IMDB.com is a great resource for movies and I reference it regularly for my site projects. Over the years, I have read numerous detailed synopsis and reviews contributed by members of IMDB. While I don't contribute reviews myself due to my own site projects, I have spent countless hours in research and have picked out signs of bad habits some members default to.
Granted, the IMDB review and synopsis sections are for amateur writers, however, it's a very popular amateur venue where even one movie could have literally over a 1,000 reviews. With this much interest for members to exercise their writing chops, meaning there are literally thousands of members who contributes reviews, a few basic tips to heed can't be a bad thing.
Members post reviews because they want them read. Just because they are generally viewed as amateur, that doesn't necessarily mean they can't put together a cohesive, focused, and interesting review. Here's a list of bad habits to avoid and basic tips for you to consider if you decide to write a review and / or synopsis for IMDB.....or any website, for that matter.
The Endless Sentence
One of the most common mistakes I see that both reviewers and synopsis contributors do: They seem deathly afraid to end a sentence. A 150 word sentence embedded with a dozen commas and a dozen semi-colons is a nightmare to read. This bad habit is more common in the Synopsis sections than the Reviews sections.
Keep your sentences somewhat compact. You're writing a sentence, not a paragraph. A generous supply of "periods" is your friend.
. . . . and speaking of paragraphs...
The Endless Paragraph
Again, these are a nightmare to read when a paragraph never ends. Websites are easier to read when paragraphs are brief. You start with a train of thought that has a message or point. End that point with a paragraph ending. Continuing to a new point in the same paragraph sends a confusing message. Is the author still discussing his first point?
Give the reader a space to absorb your point with a paragraph ending, then continue with your next point with a new paragraph. Sometimes you may need multiple paragraphs to properly desribe a single point. Don't be afraid to do that. When I see a one paragraph "wall of text" in a review, I typically scroll past it to the next review.
The ultimate reader's nightmare: a reviewer who writes the Endless Sentence mentioned above in an Endless Paragraph.
Insulting Review Titles
When you are creating the title for your review, the worst thing you can do is launch your review insulting the readers or infesting your title with absurd claims.
An example of an insulting title I saw at the IMDB reviews section, "People are Getting Dumber." Why start off insulting the reader? As the reader, should I exclude myself from the author's accusation? Does the author realize he or she is insulting his family and friends also? "People" includes them too. Does the author think he is above his own his accusation? When I come across a review with such an insulting title, I scroll right past it without bothering to read what he has to say about the film.
An example of an absurd claim in the title I saw in the IMDB reviews section, "All Ratings are Lies!" Along with his review, he also gave his rating. Thanks for the heads up. Going by the author's logic, his rating and review are a lie. He saved me the time reading his review. Don't discourage viewers reading your review by making aburd claims.
Lengthy Synopsis in Reviews
Another common mistake, lengthy synopsis in a review. IMDB visitors don't need it, they're just one or two clicks away from a lengthy synopsis if that was what the reader was looking for. I've seen imbd full page movie reviews where over 90% of the review content is simply reciting the story. A total waste of time.
Keep synopsis in your review to a minimum, such as when it's needed to drive a specific point you're discussing on the film. A brief paragraph on the synopsis is plenty of fuel to launch your review of the film. The only time you would want to write a lengthy synopsis is if you're actually submitting it in IMDB's synopsis section.
Irrelevant Rambling On
Reviewers who go on about their quest to go see the movie. Blabbering on about how their theater doesn't have their favorite brand of candy, so they had to stop at the store first so he had the proper condiments to experience the movie as he is accustomed to.
What? . . . . . Don't care. I don't really care if your theater doesn't offer your favorite jelly beans. Talk . . . . about . . . . the movie.
Aggressive or Antagonistic Reviews
Reviews that stray or lose focus on the movie via uncontrolled temper. Here's an example, I'll keep the review contributor's name anonymous:
"Let's begin with the bad sides...I met an old lady on Sunday in the vegetable market. She was smart, friendly, smiling, tastefully dressed, but when she walked by, she smelled a bit like pee, so I smacked her in the face! ...NO. It does not work like that.
So yes, there are flaws in the scripting, and they are perfectly and amusingly laid down in the longer 1-star reviews here. But if you are not suffering from over-infatuation with your own intellect, or from the professional deformations of a self-proclaimed art critic, it's certainly a great sci-fi. Alone the fact that people compare it to so many other movies, or liked so many divergent aspects about it, should tell you that it's not simple, not predictable, and well executed.
So if you crave for one of those, oh so rare, good sci-fi's with a bit of everything, you certainly want to watch it. And if you start watching it, you may want to enjoy it. So do yourself a favor switch off a few neural connections, if you suspect you own many, let the fear go, lay back and enjoy it. (!The plot summaries for this movie on IMDb are a failure)"
What a mess. The bulk of this review is him insulting other reviewers, insulting the readers, and even insulting the synopsis contributor. Check out his gunshot accusation..... some readers might be "over-infatuated with their own intellect?" What does that have to do with his perceptions on the movie? Sorry, but that antagonistic approach does not inspire me whatsoever to watch the movie.
The review contributor also lost focus by attacking what's been said in other reviews. Again, this tells us absolutely nothing about his perception on the film. Once you remove all of his insults, all he basically says is "yea go see it because I said so."
When you're contributing an IMDB review, stay focused on the movie. It's not your duty to try to negate what's been said in other reviews and it's not your judgment call to conclude some readers / reviewers might be "professional deformations of a self-proclaimed art critic." Leave your gunshot insults on your personal Notepad, and just express publicly your analysis of the film.
Rookie One Liner Jabs
Overused and lame remarks such as "I joined IMDB just to write this review to warn people," and "If I could rate it less than 1, I would." Again, it serves no purpose but to be antagonistic. You can certainly be very critical without stooping to playground spitting. If you have a strong disdain for a given movie, express it intelligently. (thanks to IMDB member machina5 for suggesting this)
Phony Endorsements
Members making up phony endorsements to stengthen their point when it's obvious to anyone with common sense they are making it up. A few examples:
"When that cheesy scene came up on screen, the entire crowd in my theater just rolled their eyes!"
R-i-i-ight! This member expects us to believe, at that moment, he turned his head and studied every audience face behind him for their reaction to that scene? And if the member wasn't in the front row, he would then have to get up and run to the front row and study the faces of all the people that were in front of him?
The second example, "When that cheesy scene came up on screen, several people walked out of the theater!"
Translation: It was either imagined by the member or he saw one person get up and neglected to mention that person returned moments later....perhaps from the bathroom. This one is used so often that if it were indeed true, you could hardly go to a theater and not see people walk out in "protest."
Third example, casting yourself as the brainiac of your given theater crowd. "Very few in my theater understood the symbolism in that scene. When we see the red reflection in his eyes, I was the only one in my theater 'who got it.' "
How does he know that? At the end of the movie, did he race to the exit and interview every audience member making their way out and asked them if they "got that scene?"
Don't make up phony endorsements to strengthen your point. Have confidence in your ability to explain the reasoning for your criticism or praise, whichever applies, sans the eyes-rolling-stomping-out-of-the-theater imaginary crowd.
An Ounce of Preparation Saves you a Pound of Embarrassment
Nothing more embarrassing than expressing inaccurate information in a review. Take notes while watching the film, is one option. This collection of your thoughts makes for a great template to develop your review and reduces the chance of recalling a scene inaccurately. Also consider watching the film one more time if you can, before writing your review. First impressions or recollections can sometimes go awry.
Perfect example from an IMDB reviewer, "How does Kurt's R.J. MacReady [The Thing 1982], who is the station's helicopter pilot, know everything and always has the right answer?" All this tells me is the reviewer's attention strayed from the film. Otherwise he would have known the character Mac was very much wrong with his suspicions more than once. Mac thought Clarke was an alien . . . Mac was wrong. Mac thought Garry was an alien . . . Mac was wrong.
Perhaps if this reviewer watched the film again, he would have caught that the second time around. Or at the very least, kept his attention focused on the film the first time around. Instead, he now has inaccurate scene info existing in his review. . . Embarrassing . . . very embarrassing.
The Hook
The hook, your beginning sentence. What you say from the very beginning could possibly determine whether a reader will continue reading your review. An excellent example from an IMDB reviewer who began with, "A low-budget independent film that is nevertheless handsomely and confidently shot, Blue Ruin is a consistently unpredictable, twisty, and excellent thriller." In his first sentence, he gives a condensed description of the film type and I know immediately his view on the film . . . . all in one brief sentence. I'm compelled to read further for his explanation and / or elaborate on his introduction claim.
I've seen some reviews where you don't even know the author's view on the film until late in the review. Don't keep the reader guessing, make a stance early on or in your introduction. This makes for a great segue to your more detailed opinion of the film and gives the reader a clear message of your review agenda.
|
