When you write a movie review,

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.

__________________
Moviefan1988's Favorite Movies
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...?t=67103<br />

Welcome to the Dance: My Favorite 20 High School Movies
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...02#post2413502

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

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.

__________________
HEI guys.

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.

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.

__________________

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.

__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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:

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.

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.

__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.

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.

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.