1. Insight, with cogent reasons for why the writer liked or disliked the movie.
or
2. Humor.
Using vague, flowery language or buzzwords doesn't impress me. Interpreting a movie in the context of buzzwords or some socialist/post-modernist critique doesn't impress me. I got enough of all that shit in high school, and could cleverly regurgitate it myself.
Here is an example of the first;
Moribunny, reviewing Jajua 2014 wrote:"There is probably no other actor of Viggo Mortensen's caliber who speaks both Danish and Spanish, so Jauja is a nice opportunity for him to sound those languages. Other than that, it's like Bela Tarr on downers - absurdly stretched out, and self-important despite the fact that so little happens. I wouldn't be spoilering much if I let slip that it turns out to be a fantasy, signifying the girl's emotional plight, but there is not a lot of depth or resonance to that layer either."
Here is an example of the first mixed with the second;
Pickpocket, reviewing Late Night With Seth Meyers 2014 wrote:""Seth Meyers' fame is bizarre to me. He's not funny, not witty, not clever, not quick, and not attractive enough to where that all could be forgiven. Watching his talk show, you get the sense that he doesn't really want to be there and that this is almost a stepping stone to something else. But what? He's awful. At least the other late night guys try in some capacity. The guy must have either some crazy amount of dirt on people or he gives incredible blowjobs, I lean to the latter."