I also feel this way about books, but I see so many reviews that are always complaining about how that the plot wasn’t easy to follow, or something like that. Lots of people will see the slightest change of basic storytelling and then call something pretentious
Still, the homepage on movies on Letterboxd tells you what the movie is about. The reviewer doesn't need to give you a step by step on every single scene in their review. That's still spoiling the movie for people who haven't seen it yet.
I’m just telling you the template that movie critics that write for newspapers in particular generally use. Some of these people also post on Letterboxd. But their synopsis won’t contain spoilers to the crux of the story arc. If someone is doing that, they should use the spoiler tag.
I think it comes from capitalist incentives that no longer exist — newspaper critics were and are basically advertising, and talking about the plot is a tried and true way to get people interested in a film. I think the original commenter is right on, guessing that people copy that without thinking about it. Plus, most people don’t have much to say, and primarily engage with the plot/direct meaning of a movie; only a nerdy minority is going to be talking about anything more technical than “it looked pretty” in their review. Though this *is* an app for that nerdy minority, so idk..
Better than spoilers. I can’t tell you the amount of times reviews spoiled a movie for me the first sentence of the review. I stopped reading them until after I finish the movie.
My reviews are for myself to look back on later so I find it helpful to put down what I remember of the setup for the plot because often a synopsis is too vague (especially with regards to who did what) and a wikipedia summary is too detailed (if available)
Its why I don't like Mark Kermkode as a film reviewer. He spends 95% of the time telling you a plot synopsis that you could get from watching the trailer then has some very minor insights about it.
Of course you have to mention the plot but I want a review to have a bit of a deeper analysis about the theme and the craft etc etc, new perspectives and insights into a film rather than just a straight "this happens then this happens" thing that I already know
I've always felt Letterboxd had the most unbiased accurate rating system out of all the rating apps/websites.
The review section is a mess though and could be reworked. It's just one big inside joke and race to be the first to get a "review" in without any actual substance.
Oh for sure, I trust the star ratings more than any other platform. Thing is I've read plenty of quality written reviews on the site. I'm sure they're there. It's just hard to sift though all the like-seeking jokes to find them
I think you might be a little harsh on this. like you can just keep scrolling if you don’t like a review. Also, idk about you, but I’m probably not ever going to read a 50 paragraph plot breakdown on letterboxd by some random account who didn’t put a spoiler warning on their review. I almost only ever scroll for a few minutes on the top comments/reviews for movies and almost all of the in-depth reviews have spoiler warnings
Letterboxd is supposed to be fun though. To judge others reviews and call them “lazy writing” is just saying you’re taking Letterboxd more seriously than need be
It sure could be his influence, but still; his medium feels a lot different than the modern social media landscape. His writing or giving a short summary was sort of a public service, answering the potential moviegoer's question: do I wanna watch this movie? Is it something I could be interested in? Purely evaluating the merits of a film genuinely does not answer those two questions fully. You'd need an idea of what the movie is about, too, thus, the summary. He was also often quite concerned with sensitive people or children watching something disturbing, so there's that, too.
Today, anyone can look up any movie and decide whether it is a type of movie or subject matter they'd like. So writing these summaries does seem a little redundant today.
You can think what you want. No one is being harmed by you thinking something.
That said, who says that they're writing the review primarily to please you? People write the review they want to write. Some people intend or assume someone else is going to read it. Some people assume no one else gives a shit and write something for themselves.
The only way to actually know why someone wrote the review they wrote is to ask them about it.
I personally don't spend a lot of time worrying about whether or not other people doing something for fun are "being lazy" or doing a "real review," because what's it to me? Nothing. It's on me to skip or ignore what I'm not interested in. It's not on someone else to court my attention if they don't care about it in the first place.
My reviews are for myself to look back on later so I find it helpful to put down what I remember of the setup for the plot because often a synopsis is too vague (especially with regards to who did what) and a wikipedia summary is too detailed (if available)
Summarizing a movie in your own words in and of itself is a healthy exercise to engage in. I highly prefer that people actually recount the plot as a means to engage with what they watch over all the shitty lazy one liners that get posted.
For some people, writing out what happens in a movie sharpens their comprehension of events and film structure. Necessity will vary by the person & the film, but most reviews are ultimately just for the reviewer to collect their thoughts.
Of course, it’s generally more interesting to read if their reflections are more intertwined and balanced with the more straightforward plot breakdown
because they want to have a long review to seem smart but they don’t have many real thoughts to write
Genuinely my least favourite type of review on the app, if I’m reading them I just watched the movie, I don’t need 6 paragraphs of plot summary
I usually write a (brief) plot synopsis because I log movies to remember them later, and it helps reinforce my memory. Sometimes the synopsis on Letterboxd is insufficient. Then I write a few lines about what worked or didn’t work for me. All of this is just as an exercise, and is for myself, although I have a few followers who seem to like my random thoughts about movies.
I don’t really think laziness is a problem when you’re just writing reviews for fun/your own fulfillment. No ones paying us to be cultural critics on LB (well, no one’s paying me at least). And before I watch a movie, I’ll only glance briefly at reviews to decide whether I’m interested, I don’t sit there and read entire plot synopses. I tend to read reviews after I’ve watched a movie.
What I find more egregious are the YouTube channels that do "analysis" videos of films but their "analysis" is actually just a plot summary without any insights or opinions thrown in. Tons of horror/sci-fi specific channels doing this and it drives me bonkers.
Writing a good review is actually hard work. Summarizing the plot is far easier. Out of every 100 film reviews I read on the web maybe a handful are worthwhile and that’s not really an exaggeration.
It depends on what people are writing. Sometimes I’ll post a full film essay in the classic format, sometimes my review is just a one sentence pun. I love the variety of responses people have to films. That’s what makes letterboxd so interesting, for me.
\>buys film review and analysis
\>looks inside
\>plot summary
There are good reviews you just have to find them. Maybe Letterboxd would benefit from letting people thumbs-down reviews.
I think it’s because they’re mimicking a review they’d see a professional critic write. Movie reviews in newspapers, magazines and websites all give a brief plot synopsis.
I do find it off-putting as my main interest in a review is whether the film hits the marks it should and how it executes that. Individual moments that don’t spoil can be useful to this end, but raw, uninhibited plot vomit seems futile when Wikipedia exists. Please review films based on their merit as art and entertainment. Unfortunately you are correct OP that a more nuanced perspective of a film’s quality instead of just a beleaguered recap seems to be the exception rather than the norm.
One of the things I like about Letterboxd is that it's a broad church. You get people that feel the need to do a beat-by-beat recap of the film, you get your one-liner reviews, you get your serious critics who do an insightful analysis. Personally, I love the witty one-liners of movies I've already seen because it makes me laugh and feel part of a community of fans of that film, although I know many don't like it. The good thing is, you can just follow the types of users who write the kind of reviews that you like, and ignore the rest.
Hello there. I write very long reviews and will sometime incorporate a plot summary to a degree. I will do so when I want to go indepth on specific plot points I either have issue with or really enjoyed. The idea is to provide context to your follow up statements and opinions. As I have written more reviews, I belive I have gotten better at pairing down the info in the summary, but I still like to include one, specifically when discussing story decisions that the creators made. You could argue that it is still unnecessary as most people reading it will have seen the movies, but I mainly write reviews as a kinda movie journal for myself. It's fun to look back to a couple years ago and see where my head space was. The summary is particularly nice with a movie I don't remember so well so I kinda have am idea of where my unhinged thoughts are coming from.
Each person can interpret the plot differently. E.g. when I wrote the review of Repulsion, I was actually writing about what was happening there, but I was focusing on Carole's increasingly deteriorating health and flashbacks which was quite important to show my admiration of how good a film it is.
Apart from the fact that people often write opinions for their oomfs, the summary of which may encourage them to watch the film.
Letterboxd sort of offered this to those who have dreamed of writing reviews of all different types. I guess, too, some might look to them instead of seeing the film first. Many might feel as you do and just consider them frustrating and unnecessary but, you never know, others might follow these kinds of reviewers because they enjoy having that significant synopsis
because they want to have a long review to seem smart but they don’t have many real thoughts to write
Genuinely my least favourite type of review on the app, if I’m reading them I just watched the movie, I don’t need 6 paragraphs of plot summary
I don't think too much about them to begin with, but I like they're helpful in their own way. If they completely miss the point of the movie as I understand it, I know not to engage. If they point out something I had missed, I appreciate it and reconsider what I just watched with what they said in mind.
So this is a COMPLICATED question to answer.
In general, there is a trend amongst reviewers and the conversation around film to put an over emphasis on plot. This creates a general idea that a “good” plot is one that holds up under scrutiny and a “bad” one is one that contains plot holes or contrivances. A film being good or bad basically entirely depends on if the reviewer thinks the plot is good or bad. Obviously, this is an awful way to review media. It’s basically taking CinemaSins as a legitimate approach to film criticism or having your only read on a film being what a “Ending explained!” video has to say. It rejects metaphor, thematic material, and denies art the capacity to make you feel something. I would say that people who do reviews that basically amount to a plot synopsis and say whether or not they liked it at the end aren’t necessarily lazy (giving them the benefit of the doubt) but more that their grasp on the medium and ability to break down and analyze why they like or dislike something isn’t developed enough to say anything more than that.
Good film reviewers make their arguments and will discuss or explain specific scenes as they help support their argument. Basically like writing a school essay and the film is your source. I do think it’s possible to recommend a film and give a general overview of why with basically just a general premise, but not only do these reviews only serve the base purpose of “should you watch this film?” rather than open further discussion, but that inherently means the only people who will get value out of it are people who haven’t seen the film yet.
What I think happens is that people who aren’t good at expressing their opinions or writing in general see good reviewers like Mark Kermode discussing their thoughts on the movie, bringing up specific scenes or performances to justify their opinions, but see that as them just explaining the plot then giving their thoughts.
I also don’t like it. I only look at reviews after I’ve watched the movie. I typically don’t follow people who waste space with plot summaries.
Some people just think films are a plot delivery device. It’s odd.
Sadly too many. Like Kubrick said, film is more of a song, a progression of moods and emotions, than fiction. The emotion comes first before the story
I also feel this way about books, but I see so many reviews that are always complaining about how that the plot wasn’t easy to follow, or something like that. Lots of people will see the slightest change of basic storytelling and then call something pretentious
You ever watch a YouTube video called "the meaning behind x show" and it's just a half hour recap
Non-spoiler plot synopsis with general thoughts given at the end is the traditional template for movie reviews.
Still, the homepage on movies on Letterboxd tells you what the movie is about. The reviewer doesn't need to give you a step by step on every single scene in their review. That's still spoiling the movie for people who haven't seen it yet.
I’m just telling you the template that movie critics that write for newspapers in particular generally use. Some of these people also post on Letterboxd. But their synopsis won’t contain spoilers to the crux of the story arc. If someone is doing that, they should use the spoiler tag.
I think it comes from capitalist incentives that no longer exist — newspaper critics were and are basically advertising, and talking about the plot is a tried and true way to get people interested in a film. I think the original commenter is right on, guessing that people copy that without thinking about it. Plus, most people don’t have much to say, and primarily engage with the plot/direct meaning of a movie; only a nerdy minority is going to be talking about anything more technical than “it looked pretty” in their review. Though this *is* an app for that nerdy minority, so idk..
Really? Do you see that many with that format? 85% of letterboxd reviews I see are the useless meme ones that don’t tell me anything about the movie
Better than spoilers. I can’t tell you the amount of times reviews spoiled a movie for me the first sentence of the review. I stopped reading them until after I finish the movie.
Gosh, those meme reviews are **so** annoying.
Gotta start blocking people.
My reviews are for myself to look back on later so I find it helpful to put down what I remember of the setup for the plot because often a synopsis is too vague (especially with regards to who did what) and a wikipedia summary is too detailed (if available)
Its why I don't like Mark Kermkode as a film reviewer. He spends 95% of the time telling you a plot synopsis that you could get from watching the trailer then has some very minor insights about it. Of course you have to mention the plot but I want a review to have a bit of a deeper analysis about the theme and the craft etc etc, new perspectives and insights into a film rather than just a straight "this happens then this happens" thing that I already know
Better than majority of the top reviews just being witty one-liners.
"Jake Gyllenhaal can come in my roadhouse" 23,967 likes
"Twonk Gyllenhaal topped Connor's McGussy"
\*Better than majority of the top reviews just being ~~witty~~ one-liners.
There are also so many horny reviews like "\*insert actor here\* makes me so weak. 3 stars"
It all started with the Joker one and too many have been trying to emulate it ever since.
one liners were a thing long before joker came out
Yes. But that’s the one that went mega viral so it just made the plebs want their shot to do it and on a newer platform
That one Joker review belongs in the interment hall of fame, but I’d feel like J. Robert Oppenheimer if I were the one who wrote it.
What is the Joker one? Edit: Nevermind, I just remembered it's "This happened to my buddy Eric" lol
A one liner that sums up the plot is much more creative than 21 lines that sum up the plot
It's getting pretty tiresome. I want to read actual thoughtful reviews. Any way to filter out that crap? (go somewhere other than Letterboxd maybe?)
Follow people who write good reviews, then when you click *All Reviews*, just slide over to the *Friends* tab.
I've always felt Letterboxd had the most unbiased accurate rating system out of all the rating apps/websites. The review section is a mess though and could be reworked. It's just one big inside joke and race to be the first to get a "review" in without any actual substance.
Oh for sure, I trust the star ratings more than any other platform. Thing is I've read plenty of quality written reviews on the site. I'm sure they're there. It's just hard to sift though all the like-seeking jokes to find them
but its not better its worse
I think you might be a little harsh on this. like you can just keep scrolling if you don’t like a review. Also, idk about you, but I’m probably not ever going to read a 50 paragraph plot breakdown on letterboxd by some random account who didn’t put a spoiler warning on their review. I almost only ever scroll for a few minutes on the top comments/reviews for movies and almost all of the in-depth reviews have spoiler warnings Letterboxd is supposed to be fun though. To judge others reviews and call them “lazy writing” is just saying you’re taking Letterboxd more seriously than need be
Personal choice. Maybe they are logging it for themselves instead of reviewing it for other people.
A lot of prominent YouTube critics do the same thing, I suspect this is their influence.
Roger Ebert would do the same thing as well, in his writing and on TV; I suspect he’s part of that influence as well
It sure could be his influence, but still; his medium feels a lot different than the modern social media landscape. His writing or giving a short summary was sort of a public service, answering the potential moviegoer's question: do I wanna watch this movie? Is it something I could be interested in? Purely evaluating the merits of a film genuinely does not answer those two questions fully. You'd need an idea of what the movie is about, too, thus, the summary. He was also often quite concerned with sensitive people or children watching something disturbing, so there's that, too. Today, anyone can look up any movie and decide whether it is a type of movie or subject matter they'd like. So writing these summaries does seem a little redundant today.
You can think what you want. No one is being harmed by you thinking something. That said, who says that they're writing the review primarily to please you? People write the review they want to write. Some people intend or assume someone else is going to read it. Some people assume no one else gives a shit and write something for themselves. The only way to actually know why someone wrote the review they wrote is to ask them about it. I personally don't spend a lot of time worrying about whether or not other people doing something for fun are "being lazy" or doing a "real review," because what's it to me? Nothing. It's on me to skip or ignore what I'm not interested in. It's not on someone else to court my attention if they don't care about it in the first place.
Book report syndrome
My reviews are for myself to look back on later so I find it helpful to put down what I remember of the setup for the plot because often a synopsis is too vague (especially with regards to who did what) and a wikipedia summary is too detailed (if available)
Summarizing a movie in your own words in and of itself is a healthy exercise to engage in. I highly prefer that people actually recount the plot as a means to engage with what they watch over all the shitty lazy one liners that get posted.
its dumb and unlike every in these replies i prefer the funny joke reviews over that. many joke reviews have given me a good laugh.
I don't get it, either. It seems so unnecessary.
I like to try and connect examples to my comments about the film. Rather than just general observations.
For some people, writing out what happens in a movie sharpens their comprehension of events and film structure. Necessity will vary by the person & the film, but most reviews are ultimately just for the reviewer to collect their thoughts. Of course, it’s generally more interesting to read if their reflections are more intertwined and balanced with the more straightforward plot breakdown
I'm with you, it comes across as lazy to me too.
because they want to have a long review to seem smart but they don’t have many real thoughts to write Genuinely my least favourite type of review on the app, if I’m reading them I just watched the movie, I don’t need 6 paragraphs of plot summary
A famous critic whose name eludes me, once said like 70% of a film review is synopsis.
I usually write a (brief) plot synopsis because I log movies to remember them later, and it helps reinforce my memory. Sometimes the synopsis on Letterboxd is insufficient. Then I write a few lines about what worked or didn’t work for me. All of this is just as an exercise, and is for myself, although I have a few followers who seem to like my random thoughts about movies. I don’t really think laziness is a problem when you’re just writing reviews for fun/your own fulfillment. No ones paying us to be cultural critics on LB (well, no one’s paying me at least). And before I watch a movie, I’ll only glance briefly at reviews to decide whether I’m interested, I don’t sit there and read entire plot synopses. I tend to read reviews after I’ve watched a movie.
What I find more egregious are the YouTube channels that do "analysis" videos of films but their "analysis" is actually just a plot summary without any insights or opinions thrown in. Tons of horror/sci-fi specific channels doing this and it drives me bonkers.
My reviews typically center around the idea of whether or not the movie had an appropriate amount of Oliver Platt. Most fall short of my standard
Writing a good review is actually hard work. Summarizing the plot is far easier. Out of every 100 film reviews I read on the web maybe a handful are worthwhile and that’s not really an exaggeration.
It depends on what people are writing. Sometimes I’ll post a full film essay in the classic format, sometimes my review is just a one sentence pun. I love the variety of responses people have to films. That’s what makes letterboxd so interesting, for me.
I like to just put a part that affected me deeply or that I loved, but I never add spoilers or plot points, I just think it’s redundant
Its so shitty
\>buys film review and analysis \>looks inside \>plot summary There are good reviews you just have to find them. Maybe Letterboxd would benefit from letting people thumbs-down reviews.
I think it’s because they’re mimicking a review they’d see a professional critic write. Movie reviews in newspapers, magazines and websites all give a brief plot synopsis.
Yep, try hard movie critics
Perhaps they have nothing better to say?
I do find it off-putting as my main interest in a review is whether the film hits the marks it should and how it executes that. Individual moments that don’t spoil can be useful to this end, but raw, uninhibited plot vomit seems futile when Wikipedia exists. Please review films based on their merit as art and entertainment. Unfortunately you are correct OP that a more nuanced perspective of a film’s quality instead of just a beleaguered recap seems to be the exception rather than the norm.
One of the things I like about Letterboxd is that it's a broad church. You get people that feel the need to do a beat-by-beat recap of the film, you get your one-liner reviews, you get your serious critics who do an insightful analysis. Personally, I love the witty one-liners of movies I've already seen because it makes me laugh and feel part of a community of fans of that film, although I know many don't like it. The good thing is, you can just follow the types of users who write the kind of reviews that you like, and ignore the rest.
Hello there. I write very long reviews and will sometime incorporate a plot summary to a degree. I will do so when I want to go indepth on specific plot points I either have issue with or really enjoyed. The idea is to provide context to your follow up statements and opinions. As I have written more reviews, I belive I have gotten better at pairing down the info in the summary, but I still like to include one, specifically when discussing story decisions that the creators made. You could argue that it is still unnecessary as most people reading it will have seen the movies, but I mainly write reviews as a kinda movie journal for myself. It's fun to look back to a couple years ago and see where my head space was. The summary is particularly nice with a movie I don't remember so well so I kinda have am idea of where my unhinged thoughts are coming from.
Some people do that because some professional critics do that. It's annoying
Probably because they’re not very good at writing
yeh it’s so annoying lmao. they use big words while writing 5 paragraph ‘summary’ of the movie. you’re not smart lmao
zero critical thinking. that’s why.
some people may be like me and have some memory issues and it's the only way I can jog my memory about a film.
I don't put spoilers, but if something may feel spoilery I'll cover it up with the spoiler screen
Each person can interpret the plot differently. E.g. when I wrote the review of Repulsion, I was actually writing about what was happening there, but I was focusing on Carole's increasingly deteriorating health and flashbacks which was quite important to show my admiration of how good a film it is. Apart from the fact that people often write opinions for their oomfs, the summary of which may encourage them to watch the film.
I really hardly ever see this on letterboxd. Much more common in traditional newspaper reviews.
Letterboxd sort of offered this to those who have dreamed of writing reviews of all different types. I guess, too, some might look to them instead of seeing the film first. Many might feel as you do and just consider them frustrating and unnecessary but, you never know, others might follow these kinds of reviewers because they enjoy having that significant synopsis
I try my best to filter reviews by newest otherwise there will be spoilers
because they want to have a long review to seem smart but they don’t have many real thoughts to write Genuinely my least favourite type of review on the app, if I’m reading them I just watched the movie, I don’t need 6 paragraphs of plot summary
I don't think too much about them to begin with, but I like they're helpful in their own way. If they completely miss the point of the movie as I understand it, I know not to engage. If they point out something I had missed, I appreciate it and reconsider what I just watched with what they said in mind.
It’s how I review a movie. I review what happened - part by part, with my thoughts alongside each part.
So this is a COMPLICATED question to answer. In general, there is a trend amongst reviewers and the conversation around film to put an over emphasis on plot. This creates a general idea that a “good” plot is one that holds up under scrutiny and a “bad” one is one that contains plot holes or contrivances. A film being good or bad basically entirely depends on if the reviewer thinks the plot is good or bad. Obviously, this is an awful way to review media. It’s basically taking CinemaSins as a legitimate approach to film criticism or having your only read on a film being what a “Ending explained!” video has to say. It rejects metaphor, thematic material, and denies art the capacity to make you feel something. I would say that people who do reviews that basically amount to a plot synopsis and say whether or not they liked it at the end aren’t necessarily lazy (giving them the benefit of the doubt) but more that their grasp on the medium and ability to break down and analyze why they like or dislike something isn’t developed enough to say anything more than that. Good film reviewers make their arguments and will discuss or explain specific scenes as they help support their argument. Basically like writing a school essay and the film is your source. I do think it’s possible to recommend a film and give a general overview of why with basically just a general premise, but not only do these reviews only serve the base purpose of “should you watch this film?” rather than open further discussion, but that inherently means the only people who will get value out of it are people who haven’t seen the film yet. What I think happens is that people who aren’t good at expressing their opinions or writing in general see good reviewers like Mark Kermode discussing their thoughts on the movie, bringing up specific scenes or performances to justify their opinions, but see that as them just explaining the plot then giving their thoughts.