosphere)
 An opinion about the film (you should substantiate it with vivid examples from the film)
 Conclusion (summarizing the whole analysis, dwelling upon the success or failure of
a director, the importance of the film within the world of cinematography, the
reception of the movie by the viewers, the value of the film for the educational course)
For documentary movie, the review must consists:
 Introduction (the title of the film, the date of its release, the essential information
about the film)
 Historical accuracy

 Reliability of the sources used
 The usage of creative elements
 Your own opinion of the film
 Conclusion
Mistakes to Avoid
 Not focusing on the film – while connecting the plot to some specific historical event is
a good idea (when applicable), strive to avoid writing about unnecessary details or
introducing irrelevant information such as the history of cinematography or that
particular genre, snacks, among other things
 Inserting yourself – you’re the one who’s writing the review. The paper reflects your
understanding and opinion of the motion picture you’ve seen and there is no need to
write in first person all the time: I noticed this, I saw that I liked this, I disliked that
 Failing to check facts about movie background and release date, director, casting etc.
 Giving out your opinion without mentioning any reason why you think that way
 Talking about irrelevancies
 Writing a review without a structure
 Writing generalities such as great acting, cool effects, a good movie, it was badetc.
 Writing a review without substance or analysis of the feature
Adapted from Edusson.com (2018)
EXERCISE
Make a brief review (400-500 words) about a historical movie or documentary. Your review
may include your own opinion or critique regarding the movie. Please post your work both on
your Google Drive and on the forum.
MOVIE REVIEW EXAMPLES
READING 1
Review: ‘Dunkirk’ Is a Tour de Force War Movie, Both Sweeping and

Intimate
By Manohla Dargis
New York Times, July 20, 2017

Dunkirk
Director Christopher Nolan

Stars Fionn Whitehead, Damien Bonnard, Aneurin Barnard, Lee Armstrong, James Bloor
Rating PG-13 for intense and realistic war violence.
Running Time 1h 46m
Genres Action, Drama, History, War
A scene from Christopher Nolan’s “Dunkirk,” which focuses on a harrowing rescue effort during
World War II. Warner Bros.
One of the most indelible images in “Dunkirk,” Christopher Nolan’s brilliant new film, is of a
British plane in flames. The movie recounts an early, harrowing campaign in World War II that
took place months after Germany invaded Poland and weeks after Hitler’s forces started
rolling into the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and France. The plane, having glided to a
stop, has been defiantly set ablaze by the pilot to avoid its being captured. It’s an image of
unambiguous defeat but also an emblem of resistance and a portent of the ghastly
conflagrations still to come.

It’s a characteristically complex and condensed vision of war in a movie that is insistently
humanizing despite its monumentality, a balance that is as much a political choice as an
aesthetic one. And “Dunkirk” is big — in subject, reach, emotion and image. Mr. Nolan shot
and mostly finished it on large-format film (unusual in our digital era), which allows details to
emerge in great scale. Overhead shots of soldiers scattered across a beach convey an
unnerving isolation — as if these were the last souls on earth, terminally alone, deserted.
(Seen on a television, they would look like ants.) Film also enriches the texture of the image; it
draws you to it, which is crucial given the minimalist dialogue.
The movie is based on a campaign that began in late May 1940 in the French port city of
Dunkirk, where some 400,000 Allied soldiers — including more than 200,000 members of the
British Expeditionary Force, the British army in Western Europe — were penned in by the
Germans. The British, faced with the capture or possible annihilation of their troops, initiated a
seemingly impossible rescue. Named “Operation Dynamo”, this mission has assumed near-
mythic status in British history and been revisited in books and onscreen; it shows up in “Mrs.
Miniver,” a 1942 Hollywood weepie about British pain and perseverance in the war meant to
encourage American support for the Allies.
War movies tend to play out along familiar lines, including lump-in-the throat home-front tales
like “Mrs. Miniver.” “Dunkirk” takes place in battle, but it, too, is a story of suffering and
survival. Mr. Nolan largely avoids the bigger historical picture (among other things, the reason
these men are fighting is a given) as well as the strategizing on the front and in London,
where the new prime minister, Winston Churchill, was facing the horrifying possibility of
diminished military muscle. Churchill is heard from, in a fashion, but never seen. Mr. Nolan
instead narrows in on a handful of men who are scrambling and white-knuckling their way into
history on the sea, in the air and on the ground.

Fionn Whitehead on the beach at Dunkirk. Melinda Sue Gordon/Warner Bros.
By turns intimate and sweeping, the film opens with six soldiers walking away from the
camera down a spookily deserted street. Their bodies are shown in full, head to toe, and they
are flanked by low buildings, the sort that now look so charming in touristic photographs. Slips
of paper swirl around the men like autumn leaves. A few grab at the papers. One tries
slurping water from a nearby garden hose; another pokes a hand through an open window,
searching for a smoke. Still another reads one of the papers, which shows a map of the
surrounding area encircled by arrows and ominous words of warning in English. He then
crumples it, unbuckles his belt and begins to squat.
It’s a somewhat perplexing, awkwardly funny moment — this is a manifestly serious situation,
and you’re about to watch a man defecate. You don’t know whether to laugh, but before you
decide, shots ring out and the soldiers start running, the camera quickly following. The
haunted emptiness is suddenly filled with the sounds of frantic escape and whizzing bullets.
And then the men begin falling, one, two, three, until just the unbuckling one remains,
scrambling first over a gate and soon onto a beach where thousands of other soldiers are
massed and waiting. He silently takes in the extraordinary scene and then hustles over to a
dune to begin undoing his belt again.

Tom Hardy in “Dunkirk.” Warner Bros.
Scarcely a word has been uttered up to this point, yet much has been expressed: isolation;
danger; desperation; fear; relief; and sheer, extreme bodily need and effort. Throughout this
de facto prologue, Mr. Nolan emphasizes the concrete details, making you acutely aware of
the fine-grained textures — the sores and embedded dirt on a man’s hands — and every
resonant sound: the dribbling of water, the fluttering of paper, and the sharp crack and
mechanical buzzing of rifle fire that turns into muffled thuds when bullets enter bodies. By the
time the surviving soldier reaches the beach, you are already closely acquainted with his
heavy breathing, wild fumbling and clumsy, chaotic running.
Soon, the scene switches to another port, where a British teenager, George (Barry Keoghan),
is helping a father and son (Mark Rylance and Tom Glynn-Carney) unload a small yacht that’s
been requisitioned for the Dunkirk mission. The three men instead set sail on their own,
joining a civilian fleet — a rousing, motley armada of tugs, steamers, ferries and so on —
that’s racing across the Channel. A third, astounding narrative section soon opens in the air,
where three British Spitfire planes are quickly engaged in battle against German planes
headed for Dunkirk, racing through the vast canopy and bobbing under clouds as the sun
flashes, temporarily blinding them.

From left, Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead in “Dunkirk,” which focuses
on the experiences of the soldiers. Warner Bros
Mr. Nolan’s elastic approach to narrative works beautifully in “Dunkirk,” which oscillates
among its three sections, each largely taking place in distinct locations in different time
frames. The events on the beach — called the Mole for the breakwater that’s used as a dock
— unfold during one week. The events on the sea occur in one day, while the air scenes
transpire in an hour. The locations and the time periods are announced onscreen. At first the
dividing lines aren’t always obvious as Mr. Nolan cuts from daytime scenes on the ground to
those in the sea and in the air, a slight merging of space and especially of time that underlines
the enormity of a fight seemingly without end.
Once Mr. Nolan begins switching between day and night, the lines dividing the three narrative
segments mostly sharpen. Even as each section — with its individual dramas and perils —
comes closer into view, Mr. Nolan keeps them all in dynamic play with one another. Some of
this he achieves with stark visual echoes, as when water rushing into a downed Spitfire
engulfs the pilot and elsewhere a soldier nearly drowns. (Tom Hardy plays the most critically
important pilot, while a sympathetic Jack Lowden takes on a critical support role.) At one
point, Mr. Nolan pulls the three narrative strands tightly together, creating a tremendous,
enveloping sense of bone-deep dread.
“Dunkirk” is a World War II movie, one told through soldiers, their lived and near-death
experiences and their bodies under siege. Names are generally irrelevant here; on the beach

— and in the sea and air — what counts are rank, unit, skill and the operation, although more
important is survival, making it through another attack and somehow avoiding exploding
bombs. Mr. Nolan’s emphasis on the visceral reality of Dunkirk leaves much unsaid; even in
some opening explanatory text, the enemy isn’t identified as Nazi Germany. The soldiers, of
course, know exactly who they are fighting and perhaps even why, but in the field the enemy
is finally the unnamed stranger trying to kill them.
The soldier who scrambles over the gate and onto the beach is called Tommy (Fionn
Whitehead) in the credits, but I don’t remember hearing or reading his name. Mostly, I just
thought of him as Our Boy, less because of his youth than because of the vulnerability
communicated through Mr. Whitehead’s slight figure and tangible physical performance, his
small and large gestures and moves: the darting, panicked eyes; the nervous, abrupt
gestures; the hunched shoulders. In time, Tommy is joined by other soldiers waiting and
running and ducking on the beach, the most important played by the equally fine Aneurin
Barnard and the singer Harry Styles.
Mr. Nolan’s unyielding emphasis on the soldiers — and on war as it is experienced rather
than on how it is strategized — blurs history even as it brings the present and its wars
startlingly into view. “Dunkirk” is a tour de force of cinematic craft and technique, but one that
is unambiguously in the service of a sober, sincere, profoundly moral story that closes the
distance between yesterday’s fights and today’s. Mr. Nolan closes that distance cinematically
with visual sweep and emotional intimacy, with images of warfare and huddled, frightened
survivors that together with Hans Zimmer’s score reverberate through your body. By the time
that plane is burning — and a young man is looking searchingly into the future — you are
reminded that the fight against fascism continues.
A version of this review appears in print on July 21, 2017, on Page C1 of the New York edition with the headline:
Intimately Into the Storm of War.
Dargis, M. (2017, July 20). Review: ‘Dunkirk’ Is a Tour de Force War Movie, Both Sweeping
and Intimate. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/movies/dunkirk-review-
christopher-nolan.html?rref=collection%2Fcollection%2Fmovie-guide
READING 2
The Painter Was a Piece of Work, Too
‘Mr. Turner,’ About the Life of the Artist J. M. W. Turner
By A. O. Scott
New York Times, December 18, 2014

Mr. Turner
Director Mike Leigh

Writer Mike Leigh
Stars Timothy Spall, Paul Jesson, Dorothy Atkinson, Marion Bailey, Karl Johnson
Rating R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). Lust for life.
Running Time 2h 30m Genres Biography, Drama, History
“Cynicism has no place in the reviewing of art.” Words to live by, for sure, and all the more so
for being uttered by John Ruskin, one of the giants of 19th-century British art criticism. But
nothing is quite so simple. In “Mr. Turner,”Mike Leigh’s revelatory new film, Ruskin (Joshua
McGuire) appears as a pretentious carrot-topped nitwit with a voice like a posh Elmer Fudd.
In one scene, he offers up “controversial” theories about landscapes and seascapes to a
roomful of harrumphing artists. It’s all very well, one of them says, to opine and interpret, but
unless you have braved the elements with brush in hand, you don’t really know what you’re
talking about.
Fair enough. Though he and his parents are admirers and collectors of good paintings — and
steadfast champions of the film’s hero, J. M. W. Turner — the Ruskin of Mr. Leigh’s film is a
cruelly etched, cautionary figure, a warning that even those people most passionately devoted
to the cause of art are likely to get it wrong. A bit of well-placed cynicism might even be in
order.
Not here, though. “Mr. Turner” is a mighty work of critical imagination, a loving, unsentimental
portrait of a rare creative soul. But even as it celebrates a glorious painter and illuminates the
sources of his pictures with startling clarity and insight, the movie patiently and thoroughly
demolishes more than a century’s worth of mythology about what art is and how artists work.
You may have had the good fortune to study Turner’s watercolors and martial tableaus up
close, to linger over his storms and placid river scenes, but somehow Mr. Leigh makes it all
look newly painted, fresh and strange.
Turner, played with blunt, brutish, grunting delicacy by Timothy Spall, is both a genius and an
ordinary man, with the usual emotions and appetites. His art does not arise from any special
torment or trauma, though he has his share of unhappiness. Nor is the unhappiness he inflicts
on others — women in particular — excused as the prerogative of talent. The son of a barber,
Turner takes a disciplined, businesslike, artisanal approach to his vocation, and even though
he often seems gripped by an almost otherworldly inspiration, he and his art belong very
much to the everyday world. With other artists, Turner is convivial, collegial and competitive.
He is conscious of his celebrity, protective of his reputation and tireless in his labor.
It might be risking Ruskinesque folly to take “Mr. Turner” as a self-portrait of its director, but
Turner shares with Mr. Leigh an ability to travel the circuit between the sublime and the

ordinary, to bring into view aspects of reality that had been somehow invisible in plain sight.
All of Mr. Leigh’s films are personal to the extent that they reflect his sensibility, his politics
and his ethical concerns, but his methods — characters and stories developed over many
months of rehearsal, improvisation and research in collaboration with actors and crew
members — resist the imposition of a singular authorial vision. He is best known for
anatomizing the pervasive indignities and saving graces of modern Britain, with particular
attention to the low and middle rungs of the class ladder and the stresses and pleasures of
family life. Social life for him is what sea air was to Turner: an atmospheric element that
becomes a vehicle of meaning and emotion.
Timothy Spall in "Mr. Turner." CreditSimon Mein/Sony Pictures Classics
Mr. Leigh’s twin portraits of important 19th-century cultural figures (Gilbert and Sullivan in
“Topsy-Turvy,” and now Turner in “Mr. Turner”) extend the range of his sympathy and
curiosity into a past that is neither the mirror of the present nor wholly alien to the world as we
know it. Turner, with his lumbering gait and broad, suety face, dominates the picture, seeming
to personify his age and all its contradictions. His speech is a symphony of growls, snorts and
flights of guttural eloquence. As he traipses from London to the seaside town of Margate and
back, paces in his studio and prowls the galleries of the Royal Academy, we witness an act of
creation that seems more sculptural than cinematic, as if Mr. Spall and Mr. Leigh were
molding Turner in molten bronze.
At the same time, though, we might be reading a novel, a Victorian triple-decker thick with
information about the organizing principles and deep contradictions of a complex civilization.

We meet Turner in middle age, already successful and living with his cheerful father (Paul
Jesson) and Hannah Danby (Dorothy Atkinson), a housekeeper whose patient, masochistic
devotion is a source of occasional comedy and more frequent pathos.
Turner also has an angry, semi-estranged wife (Ruth Sheen) and two grown daughters
(Sandy Foster and Amy Dawson), though when asked if he has children, he replies that he
has none. On his visits to Margate, where he keeps amorous company with Sophia Booth
(Marion Bailey), a kindhearted widow, he sheds his identity altogether, adopting his lady
friend’s last name. The tenderness he shows her is missing from most of his relations with
women, with the exception of Mary Somerville (Leslie Manville), a Scottish scientist who
shares his interest in the properties of light.
Turner’s public life is no less complicated. He basks in the praise of critics and the envy of
colleagues, and suffers when his work falls out of fashion, enduring overheard snark from the
young Queen Victoria and mockery in a music hall sketch. He welcomes potential buyers and
believes that his work should survive him as the property of the British people.
We not only see that work as it might have looked in its moment. We also, thanks to the
exquisite, painterly cinematography of Dick Pope, see the world as Turner saw it. And as we
do, an almost alchemical transformation takes place, as our various sensory and cognitive
impressions merge into a thrilling and powerful form of understanding. By the end, we may
not be able to summarize Turner’s life, explain his paintings or pass a midterm on British
history. But we may find that our knowledge of all those things has deepened, and the
compass by which we measure our own experience has grown wider. Only art can do that,
and it may be all that art can do.
A version of this review appears in print on December 19, 2014, on Page C1 of the New York edition with the
headline: The Painter Was a Piece of Work, Too.
Scott, A. O. (2014, December 18). The Painter Was a Piece of Work, Too. ‘Mr. Turner,’ About
the Life of the Artist J. M. W. Turner. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/movies/mr-turner-about-the-life-of-the-artist-j-m-w-
turner.html?rref=collection%2Fcollection%2Fmovie-guide
EXERCISE 2
Read the reviews carefully. Highlight the parts of the review which indicate its structure.
Submit your work in .pdf or .doc format in your Google Drive.
What do you think about the review? Post your opinion (it may include your critique) in the
Forum.

References
Dargis, M. (2017, July 20). Review: ‘Dunkirk’ Is a Tour de Force War Movie, Both Sweeping
and Intimate. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/movies/dunkirk-
review-christopher-nolan.html?rref=collection%2Fcollection%2Fmovie-guide
Elite Essay Writers. (n.d.) How to Write a Movie Review. Retrieved from
https://eliteessaywriters.com/blog/how-to-write-a-movie-review/
M, Ben & Joshua. (2018, March 28). How to Write a Movie Review: The Complete Guide.
https://edusson.com/blog/how-to-write-movie-review
Scott, A. O. (2014, December 18). The Painter Was a Piece of Work, Too. ‘Mr. Turner,’
About the Life of the Artist J. M. W. Turner. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/movies/mr-turner-about-the-life-of-the-artist-j-
m-w-turner.html?rref=collection%2Fcollection%2Fmovie-guide


Modul English For Design 1 (TM6) Movie Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modul English For Design 1 (TM6) Movie Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Modul English For Design 1 (TM6) Movie Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MODUL PERKULIAHAN

English for Design 1

Writing Historical Movie Review

Fakultas Program Studi Tatap Muka Kode MK Disusun oleh

How to Write a Movie Review for Educational Purposes

2018 English for Design 1

Watch Twice and Take Notes

Analyze the movie

Provide Examples for Claims

2018 English for Design 1

Comments and Critiques

Elements in a Movie Review

2018 English for Design 1

For documentary movie, the review must consists:

2018 English for Design 1

Adapted from Edusson.com (2018)

MOVIE REVIEW EXAMPLES

Review: ‘Dunkirk’ Is a Tour de Force War Movie, Both Sweeping and

New York Times, July 20, 2017

2018 English for Design 1

Director Christopher Nolan

2018 English for Design 1

2018 English for Design 1

2018 English for Design 1

2018 English for Design 1

2018 English for Design 1

The Painter Was a Piece of Work, Too

‘Mr. Turner,’ About the Life of the Artist J. M. W. Turner

New York Times, December 18, 2014

2018 English for Design 1

Director Mike Leigh

2018 English for Design 1

Timothy Spall in "Mr. Turner." CreditSimon Mein/Sony Pictures Classics

2018 English for Design 1

2018 English for Design 1

2018 English for Design 1

You might also like