The research question is sharply focused and drives every section of the essay
Topic is communicated accurately with clear purpose and contextual grounding in film scholarship
Range of primary (scene analyses) and secondary sources is appropriate and well integrated
Methodology section could more explicitly outline the selection and application of sources
A few scene transitions lack linking language to maintain perfect coherence
Excellent and accurate use of film terminology and gender theory concepts throughout
Strong subject knowledge demonstrated by effective application of technical and theoretical constructs
Secondary sources are woven into analysis rather than merely listed, substantiating arguments
Occasional reliance on non–peer-reviewed internet essays weakens academic rigor
A few descriptive passages could be more analytical to deepen theoretical engagement
Insightful analysis links cinematography, sound, and narrative to the theme of masculinity in crisis
Research draws on a wide range of historical, psychoanalytic, and genre-theory sources, maintaining strong relevance
Discussion remains coherent with logical argument flow and effective comparisons between films
Evaluation of contrasting scholarly viewpoints is brief and could be more sustained
Some conclusions—e.g., audience impact of slow motion—are asserted rather than deeply examined
All required structural components are present: title page, word count, contents, section headings, numbered pages
Consistent formatting, captioned and referenced images, and complete bibliography enhance readability and compliance
Minor cosmetic issues such as occasional over-sized images and inconsistent hanging indents
A few long sentences could be split for improved clarity