Reviews rejected without helpful explanation

These are the numbers for the declined reviews. Again, just to be clear, all I need to know is which word, paragraph, phrase or sentence is the problem. I'm not interested in other people's opinions. And I think either way, the system should be adjusted.

One other idea is to categorise reviews as "accepted", "nearly accepted", "multiple issues" or "outright rejection" or something like that. I feel like most of mine are 90% okay whereas I understand some other submissions might be completely inappropriate, rude or whatever. And then just tag or highlight the part which is the problem.

#251019-104449-568021

#250701-071649-734521

#250527-154703-004521

#240509-113523-460204

#240131-123232-137204

#231119-050833-267004

#230814-135054-431404

#220714-101720-024904

#220519-121147-844704

#210509-172932-295504

#210503-125137-733304

@christopher_reid_6519499- Thank you for providing them! We are reviewing these and once we have further information, we'll post it below.

@Maya​ Hey, so 11 days so far. How much longer do you need to provide some information? This should actually be quite an easy thing to implement and save everyone a lot of time.

@christopher_reid_6519499- We have further reviewed these submissions, the content within these reviews falls under social and/or political commentary ranting therefore not considered a review of the relative titles. As stated in our Guidelines, your reviews are in breach of our #2, #4, #6 and #7 of what should not be included within user reviews.

The reviews as stated, should focus on the title's content and context.

To post a few examples:

#250701-071649-734521 - "Too perfectly sparkly and colourful and ticking all the boxes...The movie talks about "fairness", as if that isn't a term abused by every corrupt politician the world over...ts values are like a high-schooler who's been reading Marx for a week and loving it (but also failing in maths and economics), it's preachy and sappy...For politics to be left out of children's movies rather than acting like the choice is "care" vs. "don't care."

#231119-050833-267004 – “And those Spider-men were all "vanilla", but the crowd went wild. These weren't your gimmicky variants with gender, race or other arbitrary swaps, but authentic representations of the original character just with different actors - Garfield, Maguire and Holland. No Way Home respected the original character, the previous movies, the mythology and the basic rules of how movies should work. Across is a vapid mess. Colourful, emotional, sometimes preachy, sometimes creative or mildly funny, but mostly just reflective of the most superficial, self-entitled, woke parts of modern culture. Nothing is earned, you just put on a costume and you're automatically amazing. The plot doesn't have to make sense either, as long as we're told how to feel. The action doesn't have to make any sense, it just has to be loud and frenetic. One other thing is the insertion of wheelchair basketball and 2 girls playing chess. Okay, you could ask why that matters, but the issue is that it's preachy and artificial. These people want to take the rarest things in life and act like they're common or normal. Boys are generally more into chess and that's okay. Why does this movie, which is meant to just be entertaining and have its own story, also have to try to lecture me about other things, like women in chess?...”

#230814-135054-431404 – “Also, yes it's woke. In a big way? Not necessarily. But for Princess Peach to be amazing at fighting, jumping and practically everything, with no flaws, right from the start - 100% woke. Almost every movie now has to make the male lead and incompetent, weak idiot (even though he made the series popular in the first place) while the young female is far better in every way. It's dull…”

#210509-172932-295504 – “But clearly the makers of this TV show had a big political statement they wanted to make and it shows how shallow they are. It comes in dribs and drabs in the first few episodes, with some truly awkward and awful moments, similar to the forced female superhero photo-op in Endgame…”

@Maya​ Maybe I wasn't clear. I've posted hundreds of reviews which have been accepted, so please don't imply or assume that I don't consider the guidelines.

At least this is some feedback, but it's still very general. Are you saying all of these paragraphs/sections violate #2, 4, 6 and 7? Can you not see how useless that feedback is?

When I say Snow White (2025) was "Too perfectly sparkly and colourful", is that "libelous, defamatory, harassing, threatening, or inflammatory"? I mean, I can try to meet halfway but this feedback is extremely vague.

Also, I didn't ask for your personal opinion. I don't care what you consider to be a "rant". You should be objective. I'm the one expressing their opinion about a movie, you're the employee making money by running a movie website which accepts a wide range of opinions. That the opinions should be relevant to the movie and reflect certain standards of quality, decency, etc., I understand. That IMDb might want to avoid certain topics outright, fine. But calling my reviews "rants"? Keep that opinion to yourself, Maya. Be professional.

I think all those sections are directly pertinent to the movie. Could you demonstrate rewording the phrases which are triggering you or others? Or are you saying I should delete these sections entirely? If a movie or TV show pushes political ideas, am I not allowed to challenge those ideas at all in my review? Is that "hatred or intolerance"? Or perhaps I'm just realising that IMDb exercises arbitrary power to remove views they don't like and hide behind vague rules to make it seem fair? I'm sincerely trying to understand.

In the paragraph about Super Mario Bros - is it the word "woke"? If so, just tell me. Or am I not allowed to mention male leads being incompetent in a lot of movies? How is that not relevant? Again, I'm not looking for argument, I just don't understand. I like movies like Aliens, T2 and the original Snow White. They have strong females. But if I dislike superficially "strong" females in modern movies, I can't say that? Or can you help me word it in a way which is acceptable?

The guidelines could be improved by showing ways to express similar ideas. Okay, you've got examples of what NOT to say. What CAN we say? If I think the casting was bad, and not motivated by acting ability, what's the polite, appropriate way to say that? Or is it forbidden to say that?

You clearly don't consider the guidelines. Item #6 cited by @Maya specifically states that the use of the term "woke" (in addition to Karen and Mary Sue) is a violation of the terms, and yet two of the reviews used as examples use the term.

Snow White is an infamous movie, but how can attributing the use of "fairness" to corrupt governments and then using Marx to exemplify something bad be pertinent to the movie? You're clearly using this space to complain about other things you don't like.

Regarding the Super Mario Bros. movie, besides calling it woke and going against item #6, item #4 clearly states that expressing negative feelings (beyond hatred and intolerance) against people based on gender (among other things) is not acceptable. Despite this, your review criticizes female protagonists.

To think that the casting was motivated by anything other than acting skills is the perfect example of political rant. Perhaps in some cases you were even right, but that would be nothing more than a personal opinion attacking a group of people unnecessarily.

Finally, Maya read a bunch of hateful reviews, pointed out the rules that were broken, gave you examples from your own reviews that break the rules, all while being polite, and she wasn't professional?

Dude, just be more respectful. Be more respectful while writing your reviews and be more respectful when replying to people here. If you do, you'll probably get fewer of your reviews rejected, and when there are problems, people here will be more willing to help you.

@DuraNext​ Wow, so helpful. You tell me my reviews are hateful and expect me to respect you? I didn't ask for condescension or a lecture. I asked for clarity. It seems I'm getting a much better picture of the kinds of people who currently work at IMDb.

"Item #6 cited by @Maya specifically states that the use of the term "woke" (in addition to Karen and Mary Sue) is a violation of the terms, and yet two of the reviews used as examples use the term."

Then instead of telling me I don't understand the rules, clarify them. Is the word "woke" outright banned? If I remove it, will those reviews be accepted? If not, it means there are other issues, which should be specially named. Again, most of my reviews are accepted and I've written hundreds. And I've been given ZERO feedback until now, purely in the form of "declined". Are you saying that I understand the rules 95% of the time? Or do you think I'm choosing to break them 5% of the time? Has it occurred to you that the rules are unclear and unorganised? Or that my proposal (of giving more specific feedback, namely highlighting the problem and citing the specific rule) is quite reasonable?

Again, I don't need to be told to "be more respectul". Nor am I your "dude". Maya was only unprofessional in throwing in the term "rant". Anything can be called a "rant". I mean, it's a movie website. People are meant to "rant" about why they liked or didn't like it. But what was clear was that she disagreed. Again, I don't care. It's not about the movies or the opinions but what the rules are and I'm sincerely trying to understand them. I don't want a lecture. Had Maya stuck to "this part breaks these rules", that would be fine. But you don't call something a "rant" unless you're judging it negatively.

You and Maya should be respectful to people who use your website and provide content for it. I don't hate any group of people. But I do hate certain movies, as I'm sure you do. And I hate the tone of people like you who make people like me regret even bothering to review movies at all, especially when the feedback is so useless and condescending. Why did I ask for feedback?

"To think that the casting was motivated by anything other than acting skills is the perfect example of political rant." That's absurd. What about nepotism? Or hiring someone because they're popular or infamous rather than a good actor? You think every movie ever made had perfect casting? To suggest otherwise is political? Seriously? Again, I'm not interested in your opinion. Only the rules. Just do your job.

What specific groups have I attacked? Women? A racial group? The disabled? I don't even know. Just be clear and tell me. Or help me be more diplomatic. At this point, it seems I have to either massively edit those reviews, delete half of them or make 100 guesses about which parts are the problem and keep spamming submissions. You're being difficult rather than constructive.

You've missed the point regarding Super Mario Bros. I never intended to attack "female protagonists". As I already stated, many of my favourite movies growing up had female protagonists. I don't like a lot of MODERN female protagonists, but specifically the ones that feel fake and designed to undermine males. It's a pattern I've noticed, not hatred of a group. It's also just my opinion. Is there some better way to word it? Or is any criticism of any female character whatsoever forbidden?

Snow White (2025) relates to collectivism and Marxism in my opinion. I could easily write paragraphs upon paragraphs about that, about Stalin, communism, all kinds of other things. But no, I briefly mention it, addressing the themes the movie seems to reflect. And it's merely my opinion, my "rant". It seems that I didn't break a rule so much as upset a handful of moderators who can't be clear about their own rules.

For what it's worth, do you have a boss or manager I can talk to instead? I'm curious who's in charge and if this is how they want to run things.

And again, we can be practical. If a review has one or two small issues - tell me. If a review has many issues, fine. But then say that. I find it very hard to tell which ones are the problems and to what extent.

I don't even work for IMDB (although you're free to believe what you want), I just disapprove of the behavior towards another human being who is often there to help.

I don't know how anyone could clarify the rule for you any further: "Any use of the terms Karen, Mary Sue, or Woke in any variation or context (positive or negative) unless it refers to a title or to the name of a performer or a character."A link was sent with the entire set of rules, and this is the title of one of them; I don't know how to make it clearer that no, the term "woke" is not allowed.

Also, good luck getting the manager to fire me.

@DuraNext​ Right, so you're just a random person wasting my time. I can read, but the guidelines are long and my reviews are often long so it's hard to tell which part is the problem. I don't know if you understand that concept or not or if you care. And I'm pretty sure I've seen reviews with those key terms and I've tried editing and submitting without them but still got declined. But I suppose it's easier to imply that I'm a moron than do anything productive.

I don't care whether you approve of my "behaviour" or not - you're a nobody in this context and you're offering nothing of value without knowing the full context. It seems you think IMDb is perfect. Funny how you have no comment on casting and politics now. Too hard to admit you were wrong?