Review style 4/4.

This kind of review is interesting as it can be argued that it isn't really a review in a familiar form. Instead of a user writing out all their feelings and thoughts concerning the film, they use the film and often its themes as well to dive deep into specific ideas that, while related to the film, aren't really about it. It's almost as though the film filled the user with a spark and now they have something they have to say because of the film. This style seems to be popular because of the nature of human conscious and how what we are exposed to will influence us. Mental and actual conversations occur because ideas spring up both consciously and unconsciously all the time.

Examples:

• https://letterboxd.com/elihayes/film/marriage-story-2019/
• https://letterboxd.com/faithlessphil/film/parasite-2019/
• https://letterboxd.com/yijian/film/grave-of-the-fireflies/

Review style 2/4.

This kind of review is reminiscent of typical film criticism and journalism that you find in print, radio, and television. The reviewers sets out their individual likes and dislikes with the film with a very clear verdict visible by the end of the review. Everything from performances to score to cinematography and everything in between. Anything that a person might consider when choosing what film to watch. This type of review is popular because of the influence that classic film criticism and journalism has on a lot of film watchers. Another reason is that this kind of review is viewed as the way reviews should be, comprehensive reasons why to or not to watch a film.

Examples:

• https://letterboxd.com/dreyuhsanchez/film/rashomon/
• https://letterboxd.com/lordcookie/film/the-avengers-2012/
• https://letterboxd.com/silentdawn/film/8-half/

Review style 1/4.

This kind of review is a common one here on letterboxd.com. These reviews are often iconic or hard-hitting lines from the film that users think are representative of the film at large. Some of the most memorable parts of films are these lines so people use them to represent their feelings for the film. This can also be done with bad films as laughably ridiculous dialogue has a similar effect at capturing the feelings that the reviewer has for the film. Overall it seems like an easy and compact way for users to express their thoughts on the film.

Examples:

• https://letterboxd.com/adrianbalboa/film/scott-pilgrim-vs-the-world/2/
• https://letterboxd.com/carlymariex/film/to-all-the-boys-always-and-forever/
• https://letterboxd.com/ingridgoeswest/film/portrait-of-a-lady-on-fire/

Review style 3/4.

This is one is probably the most common type of review on the site. A humorous prose about the film as opposed to any real criticism. While often seen on films that are less serious in tone and historical importance, they can appear all over the site. This is because of the like system implemented on the site as someone is not always going to "like" a review for a film because they might disagree with it, they can't really disagree with a joke, especially one that makes them actually laugh. This makes them popular with users both in terms of what they like and what they use. The frequent use of humour is also emblematic of the sites core users, as young people often use humour in place of emotion whether for fear of embarrassment or a lack of something profound to say. In addition making a joke about a film you dislike is a great way to portray one's dislike for a film as the only thing they can say about it comes out in the form of a joke.

Examples:

• https://letterboxd.com/bratpitt/film/mank/
• https://letterboxd.com/r_e_l_k/film/the-devil-all-the-time/
• https://letterboxd.com/kcox1002/film/knives-out-2019/
• https://letterboxd.com/closerlookmedia/film/joker-2019/

In addition to reviews, letterboxd.com allows for users to make lists consisting of films. These can range from a list of a user's favourite films of 2019, to a list of feminist films that everyone should watch. A sub-genre of lists that have been making their way around the site in recent months is one like this, a hyper-specific list that usually on contains a few films that share a strangely large amount in common. This is often done to either compare and contrast films that on the surface seem very different but actually share a fair amount in common, to strange trends that come up in the film industry in regards to story and casting, or to just have a laugh using the feature.

Examples:

• https://letterboxd.com/davechen/list/murder-mysteries-directed-by-people-whove/
• https://letterboxd.com/margotrobble/list/movies-where-the-parents-from-juno-play-aggressive/
• https://letterboxd.com/jay/list/netflix-romcom-spends-90-minutes-establishing/

Pathetic Appeal: @peanutstreenuts argues that young people are easily persuaded and unprepared when it comes to choosing their future so putting an answer in front of them would make them at least intrigued in the idea even if the price is high. I think this appeal works because many people have strong emotions about higher education and coming into contact with it as a young adult. Many people in the replies and even people I know in real life share the same sentiment. The struggle of being lost as a youth is one most would like to get over quickly. So when higher education is brought up as an option, it can be seen as predatory when they offer the solution but at a cost not everyone can afford. You hear people talk about how they hate their major and wish they studied something else or people who just wish they hadn't even gone to school but felt like it was all they could do or was best for them when they were young.

I find this appeal to be the most convincing in this conversation because it takes the general anger the original tweet has and applies it to the experiences of many youths the world round. We have all been young and at a cross roads so when someone brings up how predatory higher education can come off when looking back in retrospect, it strikes a strong, volatile cord. @peanutstreenuts reinforced some of the "rules" of this digital space as they used a single, bitting remark as their main argument to gain interest and attention and then built upon that with further explanation in a reply tweet to their own tweet. They also played into the "rule" of using all lowercase letters in their tweet, something commonly used to express jokes or a sense of what can only be described as "deadness" when it comes to a subject they are tired of talking about.

Ethical Appeal: @hankgreen is an educator and author. A guy that some would consider successful and most would consider pretty smart. College educated himself, Green understands how much college costs and how confusing it can be to beg for a chance at an expensive education. Because of these factors Green seems like a guy you can trust when it comes to his opinions on things like media or higher education. I think that the ethical appeal helps Green's credibility because there are leagues of internet gurus who will tell you that college isn't worth it and the only way to succeed is to listen to them but unlike most of them, Green has actual credibility. He's an actual best-selling author, he's the founder or co-founder of several successful companies, and he runs well-received podcasts among other things. This authority that Green has, along with general opinion on higher education led to a large amount of the responses agreeing with Green and telling their own stories of high tuition.

Logical Appeal: @DrPeterDrake here is defending institutions of higher education by explaining that the practices that many see as predatory are actually in the interest of these places trying to keep their doors open, not to make as much more as possible or please shareholders, unlike what many assume of them. He likely used the logical appeal because it helps to make sense of the often confusing situation that arises from the high prices of higher education. I think the appeal was effective as it can help people upset with higher education understand what their money goes to and how institutions spend it but it was also ineffective as it doesn't address the issue that many also have with higher education, that being that many of the heads of educational institutions make more than would be understandable as one just "trying to stay alive". I think it was largely rejected because the online discourse surrounding higher education is largely made up of young people and they often do not like "simple" answers to big questions especially when it concerns them and their money.

Fantastic line. Ebert so full of hate for this movie that his only solace in having watched it being that it will stick with the director and be something they can be criticized for for the rest of his life while the things he levied against Ebert are things Ebert can change.

Ebert is just having his fun now. Using these outrageous quotes from the director of the film to poke holes in his facade and his media presentation. Taking the director down by contrasting him with his work.

Here he uses logos to get people on his side. It's not just he who has these nasty feelings about the film, plenty are giving negative reviews to the film and the overall score of 0.6 out of 5 just goes to show it.

Context is secondary to Ebert here. He assumes that the reader is already up to date with his feelings for the film and wants to get to what's new about the situation first rather than tell us why such vile things have been thrust upon him.

Not a line you would expect to see in a Roger Ebert article or really any article about a film. Really gets your attention in an admittedly profane way, but attention grabbing none the less. Guess It's better to stay away from this one; at least, for the safety of one's own colon and prostate of course.