Is the rise of Letterboxd diminishing the influence of traditional film criticism?
Yes
Letterboxd reflects a broader shift from institutional gatekeepers to participatory culture. Previously, critics from major publications shaped discourse. Today, audience-driven ratings, viral reviews, and meme-based commentary influence perception almost instantly.
For example, films can develop strong reputations on Letterboxd before critics’ essays meaningfully shape public discussion. Aggregated audience sentiment often drives algorithmic visibility on streaming platforms.
This reduces the singular authority critics once held. Expertise competes with immediacy.
No
Traditional critics offer depth, historical context, and analytical frameworks that short-form user reviews rarely provide. A thoughtful essay can situate a film within decades of cinematic tradition, something crowd ratings cannot replicate. Additionally, critics are less likely to be ‘performative’ or conform to what others think of a film. When leaving a review on Letterboxd, users can see what ratings other people have given. Which can lead to biases.
However, due to its popularity, many critics now engage directly on platforms like Letterboxd, which has increased the platform’s credibility. By blending professional analysis with participatory culture. Rather than disappearing, criticism is adapting.
In this sense, Letterboxd democratizes opinion, but professional criticism remains influential in awards campaigns, festival circuits, and long-term canon formation.
