I’ve decided to indulge in a post on what to me constitutes the best and worst of film blogging. I’ve been brooding on the subject for some time as I alternately learn, bask, and cringe at what I see in the film blogosphere.


I love to learn new things. The best posts for me are new angles on films I know, creative introductions to films I don’t know, and contemplations of style, genre, direction, cinematography, historical context, etc. Pairing films and comparing them or showing how they might be enjoyed together is fabulous. Blogathons can make for fascinating approaches to films, individually or in groups. Personal experiences with films can also be compelling, especially when the blogger keeps audience in mind — what we might want to know vs. what they wore to the screening or what their accompanying friends’ names are. And I love writers with flair, those who enjoy writing and use words creatively, making the read a lively, enjoyable little adventure.


I don’t enjoy introductions to films that could have come straight from IMDb or Wikipedia, and I see a lot of this about. If a blogger is only summarizing to keep a personal screening journal, why post it publicly? Also, I don’t like film reviews that are inarticulate. Have criteria: I want to know why someone enjoyed or didn’t enjoy the film; and if they’re not sure, why am I reading?  Most of all, I can’t stand unedited, poorly written blather. I get that blogs are not formal publications, but let’s edit and proofread a little. We all make mistakes, but frankly I’ve been stunned by posts that receive tons of praise when I can barely get through the misused words, repetitiveness, grammatical errors, and typos.

That’s all for now. Please feel free to vent your own spleen in comments.