Film School for Beginners

(I) Analysis

Watching Wolf Kingdom last night actually got me thinking
about the fact that I have absolutely no clue how to actually analyze a movie.

Don't get me wrong, I love watching films and I love writing about what I've seen and felt, but
every single time I go to open a thread about movies we've watched, I freeze up
because I realize that beyond saying "it was good" or "it wasn't boring," I don't know what else
to say.😕

I am a total amateur here, just someone eager to learn. However, since we are all still part of this group, I assume
this topic was intended as a space where those with a background in cinema
or at least some deep expertise could help us mere amateurs grasp
the specific concepts required for a decent analysis.

What would someone with actual experience and cinematic knowledge say to the average
viewer?
How does one truly watch and analyze a film?
What segments should be looked at, and which terms are essential to master?

Also, if you have any questions regarding confusing terminology, feel free to drop them here, hopefully finding someone willing to lend an answer.

placidmarlin3 said:(I) Analysis

Just last night, while I was watching Wolf Kingdom, it hit me
that I honestly have no clue how to actually analyze a movie.
Look, I love movies. I love writing about what I see and feel, but
every single time I open one of those threads about what we've watched, I freeze up.
It’s because beyond saying "I liked it" or "it wasn't boring," I don't know
anything else to say.😕

I'm a total amateur here, just eager to learn. But since we're all still on this PDF together,
I figured this thread should be a place where people who actually know their stuff—the cinephiles
or industry types—could help us little amateurs grasp
the essential concepts needed for a decent critique.

What would someone with actual experience and film knowledge tell an average
viewer?
How do you actually watch and analyze a film?
What segments should you look at, and which terms do I need to master?

Also, if there are any confusing terms you want explained, please post them here. Hopefully, someone will be willing to help out.

Not long ago, Menzies was on an ABC program claiming that movies are meant to be watched and enjoyed, not subjected to endless dissection. He used Westerners versus Easterners as an example, saying a Westerner takes a flower, cuts it up, and analyzes its components in a hundred different ways. An Easterner just picks up the flower and smells it.
He said this right after some local film critic hit him with his tenth philosophical, pseudo-intellectual question.

Sure, everything sounds lovely in theory, but I frequently run into posts on this forum where people condescendingly imply that the average viewer simply lacks the capacity to
appreciate the nuances of certain high-concept works.

Take a movie like *No Country for Old Men*, for instance; personally, I found it excruciatingly dull. Yet, it managed to sweep
the critics' circle with standing ovations.
So, according to the self-proclaimed experts here, I clearly fall into that category of the unrefined masses who can't grasp true
quality. It makes me wonder: what exactly constitutes the "scoring" criteria during a film analysis? I'd love to know how I might
learn to appreciate excellence, because I don't particularly fancy thinking of myself as some kind of mindless swine being fed pearls before swine.😉

placidmarlin3 said:Look, I found No Country for Old Men to be an absolutely soul-crushing bore, even if the critics apparently loved every second of it.

Well, you’ve officially lost all credibility in my eyes. 😁 Just kidding, but seriously, let's look at a few things here:



As for this absolute disaster, someone needs to ban them for life—where are the moderators hiding? 🤷

Look, my method for reviewing movies is dead simple, and honestly, I find it’s the easiest way to go about it.

I give the first thirty minutes a rating because, let’s face it, that’s just the setup—it’s not too short, not too long, and the actual story hasn't even started to kick in yet.

Then you move into the next half hour where the characters are actually established and you start to see how the plot is going to play out.

And finally, you've got the last thirty minutes, or maybe an hour... it really depends on the runtime, but since the final act is always the longest part anyway, everything just lines up perfectly, doesn't it?

So, that’s the whole thing, and it actually works remarkably well.

Here is the most essential rule, without which none of this matters:make sure you are well-rested and relaxed while watching. Otherwise, don't be surprised if you find the movie you're viewing at 3:00 AM to be underwhelming :-)

placidmarlin3 said:Sure, it’s all wonderful and absolutely lovely, but I frequently stumble upon posts on this forum where people take a condescending tone, implying that the average viewer simply lacks the capacity or the basic understanding to grasp what’s being discussed.
It’s high time we learned how to actually appreciate the sheer craftsmanship behind a truly supernatural feat.

Look, I’ll be the first to admit that *No Country for Old Men* was an absolute slog for me—a painfully tedious experience from start to finish. But despite my personal struggle with its pacing, there is no denying that the film absolutely crushed it at the box office.
The critics are practically giving us a standing ovation.
So, if you ask most of the self-proclaimed experts out there, they’d probably tell you that I fall into that category of the average viewer—the kind who just doesn't have the refined palate to truly appreciate what they're seeing.
Since you're asking about how one actually goes about scoring or analyzing a film—as if there were some secret rubric I’ve been keeping to myself—I suppose I should indulge your curiosity. If you want to move beyond just saying a movie was "good" or "bad" and actually start breaking it down like a critic, you have to look at the moving parts that make the machine run. It isn't just about whether the plot made sense, though that's a starting point. You have to dissect the technical craftsmanship. First, there’s the cinematography; you aren't just looking at pretty pictures, you're looking at how lighting, framing, and camera movement dictate the emotional temperature of a scene. Then you have the screenplay—not just the dialogue, which can often be clunky or overly expository, but the structural integrity of the narrative arc itself. Is the pacing dragging like a slow Sunday in Des Moines, or does it snap? You also need to weigh the performances. It’s easy to praise an actor for being loud or expressive, but a real analysis looks at subtlety, presence, and whether they actually inhabit the character or are just reciting lines for the sake of a paycheck. Don't forget the sound design and the score, either; those are the invisible hands pulling at your heartstrings, often doing the heavy lifting that the script fails to do. Essentially, you stop watching the story and start watching the construction. Once you begin seeing the seams where the editing meets the acting, you'll find you have plenty to "score."
I’ve finally reached a point where I actually appreciate quality, mostly because I don't consider myself some kind of mindless swine that just gobbles up pearls as if they were cheap scraps tossed on the floor.😉

Look, don't go getting all worked up thinking you’re somehow lacking in knowledge here—though, let’s be honest, nobody actually knows everything. Not the people dissecting movies on this forum, not the big-shot critics, nobody. We’re all just guessing in the dark to some extent. Personally, I actually enjoyed *No Country for Old Men*, but if it didn't do it for you and it didn't do it for the critics, well, screw it. If your taste only leans toward mindless stuff like *Pink Panther 2* or some cheesy *gigolo* flick—or if you're strictly an *alien* versus *predator* kind of viewer—then obviously *No Country for Old Men* isn't going to click, but I don't think that's really who you are. Since you've already checked an Oscar winner off your list, do yourself a favor and try watching the other top nominees from that year without feeling like you have to perform some intense, high-level cinematic analysis right away. Just sit with it. After a movie ends, give it some space; sleep on it, chew on the ideas, and ask yourself why certain parts actually resonated with you. Eventually, pick which one was your favorite of the year and compare them. That's how you'll gradually develop your own way of analyzing film, because let's face it, I highly doubt we all process and interpret cinema in exactly the same way. 👍

David Price5 said:Look, here’s the most important thing—if you don't get this right, none of the rest even matters:make sure you're actually rested and relaxed when you sit down to watch a movie. Don't come crying to me if you think a film is trash just because you decided to watch it at 3:00 AM. :-)

I basically did the same thing to Fargo. I watched it at 2:00 in the morning after a super stressful day and four beers. Honestly, I'll never forgive myself for that one.😢

When you sit down to write a film review, the most vital element is that it remains your own opinion—and that you actually present it. If your take diverges from the consensus of the critics, it doesn't mean you're wrong or that you lack any insight into the work. However, when voicing these opinions and clashing with others, one should always bring arguments to the table; you need to explain exactly why a film succeeded or failed in your eyes. Simply stating, "I liked it" or "it was boring," provides zero substance—you haven't said much at all, and frankly, nobody is going to pay attention to your comment.
If we are discussing the mechanics of a review, the scope depends entirely on how deep you intend to go.
First, there is the narrative—the core story that dictates whether a film is engaging or utterly tedious. Second, there is the acting—an obvious factor; there is no such thing as a great film populated by poor actors. Third, the direction—how the director translated their vision onto the screen, including their errors, oversights, or perhaps their moments of perfection. A director can easily be either the primary culprit or the hero of a production, though when debating direction, one must attempt to remain objective. Furthermore, in this day and age, special effects and the general visual aesthetic are highly relevant. Then there is the score—the true carrier of emotion. These are the pillars. If you wish to touch upon costume design or set construction, you may—but in a standard review, those elements are rarely more than a sentence or two.
As I have already stated, a review must pair your opinion with actual arguments if it is to provoke thought or invite meaningful debate. Now, the tone depends on the venue—if you are writing for a public outlet or something official, you ought to maintain a level of objectivity; if you are posting on forums or similar spaces, feel free to express your unfiltered thoughts. After all, there are as many opinions as there are people.

And how does one actually watch and analyze a film? You can attempt to change your viewing habits, but it is difficult; if your goal is to perform an analysis afterward, your attention during the screening cannot be focused solely on the "viewing"—the plot and characters—but must also account for a million other details, such as everything mentioned above. Or, if you aren't that type of viewer, simply watch the film—and if necessary, watch it five times—because with multiple viewings, your perspective will inevitably broaden.🙂.

When I stumble upon a movie that actually hits home, I completely freeze up. I honestly don't know what to say. It’s like this massive knot of feelings, thoughts, and reactions gets stuck in my throat. All I can manage to cough out is, "That was beautiful." That's exactly how I felt about the last one I saw.
On the flip side, if a movie is just mediocre or flat-out bad, it's much easier to talk about. I can easily pick it apart and list everything that didn't work.
🙂

Please be mindful of what you are watching. If you are sitting down for an action blockbuster, you should focus on its specific strengths within that genre rather than comparing it to something entirely different.

Basically, movie reviews don't actually have anything to do with cinematic art... and look, a movie is just a movie—there’s no room for jokes or cutting corners when it comes to logic, because that’s just how the genre works. A film built on stupidity simply doesn't exist 😉

Nicholas Walker3 said:This movie is pure cinema. There’s zero leniency here for plot holes or inconsistencies because that’s just not how this director works. In his world, stupidity simply isn't allowed. 😉

There certainly is. If we don't, we end up forcing unnecessary drama into everything. We could toss out horror, action, comedy, and sci-fi altogether, but that’s not the point. Even within those genres, there are much more grounded, realistic versions of horror, action, and comedy. It all comes down to knowing exactly what you're looking for when you sit down to watch.

Whenever I sit down to watch something like *Commando* or *True Lies*, I can't help but realize I'm not watching a gritty crime thriller like *Heat* or *Collateral*.

Here is the most vital takeaway: you simply need to get a feel for this reviewer's cinematic taste.

Nicholas Walker3 said:Basically, movie reviews have nothing to do with cinematic art... and a movie is just a movie; there’s no room for genre tropes or making allowances for illogical plot holes because that’s just how the medium works. A genre defined by stupidity simply doesn't exist.😉

The film itself serves as the foundation of cinematic art.
Analysis, in its own right, also falls under the umbrella of cinematic art.
As for the second half of that sentence, I struggle to follow the logic, to put it mildly.😕
It is difficult to compare the beauty of a brunette to that of a blonde, much like how favoring one over the other
is simply a matter of personal preference.
Therefore, trying to compare a drama to an action flick is complete nonsense, for instance.
(Batman vs Joker vs Lucky Strike?!)
@David Price5/">@@David Price5,
no, I wasn't watching Wolf Kingdom while exhausted, even though they
aired it at 3 AM (complete idiots!!), but rather, during the actual viewing,
it kept crossing my mind how I might
articulate my fascination with the cinematography of certain scenes,
the visual effects, and various other technical nuances for which I didn't have the proper terminology.

placidmarlin3 said:@David Price5/">@@David Price5,
No, I didn't watch Wolf Kingdom while exhausted—even though
they aired it at 3 AM (total idiots!), but rather while
watching certain scenes, I kept wondering how I could possibly
express my excitement about the cinematography,
the special effects, and those little details where I just couldn't find the right words.

Well, my comment was just meant generally. Now I'll read other reviews to see if anyone else managed to find the right words to describe that same enthusiasm you felt for this film. 🙂

placidmarlin3 said:The movie itself is the core of film art.
Analysis, strictly speaking, also falls under the umbrella of film art.
As for the second half of that sentence—well, I honestly don't quite follow, if "don't follow" isn't too strong an understatement.😕

That sounds more like creative writing than actual film art... I mean, it’s a stretch to lump someone like Lynch in with any random film critic—or even our old resident academic, Ante Peterlić!

placidmarlin3 said:It’s hard to compare the beauty of a brunette to a blonde, or to favor one over the other based on looks.

What does hair color or eye color have to do with anything? It's not like there's a Miss America pageant decided by hair color—or a World Cup exclusively for one specific race!

Nicholas Walker3 said:this is more like screenwriting than actual cinema... I find it hard to put someone like Lynch in the same category as any serious critic—certainly not with our late, great scholar Ante Peterlić!

Ante Peterlić was an incredibly brilliant man—possessed of a sharp eye and a mind for deduction—who inspired generations of American cinephiles through his lectures. Your attempt to dismiss him as some mere "nerd" isn't even worth the breath it takes to say it.

I'm trying my best not to chime in here, because honestly, pointing out this kind of pedantry just isn't worth the breath.

@Nicholas Walker3/">@@Nicholas Walker3

Ante Peterlić, just so you're up to speed.

If you want proof of how much he was respected, valued, and basically idolized (and I don't just mean by his students), this video says it all (thanks, sunny 😁).

I’ve seen just about everything on this forum, but seeing someone try to drag Ante Peterlić's name through the mud is a bit much. His books, *concept and structure of film time* from 1976 and *basics of film theory* from 1977, are absolute gold mines. They’re essential reading for any true cinephile. I actually wanted to jump in and respond to placidmarlin3’s opening question by suggesting they pick up those books; they are genuinely wonderful, written with such infectious enthusiasm, and are a breeze to read.
As for the topic at hand, for most people here, movies aren't a job—they're a passion and a way of life. So, it doesn't really matter if a review isn't strictly academic. What matters is understanding the soul of a film through its technical roots and following how cinema evolved through history. Honestly, it drives me crazy when people overlook legends like Murna, Charlie Chaplin, Fritz Lang, D.W. Griffith, Jean Renoir, John Ford, Kenji Mizoguchi, Carl Theodor Dreyer, Luis Buñuel, Sergei Eisenstein, and the countless others who worked to elevate film to a legitimate art form.
So, here is my advice: dive into Peterlić’s work and enjoy how he breaks down the technical side of things, and if you haven't already, start exploring film history. It will make your impressions much deeper, and I'm certain you'll find plenty of high-quality analysis to draw from. Plus, you can always check out that family-run site that hosts great documents on directing, production, and all that good stuff.

placidmarlin3 said:Yeah, that all sounds lovely and poetic, but I constantly run into posts on this board where people act all high and mighty about how the average viewer just doesn't get or can't
appreciate the quality of certain supernatural works.

For example, *The Irishman* was mind-numbingly boring to me. Yet, the movie
swept the critics at the Oscars.
So, according to the self-proclaimed experts, I guess I'm just one of those "average viewers" who lacks the capacity to appreciate
true quality. It makes me wonder: what exactly goes into a film analysis? Give me the criteria so I can
learn how to "appreciate quality," because I don't think I'm quite the mindless swine that people throw pearls in front of.😉

And why does it even bother you so much? I don't really get it.😕

Look, I don't have anything super "intellectual" to say other than this: when I'm watching a movie or listening to music...🤷
all that matters to me is whether that film or that track actually connects with me on some level.🤷
After watching plenty of movies, hearing tons of music, and reading endless lyrics... that remains my one and only metric.🤷
If something hits home—great. If it doesn't—also great. I don't waste my energy stressing over scores, critiques, or whatever else.🤷

I also get incredibly pissed off when someone starts acting condescendingly smug. Especially when I hear that kind of attitude from people claiming to be part of the American film industry.
That's basically my take on our domestic film scene.☕

@familija ...whatever... a picture is worth a thousand words anyway, right?😁