It's worse than reddit
my review of this thread4 rotten tomatoes out of fife.
Just don't scroll to the review section. It's not hard.
>>219539585I can't deal with reviews. Only thing you're going to get from me is a stars rating and that's it.
>>219539585the official accounts are worth following desuhttps://letterboxd.com/afi/https://letterboxd.com/bfi/https://letterboxd.com/criterion/https://letterboxd.com/festival_cannes/https://letterboxd.com/tiff_net/https://letterboxd.com/oscars/https://letterboxd.com/mubi/https://letterboxd.com/janusfilms/
Daily reminder that most print media got rid of their film critics decades ago and that real film criticism still lives on on Letterboxd
>>219539585>keeps track of your kinos>worse than redditwat?
>>219539585It's a website for women
>>219539585Another day, another thread where /tv/ posters cry about getting their feelings hurt by reviews nobody forces them to read
>>219541734>brittany murphy>dakota fanning>for womenkino transcends gender
>>219541688It just means everyone thinks they're a film critic nowadays. And that's NOT a good thing. Yeah free speech yadayada but if we're being honest, most people shouldn't be voicing their ill-informed opinions, even less on public platforms.
https://letterboxd.com/dafnekeen/film/nosferatu-2024/
>>219539585>look at top reviews>its women and gays who think theyre hilarious>no actual discussion or critique
>>219539585Lmao I just wrote a review last night. Too bad I know people irl on the account or I’d share
Let's see everybody's top 4 favourites
I have an imdb account, what is the difference? I can rate stuff on imdb too.
>>219539585It's a great website for what it is, but it just happens to have a horrendous userbase.
I'm guessing the site is now over 50% female considering how bad the "most popular films this week" list is
>>219542074film discussion and critique is gay. when has this place ever seriously discussed and critiqued a movie? the only real modern parameter of value is how many memes a movie generates.
I just have a long list of films in the notes app on my phone that i've enjoyed. Never really attributed a 'rating' to them (nothing can ever be a 5/5 imo). Although, films that I find exceptional I just put a fucking asterisk, lmao.Always found it impossible be able to give a 'top 5' anything really. A lot of shit to enjoy.
>>219539585putting the userbase and reviews aside its a good site for keeping track of and logging movies.
>>219539585I use it because I have irl friends and cousins who use it so it's easy to look at everyone's watchlist and decide on a movie, also there's like 2 earnest reviews with taste I like + actually good criticisms etc so I get some good recommendations here and there. Aside from that the group consensus coming from this website is dogshit. Also funny how the "Thing, Japan" mindset is also applicable to the artsy fartsy world of movies
>>219542034What do you know, my letterboxd account is a national treasure.
MEN BADWOMEN GOODGAYS GOODSTRAIGHTS BADTWO MEN ARE FRIENDS = THEY'RE GAYFEMALE CHARACTER IS NOT PERFECT = MALE DIRECTORS ARE PIGSEVERY MALE CHARACTER SHOULD BE GAYEVERY ATTRACTIVE FEMALE CHARACTER IS FOR LESBIANS AND GAYS ONLY!!!!IF THE MALE DIRECTOR HAS RAPE IN HIS FILM IT MEANS HE ENDORSES RAPE
>>219542300I have nothing to hide.
>>219547396This is now a Lynch thread
>>219539585isn't this the same shit as IMDB?
>>219547396>>219547534so you're those dudes that pretend Inland Empire makes sense huh
>>219547583IMDB has actual reviews. Letterboxd is a unfunny one-liner ridden shithole for gays and women.
How do you decide on a rating? I keep getting baited into watching movies with a 3.x rating expecting it means the movie is at least watchable only for it to be direct to streaming tier that I can only spare 1-2 stars for at least having a competent production. For me:1: offensively bad but not in a so bad its good way. Nothing good to say about it. Had to force myself to sit through it.2: boring but had at least something going for it like an interesting setting, pretty production design, charming actors...3: watchable well made movie but doesnt leave a lasting impression. OR an interesting idea with visible effort behind it but uneven with too many flaws3.5: enjoyable watch has something unique going for it and did it well but still has a flaw or two that stop me from loving it4: was glued to the screen or smiling throughout. Worth a rewatch. 5: reserved for classic movies that I rewatched several times. Your established best movies of all time entries. I dont have any hot takes. I have yet to see a truly underappreciated masterpiece.4.5: amazing movie that has just one thing that bothers me that keeps me from giving it full 5Like I dont get how people give 5 stars to something like >>219541734. I enjoyed it and gave it a 3 but its a standard comedy. Far from a masterpiece.
>>219547670Because it's a website for women Shitty romcoms have better ratings than critically acclaimed films for men because it's a website for women
>>2195476705: Incredible, real piece of art (or childhood favorite that I refuse to back down on)4.5: great movie, kind of like you said just missing some indescribable thing that makes it top shelf or has something that annoys me4: very good, would watch again happily3.5: fun flick that had a lot going for it3: I liked it, not something I’ll probably think about again but not a waste of time either 2.5: just kind of alright, I’ll watch the thing if someone else really wants to but not really for me2: not a fan1.5: outright bad1: Seriously this shit sucks.5: fuck you for making this
>>219547670i mainly rate the same as the avg. rating isif the movie is very good i rate it better
