A few weeks ago, Sonia Zadurian, a film reviewer for Cine Vue and Birds Eye View, came to talk to us about how to structure a good film review. She split the structure up into 4 parts. These were:
- Background information. This includes key people (leading actors, director, possibly writer), awards received, year it was released, etc.
- Brief synopsis of film. 4/5 sentences, outlining basic plot and starting opinions of film.
- 3 points. The 3 things that stood out most to the reviewer. This can be positive or negative, usually justifying the star rating given.
- Conclusion. This is a short summary of the reviewer’s opinion, and whether they recommend it to their audience.
Here is an example of a film review written by Sonia.
————————————————————————————————-
‘Gasman’ – Film Review
Lynne Ramsay, most famously known for ‘We Need to Talk About Kevin’ (2011) and ‘Ratcatcher’ (1999), added a Cannes Jury Prize, a Scottish BAFTA and the Atlantic film festival’s International Award to her collection of accolades through the 1998 short film ‘Gasman’, of which she both wrote and directed.
The film follows a young girl Lynne through her struggles and confusion at her complicated family situation. It’s brilliance is rooted in Ramsay’s ability to create a eerie and distorted portrayal of Northern, working class family life in the 1970’s, as the viewer is taken down a path of uncertainty, in which things only really become clear near the end, as Lynne, and subsequently the viewer, is hit with a sudden realisation that her family life is not quite as it seems.
The focus shifts away from dialogue for most of the film, as the viewer is forced to focus on the details on screen; location, movements, etc. These all hold a meaning which goes beyond a basic tool like dialogue, and helps the viewer delve deeper into the world that Lynne lives in. The subtext of the short communicates a deeper message of family, deceit, and working class Scotland. All this is seemingly effortlessly communicated by Ramsay, who sneaks in small references to not only the realisation Lynne comes to at the end, but also the deeper meaning to the short.
This short, whilst on the forefront appears simple and one-dimensional, unravels slowly into a complex and eerily realistic film which is creatively manipulated through the looking glass of a young girl.
Romeo & Juliet (1996) review:
Baz Luhrmann made his Hollywood debut with a modern take on William Shakespeare’s widely known play ‘Romeo & Juliet’. The film stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes as Romeo & Juliet respectively, and is set instead in the fictional Verona Beach – one of many references to the original script. In true Luhrmann style the movie is riddled with fast paced, theatrical cinematography, which at points makes the movie hard to watch, but certainly makes it harder to fall asleep.
The movie starts off with a TV news anchor reporting on Romeo & Juliet’s death, giving us the hindsight we had in the original play in regards to their fates. There is then a massive shootout between the Capulets and the Montagues to introduce their fierce rivalry, which plays out as more pretence than anything, with the use of old Shakespearian language, contrasting the obviously not Shakespearian time, with guns and Hawaiian shirts galore.
We are introduced to an angsty and brooding Romeo – finally something that relates to the original script – and everything kind of goes downhill from there. Romeo & Juliet meet, they fall in love within seconds, marry within days and then everybody dies. For me, no matter what way you sugar-coat it, this story is yawn worthy from the moment Romeo starts crying about his lost love only to get over her literally a day later. I will say though, the last scene where they both die *tragically* is pretty brutal and heartbreaking, the acting from Leo there is great, really bringing out Romeo’s tendency to just permanently cry about everything.
Some good things though – whilst the use of the original language from the script is somewhat hard to follow, the actors did a good job of transferring it onto screen. It wasn’t perfect, but for pretty much beginners DiCaprio and Danes – and for the rest of the cast – it was good enough. The film was very fast paced, whilst it was kind of a bit over the top, it was supposed to be, and Luhrmann was creative with it.
The use of colours and costume to show the difference between the two families worked really nicely, as the dark, sophisticated Capulets contrasted the colourful, clumsy Montagues. My favourite bit though, the little references to the original script, were fun to find and gave me confidence that Luhrmann had actually read the play beyond hitting copy and paste into his word file, only stopping to add a gas station shoot out here and there.
Overall, this movie is creative in the way it tells an uncreative story, using visuals and crazy camera movements to keep the audience awake. You’ll enjoy it either way, whether you laugh at its flamboyant nature, or cry along with the characters – there is something in it for everyone.
Hamlet (1964) Review:
This Soviet interpretation of Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ – influenced heavily by the Soviet regime – was directed by Grigori Kozintsev and stars Innokenty Smoktunovsky as Prince Hamlet. In my opinion this is the best film interpretation of Hamlet i’ve watched, as it merges elements from the original script to newer ideas of the meaning of Shakespeare’s story, all coming together in a dark and visually unique manner.
The first scene of the play is cut from the film, and instead we are rushed straight into the political world of Denmark, with Claudius sliming his way into everyones good books through his speech, and Hamlet watching, the personification of emo teen angst. What is so great about Kozintsev’s version is the use of nature to portray space, a common theme throughout the play. Almost all of the film is outside, as apart from the backdrop of the castle, the imagery of the film is almost always dominated by nature. The sea plays an important role in the play, as it is the defining imagery in both the first shot, and the last shot. The elements of stone, fire, iron, earth and sea feature prominently, as Kozintsev purposefully focused on these elements as a link back to the language used in the original script.
Unlike Laurence Olivier’s version almost 20 years earlier, this interpretation focuses not only on Hamlet’s inner turmoil but also the political aspects of the play. This is likely to relate back to Kozintsev’s experience living under a rule where war was a regular topic of conversation and a dictator was all he’d ever known. A modern understanding of Claudius would identify him as a dictator, someone who is ruling without ‘Divine Right’, or, in a modern context, without a mandate from the people. For Kozintsev, showing broad shots of courtyards riddled with political figures indicated the wide political context as opposed to Olivier’s narrow alleys showing the inner thoughts of the protagonist.
Overall, this film is so visually captivating that even someone who struggles with reading subtitles will be able to follow. There are many scenes that don’t even have dialogue, or don’t need it. I would recommend this film to anyone looking for an alternative options to 4 hours of Kenneth Branagh’s face or Laurence Olivier’s movie ‘Hamlet: A study into the mind of an angsty teenager that can’t do anything right’ (to be honest, i can relate). I would also recommend this movie to anyone studying Hamlet for A Level English Lit, some killer AO5 stuff here.