<\/p>\n
First, it was Ayo Edebiri<\/strong>, now the little Letterboxd hackers are coming for Heated Rivalry breakout star Hudson Williams<\/strong> for his old Letterboxd reviews<\/a>. Heed this warning, all: if you get a contract with a major streaming platform or studio, make that Letterboxd private<\/a> ASAP!<\/p>\n If you\u2019re not onto Heated Rivalry <\/i>yet, you\u2019re out of the know. The show is doing numbers for HBO and launched Williams and his co-star, Connor Storrie<\/strong>, into international fame overnight. (Or at least, over the holiday.\u00a0Let\u2019s face it, we all had a little too much free time on our hands those last two weeks of 2026.)<\/p>\n I\u2019m sure Hudson wasn\u2019t expecting all this to unfold, but may future generations learn from his mistakes. The new star is in hot Twitter water after his Letterboxd account was discovered, and some of his impassioned reviews were shared. Screenshotted reviews include recent releases like The Materialists<\/i> (2025), Dune<\/i> (2023), and The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Song Birds and Snakes<\/i> (2023).<\/p>\n On The Materialists<\/i>, Williams wrote, \u201cLove u Pedro [Pascal<\/strong>], but you\u2019re just not a good actor. This performance was so wooden it made Dakota Johnson<\/strong> look like the charismatic one\u2026\u201d Yeah, he goes in for the kill in these reviews.<\/p>\n Listen, we\u2019re all entitled to our own film hot takes. And yes, everyone<\/i> was entitled to hate The Materialists<\/i>. But when it comes to praising more controversial picks\u2014like Stanley Kubrick<\/strong>\u2019s Lolita<\/i> (1962), which Hudson brandished with a five-star rating\u2014you might be in for some public-forum backlash (aka Twitter criticism). Still, users have already come to his defense, arguing that despite the film\u2019s problematic nature by today\u2019s standards, this has long been an accepted take in film-buff circles.<\/p>\n The main controversy from Williams\u2019 now-deleted (!) account came from a review of The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes<\/i> (2023), in which he wrote paragraphs of critique. Of the film\u2019s lead, Rachel Zegler<\/strong>, he wrote that she \u201cwas probably the least embodied performance I\u2019ve seen in the last five years,\u201d and that her performance\u00a0felt \u201clike a musical theatre kid trying way too hard for her mom in the audience.\u201d Now that\u2019s harsh, Hudson.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a lesson learned the hard way. I\u2019ll never forget where I was when I first heard Tina Fey<\/strong>\u2019s iconic \u201cI Don\u2019t Think So, Honey\u201d segment on Bowen Yang<\/strong> and Matt Rogers<\/strong>\u2019 podcast, Las Culturistas<\/i>, where she flamed Bowen<\/a> for a minute straight over the fact that he continues to aggressively voice his opinions about movies. \u201cI regret to inform you, you are too famous now, sir,\u201d she said, warning that once you start publicly critiquing filmmakers, you risk your future chances at work. In this biz, people hold grudges bigger than their egos.<\/p>\n In the comments, Ayo responded, \u201cLEARN FROM ME,\u201d\u00a0referencing her leaked Letterboxd reviews of yore.<\/p>\n Williams probably never thought these reviews would see the light of day, but can\u2019t we all agree that Letterboxd is supposed to be a safe space? Is nothing sacred anymore? Edebiri has since turned her Letterboxd snafu into a recurring bit<\/a>, so maybe Hudson can do the same.<\/p>\n Anyways, fingers crossed we see Williams and Zegler together next year on Actors on Actors<\/i>, squashing this beef once and for all.<\/p>\n Like what you just read? You\u2019ve got great taste.\u00a0Subscribe to Jezebel<\/a>, and for $5 a month or $50 a year, you\u2019ll get access to a bunch of\u00a0subscriber benefits<\/a>, including getting to read the next article (and all the ones after that)\u00a0ad-free.<\/a>\u00a0Plus, you\u2019ll be\u00a0supporting independent journalism<\/a>\u2014which, can you even imagine\u00a0not\u00a0supporting independent journalism\u00a0in times like these<\/a>? Yikes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n