1、Outline for writing Movie reviewTitle of the movieParagraph 1You will need to include the following: name of the film, prominent stars of the film, basic setting (time and place), and type of film (comedy, adventure, drama, etc.)Paragraph 2You will need to write a plot summary for the movie. Do not
2、reveal the ending. Discuss at least 5 events and be sure to cover the entire scope of the movie, except the very end.Paragraph 3Discuss one aspect of filmmaking. You may choose from acting, direction, editing, and costume design, set design, photography, background music, or anything else you may th
3、ink of. Be sure that you are specific and cite examples from the movie.Paragraph 4Discuss another aspect of filmmaking. You may choose from acting, direction, editing, and costume design, set design, photography, background music, or anything else you may think of, but obviously choose something dif
4、ferent from what you discussed in the previous paragraph. Be sure that you are specific and cite examples from the movie.Paragraph 5Give your overall reaction to the film as well as your opinion on the quality of the film and also include your recommendations for potential viewers.下面是一篇范文：In Geraldi
5、ne Thomass “Look at the science-smoking and obesity are more harmful than radiation”, which first appeared at on 26 April 2011, he asserts that the harm of radiation is much less fatal than what the public generally believe. Analyzing from the perspective of science, he divides radiation into two ty
6、pes which relate to the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and the Chernobyl accident respectivelyone is highly penetrating ray and the other is prolonged radioisotope. According to statics collected after the atomic bombs in Hiroshima, only a small proportion of death and cancer can be owed to radiation, ex
7、cept thyroid cancer, whose level is sensitive to the dose of radiation. However, because of some statics indicating the low fatality rate of thyroid cancer, it is reasonable for Geraldine Thomas to claim the over exaggeration of the threat from radiation. Also, contrary to the publics common believe
8、s, the Chernobyl accident, in which low dose of radioisotopes such as Ca-137 is released over a long period of time, is anything but devastating. In authors eye, what is the most difficult is how to convince of the actual radiation risk those who have been frightened by radiation. They need some hel
9、p to overcome their psychological shadow.Geraldine Thomas puts much emphasis on that radiation risk is determined by many factors, such as the age at exposure and concentration of radioisotopes. But what worries him most is that the public tends to become insane when faced with radiation. Calling for the publics rationality, he expects a more objective and justified evaluation of the radiation and nuclear power.
