Name: Movie Response Paper Rubric
Excellent 5 Competent 3 Needs Work 1 POINTS
EARNED
INTRODUCTION
□ Introduction gives reader a clear sense □ There is a thesis but it is unclear or overly □ Thesis is missing or does not offer a clear
of the paper’s thesis (see handout) and general point
how the paper will be organized □ Introduction gives the reader some sense of □ Introduction only gives the reader a vague
□ Introduction describes the kinds of how the paper will be organized and the way sense of the organization of the paper and
evidence will be used to support any in which evidence will be used the kinds of evidence that will be used.
conclusions drawn by the author □ Offers some examples from film to support □ Offers no or too few examples from the film
□ Offers relevant t examples from film to points, but needs more to be convincing □ Examples offered are not explained or their
support points. □ Relevance of examples to main point is relevance is unclear or unrelated to the
□ Explains relevance and significance of unclear or needs greater explanation to be main point
examples to main points convincing
SUMMARY
□ Summary is detailed but does not □ Summary does not provide enough detail or □ Summary is either too vague or far too
overburden the reader. overburdens the reader with unimportant detailed for the scope of the paper
□ Summary tries to interpret the overall details. □ Summary never successfully addresses the
message of the film and supports this □ Summary is only partially successful in going main perspectives in the film
with examples. beyond the details to discuss the main □ Summary uses a good deal of evaluative
□ Summary is free from evaluative perspectives in the film language
language □ Summary is has some evaluative language □ Summary is poorly organized and very
□ Summary is well organized and □ Summary is mostly organized and coherent but difficult to understand
coherent has some problems that make it difficult to
understand
CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS POINTS X 2
□ Analysis is focused, but there are missed □ Analysis is overly brief; does not
□ Analysis of the film is thorough and opportunities to integrate a discussion of demonstrate an engagement with the many
draws upon multiple sources to help elements of the film with sources from the levels of film form or focuses more on
support the thesis. course review/description than analysis
□ Clearly explains how each point □ Each point relates to the thesis, but more □ Very little explanation as to how each point
supports overall thesis statement explicit explanation as to how is needed relates to the thesis; main point throughout
□ The paper successfully compares and □ The paper makes some effort to compare and paper is unclear or meandering
contrasts several course readings to contrasts several course readings but more □ The paper fails to use course readings
help make sense of the film. analysis of course texts would have been effectively.
□ Paper displays insight and originality useful. □ Not enough original ideas are offered; most
of □ There are some original ideas and depth of are obvious, reiterations, or overly basic
□ thought that delves beneath the analysis, but some are superficial or obvious
surface of the film
ORGANIZATION
□ Paper diverges from “roadmap” in thesis or □ Paper does not follow a laid out “map” or
□ Paper flows logically according to “ the logic of the structure is sometimes hard the structure is very difficult to follow;
roadmap” to follow sequencing of ideas is disjointed or forced
□ laid out by thesis and introduction □ Paragraphs generally flow from one into the □ Flow from one paragraph into the next is
□ Transitions between paragraphs are next, but more explicit transitions are confusing; paragraphs need transitional
explicit and logical needed, or the transitions are so obvious or sentences to show how one flows logically
□ Introduces subject clearly and predictable as to be distracting into the next
concludes with elegant wrap-up of □ Introduces subject, but doesn’t fully invite the □ No introduction of subject or the
main points that leaves t he reader reader into the paper or the conclusion is introduction lacks relevance; conclusion is
with a sense of closure abrupt or redundant missing, stilted, or introduces points not
□ Paragraphs are well-focused and □ Paragraphs occasionally lack focus or addressed in other parts of paper
coherent coherence □ Paragraphs generally lack focus or
coherence, or need clear topic sentences
MECHANICS
□ Generally, sentences are complete and □ Many sentences are difficult to
□ Writes in complete and understandable, but there are some understand, or there are too many run-ons
understandable sentences fragments and run-ons or awkward word and fragments
□ Spelling is correct, even on difficult choices □ Frequent spelling errors, and switched
words, and there are no switched □ Spelling is generally correct, but there are words (there/their) make sentences
words (there/their) enough errors to be distracting, and switched difficult to follow
□ Uses proper punctuation words (there/their) □ Errors in punctuation are frequent and
□ Grammar and usage contribute to the □ Overall, punctuation is proper and correct, interfere with meaning of the paper
clarity and flow of the paper but there are enough errors to be distracting □ Many errors in grammar and usage that
□ Writes in elegant and scholarly tone or to interrupt the flow of the paper make it difficult to follow ideas and
appropriate for an academic essay □ There are problems with grammar and usage, interfere with meaning
□ Shows attention to proofreading but not so much so as to distort meaning □ Tone is overly informal or inappropriate for
□ If used, correctly cites readings □ Attempts at a scholarly tone, but a scholarly essay
constructions are sometimes awkward or too □ Paper lacks attention to proofreading;
informal errors are distracting or interfere with
□ Paper needs more proofreading meaning
□ If used, readings are cited, but with □ If used, readings are not cited or are
formatting problems completely out of format
OTHER
□ Meets most requirements of the assignment, □ Does not meet many requirements of the
□ Meets all requirements of the but some are missing (length, topic, objective, assignment (length, topic, objective, etc.)
assignment etc.)
□ (length, topic, objective, etc.)
Note: Rubric is a modified version of that used by Jennifer Proctor [Link] Used with permission under creative commons.
