Media editing: Mr Oswick coursework help

As Mr Oswick has been delegating the last few lessons to coursework( due to the upcoming finality of the deadline), he decided to start off his lesson ( yesterday) by giving us handouts of the film production mark scheme, to adjudicate what band ( 1,2,3 or 4) we thought our film would fall into taking into account the following:
Band 1(0-23marks)
Work for main task is possibly incomplete with little evidence in the work of the creative use of any of the relevant technical skills such as:

1. Holding a shot steady when appropriate
2. Using a variety of shot distances as appropriate
3. Framing a shot, including and excluding elements as appropriate
4. Shooting material appropriate to the task set
5. Selecting Mise-en-scene including lighting, colour, figure, objects and setting
6. Editing so that meaning is apparent to the viewer
7. Using varied shot transitions and other effects selectively and appropriately for the task set
8. using sound with images and editing appropriately for the task set
9. Using titles appropriately

Band 2 ( 24-35 marks)
Evidence of a basic level ability in the creative use in some of the technical skills mentioned
Band 3 (36-47 marks)
Evidence of proficiency in the creative use of  many of the skills
Band 4 ( 48-60 marks)
Evidence of excellence in the creative use of most of the technical skills

Initially we thought that our film would fall into the top end of band 2/ low end of band three  as we felt we had covered most of the technical skills mentioned. However when Sir showed us last years year 12's I instantly got given a whole new perspective. Our task was to analyse these 3 videos against the mark scheme ( as well as our own knowledge), appropriating  the mark we felt that they had got. The first film was named Knock Knock a Horror/ Thriller genre film about this person being followed by a creepy guy in a mask without realising it. What i liked about this video was the relation of the title to the action taking place , especially the smeary effect of the hand pressed up against the frosty glass door. I also felt that they had good use of non-diegetic sound ( in terms of the soundtrack) as it conveyed a sense of despair and paranoia and i felt they really chose it well. However i did find that unfortunately there were more critisms to make then evoking positivity , which included the following:

1. Non- usage of titles ( in terms of character names )
2. Little variation in the camera angles used
3. Awkward framing of shots that sometimes had no relevance
4. Although the sountrack was good they didnt sequence it together in accordance to the film as halfway through the music stopped in a manner which suggests it wasnt cut together very well
5. The narrative was often stiff in its mannerisms and presentation giving the audience a sense of perplexion in a negative respect as although horror films are meant to challenge the audience ; it should be done in appropriation

For this video i gave it a 34 out of 60 but it actually turned out to be a 32, with the boys recieving poor grades for the theoretical side of it e.g. 5 and a 7 out of 10 for research and planning .The next video Reconnaissance was absolutely phenomenal in contrast despite the sheer simplicity of the film, incooperating the following technical skills:

1. The usage of relevance in terms of the titles appearing alongside the characters through the transitory of a jump cut of them in action
2. Smooth transitions alongside the excellence of the camera work-angles /composition/movement
3. Variation of diverse locations- the woods and the train
4. Excellent quality of picture with clear resolution and high defintion
5. Good use of editing such as fades , jump cuts and ellision
6. Clear appropriation in all aspects of Mise-en-scene

In fact i would only make a few critisisms which would be to say that the train crash at the end ( founded footage) although relevant didn't quite sequence together properly  and also i would suggest going out of their comfort zone by trying out unusual shots to show they can push boundaries and increase complexity.I gave this a mark of 48 but we found out that it got 47 instead( top end of band 3) with 18 in research and planning. I think in total they got 83 out of 100 which is an A overall.
The final video Queen B was quite intriguing( as well as being one of our friends) as unlike the latter video it really pushed the boundaries especially within the editing side of it , being quite clever in it's approach. This included:

1. Montage of snap shots similur to a collage of pictures or a photoshoot
2. Good use of mise-en-scene which showed relevance to location and narration
3. Variation of location- school and a party
4. Sophisticated use of angles. One clever shot was where two cameras where used: one inside a locker and the other behind the girl who was opening her locker

However it did seem as though there were too many things going on at once but i think it was just just because they were trying to include many elements of sophistication. For this i gave it a grade of 45 but it actually got 46.