Hello! In our last lesson, we focused on building the skeleton of a review by outlining your arguments and mapping evidence to your central thesis. We established the "what" and "why" of your critique before you even started writing sentences.
Today, we'll put flesh on those bones. You will learn how to write evaluative claims supported by specific, descriptive examples from the work being reviewed. This is the core skill of a critic: transforming an opinion into a persuasive, evidence-based argument that engages your reader's intellect and imagination. We'll move from the blueprint of your outline to the finished construction of your paragraphs.
1. From Opinion to Evaluative Claim
In entertainment journalism, your opinion matters, but it's not enough on its own. A review's authority comes from demonstrating why you hold that opinion. This means shifting from subjective statements to analytical, evaluative claims.
To start, let's hear from one of the most respected critics in the field, A.O. Scott of The New York Times, as he distinguishes between a simple opinion and a real review.
How to Write Movie Reviews with A.O. Scott
This video, "How to Write Movie Reviews with A.O. Scott," clearly explains the fundamental job of a critic.
Watch these short clips to understand the core principle of critical evaluation: Start with his main piece of advice from the introduction. Notice his firm distinction between an opinion and a review. Then, watch his explanation of description vs. summary. This highlights the importance of using specific, sensory details. Finally, listen to him emphasize the 'why' behind your opinion. This is the essence of an evaluative claim.
As Scott points out, your job is to explain why something was good, boring, or exciting. To do this effectively, it helps to move from a "viewer-oriented" perspective (how the movie made you feel) to an "object-oriented" one (how the movie works as a piece of art or entertainment).
The following reading explains this crucial shift and provides a set of criteria you can use to build your evaluative claims.
A Film Scholar Teaches Evaluative Writing - OPEN OKSTATE
This chapter by film scholar Graig Uhlin offers a fantastic framework for moving beyond "liking" something into a more rigorous form of evaluation.
Start reading from the section beginning with the question "Did you like the movie?" and continue to the end of the paragraph that says, "...even if you find it unpleasurable or confusing." Focus on the distinction between viewer-oriented and object-oriented criticism. Then, skip to the section that starts with the question "What criteria might this include?" and read the bulleted list defining Effectivity, Originality, and Complexity. These three criteria give you a powerful toolkit for judging a work on its own terms.
So, instead of just saying "The horror movie wasn't scary," you can make a more precise evaluative claim based on effectivity: "The film fails to build suspense because its over-reliance on predictable jump scares telegraphs every frightening moment, preventing any real sense of dread from taking hold."
2. Supporting Your Claim: The "What" and "So What"
An evaluative claim, no matter how well-phrased, is an empty assertion without proof. The proof comes from specific, descriptive examples. This is where you connect your judgment back to the actual text—the film, the show, the album.
This process directly mirrors the "What / So What" framework we discussed in the last lesson for outlining.
- The Evaluative Claim is your main point (the "So What").
- The Descriptive Example is your evidence (the "What").
Let's revisit a key video that breaks down this analytical process.
Analytical Writing in 3 Simple Steps
We'll return to "Analytical Writing in 3 Simple Steps" by Writing with Andrew. The principles for building an analytical paragraph are identical to those for substantiating a claim in a review.
Please watch these two sections closely: The first step (documenting the pieces): Pay attention to the call for extreme specificity. "The author uses a lot of scientific language" is weak; listing the actual words used is strong. This is the essence of providing good evidence. The next step (explaining significance): This is the crucial move where you explain why your evidence matters. You connect the "What" (the specific detail) back to your "So What" (your claim).
Let's see how professional critics do this. They don't just state an opinion; they point to a specific moment, performance, or technical choice to prove it.
How to Write a Movie Review: 10 Essential Tips
This article from the New York Film Academy provides practical advice with clear examples of this principle in action.
Read the following three short sections: "Express your opinions and support your criticism." Note how the review of Mother! uses descriptive words ("uncomfortable," "controversial") to support its point. "Talk about the acting." See how the review of Whiplash provides specific evaluative comments on the actors' performances. "Call out directors, cinematographers, and special effects." Notice how the A Wrinkle in Time review cites specific elements like "quality of the CGI" and "camera techniques" to justify its critique.
3. Your Turn: Crafting a Supported Claim
Let's practice transforming a weak, unsupported opinion into a strong, evidence-based evaluative claim.
Weak Opinion:
The main villain was not intimidating.
This tells the reader nothing. Why wasn't he intimidating? What did the actor or director do wrong?
Stronger Evaluative Claim:
Despite his reputation, the villain comes across as more petulant than menacing, largely due to a performance that relies on shouting rather than quiet intensity.
This is much better. It identifies a specific reason (shouting vs. intensity) for the character's failure.
Excellent Supported Claim (with descriptive examples):
Despite his reputation as a galactic threat, Lord Malakor comes across as more petulant than menacing. In the pivotal throne room scene, actor John Smith delivers his threats in a monotonous, high-pitched shout, draining them of any real danger. Where the scene demands a chilling whisper or a simmering glare—choices that would convey quiet, confident power—Smith simply raises his volume. The result is a villain who feels like a frustrated middle manager, not a terrifying overlord, deflating the film's central conflict.
Notice how the final version:
- Makes a clear evaluative claim (petulant, not menacing).
- Points to a specific scene (throne room).
- Uses descriptive language for the evidence ("monotonous, high-pitched shout").
- Explains the effect of this choice (draining threats of danger, deflating the conflict).
Now, let's use the thesis from our last lesson.
Thesis: In its final season, Succession masterfully uses handheld, almost documentary-style cinematography to create a sense of intrusive intimacy, forcing the audience to be uncomfortable witnesses to the Roy family's self-destruction rather than passive viewers.
Your task is to write one full paragraph that supports this thesis. Focus on this supporting point from our previous outline:
- Supporting Point: The show's signature handheld camera work and snap-zooms create a voyeuristic feeling, as if the viewer is spying on intensely private moments.
Take 10-15 minutes to write a paragraph. Make an evaluative claim about the cinematography and support it with at least one specific, descriptive example from the show (if you can't recall a specific scene, you can invent a plausible one for the exercise). Focus on describing the camera's action and explaining how it creates that "voyeuristic feeling."
Click here to see a sample paragraph.
Here is one possible way to write the paragraph:
Succession's signature cinematography creates a profound sense of voyeurism, positioning the audience as an unwelcome fly on the wall in the Roys' most private spaces. The camera rarely sits still; it drifts and jitters, as if a documentary filmmaker is struggling to keep the subjects in frame. This is never more effective than during the siblings' heated arguments. For instance, in the lead-up to the final board vote, as Shiv, Roman, and Kendall debate their allegiances in a glass-walled office, the camera doesn't simply frame them in a stable two-shot. Instead, it executes a jarring snap-zoom onto Shiv’s face to catch a fleeting expression of doubt, then quickly pans to Roman as he nervously picks at his hands. This restless movement mimics a prying eye, desperately trying to capture every secret signal, and makes the viewer feel complicit in the intrusion. We are not just watching a drama unfold; we are actively spying.
Conclusion
Today you've learned to bridge the gap between having an opinion and making a persuasive critical argument. By writing evaluative claims and supporting them with carefully chosen, descriptive evidence, you elevate your writing from personal reaction to professional analysis.
Key Takeaways:
- An evaluative claim is a judgment about a work's effectiveness, originality, or complexity, not just a statement of personal taste.
- Every claim must be backed by specific, descriptive examples from the text itself.
- Use the "What / So What" model: present the evidence ("What") and then explain how it proves your claim ("So What").
- Strong critical writing makes the reader see what you saw and understand why you interpreted it that way.
In our next lesson, we'll address a common challenge in review writing: learning to balance plot summary and critical analysis to inform without spoiling. This will help you keep your reviews focused on your argument, not just on retelling the story.