When you write a movie review,

[MovieFan1988]

What are the things that you like to add about the movie and also what to avoid when writing about the movie?

I've been working on a new favorite horror movies list and seem to struggle on writing reviews for some of the movies.

[hownos]

if the movie is bad in my opinion, i will make fun of it

[MovieFan1988]

if the movie is bad in my opinion, i will make fun of it

Make fun of it and being brutal on why it's a bad movie :D:D:D

[exiler96]

I'd go with the elements that stand out the most for me; the better the movie the more unique they'll sound (or I hope)... sometimes a film is so good or I've seen it enough times to talk about it like I'm remembering an old dear friend... like have you ever noticed Welles appears in only 3 scenes in The Third Man and in two of those he doesn't utter a word? yet here I was, always remembering the film because of (and through) the fox himself...

I try to avoid sounding generic (like I'd prefer to say Heath Ledger is "scene-stealling" in The Dark Knight - it's true, nobody was ready for that powerhouse of a performance- rather than "great") but I find myself running out of patience these days... so I'll just be generic and say he's great, lol... but I advise you not to do it. Add something new or at least new-sounding to the conversation.

[Takoma11]

I think that movie reviews, like most writing genres, have a really wide range of what they can be.

Some people write reviews that are very focused on the different technical elements of the film. I tend to write reviews that are half about the elements of the movie and about half about my personal reception of the film. I've found writing reviews a lot easier without trying to simulate this "objective critic voice". I notice that a lot of reviewers aim for this dry, "professional" voice and it just ends up sounding cold and soulless.

I would say that a good place to start is just to write about whatever interests you the most about the movie. Are you interested in the history of how the movie was made? Did the movie hit personal notes with you? Do you really tend to notice acting? Writing? Soundtrack?

One thing that I don't enjoy in movie reviews is when they take up a ton of space giving a plot summary or a blow-by-blow account of the events in the film or just other stats that are just basically IMDb information. I'm not reading a movie review for a book report, I'm reading it to enjoy it as a piece of writing.

[Thief]

Generally speaking, when I'm writing a review I try to share what I liked and what could've been improved. But also depending on the film, I might add a bit of personal experience with the film, circumstances under which I saw it and how it might've hit me personally. That more or less encapsulates what I like to read in a review as well, but it all depends on the film and/or the writer.

[gbgoodies]

I'm not a good person to give advice on this because I'm probably the worst review writer on the forum, but the only thing I can tell you is to either avoid spoilers, or at least use spoiler tags or some type of warning if you include spoilers.

Remember that there's a good chance that some people who will read your review haven't seen the movie, even if it's an older movie.

[Takoma11]

I'm not a good person to give advice on this because I'm probably the worst review writer on the forum, but the only thing I can tell you is to either avoid spoilers, or at least use spoiler tags or some type of warning if you include spoilers.

Remember that there's a good chance that some people who will read your review haven't seen the movie, even if it's an older movie.

That's really good advice, and I think that it's important to reflect just a little on what you consider spoilers. I've read reviews where I see spoiler tags and felt okay about reading the review, and then there were un-tagged spoilers in the review! You can even be clear up front about how specific you are going to be in terms of plot and be consistent so that your readers know what to expect. If I'm going to talk more than usual about the end of a movie or major plot twists, I always try and give a warning first.

Honestly, I'm really hesitant to read reviews of movies I haven't seen because I worry that my idea of spoilers won't be the same as the person who wrote the review. I will, though, go back and read reviews after I've watched the film.

[KeyserCorleone]

I largely compare pacing and originality to previous experience. A good way for early birds to do it is to compare two or three specific films.

[Citizen Rules]

Said this before and I'll say it again:


What makes a good review is, brevity. Forget writing a complete synopsis of the film, that's boring. You don't have to cover every single detail of a movie, just hit upon those things in the movie are important to you.

[MovieFan1988]

I'd go with the elements that stand out the most for me; the better the movie the more unique they'll sound (or I hope)... sometimes a film is so good or I've seen it enough times to talk about it like I'm remembering an old dear friend... like have you ever noticed Welles appears in only 3 scenes in The Third Man and in two of those he doesn't utter a word? yet here I was, always remembering the film because of (and through) the fox himself...

I try to avoid sounding generic (like I'd prefer to say Heath Ledger is "scene-stealling" in The Dark Knight - it's true, nobody was ready for that powerhouse of a performance- rather than "great") but I find myself running out of patience these days... so I'll just be generic and say he's great, lol... but I advise you not to do it. Add something new or at least new-sounding to the conversation.

Yea especially when making a list of movies and sharing it with other people like on here, saying something is great is fine but after it's used a lot, it's better to give that word a cooldown and write something different other than using stuff like "This was a great movie" or "Great cast or scenes."

[MovieFan1988]

I think that movie reviews, like most writing genres, have a really wide range of what they can be.

Some people write reviews that are very focused on the different technical elements of the film. I tend to write reviews that are half about the elements of the movie and about half about my personal reception of the film. I've found writing reviews a lot easier without trying to simulate this "objective critic voice". I notice that a lot of reviewers aim for this dry, "professional" voice and it just ends up sounding cold and soulless.

I would say that a good place to start is just to write about whatever interests you the most about the movie. Are you interested in the history of how the movie was made? Did the movie hit personal notes with you? Do you really tend to notice acting? Writing? Soundtrack?

One thing that I don't enjoy in movie reviews is when they take up a ton of space giving a plot summary or a blow-by-blow account of the events in the film or just other stats that are just basically IMDb information. I'm not reading a movie review for a book report, I'm reading it to enjoy it as a piece of writing.

I find it crazy on how some people can write a whole summary about a movie, I find those very long to read and I sometimes end up just skimming through some of it until I get to the end. I think sticking to the details that you liked about the movie matters most.

[MovieFan1988]

I'm not a good person to give advice on this because I'm probably the worst review writer on the forum, but the only thing I can tell you is to either avoid spoilers, or at least use spoiler tags or some type of warning if you include spoilers.

Remember that there's a good chance that some people who will read your review haven't seen the movie, even if it's an older movie.

That's actually good advice, you want to write on what you liked about the film, not an essay on how the movie goes down scene by scene. I mean yea some people do this probably to give you a sense on what the movie is about but it can be written better without spoiling a lot of things.

[Takoma11]

I find it crazy on how some people can write a whole summary about a movie, I find those very long to read and I sometimes end up just skimming through some of it until I get to the end. I think sticking to the details that you liked about the movie matters most.

I always include a short paragraph about the plot of the film, but sometimes people write "reviews" that are just blow-by-blow accounts of what happens in the movie, or they include information that I just don't find relevant.

[Gideon58]

I know it’s not important to a lot of people but I do like to mention if the movie received any Oscar love

[Thief]

I'm not a good person to give advice on this because I'm probably the worst review writer on the forum, but the only thing I can tell you is to either avoid spoilers, or at least use spoiler tags or some type of warning if you include spoilers.

Remember that there's a good chance that some people who will read your review haven't seen the movie, even if it's an older movie.

In the subject of spoilers, I often read people arguing how "absurd" spoilers are when a film is 40, 60, 70 years old, but I always counter that that statement assumes everybody has been exposed to the same films at the same time, which obviously, is not the case.

[Yoda]

First and foremost: your job as a reviewer is to entertain and/or enrich. A review, a proper review, is not a blog entry. If you're writing it and posting it publicly there is a presumption that it will be of use to others. So if something gets in the way of that, if you have to choose between doing something you think a review is supposed to do, versus saying something interesting...say something interesting.

I used to write reviews in a checklist fashion. I'd open with some angle that struck me (which is good) and say all the things that I found most compelling (also good)...and then I'd read it back and realize I didn't mention the quality of the acting or the photography or whatever, and feel like I had to put in some perfunctory mention of those things (which is bad).

Your job is to hold the reader's attention for however long you're asking for it, and to say something about the film that will be amusing or insightful or <insert positive adjective here>.

To that end, the only really hard, specific piece of advice I'd want to give was already given right here:

One thing that I don't enjoy in movie reviews is when they take up a ton of space giving a plot summary or a blow-by-blow account of the events in the film or just other stats that are just basically IMDb information. I'm not reading a movie review for a book report, I'm reading it to enjoy it as a piece of writing.
Huge co-sign here.

Sometimes you need to reference the plot so that the review makes sense in isolation, without having seen the film, but it should be quick and efficient and only do what is required to achieve that.

We have guidelines for what we'll tag as reviews here, and one of the guidelines is specifically that the review cannot consist largely of plot description.

[Mr Minio]

Focus on the camerawork, editing, blocking, scenography, framing, use of sound...

Way too many reviews talk about WHAT the film shows, not HOW it shows it. But it's the how that differentiates a great film from a bad one.

[Takoma11]

In the subject of spoilers, I often read people arguing how "absurd" spoilers are when a film is 40, 60, 70 years old, but I always counter that that statement assumes everybody has been exposed to the same films at the same time, which obviously, is not the case.

I find this to be an infuriating point of view. Have a handful of major plot points from very high profile movies percolated their way into cultural pop consciousness ("Luke, I am . . . ")? Yes.

Does that excuse spoiling movies left and right because they are old? NO.



I also want to say: I think that writing reviews is something that you should do however you want. The things that interest you are the things that interest you. Many times I will write a review that feels more like a musing journal entry than a piece of film criticism. And that's fine. People who resonate with that will read them, and people that don't, won't.

I think that reflecting on how you write is important if you are hoping to get conversation/responses from others but don't seem to get any traction on that front. I've long since decided that I'm mostly writing for myself, though obviously I love it when someone wants to have a conversation about something I've written. But if you're posting reviews and hoping for responses but getting none . . . could be worth taking a look at your writing. I write very long reviews and I know that means many people won't even read them or will just lightly skim them.

[Wyldesyde19]

Focus on the camerawork, editing, blocking, scenography, framing, use of sound...

Way too many reviews talk about WHAT the film shows, not HOW it shows it. But it's the how that differentiates a great film from a bad one.
I’d argue that what a film shows and how it shows it are equally important, depending on the film. Subject matter is pretty important, just as themes are, right?
Now, obviously this is a case by case basis, or rather film by film, but if the films is about an important subject matter (Mizoguchi’s films for example were socially conscious), I’d say that’s something to note.

[SpelingError]

I don't know if I have much to offer beyond what's already been covered, but I'll also add that I don't review every film I watch. While I need to get better at this, I only write reviews of films when I feel motivated to do so. If I like a film but don't feel an itch to write anything about it, I find it better to simply assign it a rating and move on since I'd feel far less passion from writing something about it. If I feel compelled to expand upon an aspect which either really stood out to me or I found interesting for whatever reason though, I tend to enjoy myself more. It sometimes helps to sit on my thoughts for a day or two as well. Also, while this is ironic given my participation in the Hall of Infamy, I enjoy reviewing films I liked (or were mixed on) more than those I disliked.

[skizzerflake]

Any review that avoids a significant part of the movie misses the point. The only thing I avoid is spoilers. What's a spoiler? I don't know exactly, but I generally know them when I see them. Movies are a synthesis of writing, staging, FX, sound, speech, acting, music, etc.

[John W Constantine]

I remove reason and accountability then go from there.

[Mr Minio]

I’d argue that what a film shows and how it shows it are equally important, depending on the film. Subject matter is pretty important, just as themes are, right? I think the "depending on the film" part is salient. Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will isn't exactly a paragon of meaningful themes or subject matter but it's still a technical marvel that can be studied at length. IIRC even George Lucas stole something from it for Star Wars.

if the films is about an important subject matter (Mizoguchi’s films for example were socially conscious), I’d say that’s something to note. I'm not saying you cannot talk about the subject matter or the story at all. My advice was to focus on the how, not to completely erase the what.

But ultimately the greatness of Mizoguchi isn't just that he tackles social themes. His films that talk about women sacrificing for often ungrateful men fit right into the typical giri-ninjo theme that was popular in literature and theatre at the time.

Thinking that tackling "important" topics is enough to make a great film is a common misconception prevalent among many contemporary directors. "This film starts a discussion so it's valuable" is a bad idea. Anything can start a discussion, you don't need a film for that. With modern films of this kind, you can talk about them without even watching them. You know the important theme, so you don't need the film. But a film must be something more than that. It must defend itself in ways pure cinematic; in the "how".

Reviewers should praise films for the how. Instead of describing the story, they should talk about how it was portrayed by the director. How that scene that impressed them played out, what cinematic techniques were used to achieve it, what the director's auteurship and philosophy on cinema are and how these two are evident in this film, and so on. If you sit down to write about a film and you don't have much to say about it except for the barebones story, or the themes it tackles, and whether the film is problematic or not in the current sociopolitical climate, I think there are two possibilities:
1. The film isn't anything special in the, let's call it, "art department", so talking about its story and themes is all you can do. Let's hope it's at least entertaining/a nice watch.
2. You don't know/care about the "art department". If you don't know, you can learn. If you don't care, so be it. But I think that writing about cinema while ignoring the most important part of it is weird. Not that I'm not guilty of that myself; we all are. But that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

If you think about it, even the screenplay is the how, or rather a combination of the what and the how. But the how already starts there. Rear Window's screenplay talks about camera movements a lot. But this wasn't true for most screenplays. Many directors back in the day received finalized screenplays and then began to rewrite them to make them more cinematic. Boris Barnet was known for completely rewriting screenplays to make them his own. Allan Dwan said: "A screenplay is just a blueprint. The director’s job is to make it cinematic, to figure out how to go from one shot to another, to make it flow visually." This is the how.

https://i.imgur.com/pqEn0am.png

[Wyldesyde19]

I think the "depending on the film" part is salient. Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will isn't exactly a paragon of meaningful themes or subject matter but it's still a technical marvel that can be studied at length. IIRC even George Lucas stole something from it for Star Wars.

I'm not saying you cannot talk about the subject matter or the story at all. My advice was to focus on the how, not to completely erase the what.

But ultimately the greatness of Mizoguchi isn't just that he tackles social themes. His films that talk about women sacrificing for often ungrateful men fit right into the typical giri-ninjo theme that was popular in literature and theatre at the time.

Thinking that tackling "important" topics is enough to make a great film is a common misconception prevalent among many contemporary directors. "This film starts a discussion so it's valuable" is a bad idea. Anything can start a discussion, you don't need a film for that. With modern films of this kind, you can talk about them without even watching them. You know the important theme, so you don't need the film. But a film must be something more than that. It must defend itself in ways pure cinematic; in the "how".

Reviewers should praise films for the how. Instead of describing the story, they should talk about how it was portrayed by the director. How that scene that impressed them played out, what cinematic techniques were used to achieve it, what the director's auteurship and philosophy on cinema are and how these two are evident in this film, and so on. If you sit down to write about a film and you don't have much to say about it except for the barebones story, or the themes it tackles, and whether the film is problematic or not in the current sociopolitical climate, I think there are two possibilities:
1. The film isn't anything special in the, let's call it, "art department", so talking about its story and themes is all you can do. Let's hope it's at least entertaining/a nice watch.
2. You don't know/care about the "art department". If you don't know, you can learn. If you don't care, so be it. But I think that writing about cinema while ignoring the most important part of it is weird. Not that I'm not guilty of that myself; we all are. But that doesn't make it the right thing to do.

If you think about it, even the screenplay is the how, or rather a combination of the what and the how. But the how already starts there. Rear Window's screenplay talks about camera movements a lot. But this wasn't true for most screenplays. Many directors back in the day received finalized screenplays and then began to rewrite them to make them more cinematic. Boris Barnet was known for completely rewriting screenplays to make them his own. Allan Dwan said: "A screenplay is just a blueprint. The director’s job is to make it cinematic, to figure out how to go from one shot to another, to make it flow visually." This is the how.

https://i.imgur.com/pqEn0am.png

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the how isn’t important, or downplaying it really. If anything, I think most would agree that the subject matter itself doesn’t mean much. At the same time, how it is filmed (angles, blocking, camera movements etc) is sometimes over hyped as if its all that matters. Again, it depends on the film.*

The Color of Pomegranates is probably a great example of a film that is shot so well, and it’s subject matter was almost impenetrable. I had to read what it was about to understand it, to be honest. Once I did it made sense!
Jean Rollin also comes to mind, because his films are so interesting to watch, not just because of the story, but because of his technique.

So for me, I can’t agree completely that the story shouldn’t be talked about. If a critic (or a reviewer in our case) is any good at what he does, he’ll mention both. A film doesn’t need to be artistic to be great though! Although it certainly helps, sure. But if a films merit merely hangs on how it looks and by how it’s made, isn’t that, too, a fine thread to hang on by? It doesn’t mean much of it’s empty and shallow,, regardless of how artistic it looks.
Stories and subject matter are often a huge part of the film, after all.

[Mr Minio]

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the how isn’t important, or downplaying it really. Reviewers are downplaying it by not writing about it enough. Mainstream filmmakers are downplaying it by making bland, unartistic, formally uninteresting films.

At the same time, how it is filmed (angles, blocking, camera movements etc) is sometimes over hyped as if its all that matters. Again, it depends on the film.* It's almost all. If you don't make the story "live" using these techniques, your film is inferior to the film made by a guy who uses these techniques. And using these techniques in an ordered and conscious way makes you an artist versus a craftsman. That's the basics of auteur theory.

The Color of Pomegranates is probably a great example of a film that is shot so well, and it’s subject matter was almost impenetrable. I had to read what it was about to understand it, to be honest. Once I did it made sense! That desire to understand a film's "story" no matter what is another "problem." Impenetrable is good, it challenges you and makes you work for it. Not understanding is good, it brings out pleasure and makes you focus on other aspects of the film.

Jean Rollin also comes to mind, because his films are so interesting to watch, not just because of the story, but because of his technique. His films are artistic pulp of the highest order - yet another "genre" where the what is secondary to the how.

So for me, I can’t agree completely that the story shouldn’t be talked about. If a critic (or a reviewer in our case) is any good at what he does, he’ll mention both. I never said it shouldn't be talked about. I said it shouldn't be talked as the only thing. The how and the what are often so tied that it should be hard to talk about one and not the other, but many reviewers still find ways to do that. I find this surprising.

A film doesn’t need to be artistic to be great though! To be merely good, maybe not. But to be great or better than great, yes, it needs to be artistic, meaning it needs to have more value than just a good story with poor/bland/normie/unauteurlike execution.

But if a films merit merely hangs on how it looks and by how it’s made, isn’t that, too, a fine thread to hang on by? It doesn’t mean much of it’s empty and shallow,, regardless of how artistic it looks. I think it tells a lot! And I think, again, that the how and the what are intermingled. By improving the how, you indirectly improve the what. Questions arise: Why did he shoot it like that? What was his intention? What does this amazing shot mean? And the answers are the what. But notice how the what is now mantled in a wonderful how! A talented auteur can make a normie romantic comedy, almost an unbearable one, but inject auteurship and hidden themes and transgressions that elevate the whole thing to the rank of a masterwork, making it effectively anti-romantic. By molding and shaping the framing, blocking, camera movements, the space between characters, and so on, the director transforms a film that should be worthless into something that has worth, precisely by using the appropriate how.

Even Spielberg, whom you seem to love more than I do, engages in all sorts of visual tricks to improve the how. Think how Spielberg uses a dissolve to make the Paramount logo transform into an in-movie mountain in Raiders of the Lost Ark. That's the how. And it seems to be one of those "purer" hows that don't necessarily interconnect with the what. Does it have any meaning? Perhaps? You can draw meaning from it. But it's more meta than a way of improving the story itself. But does that make the film a tiny bit better? No doubt about that.

[LeBoyWondeur]

It sometimes helps to sit on my thoughts for a day or two as well.
Yes, absolutely. While the memory is more fresh when you review the film straight afterwards I think some subconscious impressions can surface at a later time.
Actually it happened to me today, and I thought "how come I didn't notice that when I watched the film last week?".
But of course I had noticed it, it's just that the conscious part of my brains gave priority to the more obvious impressions.

[Citizen Rules]

I find if I wait a couple of days to write my review, all of the passion or disdain that I had for the movie evaporates. Leaving me with just analytical thoughts on the film. I'm not a scientist so I don't want to write analytically. If I review a movie that I feel strongly about I want to do it from a gut reflex level and with emotional conviction.

[Gideon58]

I have to write a review immediately after watching the movie. If I wait even 24 hrs, I forget half the movie and half of what I wanted to say about it. I’m old.

[Citizen Rules]

I have to write a review immediately after watching the movie. If I wait even 24 hrs, I forget half the movie and half of what I wanted to say about it. I’m old.Me too, buddy🙂

[Gideon58]

What are the things that you like to add about the movie and also what to avoid when writing about the movie?

I've been working on a new favorite horror movies list and seem to struggle on writing reviews for some of the movies.

I really struggle with avoiding spoilers

[MovieFan1988]

I have to write a review immediately after watching the movie. If I wait even 24 hrs, I forget half the movie and half of what I wanted to say about it. I’m old.

Imagine watching a movie at night and say you watch it at 8PM and it ends at like at 10PM and you're very tired to even write a reviews and the next day you're damn I forgot to write about the movie.

I tend to avoid watching movies at these times since I usually get tired and end up falling asleep during the movie. Also, when I have work the next morning, I just go to bed early and watch the movie like sometime in the afternoon when I get home from work or early morning when I don't have work.

[Gideon58]

I try not to do that either but it does happen on occasion and when it does I will put the movie back on and watch the first 15-20 minutes which is enough to remind me about the rest of the movie and what I wanted to say about it.