A love letter to Letterboxd

With thoughts on judgment, taste, and Ryan Coogler's Sinners

I saw Sinners last night at the movies. It was great. Not amazing, but great.

Michael B. Jordan plays a set of soldier-turned-mobster twins (“Smoke” and “Stack”—clever) who have returned home to the Mississippi Delta that raised them.¹ After fighting overseas in WWI and then shifting to organized crime in Chicago, the men decide to make their own freedom by purchasing an old sawmill and starting up a juke joint—complete with all the debauchery that a 1932 prohibition-era operation can offer: drinking, gambling, the blues, food, and miscellaneous vice behind closed doors. True carnival.

But the twins come home to “discover that an even greater evil is waiting to welcome them,” to quote the press release. That evil is vampires. I’ll leave my summary there, because surprise plays an important role in this film watching experience.

In my opinion the best part of this movie is the casting.

Michael B. Jordan looks absolutely shredded per usual. He damn near inspired me to get down in the aisle during the movie and do some push ups.

Aura (as the kids say these days).

The vampires are bloody, sinister, and malicious (bonus: and racist!), and director Ryan Coogler winningly portrays the blues, capturing the grief, mourning, and mixed joys of the genre to real effect.

Yet despite these endearing qualities, I left Sinners ultimately feeling impressed but relatively unchanged. It was like a dining experience at a respectable restaurant—solid, delightful, capable. And I would go back. Not because the experience blew me away, but because it was reliable and the burger was well cooked. The chef clearly knew what they are doing. And the atmosphere—hey, nothing to shake a stick at. Table for two please.²

This type of aesthetic response in my book is not a bad thing at all. It is OK—and right—to have judgments. It’s a common experience that a friend recommends a show or book they love, and it leaves us apathetic. But when a movie is getting nearly universal praise, and I’m left feeling a bit like I missed something, it can be hard to put into words why I responded the way I did. Is something wrong with me?

So I turn to Letterboxd.

Extra credit for the nice clean logo.

If you haven’t heard yet, Letterboxd is an app/website where you can track, log, review, rate, leave a star rating, congregate, and navigate the world of film. It’s like Goodreads for movies except not owned by Amazon (yet).

It’s the ideal spot for those who want to compile a solid watch list, who need inspiration or affirmation from others about what’s good and bad, or who are looking for a “lite” social media–style app that won’t ask you to scroll endlessly or watch short form content (Substack 🙄). It does all this through the power of community and aggregation and our culture’s love of film. There are very few drawbacks.³

All users handle reviews and star ratings differently—depending of course on temperament and your level of contrarianism. Some are stingy with the fives, others gracious. Some pass out ones like coal at Christmas, while others withhold the rod. I tend to reward stars on a comparative basis, judging a movie against its peers in the same genre, but this comes from intuition rather than some strict rule.

For example I’ve given the relatively controversial Mickey 17 (a comedy) four stars and Wind River (a drama) also four stars, though the latter is definitely a better film. These movies aren’t comparable; I just have different expectations for them within their respective domains.

So Letterboxd is best used as a journal to collect impressions. Give a quick star rating, a short sentence or phrase, maybe a scene you really loved and don’t want to forget, and then call it a day. Don’t overthink it. Do this the morning after watching for a clearer mind. Allow the intoxicating smell of popcorn to dissipate off your skin. Let the novelty of new experience subside a bit. Wait for the dopamine from the Sour Patch Kids to dissolve. Your thoughts need to ruminate. (Henry Bugbee says that “experience must continue underground for some time before it can emerge as springwater, clear, pure, understood.”)

But its other joy lies in the collection of communal reviews. You find thoughts from both overbearing cinephiles and class clowns. Some Sinners examples:

Jackson (4 stars): “Vampiric white boy orders in perfect Chinese, shocks entire juke joint”

You’ll come across snotty gen-zers who are clearly rage-baiting and amateur film critics discussing the complexities of the mise-en-scene:

Jeff (4.5 stars): Purposefully messy vampire metaphor just overflowing with passion and ideas, painted across a tapestry of folklore, diegetic blues, and epic horror. It’s why we go to the movies. The 70mm print stuns.

I try and land somewhere in the middle of all these, never taking my review and star rating too seriously, yet always giving some honest debrief. Here’s a few of my recent reviews in full for your tasting pleasure:

Gladiator II, a few months back:

1.5 stars: “this movie was pretty much dooky”

My sweet, precious The Brutalist—sadly blighted by the AI incident:

4.5 stars: a beautiful journey. it could have been another 2 hours longer. Brody is so good, deserves lots of awards

My glorious king Timothée Chalamet in A Complete Unknown:

4.5 stars: this movie had NO right being this good. Chalamet slaughtered the role

Have to mention Conclave given our current moment:

3.5 stars: unexpected; nicely shot, good pacing

And finally Sinners:

3 stars: michael b. jordan + the blues + vampires = cool

If a movie absolutely breaks me I might not leave any review at all and just enter my star rating and put my phone down forever (like I did for The Iron Claw).

The “most popular” reviews at the top of a film’s Letterboxd page are often tongue-in-cheek jabs, inside jokes, or allusions to “that one scene” which you will not understand until you have watched the film, so a great part of the app experience is waiting until after watching to skim these.

True, sometimes others’ reviews and the aggregate star ratings will do nothing except make you angry. But you must resist stoking the fire, from being the reply guy. Let them have their strawmans and their cheap shots. Do not under any circumstances reply “You wouldn’t get it.” It’s OK that you love Megalopolis and they can’t wrap their small brains around it.

And—if you read through enough—you find it: the review you were looking for. The commiserator. The reasonable take. That aesthetic bedfellow who gives you words for your (in this case) indifference to Sinners:

Joel (2.5 stars): Once again a modern movie with tons of praise drives me to the theater and I leave feeling like I saw something decidedly generic….I can’t help but feel like the cultural barometer for quality is busted right now. We’ve been fed so much crap that anything mainstream that is somewhat unique gets hailed like Jesus has risen. This movie as of this review has a 4.3/5, right up there with the best movies of all time.

Yes. This is it. I found my main idea (even if a bit harsh).

This is a good movie (I wouldn’t call it generic like Joel), yet we’re so conditioned to watch crap that these rare good movies seem to us like The Godfather. Sinners is an entertaining and artistic (though disheveled) film in a world where every other movie at the AMC or Cinemark is a sequel, live-action remake, or otherwise profitable iteration of an IP Disney probably gobbled up. (Did you know Marvel Studios has put out thirty six films since 2007?) So I’m encouraged that an original movie like this is making waves and making money. But it has its faults, let’s not pretend otherwise.⁴

This is just my opinion, and it’s not even a very well baked opinion. I needed help to form it. But it’s why I love Letterboxd, because it can give me words for thoughts I can’t articulate and feelings for impressions I don’t know how to name, like I’ve been struggling to articulate here.

C.S. Lewis says that our reflex to call something “bad” often manifests as “invisibility” on our part—Was there something unseen, inconspicuous, yet rich in this book I read, movie I watched, or sculpture I studied? What might have I missed? Others’ reviews can help me catch these blindspots (such as when this one helped me realize that Sinners was pretty much a musical). We ought to be “honest examiners” and show vulnerability when we are welcomed into an artistic experience: “We must risk being taken in, if we are to get anything.”

Letterboxd tempers my extravagant claims when I believe I alone possess the all-seeing eye of Good Taste, and it slows me down when I am ready to bring down the Hammer of Judgment. I use it and become a little less confused and always more appreciative.

P.S. You should follow my account expeditiously.

1. The top Letterboxd review (50k+ likes) got me real good: “Finally they cast Michael A. Jordan in something.”

2. Forgive the consumption metaphor—art is more than something we swallow, but this analogy works well. Also, on the topic of of atmosphere—this movie felt like Jean Toomer’s short story “Blood-Burning Moon” from Cane. Anyone else catch this?

3. From the Letterboxd Wiki page: “[Letterboxd] has been criticized for gamifying the act of watching films and boosting sardonic one-line reviews over more in-depth assessments.” True enough.

4. The RogerEbert.com review spells out these faults excellently (way better than I could) while also giving the movie its kudos—highly recommend.